At 73 pages, it's a doozy. I don't know exactly what the effects would have been, but one important thing to note that I did not see mentioned once in any of the reporting about this is that the rule has only been in effect for 84 days. So I wouldn't expect any changes to be too noticeable.
Also worth noting is that whatever restrictions on ISPs are removed by this, it doesn't guarantee that ISPs will start doing that thing immediately, if at all. I also haven't seen reporting on what past behavior ISPs have already engaged in that this rule would have stopped.
The first fifth of the linked resolution addresses what is customer personal information (protocols, ports, IP addresses, MAC addresses, contained information, etc.)
Paragraph 106 mandates that the information released should not be able to be de-identified, and third parties must be contractually obligated to not de-identify customers from the data.
Paragraph 117 says the clause must be transferable to third-parties all the way down the list, but a middle-man can hire a company in a different country to do the necessary work, outside the jurisdiction of the FCC.
Paragraph 115 says the ISP can share the IP address, and no other identifying data, and meet the requirements of de-identification. A clause to "revisit this topic later" is present. Damn right you better -- combined with other data sources from social media and search engines, I can trivially combine multiple data sources using the IP address and build a "personal profile" of your entire Internet usage, including those really unique "outlier" destinations.
Paragraph 143 says that no periodic reminder is required, so expect the "privacy notice" to be buried in a sea of required checkboxes at point-of-sale, and never seen again. There are provisions that it be available on a website and via other methods, etc., but "available" versus "easily found" are two different things.
Most of these rules will take effect in 12 months, not immediately. (The rule of preventing ISP services requiring you waive your privacy to provide service is 30 days (paragraph 295, § 64.2011), data security requirements in 90 days (§ 64.2005), and data breach notifications and requirements in 6 months (§ 64.2006).)
> but one important thing to note that I did not see mentioned once in any of the reporting about this is that the rule has only been in effect for 84 days. So I wouldn't expect any changes to be too noticeable.
Isn't that just because the agency responsible changed from the FTC to the FCC?
Cardinal voting algorithms are only superior if people vote sincerely. Unfortunately, cardinal voting methods offer significant incentives to vote insincerely. Condorcet voting does not.
I always thought an interesting vote gathering technique would be something that actually interviews/polls the voter. Ask them for their ordinal ranking. The voter would know that if a Condorcet Winner exists, then that candidate would be the winner, but also ask for various cardinal ranking numbers, along with their approval line. That way there would still be the incentive to vote sincerely, while the cardinal information could be used to break the Smith Set loops. (The only downside here is that some people claim that the presence of cardinal tiebreakers creates an incentive for people to vote insincerely to create a Smith Set...)
Alternatively, if a Smith Set occurs, schedule a second round of voting for only those candidates (like a Louisiana Runoff, but Condorcet style), so that voters could better educate themselves on the remaining candidates.
I will note that a Smith Set Condorcet loop can occur even among 100% rational, wholly informed voters. It's not an aberration due to irrationality, it's just a fact of politics not being one-dimensional (quite literally -- if voters rank candidates based on whomever is closest to them in n-dimensional space, then for any n > 1 you can have a cycle).
You can draw your own example of this if you like. Draw an equilateral triangle and its altitudes, creating 6 regions inside. Put some dots in the 6 regions in the middle (voters), but leave every other region blank. Now, declare the vertices to be candidates (a 3-way race). If you compare any two of them, and have voters vote for whomever they're closest to (based on which side of the altitude they fall on), you'll end up with a rock-paper-scissors situation.
It's interesting and it brings up the question of how a vote should actually be interpreted if there is that kind of legitimate Smith Set. The only options I can think of are either factoring in intensity of preference (see above), or some kind of power-sharing agreement.
Also interesting to me is that I believe the IIAC can actually uncover that kind of completely-legitimate cycle. Meaning, while introducing an additional candidate can never lead you from one Condorcet Winner to another, it can lead you from a Condorcet Winner to a Smith Set. If people change their preferences in that manner, then it means that they have found better choices for them. In other words, if IIAC happens, it could be an indication that the original set of candidates wasn't really appropriate for the voters in the first place.
Thinking about both at the same time is uncomfortable, because if Smith Sets aren't an indication of voter-population confusion that can be resolved with more education and communication, then it basically means that the more choice you offer, the less likely there will be one candidate deserving of victory. If that's true, then making the arbitrary choice (among most likely candidates) might actually be the best outcome. Not exactly democratic though.
I think nondeterminism is fairly reasonable in a cyclical Smith set. In fact, I think nondeterminism in voting systems has a worse reputation than it deserves.
> Cardinal voting algorithms are only superior if people vote sincerely.
What do you mean by "sincerely"? Can you demonstrate a situation where it is in a voter's interest to give a less preferred candidate a greater score than a more preferred candidate?
And they have far bigger problems of their own, compared to condorcet methods. Score is the worst....any rational voter will just vote with a 0% or 100% for all candidates. Those who vote "sincerely" are at a huge disadvantage.
Approval gives a big advantage to those who can best predict how others will vote. Yuk.
Yeah as baddox says, you'd still be smart to vote 0% or 100%, as long as you can make a better than random pick at who is the leader and runner up. That's because voting in "black and white" is the same as Approval, and as I said, Approval gives an advantage to those who can guess better who are the leaders. Making it especially annoying in elections (such as local ones) where you have no idea who the front runners are.
Your specific vote is only important when the election is to close to call. If X is up by 80% in the polls you can probably stay home and nothing happens.
Homeschool parent with a different perspective here! Maybe we can agree to abandon stereotypes entirely? It doesn't really seem like a very HN-friendly strategy.
Many people who homeschool do so for religious reasons. The (comparative) isolation from their peers, combined with the tighter control they have over their children's experiences, makes it possible for them to "force" their children to believe in their religion.
Many don't object to this because of the religion itself; it's the fact that the parents are "abusing" their power to keep their kids from making their own choices.
Also, this isn't really a stereotype, but phrases like "eating the fruits of their labor" sound almost Amish. They homeschool, too.
My sister is into the next thing beyond homeschooling: unschooling. You are just exposing a stereotype (as she does). My father is into gardening. I am not. Why on earth is it bad to find something you like and stick with it (being obsessed for months?!?... why not let them be into sth they like for years!). Who do you think you are to decide for s/w else based on your guts feeling? IT/Software isn't bad. But people have been believing strange things any time in history and influenced others (with deep, sincere and honest conviction).
I hope your kids just turn out to be fine with it. You are betting on them that they are just like you.
I hope that the ones that get badly affected by your good intension can forgive you (for your strong believes)
people, people, there are people just like you and discussion won't change them (never did, never will). Otherwise those ppl/opinions won't exist. But you are just a (controversial) stereotype: Many with your queer thoughs exist, you are nothing special and you offend (obviously). And these ppl think even like "I know better and have just to convince the rest": Go home you are drunk.
I hope that a long going process may start running in you mind based on this/your HN experience.
Checking for encrypted packets wouldn't tell you anything about the binaries' trustworthiness. A back door might just encrypt the data with a second key, or more specifically, encrypt the key that encrypts the data with another key. A reliable way of testing binaries doesn't seem very feasible to me. It's like antivirus vendors trying to find new viruses: the malware authors can always obfuscate their code just a little more, do it just a little bit differently, and now it does the same thing while escaping detection.
Authors of open source software who want to distribute trustable binaries should include instructions for how to reproduce the binary exactly from the source. A third party verifier could reproduce the binary, then publish a digital signature affirming that they reproduced it, allowing anyone who doesn't want to compile it to check with a trusted third party.
But all of that is a moot point if the source code isn't being very carefully checked.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-28...
At 73 pages, it's a doozy. I don't know exactly what the effects would have been, but one important thing to note that I did not see mentioned once in any of the reporting about this is that the rule has only been in effect for 84 days. So I wouldn't expect any changes to be too noticeable.
Also worth noting is that whatever restrictions on ISPs are removed by this, it doesn't guarantee that ISPs will start doing that thing immediately, if at all. I also haven't seen reporting on what past behavior ISPs have already engaged in that this rule would have stopped.