tonyztan

Dup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993

My understanding is that you would sue the person who originally posted the content. You can sue "John Doe" and subpoena the social media companies and internet service providers for information to identify the poster.

https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/defamation-attorney/i...

> "The rest of the DMCA drastically shifted the balance of power... section 230 was necessary to offset that... Repealing 230 but not the rest of the DMCA would be madness."

Note that Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). It is not part of the DMCA.

The President can send a Presidential Alert to all cell phones. This cannot be turned off by the user.

https://www.wired.com/story/presidential-text-alert-fema-eme...

That is a liability. Imagine if every word you have ever uttered to anyone is permanently recorded and can be used against you any time in the future, forever.

Exactly. Keeping message history is a liability. There is no need to keep all old messages beyond one week. If there is something specific worth saving, there are apps for taking/pasting notes.

That's a good point. I haven't really thought about transferring messages since I use Disappearing Messages [1] for almost all conversations.

[1] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Se...

> there needs to be a paid alternative.

Just use Signal. It's free, open source, and end-to-end encrypted.

https://signal.org/

Signal is a better choice because it uses end-to-end encryption by default.

"Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section ... knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section."

(18 USC 1028(a)(7))

"the term “means of identification” means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any— (A)name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B)unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; (C)unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or (D)telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029(e));"

(18 USC 1028(d)(7))

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028

Criminal complaint with details: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1347146/downl...

See other HN post (submitted after this one): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25474372

Exactly, this is a problem with the "may-issue" system that California and a minority of other states use. Most states have "shall-issue": there is a specific list of objective requirements set forth by law; if an applicant meets the requirements, then the official must issue the license.

California's may-issue policies give local officials too much discretion, leading to arbitrary decisions and bribery (apparently).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...

This is why gun permits should be "shall-issue" rather than "may-issue." In other words, there should be a clear set of objective requirements; if an applicant meets these objective requirements, the government official should be required to issue the permit. This would be similar to driver's licenses.

"May-issue" jurisdictions, such as California, give too much discretion to local officials, leading to arbitrary decisions and cases of bribery. Most states are "shall-issue" jurisdictions and do not have this type of problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safet...

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the 'qualified law enforcement officer' and the 'qualified retired or separated law enforcement officer'—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions."

Letters and emails are private. DKIM does not change that.

This discussion about DKIM is about non-repudiation and the ability to prove that a certain person sent the email.

If you send me a letter, I (or someone else who gains possession of that letter) should be able to prove that you sent the letter and hold you accountable for the contents. DKIM does that for emails.

But you need to be able to prove the existence of the contract. Which DKIM would help with.

Email is not a "serious secure messenger." It is the equivalent of writing a letter and signing your name to it. Email is useful for when you want a paper trail. Otherwise, you would use a secure messenger instead.

But emails are meant to be accountable. They are the digital equivalent to sending letters. They should leave paper trails. Just like you have written before, secure messaging should be left to secure messaging apps, not email.

"You don't need a Google Account to participate in Meet video meetings. However, if you don’t have a Google Account, the meeting organizer or someone from the organization must grant you access to the meeting."

https://support.google.com/meet/answer/9303069

Demonetize and demote these videos, without taking them down entirely. Make them accessible through search but do not recommend them to people who are not specifically looking for the videos.

> "The video platform said it would now ban any content with claims about COVID-19 vaccines that contradict consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization."

The local health authorities (in the US) and the WHO also told us in February and March that masks were useless for normal people. Even though people in Asian countries were broadly wearing masks based on prior experience from SARS. It turns out that the US public health authorities and the WHO were both wrong.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc#....

https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination