You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Fair Use Rules & Copyright Law in the US Coming Under Attack from Europe in 2019
I predict that Europe's attempt to implement this will fail hard and hopefully we don't have idiot politicians in America doing the same. Americans are a little more concerned about having free speech than those in Europe.
I suspect there's collusion between EU politicians and US politicians. I've been watching the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings and following the transparency reports published by Google and other social media platforms. The vast majority of content take-downs have been in response to GOVERNMENT requests, i.e. nearly 10 million YT videos by Jan 2018. Additionally, section 230 of Title 47 law code encourages surveillance and censorship, while section 229 financially reward it.
Here's a fragment of the code:
(b)Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Here's another law code fragment:
(e)Cost recovery for Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act compliance
(1)Petitions authorized
A common carrier may petition the Commission to adjust charges, practices, classifications, and regulations to recover costs expended for making modifications to equipment, facilities, or services pursuant to the requirements of section 103 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [47 U.S.C. 1002].
(2)Commission authority
The Commission may grant, with or without modification, a petition under paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that such costs are reasonable and that permitting recovery is consistent with the public interest. The Commission may, consistent with maintaining just and reasonable charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in connection with the provision of interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio by a common carrier, allow carriers to adjust such charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(3)Joint board
The Commission shall convene a Federal-State joint board to recommend appropriate changes to part 36 of the Commission’s rules with respect to recovery of costs pursuant to charges, practices, classifications, and regulations under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
47 U.S. Code § 229 - Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act compliance
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/229
As do I
The first section of law there explicitly states that the goal is
That's good, do you object to that?
And
That is also good, right? I think what you don't like is this:
to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material
What disincentives are they removing that you object to? Do you object to technology so parents can restrict children's access to the internet?
The second section does not financially reward them, it reimburses them. Better than reimbursing companies for the cost of installing mass surveillance equipment we should just stop installing that equipment.
@funbobby51 I don't object to the STATED objective of the code. Putting content control into the hands of users is important. Being able to block offensive content and chronically abusive users, like trolls, is good for the public.
What I do object to the ACTUAL use of social media platforms and user data to perform surveillance and censorship of content. The tools SUPPOSEDLY intended for personal management of content feeds have been repurposed by the government. We all know about the NSA, Five Eyes, Echelon and the thousands of government contracts awarded to scan internet traffic, private or public, on behalf of the DOD.
The reimbursement is a reward. The full text of Section 230 provides immunity to "interactive computer services", i.e. social media platforms and "information content providers", i.e. bloggers, for example, from litigation for content that is legitimately found to be illegal. The programming required to enable a user to block offensive content and users has nothing whatsoever to do with algorithms that scan content data, sort it, label it and report it, as per the law enforcement objectives stated in Section 229.
We, the people, can block without the surveillance and censorship automation on social media platforms and the internet in general.
The surveillance, data collection, storage and analysis has no value to users. However, these tools enable social platforms a means to generate a revenue stream from advertisers and researchers. So, social media platforms have a FREE MARKET incentive to build surveillance and data aggregation reporting into their platform - value added advertising for businesses. It is to their advantage to build these tools and there is no reason for the government to reimburse them for doing so, because there is already a business incentive for investing in data aggregation for the purpose of target marketing services to advertising businesses. The foundation procedures for this business object have been hijacked to facilitate law enforcement objective from the federal government - NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, DOJ, IRS, etc.
Section 229 is all about reimbursing for law enforcement enhancements, which are not necessary in a free society. In the same way that criminals on the streets are reported to local police, mechanisms for individuals to report criminal behavior online could have been implemented, with hotlines, public education announcements and WANTED posts by police using these platforms like any other user. Online surveillance is not essential to law enforcement.
Can you think of any example when online surveillance has been exclusively attributed with preventing crime or apprehending criminals WITHOUT alerts coming from individuals?
If the product is free you are the product.
That's very good, I wouldn't want to get sued because I reposted something that turned out to be illegal. But that is for social media services to protect them from being sued because some one posted something illegal, that would put them all out of business if they were liable for every idiot thing someone posted on their site.
To your first point, absolutely! Your online behavioral data is what you give in exchange for use of the platform. That's the contractual agreement users make with service/platform. We also have the right to re-negotiate those terms, or just leave the platform. It's a somewhat different matter with ISPs and OSs. We could move to Linux or switch ISPs, but there are monopolies of providers - if we're lucky, we have 2 ISPs serving our region - and the OS options are limited too.
Here's a situation to be aware of: I run Win10. The apps it installs automatically have rights to continuously run in the background, use our cams and mics, access our pics, our account info, our contacts, docs...That's just Edge, the browser. I disabled a number of apps a few weeks ago after finding that Skype had - all on its own, transmitted 6.3 MB of data over my network over a period of 3 hours and 42 minutes within the month of August alone. I NEVER use Skype.
To your second point, bloggers, whose posts receive unlawful or offensive comments are also not liable for those comments. The way the law code is written, users have the right to decide to delete or hide comments. The way it actually works, the platforms are overriding bloggers' rights to manage comment content visibility.
Over the past couple of years, Google has been shadow banning, using spam flagging. YT channel hosts weren't aware of it, but a simple count of comments, compared to the total shown at the top of the comment section, revealed it. In any situation that I found, the comments weren't criminal or offensive. On my own comments, logged in, I would see them. Logged out, they'd be hidden. The way we're discussing now, is the way I usually write, so...?
I put a piece of cardboard over my camera, windows 10 is a virus.
Even Zuckerberg puts tape over his cam. I uses green painter's tape. Looks like a green-screen in a studio from the cam's pov. I can also see when the cam light comes on.
Yah, Win10 is a virus. Just had it reset to default and reinstall an app today. If you set to always ask for permission, you can see just how sneaky Win10 is. Mr. Gates Genocide is the virus, really.
internet explorer related murder rates are way down.