saveferris

Some states had quite a deep dive, forensic audits, the whole thing. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wisconsin-presidential-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Maricopa_County_president...

The 2020 election was probably the most scrutinized in history. How is that not being able to question a fair election?

They wrestle with the balance there of 4th amendment protections and mass surveillance. It's evolving and generally courts are moving to not allowing mass surveillance -or less so than they have allowed in. Courts have been split on it, and someone already pointed it out that SCOTUS will eventually come up with tests for it.

There were some really interesting parts of those Chatrie opinions that really will test the idea that someone in public gives up their right to any privacy - the fundamental underpinning of why governments can currently point cameras at public places and dont need a warrant to search that video.

Chatrie protected the aggregated viewpoint versus any single public moment - And SCOTUS said the aggregated viewpoint (mass search of location data with no specific person(s)) is not allowed under the 4th amendment. A very interesting precedent.

Gorsuch had an interesting take in that he argued that in Chatrie the location data was Chatrie's personal property and therefore protected from illegal searches from government.

There are a lot of similarities to how ALPRs work, and key differences. Mostly Chatrie deals with a private firms data collection of locations - google vs ALPRs are generally on publicly owned property and recoding things in public.

Still, many justices opened the door to the idea that the government can't mass surveil citizens. We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

I am very much of the opinion the government should need a warrant to search through ALPR data (and video for that matter). So, I am hopeful that the tenets of Chatrie extend to ALPRs, video, etc.

Edit: Gorsuch argues that the data is personal and not the government's data - this is what prevents the government from searching for it without a warrant. He did not get into why a body cam or something like that is different.

How is Kalshi paid today? They take a cut of each transaction, just like the bookmaker does. Neither cares who wins or loses

Turning it around, the bookmaker really isnt who you bet against, I get that technically you do. but in practice.... You bet against all the other bettors. Bookmakers offset bets with other bookmakers, etc if the balance is off.

In practice bookmakers arent trying to be on one side or the other in a bet. Some do, but they dont last long. They want the odds to make a 50/50 market in bets and they pocket the vig.

Oversimplified but that is the gist of it. Also, my knowledge of bookmaking is from my neighborhood and I assume the legal variety works the same way though.

It's obviously different in that Chatrie was about google location data, and there actually was a warrant. SCOTUS ruled that warrant was too broad since it captured everyone in that location, not a specific person(s).

Constitutional scholars have pointed out the ALPR are next in line to face challenges based on the same principles as Chatrie - LEO can get a warrant for a specific person(s) to search but cannot search the entire universe.

That would not prevent ALPRs from existing, but it would require a warrant to search them. Which seems reasonable and completely in line with the 4th amendment.

Edit: words/spelling

I know a few people who lost their collective minds when a Japanese guy bought Pebble Beach. Turned out to be a terrible move on his part.

Japan was very much a threat to the US back then. Maybe more perceived than reality but a lot of the same rhetoric/narrative you see today about China, was Japan vs the US back then.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-...

Supisingly, so are motor vehicle thefts. Though, they are on the rise since the pandemic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191213/reported-motor-ve...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191216/reported-motor-ve...

So, KPI wise you can make an argument that it is effective. I may not agree with that argument in that we (USA) spend a lot of money and impose a lot of restrictions on the general population to get there.

Crime has always been a "the sky is falling" kind of a thing even if it's literally one crime. We are more safe than we were in 2001 by any objective measure, whether or not that is "safe enough" is going to be different for everyone...

you may think the government plays a role to enforce some of these, and they do to a point...

You can go on in your own head about all the things behind that simple exchange of money for something. If it's a perfectly competitive market sure, that may work but there aren't many if any markets in the US that are that level of competitive.

A personal anecdote for you. My uncle owns an auto parts re-manufacturer, so they rebuild car parts and sell them. I worked there a lot growing up. The normal input is buying "cores" from service stations....your starter motor isn't working and you get a new one, that old one is sold to someone like my uncle who refurbs it.

Often we had people come by with very clearly stolen parts....should we have just exchanged money for those? This ranged from a tweaker who would show up with one part, to full scale organized theft rings with pallets of parts...

So, do we buy those since the price is much, much better? There is a an ethical decision there...

The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged.

The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful.

That's how I read into the monetary awards...

The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”

So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did.

That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.

Football coach but the same principles apply: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/12/jimbo-fisher-buyout/

Just a guess but I think that overlap is probably pretty large. I would think the majority of people who don't owe taxes are due to lower incomes who would not be required to file and that is offset with deductions....purely a guess though.

Where do you think the vulnerabilities are that can be exploited?

Agree, it should be easier not harder to register and to vote

I live in Illinois and I don't know if it is free or not but you can get a sate ID here that is not a drivers license and use that to register to vote.

A national version could make sense. Since the more voters there are only helps one party, we'll never see anything like that on a national level no matter how much sense it makes.

I saw this post and tried it with and without Private Relay and sure enough, turning it on is the issue. Good to know....

Edit: I updated Private Relay to "Maintain general location" for IP Address Location Settings and archive.is loads fine.

Second Edit: Maybe not, it all works now and I think it is either session or cache. I got to play around with it

Your house/apartment on the other hand...you should expect a high/higher level of privacy there, even looking into the windows - if something is found looking into the windows it should not be admissible as evidence without a warrant.

I do not know if the law actually distinguishes privacy if it's a car vs a residence.

So, I think you can have the Mac and app store on a work id and then Messages and Music on your personal ID.

edit; didn't get all that was in my head out :-) So, it could be made up or support the fact that actual docs or good record keeping weren't a thing.

Congress are cowards and won’t do what should be done - raise taxes. That is likely the fastest least painful long term solution to quickly climbing inflation

I say likely solution because at this point economies are so complex I’m not certain there are solutions without any butterfly effect consequences

The article does not mention it but all the work arounds also rely on the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company. So far they have been reluctant to change that but they could easily incorporate in the US. The parent company today is Chinese but the parent could become a US or EU company and then all of this banning talk gets even more dicey to pull off.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&C...

I think anyway, IANAL but I believe this law prohibits the collection of, in this case, images/facial recognition, etc.

So, you can take my picture in public and keep it on your phone, you cannot upload it to say Instagram without my permission, all kinds of recent lawsuits about it. I think the intent of the law is to prevent my picture from winding up in say Instagram without my permission but for sure it cannot be used in the way it was used in the article - to scan it and prohibit me from entering an establishment. Apparently, no matter what state I go to....

https://www.reuters.com/technology/one-us-state-stands-out-r...

It's a complex law and a complex topic in general so I am not 100% sure what is and isn't covered....

edit; spelling

It happens every day....

Yes, Apple modified the status quo...they didn't enforce this for Meta until recently - Twitter, TikTok et al all pay via IAP and Apple is now enforcing this for Meta.

Yes again, it is related to the fact that boosted posts are done via the Facebook app and the economic value is created in that same app vs Ads Manager where the "purchase" is in the Ads Manager app and the economic value shows up in the Facebook app - or on the web.

And...yes, the rules are fluid from Apple. Yeah, I think it makes logical sense per the IAP rules to buy a Kindle book in the Amazon app and then consume it in the Kindle app but I bet Apple and Amazon had talks about that and Apple would not guarantee they would not try to get 30% of those sales so Amazon said...nope, not able to buy a Kindle book on the Amazon iOS app. Which, is exactly what Meta was doing till Apple "clarified" its rules and now wants them to pay for boosted...

Our firm is small and we avoid any possibility of Apple trying to grab 30% or our revenue...so, no app for us at all.

But, This isn't yet a stretch into all ad spend - I do think Apple will go there too eventually.

In practice Apple is saying paying to boost an organic post is in effect an "in app purchase". They are correct. The purchase happens in the Facebook "blue" app. I actually haven't seen or done it with a boosted post but that is what Apple is saying. You post something via the Facebook "blue" app...get a notice that it's been seen by a few people, so pay a bit to get it seen by more and all of that is done via that one app....so an "in app purchse".

Regular ads are done with the Ads Manager app....a separate app from the Facebook "blue" app. So, ads themselves are not yet subject to this 30% bounty. Again I haven't done it on the app but in the web ads manager you can boost a post from there too so likely you can in the Ads Manager app...not sure though. If you can then you avoid the 30%. I suspect most if not all small businesses, etc have no idea what Ads Manager is or are not very familiar with it.

I have a particular disdain for the app store generally so I don't like this at all. But, you can see where Apple has been and will go...force everything to an app instead of mobile web browser (by nerfing webkit on iOS) than force 30% tribute on "purchases".

I have no idea how this escapes any anti trust scrutiny, especially compared to what M$FT did with IE back in the day and got dinged for it.

Maybe today with EVs there is a different approach. I don't know. Some of the things people would do not to play their electric bill were literally shocking :-)