44 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Germany went further and created an account of the German Bundestag — in 2012, citizens received access to the latest laws on Github. Since then, residents of Germany can not only monitor changes but also to do pull requests, however, to make the change take effect, it must be approved by the Bundestag.
  2. May 2020
    1. Make it clear that signing up is optional. Consent must be “freely given”; you may not coerce users into joining your mailing list or make it appear as if joining the list is mandatory. For this reason, you must make it clear that signing up is optional. This is especially relevant in cases where you offer free white-papers (or e-books) for download. While the user’s email address is required for the delivery of the service, signing up for your newsletter is not. In such a case, you must not make it appear as if signing-up to the newsletter list mandatory and must make it clear that it is optional.

      Question (answer below)

      Are they saying that it's not allowed to make signing up for a mailing list a precondition/requirement for anything? This was surprising to me.

      So if you have a newsletter sign-up page that sends a digital bonus gift (like an e-book) to new subscribers, are required to completely change/repurpose your "newsletter sign-up page" into a "download e-book page" (that has an optional checkbox to also sign up for the newsletter, if you want)? That seems dumb to me, since it requires completely reversing the purpose of the page — which was, in my mind, primarily about signing up for the newsletter, with a bonus (an essentially optional one) thrown in for those who do so. Are you required to either repurpose it like that or remove the free bonus offer that would be sent to new subscribers?

      The irony of this is that it requires websites that have a newsletter sign-up page like that to change it into a "newsletter sign-up page" where the newsletter sign-up part is optional. Which make you look kind of stupid, making a page that claims to be one thing but doesn't necessarily do what it says it's for.

      Does this mean, in effect, that you may not lawfully provide any sort of incentive or reward for signing up for something (like a mailing list)? As long as it's very clear that some action is required before delivery of some thing, I don't see why this sort of thing should not be permitted? Would this fall under contract law? And as such, wouldn't such a contract be allowed and valid? Are mailing lists a special class of [service] that has special requirements like this? Or is it part of a broader category to which this requirement applies more generally?

      Why is requiring the user to provide an email address before they can download a digital reward allowed but not requiring signing up to a mailing list? Why isn't it required that even the email address be optional to provide? (To answer my own question, probably because it's allowed to allow a user to request a specific thing to be sent via email, and an email address is required in order to fulfill that request. But...) It seems that the website could just provide a direct link to download it via HTTP/FTP/etc. as an option for users that chose not to provide an email address. (But should they be required to provide that option anytime they / just because they provide the option to have the same thing delivered via email?)

      Answer

      Looks like my question was answered below:

      Explicit Form (where the purpose of the sign-up mechanism is unequivocal). So for example, in a scenario where your site has a pop-up window that invites users to sign up to your newsletter using a clear phrase such as: “Subscribe to our newsletter for access to discount vouchers and product updates!“, the affirmative action that the user performs by typing in their email address would be considered valid consent.

      So the case I described, where it is made very clear that the incentive that is offered is conditional on subscribing, is listed as an exception to the general rule. That's good; it should be allowed.

    2. It’s always best practice to either simply follow the most robust legislations or to check the local anti-spam requirements specific to where your recipients are based.
    3. In the EU, the ePrivacy directive sets overall guidelines that are individually implemented by member states
    4. Generally, these laws apply to any service targeting residents of the region, which effectively means that they may apply to your business whether it’s located in the region or not.
    1. Generally, such legislations apply to any service targeting residents of the region, which effectively means that they may apply to your business whether it’s located in the region or not
    2. These rules usually apply to any company selling to EU residents but may vary for international sellers on a case-by-case basis. It is worth noting, however, that in recent cases US courts have chosen to uphold the applicable EU law.
    3. In the US, there is no one national law in regards to returns/refunds for purchases made online as in most cases, this is implemented on a state-by-state basis, however, under several state-laws, if no refund or return notice was made visible to consumers before purchase, consumers are automatically granted extended return/refund rights. In cases where the item purchased is defective, an implied warranty may apply in lieu of a written warranty
    4. This exemption is may not be applicable for all regions and is therefore subject to specific local regulations.
    5. In the US, there is no single comprehensive national body of data regulations; there are, however, various laws on a state level as well as industry guidelines and specific federal laws in place. Since online site/app activity is rarely limited to just one state, it’s always best to adhere to the strictest applicable regulations.
    6. Determining your law of reference Generally, the laws of a particular region apply if: You base your operations there; or You use processing services or servers based in the region; or Your service targets users from that region This effectively means that regional regulations may apply to you and/or your business whether you’re located in the region or not. For that reason, it’s always advisable that you approach your data processing activities with the strictest applicable regulations in mind.
  3. Apr 2020
    1. Suddenly even linking to data was an excuse to get raided by the FBI and potentially face serious charges. Even more concerning is that Brown linked to data that was already public and others had already linked to.
    2. Having said all that, I think this is completely absurd that I have to write an entire article justifying the release of this data out of fear of prosecution or legal harassment. I had wanted to write an article about the data itself but I will have to do that later because I had to write this lame thing trying to convince the FBI not to raid me.
    3. I could have released this data anonymously like everyone else does but why should I have to? I clearly have no criminal intent here. It is beyond all reason that any researcher, student, or journalist have to be afraid of law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be protecting us instead of trying to find ways to use the laws against us.
    4. The key change here is the removal of an intent to defraud and replacing it with willfully; it will be illegal to share this information as long as you have any reason to know someone else might use it for unauthorized computer access.It is troublesome to consider the unintended consequences resulting from this small change.
    5. The problem is that it is that the laws themselves change the very definition of a criminal and put many innocent professionals at risk.
    6. As serious leaks become more common, surely we can expect tougher laws. But these laws are also making it difficult for those of us who wish to improve security by studying actual data. For years we have fought increasingly restrictive laws but the government’s argument has always been that it would only affect criminals.
    7. This principle equally applies to the laws of our country; we should never violate basic rights even if the consequences aren’t immediately evident.
  4. Mar 2020
    1. In Europe, access to the Los Angeles Times was blocked and those who tried to access it were offered a screen with a notice which simply read: "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries.
    1. In Italy, the condition for Google Analytics to be eligible for “no prior consent necessary” is IP anonymization – however in France, Google Analytics doesn’t seem to be eligible for exceptions,
  5. Feb 2020
    1. (b)(1) A representative form of annual or special meeting is a meeting of members elected by district to exercise the powers vested in the voters of the town to act upon articles. However, the election of officers, public questions, and all articles to be voted upon by Australian ballot as required by law or as voted under section 2680 of this title at a prior annual or special meeting, and reconsideration of articles under section 2661 of this title shall remain vested in the voters of the town. (2) An organizational resolution to adopt a representative form of annual or special meeting may be made by the legislative body of the municipality or by petition of five percent of the voters of the municipality. An official copy of the organizational resolution shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the municipality at least 10 days before the annual or special meeting at which the vote whether to adopt the organizational resolution shall take place, and copies thereof shall be made available to members of the public upon request.

      Exceptions to Representative form of gov't - VT Statutes

  6. Mar 2019
    1. Edward Thorndike's three laws of learning. The page does not explain this, but his theories came out in about 1900. His three laws of learning appear to be relevant to our course work. This simple page features black text on a white page. It is brief and it simply describes the three laws of learning. rating 5/5

  7. Feb 2019
    1. For example, the idea of “data ownership” is often championed as a solution. But what is the point of owning data that should not exist in the first place? All that does is further institutionalise and legitimate data capture. It’s like negotiating how many hours a day a seven-year-old should be allowed to work, rather than contesting the fundamental legitimacy of child labour. Data ownership also fails to reckon with the realities of behavioural surplus. Surveillance capitalists extract predictive value from the exclamation points in your post, not merely the content of what you write, or from how you walk and not merely where you walk. Users might get “ownership” of the data that they give to surveillance capitalists in the first place, but they will not get ownership of the surplus or the predictions gleaned from it – not without new legal concepts built on an understanding of these operations.
    1. Would you rather trust a human legal system or the details of some computer code you don't have the expertise to audit?

      A corollary question might be, if the legal system and code of laws have gotten so highly specialized that they require specialists to navigate them, are you trusting a "human" system or a technology? (With the answer including the fact that humans being involved at all is different from a machine-implemented algorithm, even if human decisions are constrained by the legal "algorithms.")

  8. Jan 2019
    1. Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of His servants as truly believe in Him.

      Definition of attachment.

      Also, if your actions are due to addiction but you're consciously trying to counter it (or even, if you don't have help in quitting, just disliking it), perhaps that's different from allowing something to "intervene between him and God".

    2. Say: Should your conduct, O people, contradict your professions, how think ye, then, to be able to distinguish yourselves from them who, though professing their faith in the Lord their God, have, as soon as He came unto them in the cloud of holiness, refused to acknowledge Him, and repudiated His truth?

      What's the difference between a professed Baha'i who (purposefully?) breaks the laws, and people who do not accept the next Manifestation when They come?

      How does this fit with, for example, alcohol addiction? Is that conduct that is contradicting someone's professions? Maybe not if your professions are "alcohol is bad, we shouldn't do it, but I am addicted and trying to recover", as opposed to "Baha'u'llah says alcohol is bad, but I drink anyway and don't see it as a problem".

  9. Aug 2018
    1. Legislative staff members had finished rewriting AB 375, and a deal seemed imminent. That Friday, as he drank his morning coffee, Mactaggart decided to read the new bill — the fine print — one more time. He noticed a seemingly minor alteration in one section, the kind of thing most people would skip over. Mactaggart realized it would completely gut what remained of the private right of action. Furious, he called Hertzberg and Chau and told them the deal was off. Neither lawmaker could explain who made the change, Mactaggart told me, but Hertzberg scrambled to fix it. “In most negotiations, you are talking to all these different interest groups,” Hertzberg told me recently. “This is a situation where we had to go and reach out to everyone and bring that information to Mr. Mactaggart and ask him what he wanted to do.”

      Here's a case where we ought to consider creating our bills and laws via version control, so we can see exactly who, what, and when things changed along the way. It might mean much less gets done, but there'd be a lot more transparency and accountability.

  10. Feb 2017
    1. For a boss to fire a worker is at most a minor inconvenience; for a worker to lose a job is a disaster. The Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale, a measure of the comparative stress level of different life events, puts being fired at 47 units, worse than the death of a close friend and nearly as bad as a jail term. Tellingly, “firing one of your employees” failed to make the scale.

      Because of State labor laws, stupid. They make it hard to change jobs, hard to fire workers and hence hard to hire workers. In a libertarian world this would in principle be much smoother.

    2. Once the employee is hired, the boss may ask on a moment’s notice that she work a half hour longer or else she’s fired, and she may not dare to even complain. On the other hand, if she were to so much as ask to be allowed to start work thirty minutes later to get more sleep or else she’ll quit, she might well be laughed out of the company. A boss may, and very often does, yell at an employee who has made a minor mistake, telling her how stupid and worthless she is, but rarely could an employee get away with even politely mentioning the mistake of a boss, even if it is many times as unforgivable.

      Here and after the author treats as a libertarian problem what happens today under the rule of the State labor laws.

      In a world without State labor laws, contracts would apply. Contracts could evolve and have all these situations expected in their clauses. Also, this seems to me to be a case for actually working law (which the criticism imagines as unexisting in a libertarian society): https://hypothes.is/a/PBirDvnYEeaWvjeIs4H9kg.

  11. Aug 2016
    1. But those crying the loudest to stop the lock-out laws fail to provide an adequate alternative.

      Response piece "No Surprise The Young Don't Support Lock-Out Laws" (31 Aug 2016) at Stony Roads mentions this statement.

      There are some terrible personal opinions in this article that really push a tired and very under constructive rhetoric.

      'Those crying the loudest to stop the lock-out laws fail to provide an adequate alternative'.

      This quote alone shows a lack of research into Matt Barrie's 70 page submission, any consideration into the views of the people who went to the effort of writing 1 of the 1,856 submissions to State parliament, or simply the lack of effort to type in google, 'alternative solutions to lockout laws'.

      The reference to "Matt Barrie's 70 page submission" can be supposed as that included in the article posted by Matt Barrie on LinkedIn, "The death of Sydney's nightlife and collapse of its night time economy" (03 April 2016), submission titled "A Detailed Submission to the Callinan Inquiry on Liquor Laws". That submission/article is mainly about the circumstances under which the lock-out laws were proposed and enacted, as well as the results of those laws so far (with considerable detail on political and statistical manipulations and misrepresentations), and not so much about providing alternatives, however it does suggest that the lock-out laws themselves are far from an adequate solution.

      Note that Matt Barrie's submission was covered fairly well by the SMH in their own article, "Sydney lockout laws a dismal failure, Matt Barrie writes in 70-page submission" (04 April 2016). The article by Jennifer Duke this annotation is for is, by stark contrast, little more than anecdotal or purely "personal opinion".

      The group named Keep Sydney Open is probably representative of "those crying the loudest", having organised public rallies attended by many thousands of people (estimates of 10,000 to 15,000). The Huffington Post interviewed spokesperson, Tyson Koh, for the article "Sydney Lockout Laws Have Had A 'Massive Effect' On Community, Jobs" (13 Feb 2016):

      Koh pointed to a number of alternate strategies used in places like New York, Vancouver and Amsterdam to combat late-night violence.

      Twenty four-hour public transport, more visible policing in nightlife precincts, staggered venue closing times and introducing later dining and retail hours all had merit, he said.

      "There's a lot of things that are available to us that will improve safety and enable people to go out to all hours."

  12. Oct 2013
    1. Equity must be applied to forgivable actions; and it must make us distinguish between criminal acts on the one hand, and errors of judgement, or misfortunes, on the other. (A "misfortune" is an act, not due to moral badness, that has unexpected results: an "error of judgement" is an act, also not due to moral badness, that has results that might have been expected: a "criminal act" has results that might have been expected, but is due to moral badness, for that is the source of all actions inspired by our appetites.) Equity bids us be merciful to the weakness of human nature; to think less about the laws than about the man who framed them, and less about what he said than about what he meant; not to consider the actions of the accused so much as his intentions, nor this or that detail so much as the whole story; to ask not what a man is now but what he has always or usually been.

      human nature, laws

  13. Sep 2013
    1. He must, therefore, know how many different forms of constitution there are; under what conditions each of these will prosper and by what internal developments or external attacks each of them tends to be destroyed. When I speak of destruction through internal developments I refer to the fact that all constitutions, except the best one of all, are destroyed both by not being pushed far enough and by being pushed too far.