LurkersWillLurk's comments

Unfortunately, I believe this is correct. I received over 1,000 messages from one contact of mine that had the message of "secure session reset". It seems his phone tried to reset the encrypted connection with me over and over. Considering that I have 3 devices in total, that's thousands of messages just from one user alone.

I'm sure millions of devices doing the same thing probably bogged them down.

This isn't true at all. It uses Signal Protocol and is end-to-end encrypted.

Campaign finance, presumably.

I don't like attacking the author for not being a lawyer (mostly because I am not a lawyer either), but it's quite clear to me that their legal interpretation is completely wrong.

To fix the original title: the First Amendment is a censorship law, not Section 230. Or at least, the First Amendment constitutionally protects internet websites that censor their users. It's called freedom of association.

Because the laws of physics trump the laws of the sovereign? I agree with the position that law enforcement should be able to attempt to access communications with a judicial warrant. I do not agree with a government mandate to use flawed encryption that would allow anyone to read my communications. It's questionable whether that would even accomplish their stated goals, and personally I doubt it.

It doesn't assume it's always impossible. If you think the problem with the current summons/warrant/arrest system is "unscientific", then I invite you to consider what kinds of effects mandatory court appearance between 9 am and 5 pm have on low-income defendants.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in the United States that prohibits employers from firing workers who have to appear in court. But I totally understand why "respecting the legitimacy of the courts," while nice in principle, doesn't match in comparison to putting food on the table.

The other problem with this approach is that some proportion of perfectly legitimate funds likely will remain in pending for an inordinate amount of time, which dilutes the strength of the indicator in the first place.

I'm sorry to say but this isn't a Chase specific problem. Chase is required by law to make the funds available after a couple days, just like all other banks. The OP's sister fell for a common scam that's been going on since forever, and Zelle warns you fairly explicitly to never send money to a stranger or else things like this could happen.

Of course Chase isn't going to eat a $3,000 loss because a customer fell for a common scam and ignored Zelle's warnings and didn't even do a cursory look through the bank agreement which clearly explains how checks clear.

The difference between the other services "taking responsibility" and "not shaking down their customers" and Chase Bank is that unlike a checking account, credit card transactions can be easily reversed. Once you send the money through Zelle, it's gone.

That your sister was victimized is clearly terrible, but it doesn't change the fact that her negligence caused her bank to lose 3 grand, and your father is liable as a cosigner as well. She is reasonably expected to recognize that Craigslist arrangement as too good to be true, and she ignored Zelle's admonitions not to send money to strangers.

It is not true in all states that corporations must be represented by an attorney in small claims court. In California, corporations must be represented by a non-attorney employee for small claims actions.

I don't really know if you have a legal remedy under your state's "Unfair Trade Practices" law, but this might be one worth a complaint to your state attorney general's office or maybe a consultation with a consumer affairs attorney, if you have the money. I am pessimistic that this would go anywhere, though.

Small claims only provides monetary relief, you can't get equitable relief. How exactly are you going to calculate your monetary damages? And quite frankly, why would Google reinstate your account over losing a maximum of potentially $7,500?

We need to push back on this nonsense in journalism in which journalists don't include a link to the opinion when writing an article describing that opinion.

There is not enough information included in the article to meaningfully comment on the situation.

Edit: here is the order, which is very short: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.222257/...

The opinion is under seal, and the parties have been directed to raise objections to unsealing it, if they wish.

The sad truth is that the United States has a severe access to justice problem. Most people don't know which regulator to contact, and the process requires a certain amount of time, effort, and knowledge that's out of reach of most people.

This is the same file as the original submission. But can you explain how this email got its way to the House Judiciary Committee?

A tiny amount of "police" text isn't worth much of anything. There is absolutely no defensible reason to hide the agency patch and badge number of every individual officer on the ground. There is absolutely no defensible reason to tie beanbags around the faces of arrestees. There is absolutely no defensible reason for the police to put arrestees into unmarked vehicles.

There is no way of ascertaining exactly who these federal agents are. This precludes court redress and is unacceptable.

This isn't about whether or not they get arrested. This is about certain ground rules and principles that the government must always uphold, even against unprincipled opponents.

Federal law enforcement officers, dressed in camo gear and without any identifying insignia, arresting and covering the faces of alleged rioters and stuffing them into unmarked vehicles and taking them God-knows-where is absolutely unacceptable.

These principles are what separates the government from the rioters. How are you going to hold the government accountable when you don't even know which government agency a certain police officer belongs to?

Have you contacted your member of Congress? They have constituent services that help with these kinds of things.

You could also submit a Privacy Act correction request.

And it will be interesting to see if it will be put on the agenda by Chairman Nadler. But Pelosi's omnibus bill has a far weaker proposal in that it only eliminates QI for police officers.

This reminds me of the time when a Pennsylvania District Attorney argued before the State Supreme Court that opening the settings app didn't qualify as a search because it's not an app like the messages app.

Thank goodness that argument failed.

File a complaint with the FCC.

https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new?tic...

Select "privacy" as the complaint category.