CFFA Facebook privacy
jeudi 29 mars 2018 à 02:00The exaggerated interpretation of the CFAA makes it legally dangerous to release a tool to help Facebook used set the account parameters to make Facebook use them less rather than more.
Site original : Richard Stallman's Political Notes
The exaggerated interpretation of the CFAA makes it legally dangerous to release a tool to help Facebook used set the account parameters to make Facebook use them less rather than more.
The bully has officially ordered the US armed forces to ban transgender people.
Courts will surely block this, at least for a while. What if it does take effect?
Americans, if you are transgender, you can serve our country better by campaigning against the bully's right-wing extremist movement (the Republican Party) than by being in the military. Being in the military makes you available for him to attack other countries. As for defending our country military, that's hardly necessary at present, since no army is going to attack the US.
If you are not transgender, all that applies to you, too.
The government's so-called evidence against Noor Salman, accused of collaborating with her husband in a massacre, turned out to be false. It was presented by an FBI agent; the judge rebuked the agent for misleading him.
It appears agents pressured her into signing a false statement which they later used to incriminate her. Such pressure tactics often railroad people into false confessions; people who are not practiced at this (which includes me, and probably you) need to be totally on guard when talking with any kind of thugs about a crime.
The Poison in Politics Runs Deeper Than Dodgy Data. The center-right policies of Clinton and other Democrats created the situation where the bully could gain support from people who rejected the insiders of both major parties.
Given that situation, the data analysis and stealth electioneering made possible by Facebook may have helped bring the bully close enough to profit from Republican voter-suppression.
For the first time, software developers are starting to recognize (from the example of Facebook's use for election manipulation) that there are systems which should not be developed — that some systems are unethical.
Rules to enforce the ethics of a profession can be useful only once the profession has a code of ethics. The question is, what should the code of ethics of software development forbid?
Vicious, unjust features are rife in nonfree software. If the future code of ethics of software development fails to call DRM, spyware and back doors unethical, it won't be much good.