Loathing the Texas state legislature

[Replaced_Texan]

I didn't realize I was winning a K race when I posted....

Title reflects my current frame of mind. It should remain so until the end of the legislative session sometime in May.

Will the thread last about as long?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I didn't realize I was winning a K race when I posted....

Title reflects my current frame of mind. It should remain so until the end of the legislative session sometime in May.

Will the thread last about as long?

Congratulations!

Anyways, on the computer fraud versus lab rat liberators thing, note the CFAA has three ways you bump from a misdemeanor to a felony: (1) if your act is for personal gain; (2) if your act violates another statute; or (3) if your act involves property worth more than $5K.

So there is a way in which being a misguided do-gooder gets you out from under, as long as you're dealing with petty stuff. But I've seen an argument that the same cyber-acts get the do-gooder different felonious counts (wire and computer fraud) w/o regarding to the three exceptions above, meaning with the (2) exception the (1) exception is rendered irrelevant for hackers.

[Adder]

and to wrap up our little life of chatting to each, I merely note that I only said "litigation" because you made the dumbest argument you can make in litigation, "Some people think the law should change......"

Which might have been a useful comment if we were litigating, or discussing litigation strategy, instead of discussing what the law should be.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which might have been a useful comment if we were litigating, or discussing litigation strategy, instead of discussing what the law should be.

weren't we talking about people who were doing criminal litigation? wasn't I saying I get why the prosectution could have started something and then you said "some people think the law should change so he shouldn't have started something?"

whatever. Fu!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

weren't we talking about people who were doing criminal litigation? wasn't I saying I get why the prosectution could have started something and then you said "some people think the law should change so he shouldn't have started something?"

whatever. Fu!

Let's review.

I said, among other things:

Anyway, I've not followed the case that closely, and I don't intend to. A young man who seems to have been well liked and well respected has died. That's tragic. That's all I really need to know.

You said, among other things:

And I don't see why his intention to give it away after means anything. If I steal your car to give to a poor person that makes a difference? I see nothing wrong with this being a crime. More and more value for organizations is intangible. How else do we prevent theft?

And I said:

There should be a very big difference between stealing your car, which prohibits your enjoyment of its possession and use, and stealing a copy of your costlessly-reproduced electronic content. The two situations really aren't at all comparable.

So, I responded to your simple analogy, which you used to justify your agreement with the policy in question.

Then you said:

why? I can buy a new car. the materials were licensed for a great deal of money. somewhere the copyright holders deserve payment for the copying. aren't they being denied their deserved royalties?

Meaning so far, you're following me outside the analysis of the facts of the case and into the policy discussion. Great.

Which I continued here.

Which apparently prompted you the reverse field and go for your chest-thumping act.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Let's review.

I said, among other things:


You said, among other things:


And I said:


So, I responded to your simple analogy, which you used to justify your agreement with the policy in question.

Then you said:


Meaning so far, you're following me outside the analysis of the facts of the case and into the policy discussion. Great.

Which I continued here.

Which apparently prompted you the reverse field and go for your chest-thumping act.

I lack the energy to engage you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

1. Businesses aren't trying to control anyone. Marketers are only seeking data to sell you things.

2. Good luck maintaining your privacy in this age.

(My paraphrases of Adder's points from the previous thread.)

On 1, the only advantage you have over anyone in any interaction is what he doesn't know about you (or doesn't know about something important that you do know about). To collect data on someone is to develop a dossier, which allows you to understand him better, and to what end would anyone want to do that? To control what he does. To get him to buy something, or vote for something, or scare him into not saying or doing something.

You give a person, or an organization, access to enough info to draw a rough caricature of your personality and you are forever weakened.

Re 2, the only digital places I'm forthcoming with details of what I'm thinking or doing, in any regard, are ones in which you don't know me by name. To put your life on FB, or anything like it, is madness. The upside? Insipid content. The downside? Your info in the hands of the worst humans alive.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On 1, the only advantage you have over anyone in any interaction is what he doesn't know about you (or doesn't know about something important that you do know about). To collect data on someone is to develop a dossier, which allows you to understand him better, and to what end would anyone want to do that? To control what he does. To get him to buy something, or vote for something, or scare him into not saying or doing something.

You've worked out a nice argument, but I don't agree that trying to sell you thing more efficiently by knowing what you like is trying to control you.

We go through life as it is with lost of people trying to sell us stuff or get us to vote for something or say or do something. Most of it is noise, because we don't give a flying fuck about it. That's wasteful. Both of your time and of the advertisers time.

Getting rid of that waste through better targeting doesn't really bother me. In no small part because I can still say no (or at least I still believe I can say no, if you want to believe in some of the stronger theories on the effects of advertising).

As long as I retain the power to avoid the targets and the ads, I'm not particularly concerned.

You give a person, or an organization, access to enough info to draw a rough caricature of your personality and you are forever weakened.

Perhaps if you see all human interactions as zero-sum.

Re 2, the only digital places I'm forthcoming with details of what I'm thinking or doing, in any regard, are ones in which you don't know me by name.

Any moderately talented hacker could break that pretty quickly, or so I'm told.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You've worked out a nice argument, but I don't agree that trying to sell you thing more efficiently by knowing what you like is trying to control you.

We go through life as it is with lost of people trying to sell us stuff or get us to vote for something or say or do something. Most of it is noise, because we don't give a flying fuck about it. That's wasteful. Both of your time and of the advertisers time.

Getting rid of that waste through better targeting doesn't really bother me. In no small part because I can still say no (or at least I still believe I can say no, if you want to believe in some of the stronger theories on the effects of advertising).

As long as I retain the power to avoid the targets and the ads, I'm not particularly concerned.



Perhaps if you see all human interactions as zero-sum.



Any moderately talented hacker could break that pretty quickly, or so I'm told.

speaking of people smarter than you, I hope you guys beat Michigan. Go .... What are you guys? Ps google image Tubby and Detroit mayor Dave Bing. Tubby with stache and weight loss is his twin.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Perhaps if you see all human interactions as zero-sum.

That's how advertisers see it. You're a mark. And it's axiomatic: The more a thing has to be marketed, the less value it intrinsically provides. I know what I want, and I seek it out. When something seeks me out desperately, I instinctively avoid it. (Kind of like a sorority girl. I only chase what's indifferent to me.)

I shudder to wonder what kid of person not only allows banner ads (who doesn't use ad block?), but actually clicks on them.

Any moderately talented hacker could break that pretty quickly, or so I'm told.

And find what? Who has a computer with a unique internet device number listed to his own name? Who has a Facebook account linked to an email account not exclusively used for FB (holding no other contacts or info, save false data needed to open up the dummy email account)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You give a person, or an organization, access to enough info to draw a rough caricature of your personality and you are forever weakened.

The huge market caps of, e.g., Google and Facebook turn on the notion that once they know more about you, they can create value for you. And advertisers too, of course.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The huge market caps of, e.g., Google and Facebook turn on the notion that once they know more about you, they can create value for you. An advertisers too, of course.

"For you" or "of you?" You inability to see all the angles is why we fight so much. I wish there was a class I could send you to.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The huge market caps of, e.g., Google and Facebook turn on the notion that once they know more about you, they can create value for you. And advertisers too, of course.

Marketers don't seek to provide "value" to anyone. They seek to sell as much of a thing they're hired to sell as possible. If that involves something which provides value to the purchaser, great. But they don't care either way. And seventy percent of the time, they're selling someone something he doesn't need.

Online marketers using personal data necessarily seek to exploit a person's interests to increase the number of products the person buys. If the mark likes Ferragamo ties, send him some ads about Ferragamo loafers. And Tod's. And if he bites on that, move the price point up some more. Send him stuff about Santonis, and maybe throw some Gucci shoes into the mix. And if he's buying that, when his smart phone's geographic tracker next shows he's in NYC, send him some ads about Barney's, encouraging him to pick up a suit.

When marketing gets into hardcore manipulation, it goes from necessary annoyance to societal problem. Ponder why we've this absurd consumption based economy. Some would say it's easy credit. That's true. But more than it, it's saturation of a gullible population with marketing messages telling them they need things they absolutely do not.* The last thing we need is to arm marketers with more private data about already too easily goaded sorts.
_______
* The hardest discussion with any client is telling him, "You don't need me to do anything for you right now." In your head, you're thinking, I could sell this guy services he doesn't really need, but I have a perfectly plausible justification for providing. But you don't. You tell the guy the truth. That's the difference between you and 99.9% of marketers.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The huge market caps of, e.g., Google and Facebook turn on the notion that once they know more about you, they can create value for you. And advertisers too, of course.

I'm pretty sure the value is based is not that they are creating value for users. Rather, the perceived value rests on what they can collect and sell to others. If the business case was user-focused, there would be a cost to join up. The services are free because they are consideration for letting Google crawl up your ass and then sell a roadmap to Proctor & Gamble.

[LessinSF]

Have I said recently how much I love the Innocence Project - http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...ng-4283889.php