Re: Law of Unintended Consequences
I'm inclined to think that nothing will happen to them, as those in power tend to agree with the motivations. Are either of my assertions wrong?
30 posts • joined 21 Nov 2017
"does he/they not realise"
You've answered your own question. Ernie, and folks like him, just don't care. The ends, however imagined, justify the means to people like this. Collateral damage doesn't bother them as they view themselves as the moral superior, and those they target as irredeemable.
In the US this situation would be even worse I fear, as the gun owners here overwhelmingly keep them for self/home protection. So while some may be more hesitant to visit these addresses, of those that will, they are more likely to be caught in a shootout.
"prepare a law making it illegal for tech platforms to ban users without a local judge's permission."
I didn't see that last caveat in the linked page. To me it read as though service providers could nuke an account if they believed the user violated polish law...and in such case the user could appeal with the administration if they believed that to not be the case. There wasn't even mention of a judge or court, only that the service provider could be found liable after the appeal process.
"batshit-crazy suggestions that injecting disinfectant into the human body might treat COVID-19"
I love this one. I watched that conference, saw and heard myself what was said. This has become a great litmus to find out who is framing narratives (or blindly swallowing them) versus actually reporting on what happens.
"99.9% of humanity think ... that twitter is the greatest thing on earth since facebook."
Which is ridiculous considering how the large majority of tweets are made by surprisingly small segment of the overall population. To be honest I don't know why anyone takes twitter so seriously.
The NSA is already collecting beyond legal authorization. No reason to believe that will change in December. Also, they don't really care about funding from Congress. It's just a nice bonus to them. They bring in far more funding from other sources, off the books of course.
Even 7800 is insignificant:
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had jurisdiction
over 196,500 prisoners at yearend 2015.
So going off the number of KNOWN CONVICTED federal criminals, the feds are only having trouble with access to evidence for 3% of cases. In reality, the number has to be even more insignificant as you begin to count those who have not been charged, local and state cases that use FBI labs, etc. I'm sure someone who truly groks stats could really blow their argument out of the water.
This is how it goes nowadays. "Sources" make an unsubstantiated claim, and then everyone else in .gov and media ignore the demand for evidence and instead focus on driving opposing factions to argue over the minutia and whether or not it fits their political desires. Before you know it, months have gone by and people are arguing about how we should respond politically to something that no one has even demonstrated to have happened.
Forget trusting them with an audit...if they can't figure out how their counting function works, how can they figure out they've got the right device, or tied the data to the right "suspect"? Seems like these experts should not be allowed anywhere near "evidence" found through software.
So does this mean I can't be banned from Twitter for sharing an unsavory opinion in the comments of any political feed? Weren't people being ridiculed 6 months ago for claiming the Twitter ban hammer was depriving them of freedom of speech? Is Twitter now liable if it decides my tweet to @SenFeinstein against illegal immigration is worthy of account suspension? And what about foriegn services? If a US pol made a comment on El reg would El reg have to leave the forum open and unmoderated for all commentary's?
"I wonder if this is more the case they cannot be bothered, or do not have the knowledge to make their network IPv6 friendly? Thus unable to "hack" or "track" remote IPv6-only hosts."
My first thought was this as well. A not small number of network admins have had a hard time with wrapping their heads around IPv6 as it is....and law enforcement/courts are just getting a solid mastery on IPv4. They will be a decade behind again if they have to start over learning 6.
Maybe it's not fear. If you were the bofh that worked for these folks, and they treated you like they treat the rest of us, would you tell him he sounds like an idiot? Or would you let him go make a fool of himself publicly, knowing his attitude will co-opt his ignorance and prevent him from ever realizing what an idiot he sounds like?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021