Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#3077 Jun 19 2017 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
So if anyone was wondering exactly what information is collected and kept about voters in this country by the political parties, now is your chance to find out. A Republican-affiliated data analytics company left over a TB of personal information and resulting analysis on a publicly available domain until it was discovered by a security firm.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3078 Jun 19 2017 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
article wrote:
An additional 24 terabytes of data was stored in the warehouse, but had been configured to prevent public access.
Well, the porn had to go somewhere.

Edited, Jun 19th 2017 12:14pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3079 Jun 19 2017 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
article wrote:
An additional 24 terabytes of data was stored in the warehouse, but had been configured to prevent public access.
Well, the porn had to go somewhere.

Edited, Jun 19th 2017 12:14pm by lolgaxe
To be fair public exposure of the employees' porn preferences probably would have been more damaging to the company than mishandling the voter database.

Edited, Jun 19th 2017 10:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3080 Jun 19 2017 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
article wrote:
An additional 24 terabytes of data was stored in the warehouse, but had been configured to prevent public access.
Well, the porn had to go somewhere.

Edited, Jun 19th 2017 12:14pm by lolgaxe
To be fair public exposure of the employees' porn preferences probably would have been more damaging to the company than mishandling the voter database.

I thought Incognito Mode was supposed to be private! Smiley: mad
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3081 Jun 20 2017 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
That's why it didn't have public access.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3082 Jun 21 2017 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Speaking of public access, it appears the supreme court sees access to the internet as something the state can't take away from you.

Linky

So my understanding is this doesn't ban certain sites from blocking you. Your ISP may still be able to refuse to do business with you if you're causing problem, that wasn't really addressed, but could be an interesting test. It seems the state can't ban you from using the internet though (even if you've used the internet to commit your crime), as it's considered an extension of free speech.

Interesting stuff.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3083 Jun 21 2017 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
How about Gary? Can he still take my internet away? He's not even my real dad!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3084 Jun 21 2017 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Yup, but the password for your mom's phone is your birthday, so you should still be able to watch animals mating on youtube until the wee hours of the morning.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3085 Jun 21 2017 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of public access


____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#3086 Jun 21 2017 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of public access, it appears the supreme court sees access to the internet as something the state can't take away from you.

Linky

So my understanding is this doesn't ban certain sites from blocking you. Your ISP may still be able to refuse to do business with you if you're causing problem, that wasn't really addressed, but could be an interesting test. It seems the state can't ban you from using the internet though (even if you've used the internet to commit your crime), as it's considered an extension of free speech.

Interesting stuff.


I'm frankly surprised that this ruling took this long to make. Even a couple decades ago, I always saw the idea of being "banned from the internet" as an absurd thing to do (and honestly didn't realize any jurisdictions actually did that. Just assumed it was something TV shows and films tossed around via poorly written plot points involving technologically sophisticated criminals). It's like banning someone from using a phone. Always seemed obvious to me that this would constitute a first amendment violation.

I did like that the ruling left in more narrow restrictions though. Can't ban someone from using the internet, but I can see something like banning a convicted child predator from visiting sites where the focus is on children interacting/playing in some way. But yeah. The whole internet? That's kinda silly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3087 Jun 22 2017 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
gbaji wrote:
Can't ban someone from using the internet, but I can see something like banning a convicted child predator from visiting sites where the focus is on children interacting/playing in some way.
Effective unless they figure out Google and Youtube exist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3088 Jun 22 2017 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
did like that the ruling left in more narrow restrictions though. Can't ban someone from using the internet, but I can see something like banning a convicted child predator from visiting sites where the focus is on children interacting/playing in some way. But yeah. The whole internet? That's kinda silly.
Yeah, I liked that part too. Seemed like a pretty reasonable translation of real-world laws where you can restrict someone from interacting with certain people, or ban them from visiting certain places.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3089 Jun 22 2017 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can't ban someone from using the internet, but I can see something like banning a convicted child predator from visiting sites where the focus is on children interacting/playing in some way.
Effective unless they figure out Google and Youtube exist.


Is "they" in that sentence the children or the child predator?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3090 Jun 22 2017 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of public access, it appears the supreme court sees access to the internet as something the state can't take away from you.

Linky

So my understanding is this doesn't ban certain sites from blocking you. Your ISP may still be able to refuse to do business with you if you're causing problem, that wasn't really addressed, but could be an interesting test. It seems the state can't ban you from using the internet though (even if you've used the internet to commit your crime), as it's considered an extension of free speech.

Interesting stuff.

Even Mitnick?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3091 Jun 23 2017 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Debalic wrote:
Even Mitnick?
Yeah, I'm kind of interested to see where this leads in regards to things like hackers and other computer-based crimes like identity theft. I'd imagine it'd be hard to get anyone to be their internet provider in the first place, of course. That's never going to shut off access entirely though. Makes me wonder if this means tougher sentencing down the line. Someone getting out after a short jail stint for something computer-related then hopping right back on the internet isn't going to sit well with a sizeable number of people.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3092 Jun 23 2017 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Debalic wrote:
Quote:
So my understanding is this doesn't ban certain sites from blocking you. Your ISP may still be able to refuse to do business with you if you're causing problem, that wasn't really addressed, but could be an interesting test. It seems the state can't ban you from using the internet though (even if you've used the internet to commit your crime), as it's considered an extension of free speech.

Interesting stuff.

Even Mitnick?


IIRC, Mitnick's original sentence did bar him from using any sort of communication device other than a landline phone during his probation period. He successfully fought this in court, essentially using the same argument that this case used (I followed the case at the time, but that was a long time ago, so my memories are quite vague). Which is at least part of the reason why I was surprised that this was even a thing anymore. I can only assume this was the first case since that one where a series of rulings in the other direction allowed it to arrive at the Supreme Court level. Good to see they at least got the ruling right.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2017 7:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3093 Jun 23 2017 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
<Random not very interesting post inserted here>

Edited, Jun 23rd 2017 7:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3094 Jun 23 2017 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
gbaji wrote:
<Random not very interesting post inserted here>
And 35,000 other places.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3095 Jun 24 2017 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
That's what she said! *boom*
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#3096 Jun 24 2017 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Stupidmonkey, you are the bomb.
#3097 Jun 24 2017 at 10:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,355 posts
Allegory wrote:
Stupidmonkey, you are the bomb.


We gladly accept payment in the form of green arrows, and rate-ups!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#3098 Jun 25 2017 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
What are you doing? You're supposed to run into the middle of the raid. Ideally saying something deeply inappropriate, like "Free Ireland".
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#3099 Jun 25 2017 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
What are you doing? You're supposed to run into the middle of the raid. Ideally saying something deeply inappropriate, like "Free Ireland".


As an aside, there is a cardealership named IRA out here, and they occasionally run an "freedom sale" with "explosively low prices" for Independence Day.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#3100 Jun 25 2017 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The senate health care bill has special exemptions to get the Alaskan senators on board. I'm sure the people who were crying "Cornhusker Kickback" will... well, be silent about this or try to spin reasons why this time it's different.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3101 Jun 26 2017 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
Had to add some nice incentives for how "mean" it is, I guess.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 110 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (110)