61–70 of 121 posts
This is the most important bit. That journalist had one fucking job. Technically, their job was handed to them in a platter. Now their incompetence is going to cost someone else's livelihood and possibly, life. What a sad state of affairs.
> thanks in part to CNN’s initial failure to redact some CCTV text that described the location of the camera This is the most important bit. That journalist had one fucking job. Technically, their job was handed to them in a platter. Now their incompetence is going to cost someone else's livelihood and possibly, life. What a sad state of affairs.
This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…
I wonder when people in the west will start flocking to Telegram groups (or equivalent) to get the real information the way they do elsewhere.
That said, I hate to break it to you, but there is no real question of 'when', or even 'if'. The general public simply does not care, no matter how much abuse they are subjected to by mainstream platform operators.
There will always be a minority who care enough to embrace decentralization, open source, good e2ee, but they are the exception to the vast majority, at least inside the US, who simply do not care enough to change their behavior.
What percentage of Americans do you think would voluntarily, permanently relinquish their own fourth amendment rights for $5000? Scary thought experiment when you recall studies that have found only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech.
Note that CNN isn’t in trouble for reporting this, the person who exfiltrated the footage is. Stealing security camera footage and giving (or possibly selling) it is a problem. This article tries to make a case that the law applied wasn’t correct on somewhat pedantic terms, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if they have a point or not. I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer a…
[flagged]
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder when people in the west will start flocking to Telegram groups (or equivalent) to get the real information the way they do elsewhere.
Trading one "private sector" state surveillance and narrative control platform for another isn't much of an improvement. That said, I hate to break it to you, but there is no real question of 'when', or even 'if'. The general public simply does not care, no matter how much abuse they are subjected to by mainstream platform operators. There will always be a minority who care enough to embrace decentralization, open so…
Mere decades ago, not knowing this kinda stuff would get you failed in grade-school Civics class, and again in junior high, and yet again in high-school (at least where I grew up, here in the "Great NorthWest" Rocky Mountains area USA).
Used to be that knowing the basics about how your government worked and what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen was considered "required knowledge" (right alongside basic history, math, reading, etc) to help prepare you for "life in the real world".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner: Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)
Those are labels. Identity theft is more identity fraud. Theft of digital assets is copyright infringement.
For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)
Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner: Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)
"lots of theft is not theft. Like for instance, all these things that are not theft" ... Lots of murder doesn't have a victim... .... Lots of arson doesn't involve a fire... ... Lots of trespass involves not taking a single step from your work desk .. ... War is peace, peace is war...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on jurisdiction it might be theft, could be something more recently ratified that’s basically made for exactly this purpose. Could also just be a plain old federal CFAA related charge since those are pretty “malleable”. Again, take these laws seriously and don’t do this.
Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, i…
Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.
With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that.
Of course harm matters. Stealing a priceless original is worse, and punished harder, than stealing a commodity out of a corner store. That doesn’t mean the latter is fine.