Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

The NSA also had a bunch of animals as their mascots/agents of persuasion for young children.

[Cue the Conspiracy Theorist orgasm]

EDIT: This pagetopper, man...

edited 5th Sep '14 4:46:44 PM by Quag15

The PornHub family of porn sites (PornHub, Redtube, and YouPorn) will be joining in the September 10th protest of the FCC's plan to create internet fastlanes by adding in popup adds with a loading symbol on them.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."

Not "denied". Common law name can be also used legally for contracts between private parties, like buying, selling, renting a room in a No-Tell Motel and registering a social media account. Back in 2010, Facebook did not demand any proof when I registered, and since my five-year conduct on their site did not hint at me assuming the name with intent to defraud or intentionally confuse, they cannot question it, simple.

I will relent if they provide proper arguments that what they want me to do is in line with the Californian law they declared to be bound by. And as far as things go, they're not doing that, instead sending automated blather that reeks of stomping their foot and shouting "BECAUSE I SAID SO!". Not a way to do business.

Also, according to the California Civil Code, a phone number is considered "Personal identifying information", and I'm puzzled why doesn't Facebook use that in the first place.

edited 6th Sep '14 1:42:43 AM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

It's an interesting legal question to be sure. I am nearly certain that you can only sue someone if you can show damages, which nearly always means financial damages. Hotel rooms are worth money, and access to housing is considered a right. Can you show the same for a FB page?

Bear in mind that legally, your web page is FB's property, not yours. You just borrow their server space. For free.

I'm a landlord. Not only do I have the right to demand identification, I can conduct a background check on them, including their credit history. Of course, I cant kick them out before the lease expires, unless they break the terms.

FB apparently believes that you are using something other than your legal identity. When you signed the contract with them, they stipulated that you are required to use that. If you are using a different identity, then you are in violation of that contract.

On the other hand, it says on their identity verification page that they also take mobile phone numbers.

It's a complicated situation.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

In short Facebook is already acting like a pyramid club.

Same as usual.... Wing it.

Just to make something clear, the thump on the last page was because I reported the post, it wasn't Fighter (or any other mod) abusing their position, it was them listening to a concerned member who thoughts that kind of conduct was out of line.

I don't want anyone getting an alternative idea in their head.

As for the topic at hand, facebook is effectively a private club, now it's demanding that while within the club you have to use your legal name and that if anyone questions if that's you're legal name you have to prove that it is. Legally I'm pretty sure it can do that, "person using a name other than their legal one" is not a protected class as far as I'm aware. Now morally, it's a grey area, most name restrictions are based on the idea of a name for the purpose of facilitating fraud, I doubt you'll find any actual clubs that would kick me out if I called myself Simon instead of Silas while inside, as long as I wasn't pretending to be someone called Simon [my last name].

From a practicality point it's also pretty stupid, also this is going to do is cause people who for whatever reason don't want to use their legal name to leave facebook, and that's no good for facebook.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

No big, I ain't even mad. I got confrontational.

However, Salman Rushdie was once banned from Facebook for the same reason as me. Hell, even my friend, the alternative model Santa Evita (who appeared in "Poland's Next Top Model") was banned. Both accounts were restored - and whereas Rushdie has been renamed by Facebook to "Ahmed" (his legal first name) and restored to "Salman" only after venting on Twitter, Facebook did not interfere with Santa Evita's private account being run under her stage name (I know her real name actually, and it's not important).

edited 6th Sep '14 10:56:03 AM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Royal Malaysian Police have made arrests, including one person who had ran articles IIRC that showed criticism for the 2009 political crisis.

They used the 1948 Sedition Act as the basis for the arrests.

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

They will use whatever they can use to keep dissent off the street.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I suspect that some populism may be part of the mix as well. Here in Malaysia we've had a lot of people becoming gravely offended over various things posted on the internet as of late, which culminated in that failed bid to have Facebook banned. Even the most innocuous things.

Of course, it could be my cyncism talking, but it really does smell like pandering to the new lowest common denominator of Malaysian society to me.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

Sadly, one effective way to keep dissent off the street, is to appeal to some other popular faction to help keep it off...

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Here's The Other Wiki's article on the Sedition Act — as I thought, it was connected with the "Emergency", the Communist insurgency.

Keep Rolling On

Read it up. Appears to be based partly on British common law and drawn up by the Brits for obvious reasons. Most conspiracy groups have alleged that Mahathir used this law to get rid of Anwar when he was not a promising successor anymore.

Of course, the courts "aren't" saying anything about it.

edited 8th Sep '14 5:51:00 AM by Ominae

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

Begun, the consumer privacy arms race has.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

"Billed as a "wireless anti-surveillance system," Unplug is, essentially, a portable router that can detect drones, surveillance cameras and mobile tech like Glass trying to access your Wi-Fi signal and boot them off of it.

"Whether business office, restaurant, school or nightclub: it's your territory and your rules, so make it harder for those that seek to abuse it," Cyborg's website reads.

That's Unplug's stated purpose, anyway. But, as its creators freely note, it also has an "All Out Mode" that would let you knock devices off of any wireless network, not just yours.

The company says it doesn't recommend doing that because ... you know ... it's probably really, really illegal."

Huh.

"The company notes that the device is not a jammer, which blocks all digital signals in a particular area. Instead, it targets certain devices the user has identified. So, for example, you could tell Unplug that Glass is no bother, but drones and microphones need to be shut down. It uses the unique hardware signature that all Wi-Fi devices have to recognize what it's seeing before sending a "deauthentication packet" blocking access.

To be clear, Cyborg Unplug can't stop anyone from using mobile devices to record or photograph you. It only keeps that data from being streamed afterward."

Huh again. This is interesting. At $50 or $100, might be worth it. Dunno.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

My main question is: does it actually work, or is it snake oil?

It's hard to verify whether or not the government has lost the ability to spy on you.

edited 8th Sep '14 3:09:10 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

So it's just a device filter for your router. Or potentially other people's routers but you totally shouldn't do that do it you wuss.

There's not really anything snake oil about that, but all it really does is make the offending devices keep the data until they can stream it off elsewhere.

edited 8th Sep '14 3:54:56 PM by Pykrete

I wonder how it blocks access to third party routers? That could be really annoying in a coffee shop or a university library.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Theresa May sets out plans to monitor internet use in the UK

Keep Rolling On

"Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government plans. Records will include people's activity on social network sites, webmail, internet phone calls and online gaming."

Heh. The US has been doing all that for years.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Oh God, that Franklin quote just asks to be used.

I'm surprised that it's a Tory who gets it, saying that the system would only "catch the innocent and incompetent". I don't put much faith in conservatives when it comes to technology.

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Labour aren't much better — they were the ones that planned to introduce ID Cards, and during their time in power, several Government laptops were lost...

Keep Rolling On

I never saw what was so bad about the basic idea of having a national ID card, now there are plenty of issues with Labour's suggested one, but the basic idea (even with them being compulsory) seems to work on the continent.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

The argument appears to be people not wanting the government to know who they are. Which is baffling to me. I don't mind the government knowing about me. I am a citizen and I vote. I do care if the government starts rooting around in my personal possessions, but there's a huge leap between mandatory I Ds and that.

Not Three Laws compliant.

American civil liberties union on the issue of ID cards.

Mandatory anything is a serious undermining on concept of negative liberties. Principles a side that much personal data collected and pooled least to serious opportunities to use if not by a monolithic government at least by the individuals operating the system.

But if you honestly can't see any potential to dangerous to your personal freedom or property with the national ID system then I can't see myself convince you otherwise.

edited 11th Sep '14 9:12:28 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid