Google is facing criticism in Spain and Italy for alleged anti-piracy failures. The latest claim accuses Google of ignoring notices that aim to remove pirate IPTV providers from search results. So here's the thing: why would a company take down 10 billion URLs from search but suddenly start acting differently? The public labeling of Google as "grossly negligent" deserves context too; two weeks ago, Google's diligence prevented one of its accusers from deindexing its own website.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Our leaders have failed to show their unwavering commitment to two of the most pressing challenges facing our nation.

John Krasinski crowned as 2024's ‘Sexiest Man Alive'

John Krasinski, who is best known for his role in famous sitcom The Office, has been named as People Magazine’s 2024 "Sexiest Man Alive”.

According to People, the 45-year-old actor’s name was revealed in a...

Chris Evans 'excited' to start family with wife Alba Baptista

Chris Evans has expressed his desire to start a family with his wife, Alba Baptista.

During an interview with Access Hollywood, the 43-year-old actor was asked if he'll become a "superhero" dad one day, like his Red One...

Leonardo DiCaprio treats himself with Mexican getaway on 50th birthday

Leonardo DiCaprio and his girlfriend, Vittoria Ceretti, recently jetted off to Mexico to celebrate his milestone 50th birthday.

The Oscar-winning actor was spotted boarding a private jet in Los Angeles with...

John Krasinski, who has recently been named the 2024’s “Sexiest Man Alive” by People, shared the response of his wife and actress, Emily Blunt, upon hearing the news.

In an interview with People Magazine, the 45-year-old actor said that his wife, whom he has been...

A large number of motorists gathered in a queue to fill petrol in Karachi on Friday, July 5, 2024. — PPI Govt to announce fresh rates on Nov 15.New prices to come into effect on Nov 16.Federal govt hiked prices in previous review.

KARACHI: The price of petroleum...

Meghan Markle gives major giveaway by exposing true feelings about Harry appearance

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s body language, as well as major ‘giveaway’ from his wife gets exposed.

Royal expert Darren Stanton made these comments during his interview on...

Coldplay updates music lovers with another exciting announcement

Coldplay recently announced an exciting show in Ahmedabad, India.

The boy-band, who is set to in the Indian cities next year in January, declared that the show will take place at the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad...

Karla Sofia Gascon responds to 'Emilia Pérez' audience's unexpected reaction

Emilia Perez actress Karla Sofía Gascón opened up about how the audience did not recognize her in the movie.

In the movie, the 52-year-old actress plays the role of Mexican cartel...

The report further showed that the additional SHO had been previously found guilty of framing a man in a fake case

This would be the first visit by a Malaysian prime minister to Pakistan in five years

Privacy: Ross Ulbricht handed in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last week, highlighting an important Analog Equivalent Privacy Right in the process: Just because you’re using equipment that makes a third party aware of your circumstances, does that really nullify any expectation of privacy?

In most constitutions, there’s a protection of privacy of some kind. In the European Charter of Human Rights, this is specified as having the right to private and family life, home, and correspondence. In the U.S. Constitution, it’s framed slightly differently, but with the same outcome: it’s a ban for the government to invade privacy without good cause (“unreasonable search and seizure”).

U.S. Courts have long held, that if you have voluntarily given up some part of your digitally-stored privacy to a third party, then you can no longer expect to have privacy in that area. When looking at analog equivalence for privacy rights, this doctrine is atrocious, and in order to understand just how atrocious, we need to go back to the dawn of the manual telephone switchboards.

At the beginning of the telephone age, switchboards were fully manual. When you requested a telephone call, a manual switchboard operator would manually connect the wire from your telephone to the wire of the receiver’s telephone, and crank a mechanism that would make that telephone ring. The operators could hear every call if they wanted and knew who had been talking to whom and when.

Did you give up your privacy to a third party when using this manual telephone service? Yes, arguably, you did. Under the digital doctrine applied now, phonecalls would have no privacy at all, under any circumstance. But as we know, phonecalls are private. In fact, the phonecall operators were oathsworn to never utter the smallest part of what they learned on the job about people’s private dealings — so seriously was privacy considered, even by the companies running the switchboards.

Interestingly enough, this “third-party surrender of privacy” doctrine seems to have appeared the moment the last switchboard operator left their job for today’s automated phone-circuit switches. This was as late as 1983, just at the dawn of digital consumer-level technology such as the Commodore 64.

This false equivalence alone should be sufficient to scuttle the doctrine of “voluntarily” surrendering privacy to a third party in the digital world, and therefore giving up expectation of privacy: the equivalence in the analog world was the direct opposite.

But there’s more to the analog equivalent of third-party-service privacy. Somewhere in this concept is the notion that you’re voluntarily choosing to give up your privacy, as an active informed act — in particular, an act that stands out of the ordinary, since the Constitutions of the world are very clear that the ordinary default case is that you have an expectation of privacy.

In other words, since people’s everyday lives are covered by expectations of privacy, there must be something outside of the ordinary that a government can claim gives it the right to take away somebody’s privacy. And this “outside the ordinary” has been that the people in question were carrying a cellphone, and so “voluntarily” gave up their right to privacy, as the cellphone gives away their location to the network operator by contacting cellphone towers.

But carrying a cellphone is expected behavior today. It is completely within the boundaries of “ordinary”. In terms of expectations, this doesn’t differ much from wearing jeans or a jacket. This leads us to the question; in the thought experiment that yesterday’s jeans manufacturers had been able to pinpoint your location, had it been reasonable for the government to argue that you give up any expectation of privacy when you’re wearing jeans?

No. No, of course it hadn’t.

It’s not like you’re carrying a wilderness tracking device for the express purpose of rescue services to find you during a dangerous hike. In such a circumstance, it could be argued that you’re voluntarily carrying a locator device. But not when carrying something that everybody is expected to carry — indeed, something that everybody must carry in order to even function in today’s society.

When the only alternative to having your Constitutionally-guaranteed privacy is exile from modern society, a government should have a really thin case. Especially when the analog equivalent — analog phone switchboards — was never fair game in any case.

People deserve Analog Equivalent Privacy Rights.

Until a government recognizes this and voluntarily surrenders a power it has taken itself, which isn’t something people should hold their breath over, privacy remains your own responsibility.

Activism: As the Pirate Party slowly veered to the left in politics, I got to experience Sullivan’s Law, which states that organizations that don’t outright declare themselves otherwise will inevitably drift off to the political left. The law doesn’t explain this phenomenon, but I think I can.

The Pirate Party was unique in its composition of activists. Whereas most political organizations can plot the political attitudes of their activists to a bell curve on the political left-to-right scale, that is, the organization can identify a clear peak and center mass where they lie politically, the Pirate Party instead had a complete empty trough in the middle, with waves crashing into the left and right wall on the left-to-right spectrum plot.

We had the most fervent anarchocapitalists and the most fervent anarchocommunists. At the same time. Cooperating. That was probably something of a political first. It also allowed me to see differences between these two groups that weren’t clear from the outset, and which might explain why organizations drift left over time.

O’Sullivans Law states that any organization that is not expressly right-leaning in politics will change over time to become left-leaning. There are some hypotheses as to why, including the observation that right-wing people will tolerate and even welcome left-wing people in an otherwise unpolitical organization, but that left-wing people will generally not tolerate right-wing people. While this observation can be made, I believe it is not enough for an entire organization to shift politically.

The explanation is far simpler, and it’s been hiding in plain sight for everyone.

Left-wing people are collectivists. They believe that the greater good shall have precedence over the wishes and desires over the individual, and organize to achieve this. Conversely, they do not feel at home when somebody tells them to promote a cause in whatever way they themselves think is best in their individual situation.

Right-wing people are individualists. They believe that the greatest good, even for the worst-off people, is best achieved by giving individuals as free reign as possible so that innovation and creativity can take place. Conversely, they do not feel at home when somebody is trying to dictate to them what to do and not to do.

This is almost painfully clear when working with both groups at the same time in a political organization. Ah yes, that’s the magic word, right there. Organization. A Non-profit organization, specifically. Do you know how these are run?

Basically without exception, they are run as a general assembly, where people are elected to positions and decisions are taken with a majority vote.

…decisions are taken with a majority vote.

It became painfully clear to me, that the form of a neutral association — the form we have, or had, accepted as neutral — is actually nothing of the sort. It turns out, that an organization that takes collective decisions promotes people who like collective decision-making, and turns away people who prefer individual initiatives.

The association with its board, its general assembly, and its majority votes isn’t neutral. It is pushing its membership left, through its very nature, by selecting for those who enjoy collective decision-making and procedural trickery, and marginalizing those who prefer individual initiatives.

This is why, if I were to found a new political organization today, I would never use the traditional Non-profit Association format, for it is not neutral and it will ruin whatever original vision you had.

For this same reason, I have come to be sceptical of center-right political parties who are run by this majority vote. They’ll never be as powerful as they can be, had they instead organized by individual initiatives — because they are competing against left-wing political parties who feel right at home in this form of organization, which they usually mandated to be the norm for everyone.

Street riding at its finest! This is what the new BSD "Foreign Exchange" Video shows you, in which the BSD worldwide team rider Craig Sime and the filmer Johnny Ashworth met our bro Felix Donat last autumn in Germany, to produce this masterpiece of video in the streets of Karlsruhe and Stuttgart.
You definitely have to check their video out!


Enjoy the video, your kunstform BMX Shop Team!



Video: Jonny Ashworth



subscribe to our youtube channel: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/kunstformbmxshop

Autumn is here and the 2021 BMX season is nearly over. More and more 2022 BMX products are slowly arriving and since we need some space in our warehouse, we have extended great offers for you. The offers are only valid until 17.10.2021 (11:59 pm) and while stocks last!

Today's random set is 4078 T-Rex, released during 2001. It's one of 46 Studios sets produced that year. It contains 18 pieces.

It's owned by 134 Brickset members. If you want to add it to your collection you should find it for sale at BrickLink, where new ones sell for around $12.00, or eBay.

Continue reading »

© 2024 Brickset.com. Republication prohibited without prior permission.