Jono793 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (47)

• On the post: Google Says Our Article On The Difficulty Of Good Content Moderation Is… Dangerous

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2018 @ 04:34am

  Re: Re: Remember:

  Some animals be evil, But some be more evil than others!

• On the post: Facebook Tells Cops Its 'Real Name' Policy Applies To Law Enforcement Too

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2018 @ 01:29am

  Re: Doesn't the CFAA come into play?

  I was thinking that myself!
  
  Potentially it could be. Especially now Facebook has served a legal notice that this kind of bullshit violates their ToS. Some court cases seem to have held that accessing a system in violation of the terms of service constitutes "unauthorized access" for the purpose of the act.
  
  I wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of law enforcement exception though.

• On the post: UK MP Thinks Secret Online Groups Are The Root Of All Evil Online, Promises To Regulate 'Large Online Groups'

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2018 @ 06:39am

  "...It would make those who run large online forums accountable for the material they publish"
  
  Which is basically already the law!
  
  Intermediary protections are much weaker than the USA. So While platforms benefit from some (limited) notice-and-takedown requirements, if they're notified of defamatory or illegal content they become responsible if it isn't taken down promptly.
  
  What would this bill achieve, other than re stating the existing UK law, while being unenforceable against any services operating abroad?

• On the post: Sensing Blood In The Water, All Major Labels Sue Cox For 'Ignoring' Their DMCA Notices

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2018 @ 06:46am

  It's worth pointing out:

  ...Cox really didn't help itself in this case.
  
  The "thirteen strike" policy was a rule on paper only, as pointed out by the article.
  
  But in addition to that, the appeal court pointed out that Cox wasn't processing __Any__ of the notices that Rights Corp sent to it. They apparently took umbrage with the wording of the notices (which included "settlement agreements"). Rights Corp continued to send them unaltered. So Cox started filing all their notices straight to the recycling bin!
  
  I might have issues with a lawyer. But if I get a valid legal notice from said lawyer, and decided to ignore it because they're an asshole, or they don't wash, I shouldn't be surprised if the court to takes a dim view.

• On the post: UK Judge Says Accurate Journalism Is An Invasion Of Privacy In Cliff Richard Case

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2018 @ 09:03am

  Re: Useful information

  "this ruling allows judges an immense amount of leeway in evaluating any aspect of a story to determine if part of the story has an adequate level of utility."
  
  That's not new. Judges in the UK are required to conduct that exercise when balancing different convention rights. In this case, the right to privacy (under article 8 of the Human Rights Convention), versus the right to freedom of expression (under article 10).
  
  In contrast to the US, where judges engaging in content-based analysis of speech is nearly anathama under the First Amendment.

• On the post: UK Cops Threaten Facebook Users With Arrest After They Mock Department's Tiny Drug Bust

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 16 May, 2018 @ 08:40am

  The law is actually even thinner than you say

  Section 1.1 of the Communications Act 1988 does indeed make it an offense to send communications where the intention is to cause distress or anxiety.
  
  But, subsections a) and b) that same paragraph specify that the nature of the message has to be either indecent, grossly offensive, a threat, or knowingly false information. Only if that's triggered does the 'distress and anxiety' part kick in.
  
  Grossly offensive or indecent? Perhaps these police live in some puritanical age of history, but the idea of drug use being offensive (Grossly or otherwise) is fanciful. A threat? Please! False information? I don't know what planet they're on if they think a couple of roll-ups is a substantial drug bust; irrespective, it's clearly subjective opinion.
  
  
  The real problem is the general attitude of the UK police to free speech. Sadly, there's little that can be done. While there's a potential human rights claim under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act, that law gives a wide (too wide) margin of appreciation, especially when it comes to law enforcement. One place where the USA is miles ahead of us :(
  
  
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

• On the post: UK Police Use Zipcode Profiles, Garden Size And First Names For AI-Based Custody Decision System

  

  Jono793 ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2018 @ 03:47am

  The decision making tool inevitably becomes the decision-maker

  This happened before with the roll-out of medical assessments for recipients of Employment Support Allowance (A welfare benefit in the UK for people unable to work due to health needs). They introduced a medical assessment to assess whether a claimant was fit for work.
  
  The validity and accuracy of these assessments has been subject to intense criticism over the years, for reasons I won't go into now. But in theory, this assessment was only supposed to be one piece of evidence. The final decision rested with Department for Work and Pensions.
  
  In reality, the decision-makers at the DWP are not empowered to deviate from the outcome of the assessment, irrespective of any independent medical evidence submitted by the claimant. So the assessment, while intended as an aid to a decision maker, became the de-facto decision!
  
  The idea of this happening in criminal justice scares me no end!