31–40 of 40 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment violates the FCRA, delete it immediately. It’s easy to make claims like this, but is it really a problem with the law if someone is making frivolous claims?
In the context of a lawyer of a threatening to sue to stifle a legitimate news story that their client wants suppressed, yes, that really seems like a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
Abuse of the legal system is definitely a legislative problem - the law has to work reasonably in the real world, not in some idealized, frictionless vacuum. As for a solution - non-prejudicial defensive trials (I made that phrase up). Under this system, if someone sues you, you can at first ignore it. You'd get assigned a public defender, that would try to do a reasonably acceptable job defending you. You could coop…
What you’re proposing would make civil suits vastly more expensive, making them even less accessible for the little guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Addit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Addit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully appreciate that it can be very hard for smaller operations to deal with legal threats, but is this really a legislative problem as rahuldottech suggests? I have a really hard time imagining any reasonable legislative solution to this problem.
I have actually proposed just that in my last sentence: blanket whitelist journalist work, similar to whistleblower protection. Combined with real punitive fines (for corporations, let's say 10% of gross yearly income before any deductions and for government bodies removal from office and loss of electability for ten years for the person at the top) fot intimidating journalists this should work out pretty well. Addit…
Whistleblower protection doesn’t exist in practice.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...
> Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
> Joshua Wilson
> Wilson and Major Jeremy Gordon exposed the malfunctioning oxygen system on board the F-22 Raptor systems that were causing pilots to become disoriented, first to superior officers and then to CBS 60 Minutes. As a result, Wilson's superiors cancelled his promotion to Major, took him off flying duty and threatened to take away his wings. Wilson was also forced out of his desk job at Air Combat Command. No such actions faced Major Gordon.
> Carmen Segarra
> Carmen Segarra discovered that Goldman Sachs did not have a conflict of interest policy when it advised El Paso Corp. on selling itself to Kinder Morgan, a company which Goldman Sachs owned a $4 billion stake. She was forced by her superiors at the Federal Reserve to falsify her report, but stated that her professional view of the situation had not changed. She was shortly thereafter fired.[216] The New York Federal Reserve disputes that she was fired in retaliation.
> John Crane
> Crane built up the DoD IG office over his 25 years there to become the "gold standard" within the government but had his career destroyed for his support of government whistleblowers. Edward Snowden went public rather than reporting within the system due to severe reprisal against earlier NSA whistleblowers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abuse of the legal system is definitely a legislative problem - the law has to work reasonably in the real world, not in some idealized, frictionless vacuum. As for a solution - non-prejudicial defensive trials (I made that phrase up). Under this system, if someone sues you, you can at first ignore it. You'd get assigned a public defender, that would try to do a reasonably acceptable job defending you. You could coop…
The legal system wasn’t even involved here, it’s just a letter. What you’re proposing would make civil suits vastly more expensive, making them even less accessible for the little guy.
And I don't see why a preliminary ruling would mean 'vastly' more expensive - you can mostly re-use your work in the real case. And if it turns out to be without merit, you've saved yourself a lot of money. In the very, very worst case scenario, this system would cost 2x as much for the offense, and be vastly cheaper for the defense side. Definitely preferable to the current reality, where you can be forced to spend an arbitrary amount on legal defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Does it even matter? The way news cycles work right now, and with just how much information gets put out there daily, this will barely reach any percentage of the population, and those who do read the article will forget about it in a day or two.
Calling Gizmodo a part of the news cycle is pretty generous. If the story was coming from somewhere mainstream like the AP, Reuters, or even CNN or Fox it'd likely stick around for a bit. Gizmodo is mostly niche articles for tech enthusiasts that like bite sized intrigue articles.
Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the thing that perplexes me? People buy internet connected cameras and microphones for everything from their phones, to their tv's, to their door bells, and then they get upset that their activities are law enforcement accessible on whatever company's servers? I mean, what did people think would happen? That's just the natural way to use that data. How else would such data be used? Maybe to find workman comp f…
>For me, it just sounds like a really good reason not to be buying cameras and microphones and slapping them up all over the place. It's being sold as convenience and we can expect a lot more of it. The last decade has shown that the general populace will trade almost anything for the perception of convenience.
Knowing what I am doing is one thing, but subtly guiding what we do and see throughout the day is kinda wrong.