221–230 of 263 posts
Judge Robert Pitman said that it violates the First Amendment and is "more likely than not - unconstitutional." The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book. We enjoy 1A protections of speech and assembly. When we consider our rights,…
Does requiring by law an age of 21 to enter a bar violate freedom of assembly? Lots of important political events and discussion historically in the US have occurred at taverns.
I wonder why Texas did not start by targeting NSFW / porn apps specifically, like other states. I also wonder why smut literature (the best selling category of books on Amazon) seems to get a free pass.
Write the most sexually disturbing sentence you can come up with and it's going to be rather meh and possibly quite comical. And any of the gravity that it does have comes from the reader's ability to generate the visuals themself which is mostly out of reach for children who don't have the experience to necessarily know what's even being described.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it. Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.
IIRC didn't the courts empower themselves to interpret the constitution? Nothing in the constitution says they can. Of course, since they interpret the constitution, they can just insert an interpretation that says they interpret the constitution...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be less of an issue in practice, as the level of detail is pretty clear unless you're operating at the "bleeding edge" of legal understanding, in which case I imagine you can afford to hire someone to figure out the details to you. Perfect understanding of every law and its consequence is not possible anyway, because laws are meant to be contextual and interpreted by humans, to allow for exceptions in unusua…
It's not about "unique court cases". Surely you must have noticed that whenever someone asks online whether it's legal to do some apparently reasonable but tricky thing, the answer is almost always "ask a lawyer"? How many of those people can actually afford a lawyer? Do you actually think it's ok for freedom to only exist for people who can afford lawyers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy legislation and infrastructure are both designed to eschew common-sense. It's how the fed gets away installing backdoors in iOS and Android: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
Beautiful :-\ But it's not a backdoor on devices, it's eavesdropping push notifications when they pass Google's or Apple's servers. Corollary: a secure notification should consist of a link with a random number token which opens the real message via an authenticated API on an encrypted channel. Would look a bit weird though. iOS at least has silent notifications for that.
That's why the surveillance capitalism business model is so dangerous. If you horde user data to make ad sales more profitable, you put your users at risk.
If app developers want to pass customer data in notifications, the data they are passing should be encrypted so that Apple (or Google) doesn't have access.
You can't hand over what you can't access.
As they say in Apples developer docs:
> Important
Don’t include customer information or any sensitive data, like a credit card number, in a notification’s payload. If you must include customer information or sensitive data, encrypt it before adding it to the payload.
You can use a notification service app extension to decrypt the data on the user’s device.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but the executive and legislator are bound to ignore the courts if their interpretation violates the constitution. The judicial branch for instance can't simply declare that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" means that "Clarence Thomas is god emperor of the US and commands all the armed fo…
They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beautiful :-\ But it's not a backdoor on devices, it's eavesdropping push notifications when they pass Google's or Apple's servers. Corollary: a secure notification should consist of a link with a random number token which opens the real message via an authenticated API on an encrypted channel. Would look a bit weird though. iOS at least has silent notifications for that.
No company in the US has any choice when Federal, State, or local officials get a court warrant and want data on your server. That's why the surveillance capitalism business model is so dangerous. If you horde user data to make ad sales more profitable, you put your users at risk. If app developers want to pass customer data in notifications, the data they are passing should be encrypted so that Apple (or Google) doe…
- Former NSA General Michael Hayden
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.
The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the difference between standing on a street corner shouting "shit" and taking a shit on a street corner. The court is generally pretty adept at navigating the difference between "a bookstore that has some spicy books" and "a sex shop that has some non-spicy books".
Bookstores that carry porn are porn shops. Apps that carry porn are porn shops, and since the app store has apps that carry porn, the app store is a porn shop.