Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Does the city even have standing? (Score 2) 36

So if police have no duty to protect the citizenry (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. DC), then how exactly does a City claim to have standing when in their claim to enforce "safety" for a citizenry, of which the vast majority who would be impacted by their claim exist outside of their jurisdiction?

Comment Why is it these community sites responsibility? (Score 2) 138

No one demands AT&T, Version and Pac Bell to testify in congress about people using their networks to communicate for the purposes of committing crimes, why is it Discord, Twitch and Steam's responsibility to manage it also?

These platforms allow users to create private instances for their own private purposes. Why is it the platforms responsibility to police every abuse by their users?

Comment Maybe if the government did something about spam (Score 2) 159

I get so many phone calls a day from spam callers spoofing numbers that I don't even bother answering anymore.

Maybe if the government actually did something about this mess I wouldn't filter out any call not on my contacts list or that isn't hiding their calling ID?

Yes, I understand the "Do Not Call" registry exists, but it is half-assed and ineffective because the spam callers have worked around it. The spam dialers and call centers are not separate entities thus the people you end up speaking on the phone with are not the ones who made the call and thus aren't guilty of violating the do-not-call. AND they hang up immediately if you ever ask for a call-back phone number.

The phone company knows who's making all the calls. They just don't want it to to stop because they make money both ways.

So until all this background noise goes away, no one is going to response to a phonecall from a random entity.

Comment Re:No first amendment protections. (Score 2) 116

are you saying that Google should not have the legal right to process the data on their servers on the domain they own the way they wish?

No. I am saying google has the right to do what they wish with their property.

I specifically said they're a private company and thus no one cam claim First Amendment protections (because they're not the government).

Oddly enough, however, after Musk purchased Twitter and blatantly, publicly, and obviously manipulated Twitter algorithms which push Republican agenda users and tampered down Democratic agenda users, those same Republicans were incredibly silent.

Is it not Musks' property? Thus he gets to do with it as he wishes?

Or are you bringing it because you think someone else doing something wrong justifies another entity also doing wrong?

So I am curious where you stand..

My position is that a private company has every right to filter as they wish on their platform, within the limit of the law, of which this issue does not qualify as a first amendment issue because Google is not the government.

However, they're all duplicitous assholes. And anyone who supports filtering like this, regardless of which side of the political spectrum gains ascendancy, is either ignorant, an idiot or disingenuous.

Comment No first amendment protections. (Score -1, Flamebait) 116

It's not that Republicans have a right to spam the shit out of people. Obviously there are not first amendment protections for a private comapny to handle spam the way it wants to.

The issue is that gmail ONLY filters republican political spam. And while I don't think there is much legal standing for the FTC, this is quite frankly, hypocritical bullshit.

Anyone who can't see the blatant hypocrisy is either ignorant, an idiot or is duplicitous.

Comment Re:What's to stop them? (Score 3, Interesting) 29

but parallel construction is always a possibility

It's more than a "possibility".

I remember an interview by a reporter who was arrested because the FBI wanted his sources. The fed offered him their phone back so they could call their attorney. When they unlocked it to call their attorney, the fed yanked it from their hand disabled sleep mode and then gave it to forensics to download all the data.

Comment Hiding something is an admission of criminality (Score 3, Interesting) 29

I thought that when it comes to criminal intent with regards to mens rea (guilty mind), the act of hiding something is indicative of criminal intent.

If the law says they must allow for something, but they actively obfuscate or hinder the publics ability to do what they are legally obligated to do, that is a crime.

Slashdot Top Deals

In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

Working...