171–180 of 289 posts
Who made this site? How is it funded? They don't reveal themselves afaict. Why should I trust it?
What wouldn’t you trust? It’s simply indexing public info.
Always know your source; there are no exceptions - especially in the 'post-truth' era.
Cool, I guess. I'm not really a fan of anything that can be used to further persecute people who have already paid their debts to society. I know this is public information, but the information itself has been relatively opaque for generations. Beyond mild curiosity, the only paying customers for a service like this will be groups like employers, schools, creditors, landlords etc. It removes the pain around paid back…
Our legal system is built on case law. Reading the law as it was passed is not enough - one must consult rulings in the relevant jurisdiction for precedence. I think the benefits of making this type of information widely available outweighs the potential downsides.
The repercussions of an employer doing their own unqualified background check in someone can be detrimental to a person’s future wellbeing.
Is there a Canadian version? Or something similar within a Canadian context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> putting those powers into the hands of the public helps to level the playing field Agreed, but ... > Powerful corporate and government actors have massive surveillance and data warehousing capabilities that aren't going away. To nitpick: They aren't going away as long as we spread that message. It's not easy, but we can make them go away. People do accomplish things and change the world - just compare today's world…
> To nitpick: They aren't going away as long as we spread that message. ... Defeatism is trendy, and who benefits? It's not defeatism-- it's just being realistic. I don't believe there's any useful method to make government actors comply with the law. I have an, admittedly US perspective, but evidence the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, the NSA and the subsequent Church committee hearings, and Snowden's disclosures as exa…
You must have heard that line from pessimists 10,000 times before. There would be no startups, science, democracy, etc. if people believed it. We'd be living in caves - 'let's be realistic, we've been living in them for 190,000 years!'
> I don't believe there's any useful method to make government actors comply with the law.
The evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise: Many, many government actors have been caught, prosecuted and punished, at every level - including multiple Presidents, at least one Vice President (off the top of my head), members of Congress, federal judges, generals and admirals, and more, and that's just the federal level.
Goverments have widely differing levels of corruption, and the US has in the past been one of the best - so it's effective. Other countries are also more and less effective than the US, and we can see what they do and what works. There is plenty of research. Nothing is stopping you, but you.
The current trend in defeatism - against all evidence, in a country with one of the most effective governments in the history of humanity - serves someone's interests. Who? Who benefits from spreading this message?
Cool, I guess. I'm not really a fan of anything that can be used to further persecute people who have already paid their debts to society. I know this is public information, but the information itself has been relatively opaque for generations. Beyond mild curiosity, the only paying customers for a service like this will be groups like employers, schools, creditors, landlords etc. It removes the pain around paid back…
Legal research services (access to dockets, case text, etc.) tend to be extremely expensive. I think making that more widely available is a good thing for people with limited resources. It's kind of nuts how impenetrable the legal system is if you don't have any resources.
It's extremely difficult to represent yourself pro se if you don't have access to information about how cases like yours might unfold, arguments that have been used, how well those arguments have worked, how the cases have been decided, whether a company has settled a similar case as yours, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why would that be? I don't think I have ever seen a site that disclosed they are using GA? FWIW: I also prefer Plausible, and have all GA traffic blocked in my hosts file
Since it collects personally identifiable information (at least IP addresses, but it's not clear where it stops) this requires special treatment under GDPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics#Privacy
Is there a Canadian version? Or something similar within a Canadian context.