Florida police raid home of former state Covid-19 data scientist

[s0me0nesmind1]

I don't get what you are trying to say, there.

I mean, for decades in my country, there have been occasional noises made by the left floating the idea that the overwhelmingly right-wing print-media should be obliged to give 'right of reply' to that left. For example, the suggestion that the relentlessly-conservative Murdoch-press should be obligated to carry responses from the likes of trade-union leaders or Labour politicians after the papers attacked them, say.

At no point did 'conservatives' ever support that idea. Hell, I was never very keen on it myself. There are very obvious problems with the proposal.

But are you saying that privately-owned media outlets should be obligated by the state, to carry opinions of those they, or much of their target market, strongly disagree with? That seems like a dramatic turn-around for a conservative free-marketeer.

Or are you just complaining about people daring to disagree with conservative opinions on social media? E.g. conservatives being forcefully argued against on a forum like this one. That seems to be a common misrepresentation of what 'free speech' means, so maybe that's your point?

The truth is I feel very mixed feelings about that, to be honest. I can't square the circle - on the one hand right-wing posters on here regularly annoy the heck out of me...yet at the same time I absolutely think this forum would be really, really boring if they all quit. I can only conclude from that, that there's part of me that quite likes getting riled-up and aggravated.

I've explained this plenty of times for the legal case against social media for the cushy lifestyle that are able to employ with the protection of Section 230 of the CDA.

You are either a utility - such as a telephone company - where you aren't held liable for the actions that are done over your lines of communication. You are just the person connecting person A to person B. You don't monitor or censor what is happening over the lines of communication, because you aren't liable for it.

OR - You are a publisher. Someone that publishes content, articles, etc... and ARE liable for what is published on your platform.


Why is a TV channel - newspaper website - magazine, etc... potentially liable for what they publish, but social media isn't? Why are they also deemed a utility for protection, but they are able to have teams of thousands of HUMAN people that are determining if content is appropriate in their human eyes or not? (Hint: Unbias humans simply do not exist).

 

[ondma]

I don't know all the details - but improper access and putting misinformation on state government emergency messaging system is a bit of a BIG no-no, you would think?

But anyhow, the person here isn't black, so we don't have to talk about this from an excessive police force perspective - only when it peddles your typical racist narrative do we need to mention that.




Yeah sorry, but the women looks like a typical psycho moron. You know, the type that aren't aware that IP addresses can be traced? Also the type that think posting explicit pictures of your ex-online is a good idea?

Perhaps authorities can lie about that - but if true then it stands to reason this person is an idiot.

Isnt the point that the state was the one putting "misinformation" on its website in order to minimize the severity of Covid?
Also, what does a "typical psycho moron" look like?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Isnt the point that the state was the one putting "misinformation" on its website in order to minimize the severity of Covid?
Also, what does a "typical psycho moron" look like?

He just looks in the mirror and assumes everyone else is just as crazy

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I've explained this plenty of times for the legal case against social media for the cushy lifestyle that are able to employ with the protection of Section 230 of the CDA.

You are either a utility - such as a telephone company - where you aren't held liable for the actions that are done over your lines of communication. You are just the person connecting person A to person B. You don't monitor or censor what is happening over the lines of communication, because you aren't liable for it.

OR - You are a publisher. Someone that publishes content, articles, etc... and ARE liable for what is published on your platform.


Why is a TV channel - newspaper website - magazine, etc... potentially liable for what they publish, but social media isn't? Why are they also deemed a utility for protection, but they are able to have teams of thousands of HUMAN people that are determining if content is appropriate in their human eyes or not? (Hint: Unbias humans simply do not exist).

speaking of which, I just saw on Facebook she has been charged with illegally entering a protected system. The system requires a user is and password.
The system has one shared user id and password.

again not from a news source but pretty much what I expected.

 

[hal2kilo]

speaking of which, I just saw on Facebook she has been charged with illegally entering a protected system. The system requires a user is and password.
The system has one shared user id and password.

again not from a news source but pretty much what I expected.

Cyber security for the win.

 

[pauldun170]

LOL

What the fuq? Florida IT?

The message in question was sent from a state account known as ESF-8, which is used by "many people from several agencies," the Tallahassee Democrat reported—and all of those "many people" share a single username and password to access the system. People who have access but leave those jobs are simply "no longer authorized to access the multi-user group."

Florida police raid home of former state coronavirus data manager

“Doing this to me will not stop me from reporting the data. Ever.”

arstechnica.com

 

[pauldun170]

LOL

What the fuq? Florida IT?

Florida police raid home of former state coronavirus data manager

“Doing this to me will not stop me from reporting the data. Ever.”

arstechnica.com

A police raid over a the usage of a non secure system with a shared account and non expiring password?

 

[hal2kilo]

A police raid over a the usage of a non secure system with a shared account and non expiring password?

Keeping the socialists threat at bay, is important work.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A police raid over a the usage of a non secure system with a shared account and non expiring password?

Did you mean to quote your own post with your alt instead, silly buns?


And to answer your question - Shitty security doesn't dictate that you can access something that was clearly not meant to be accessed. If you leave your home and leave your door unlocked can we take all your belongings because of your own self-ignorance of forgetting to lock it?

 

[kage69]

Better late the never I guess.

 

[MrSquished]

Did you mean to quote your own post with your alt instead, silly buns?


And to answer your question - Shitty security doesn't dictate that you can access something that was clearly not meant to be accessed. If you leave your home and leave your door unlocked can we take all your belongings because of your own self-ignorance of forgetting to lock it?

She wasn't accused of stealing a damn thing. Your analogy is stupid.

 

[MixMasterTang]

I've explained this plenty of times for the legal case against social media for the cushy lifestyle that are able to employ with the protection of Section 230 of the CDA.

You are either a utility - such as a telephone company - where you aren't held liable for the actions that are done over your lines of communication. You are just the person connecting person A to person B. You don't monitor or censor what is happening over the lines of communication, because you aren't liable for it.

OR - You are a publisher. Someone that publishes content, articles, etc... and ARE liable for what is published on your platform.


Why is a TV channel - newspaper website - magazine, etc... potentially liable for what they publish, but social media isn't? Why are they also deemed a utility for protection, but they are able to have teams of thousands of HUMAN people that are determining if content is appropriate in their human eyes or not? (Hint: Unbias humans simply do not exist).

It's not quite that black and white, a newspaper chooses what is published in it except for things like classified ads and you better believe if you tried to take out a classified ad that contained profanity, derogatory remarks or racist remarks the newspaper isn't going to publish it and you're not going to be able to sue them for infringing on your freedom of speech.

 

[pmv]

Did you mean to quote your own post with your alt instead, silly buns?


And to answer your question - Shitty security doesn't dictate that you can access something that was clearly not meant to be accessed. If you leave your home and leave your door unlocked can we take all your belongings because of your own self-ignorance of forgetting to lock it?

Still hard to see how that merits an _armed_ raid.

Plus - and this is a side-issue, becuase it's the cops waving _guns_ that is the most startling thing about the affiar - where does 'taking belongings' come in, in this analogy?

If you leave your home and leave your door unlocked, I don't think there's anything someone can be charged for for just wandering in and leaving again without stealing anything, i.e. trespass. Not in this country, anyway.

( That's why they had to introduce a special law of 'criminal trespass', after that guy wandered in to Buckingham Palace through a door that had been left open, and ended up in the Queen's bedroom, initiating a amiable chat with her. They couldn't actually charge him with anything, because trespass wasn't a criminal offense, if there was no "breaking and entering" involved. But even the new law only applied to certain sensitive sites.)

Edit - full story - didn't know it was the second time he'd wandered in to Buck House - the first time he was, quite reasonably IMO, given the lack of public toilets these days, just looking for somewhere to empty his bladder .

Michael Fagan: The Intruder Who Broke Into Buckingham Palace

Without any premeditated intention, a 33-year-old managed to find his way into Queen Elizabeth II’s bedroom while she was sleeping.

www.biography.com

 

[pmv]

I've explained this plenty of times for the legal case against social media for the cushy lifestyle that are able to employ with the protection of Section 230 of the CDA.

You are either a utility - such as a telephone company - where you aren't held liable for the actions that are done over your lines of communication. You are just the person connecting person A to person B. You don't monitor or censor what is happening over the lines of communication, because you aren't liable for it.

OR - You are a publisher. Someone that publishes content, articles, etc... and ARE liable for what is published on your platform.


Why is a TV channel - newspaper website - magazine, etc... potentially liable for what they publish, but social media isn't? Why are they also deemed a utility for protection, but they are able to have teams of thousands of HUMAN people that are determining if content is appropriate in their human eyes or not? (Hint: Unbias humans simply do not exist).

I actually think there's a bit of a legit point in that - but it also seems that one can reasonably argue that these internet 'platforms' do in fact fall into a novel middle-ground between those two models, and a mix-and-match treatment is justified.

 

[ch33zw1z]

When you have piles of guns everywhere, may as well armed raid some housewives, - Murica

 

[HomerJS]

I've explained this plenty of times for the legal case against social media for the cushy lifestyle that are able to employ with the protection of Section 230 of the CDA.

You are either a utility - such as a telephone company - where you aren't held liable for the actions that are done over your lines of communication. You are just the person connecting person A to person B. You don't monitor or censor what is happening over the lines of communication, because you aren't liable for it.

OR - You are a publisher. Someone that publishes content, articles, etc... and ARE liable for what is published on your platform.


Why is a TV channel - newspaper website - magazine, etc... potentially liable for what they publish, but social media isn't? Why are they also deemed a utility for protection, but they are able to have teams of thousands of HUMAN people that are determining if content is appropriate in their human eyes or not? (Hint: Unbias humans simply do not exist).

TV stations are not held liable. Fox News put out knowingly false stuff all the time. When they pushed the COVID hoax someone tried to sue them based on harm to the public. Judge denied it. They also promoted birtherism. If Obama sued it would have probably been denied. There was a court case when it was stated the public doesn't expect truth from Fox News.

So where is the threat to these media companies/social media sites?

 

[vi edit]

Stepping away from partisan hyperbole, I worked at a state operated hospital. By definition any server there is "government property". The termination policies were such a shit show that I had a former teammate with full admin rights to servers a full 6 months after he left and went to a different hospital system. Each morning I could log in and his Skype account was online and we could have a conversation. His VPN access still worked. He could have burned the place to the ground digitally speaking if he wanted.

I am certain other state/municipal entities have similar shitting termination and InfoSec policies. It's not "hacking" if they still have access. That's just shitty policy.

 

[HomerJS]

Not to being up a sore subject but could she have refused to open the door and defend herself with a gun using the castle doctrine? She didn't know who these people were. Defend herself just like Cliven Bundy?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not to being up a sore subject but could she have refused to open the door and defend herself with a gun using the castle doctrine? She didn't know who these people were. Defend herself just like Cliven Bundy?

Fucking lol.

I sincerely hope this was a joke, but I can tell it wasn't.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Fucking lol.

I sincerely hope this was a joke, but I can tell it wasn't.

A) it's possible he doesn't know the details of castle doctrine
B) he could also pointing out the disparate treatment by law enforcement of armed whites vs blacks. A black person would be shot (back) jnstantly no questions. See: Brenna Taylor.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A) it's possible he doesn't know the details of castle doctrine
B) he could also pointing out the disparate treatment by law enforcement of armed whites vs blacks. A black person would be shot (back) jnstantly no questions. See: Brenna Taylor.

Yeah, I mean... It's not like the officers were being fired upon before shooting themselves... Oh wait ...

 

[Sunburn74]

Yeah, I mean... It's not like the officers were being fired upon before shooting themselves... Oh wait ...

I can find you 30 cases in the last year where officers shoot unarmed black people without being shit first. Let's not be dumbasses here. There's a story right now of a young black guy killed by cops in ohio as he was literally entering his home. Keys were in the door and gunned down because they were looking for someone else basically. Try to be less of a cancerous dumbass.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yeah, I mean... It's not like the officers were being fired upon before shooting themselves... Oh wait ...

This is how an uninformed idiot would respond

 

[ch33zw1z]

speaking of which, I just saw on Facebook she has been charged with illegally entering a protected system. The system requires a user is and password.
The system has one shared user id and password.

again not from a news source but pretty much what I expected.

Haha, now that's classic comedy.

 

[Pohemi]

Try to be less of a cancerous dumbass.

But but but THAT'S WHY HE'S HEREEEEEEEEEEEE...

Y 4 U R SO FASCIST BRO ?!?