SnoopRob
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,133
Do you have a source for the amount of data collected by Temu vs TikTok? I'd like to read it, if you do. Thanks.
SCOTUS Catch-all |
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 484
- Views: 18K
- Politics
RaiGuy
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 684
Looking Beyond TikTok – The Risks of Temu | Strategic Technologies Blog | CSIS
CSIS affiliate, Diane Rinaldo, examines the privacy concerns and national security risks of the popular e-commerce app Temu.
Temu also requires users to enter in more data such as name, address, payment info, etc….while TikTok just requires a username for the casual user (they recently added a commerce section which would require more info). But Temu seems just a bad or worse than TikTok, but for some reason is being ignored.
SnoopRob
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,133
Thanks!Looking Beyond TikTok – The Risks of Temu | Strategic Technologies Blog | CSIS
CSIS affiliate, Diane Rinaldo, examines the privacy concerns and national security risks of the popular e-commerce app Temu.www.csis.org
Temu also requires users to enter in more data such as name, address, payment info, etc….while TikTok just requires a username for the casual user (they recently added a commerce section which would require more info). But Temu seems just a bad or worse than TikTok, but for some reason is being ignored.
- Messages
- 3,175
Congress doesn't move at the speed of technology. If Congress was a grandparent they would tell their grandkids I got you that new Nintendo, and the kid would rip it open expecting a Switch and find they got a GameCubeLooking Beyond TikTok – The Risks of Temu | Strategic Technologies Blog | CSIS
CSIS affiliate, Diane Rinaldo, examines the privacy concerns and national security risks of the popular e-commerce app Temu.
Temu also requires users to enter in more data such as name, address, payment info, etc….while TikTok just requires a username for the casual user (they recently added a commerce section which would require more info). But Temu seems just a bad or worse than TikTok, but for some reason is being ignored.
Callatoroy
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,082
But they do have the hypocrisy high ground. Damn near built a hypocrisy mountain in 24.
dukeman92
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,683
The members of congress who are actively trying to ban/force the sale of TickTok are heavy investors with Meta & Google. Meta & Google have tried to duplicate ByteDance's algorithms and have been unsuccessful. Which is why they tried to force a sale of the American sector, which would give them access to said algorithm.
The Pubs are heavily invested in Meta. Hence Zuckerberg bending the knee to Trump and Facebook suddenly going fact free. They want to stoke the fires of disinformation that fuel the idiots who make up their base.
- Messages
- 23,341
For reference, I started a stand-alone TikTok ban thread now that SCOTUS has weighed in:
Politics Thread 'TikTok Ban in USA'
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,446
Lol I'd forgotten about PBO's meltdown on the first couple pages of this thread. Good stuff.
TangledUpInBlue06
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 275
Supreme Court to weigh bid to create first US religious charter school
WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in a case testing the separation of church and state.A lower court blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, ruling that its funding arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court took up an appeal of that ruling by a state school board and the organizers of the proposed school.
- Messages
- 23,341
The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked this based on the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitution, BTW.Supreme Court to weigh bid to create first US religious charter school
WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in a case testing the separation of church and state.
A lower court blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, ruling that its funding arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court took up an appeal of that ruling by a state school board and the organizers of the proposed school.
Anyway, “… The justices will review an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that said the proposal violated both the state and federal constitutions.
The brief court order noted that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would normally be a potential key vote in such a case, will not participate. The court did not say why.
Barrett was previously a professor at Notre Dame Law School. and still has ties there. Its religious liberty law clinic is representing the school. …”
Supreme Court to hear church-state fight over bid to launch first publicly funded religious charter school
An attempt to authorize the Catholic school was challenged as a violation of the First Amendment, which limits government involvement in religion.
www.nbcnews.com
- Messages
- 23,341
Supreme Court declines to take up challenge to Tennessee law restricting drag shows
“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a Tennessee law restricting some drag performances, allowing the first-in-the-nation law to remain largely intact.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices denied a Tennessee theater company’s request to intervene in its challenge to the state’s limits on drag, first enacted in 2023 by the Republican-dominated Legislature. While the law does not explicitly mention drag shows, state lawmakers said the measure was meant to restrict them.
A Tennessee court had previously deemed the law, which targets “adult-oriented performances” that take place in public or where they may be seen by minors, unconstitutional, blocking its enforcement in parts of the state. A federal appeals court reversed that decision in July, ruling that the Memphis-based theater group Friends of George’s lacked the legal standing to challenge Tennessee’s restrictions.
Friends of George’s had argued the state’s law would negatively impact them because they produce “drag-centric performances, comedy sketches, and plays” outside of age-restricted venues. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the group did not risk violating the law because their performances were not “harmful to minors.”
In passing the restrictions on drag, state lawmakers amended Tennessee’s definition of adult cabaret entertainment to mean adult-oriented performances that feature topless or exotic dancers or “male or female impersonators.” Restricted performances must also be “harmful to minors,” which Tennessee law defines as lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values” and appealing “to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests.”
In dismissing Friend of George’s case, the 6th Circuit ruled the law only prohibits public performances that lack value “for a reasonable 17-year-old,” which the group argued to the Supreme Court unlawfully narrowed the scope of the law.
… President Trump, who earlier this month announced he was ending the terms of several Kennedy Center board members and naming himself chairman, said that decision was made, in part, because of a drag performance held at the cultural center last year. In a post on Truth Social, Trump called drag performances “anti-American propaganda.” …”
- Messages
- 23,341
“… State lawmakers from both political parties, along with celebrities like Kim Kardashian, had called for clemency or a new trial.
Most crucially, Attorney General Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, a Republican, had asked the justices to throw out Mr. Glossip’s 2004 conviction and order a retrial.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in whole or in part. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had heard an aspect of the case as an appeals court judge, was recused from it.
Mr. Glossip was convicted of arranging the death of his employer, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City. Two independent investigations cast doubt on his guilt, saying critical evidence had been withheld and major testimony was faulty.
Mr. Glossip’s conviction was based almost entirely on the testimony of the state’s star witness, a handyman named Justin Sneed who had pleaded guilty to killing Barry Van Treese, the motel owner, beating him to death in 1997 with a baseball bat.
In exchange for a life sentence, Mr. Sneed agreed to testify against Mr. Glossip, the motel’s manager. Mr. Sneed said Mr. Glossip had instructed him to kill Mr. Van Treese. …”
- Messages
- 23,341
- Messages
- 23,341
BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs Broad View Of Lawsuit Revival Rule - Law360
Despite fears of "litigation gamesmanship," the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday that cases dismissed voluntarily can later be eligible for special judicial relief and reopening, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit.
www.law360.com
"Despite fears of "litigation gamesmanship," the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday that cases dismissed voluntarily can later be eligible for special judicial relief and reopening, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit.
Wednesday's unanimous decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services — a technical dispute that could nonetheless have important ramifications — found that cases dropped voluntarily without prejudice qualify as "final proceedings," making them eligible for reopening under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's opinion, voluntary dismissals fit well within the court's Rule 60(b) power to review "final" acts. Otherwise, he said, voluntary dismissals would end up in a "procedural no man's land," where they wouldn't be considered interlocutory or final. ..."
- Messages
- 23,341
Justices Limit 'Prevailing Party' Status For Atty Fees
Justices Limit 'Prevailing Party' Status For Atty Fees - Law360
Litigants will no longer be considered the "prevailing party" — and thus won't be eligible for attorney fees — if they achieve courtroom victories via preliminary injunction instead of a final judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has found, in a ruling that's expected to be a blow to legal advocacy...
www.law360.com
"Litigants will no longer be considered the "prevailing party" — and thus won't be eligible for attorney fees — if they achieve courtroom victories via preliminary injunction instead of a final judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has found, in a ruling that's expected to be a blow to legal advocacy groups.
In a 7-2 decision issued Tuesday, the majority said the "transient victory" of a preliminary injunction is not enough to declare a litigant the prevailing party, only a final ruling that results in a material change between the parties that's both "judicially sanctioned and enduring."
"Because preliminary injunctions do not conclusively resolve the rights of parties on the merits, they do not confer prevailing party status," the majority said.
"Prevailing party" is a legal term of art which, in the context of civil rights lawsuits, allows legal advocacy groups to recoup attorney fees and costs if they successfully strike down unconstitutional laws or government policies.
Enshrined in Section 1988 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code in 1976, the prevailing party fee-shifting framework has since become a cornerstone of the U.S. system of private civil rights enforcement.
There is widespread disagreement over how often those types of suits are resolved by preliminary injunction rather than by final rulings, but a flurry of amicus briefs from advocacy groups warned that a ruling that narrows the definition of prevailing party would hurt their finances and make it harder to bring cases.
That assessment was shared by groups from the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union to the archconservative Alliance Defending Freedom. ..."
- Messages
- 23,341
The Unsubstantiated Allegations Against the Oklahoma AG in the Glossip Case
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor , invalidated the murder conviction (and thus also the death sentence) of ...
“On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, invalidated the murder conviction (and thus also the death sentence) of Richard Glossip and sent his case back to the Oklahoma courts so that they can either release Glossip or retry him (for what would be his third trial on this charge).
… According to the dissent, Glossip and the state Attorney General--who agreed that Glossip was entitled to a new trial--colluded to exclude evidence from the record tending to show that the prosecutor at the time did not in fact conceal or mischaracterize evidence regarding Sneed's mental health history.
The dissent based this account on material provided by Professor Paul Cassell, who filed a brief on behalf of the surviving family members of the victim. Professor Cassell further expounded his view in an essay this week on the Volokh Conspiracy.
Putting aside the merits, there is a mystery that neither Professor Cassell nor Justice Thomas has solved. Each of them accuses Oklahoma State Attorney General Gentner Drummond of colluding with Glossip to present the Supreme Court with an inaccurate picture of the facts and the record. But they don't explain why Drummond would do such a thing. Indeed, in his brief, Professor Cassell admits that the reasons why Drummond "personally believes that a new trial is warranted" for Glossip are "unclear." Quoting Justice Thomas's dissent in his Volokh essay, Cassell then says that Attorney "General Drummond still has no explanation for why he 'collusively excluded … highly relevant evidence from the record.'"
There is, however, an obvious innocent explanation. There was no "collusion," only agreement. Perhaps Drummond simply reviewed the record and concluded that Glossip's rights were violated.
… Justice Thomas goes beyond insinuation.
He first impugns the integrity of lawyers hired by "a group of legislators opposed to" Glossip's execution by noting that the lawyers so hired work for a firm that is "publicly committed to 'fighting the death penalty.'" (It appears that Justice Thomas thinks this is discrediting in the way that a commitment to public defecation would be. But I digress.)
Drummond's predecessor as Oklahoma AG did not credit the lawyers' work, but when Drummond took office, he apparently did.
Justice Thomas then impugns the integrity of another lawyer.
He recounts that Drummond "appointed Rex Duncan, a personal friend and campaign donor, as independent counsel to reexamine the legitimacy of Glossip’s conviction." (It's so very heartening that Justice Thomas is concerned about appearances of impropriety when government officials accept largesse from personal friends. But I digress again.)
Presumably, Justice Thomas expects the reader to think that Drummond appointed his friend and campaign donor Duncan because Drummond wanted an investigator who would reach a pre-determined conclusion that Glossip's trial was marred by constitutional errors that cast doubt on his guilt.
But, again, why? So far as I can tell, neither Professor Cassell, Justice Thomas, nor anyone else has offered any remotely plausible explanation for whyDrummond would deliberately help a murderer escape justice.
Drummond and Duncan are both Republicans. Each has had political differences with some other Oklahoma Republicans, but that's hardly a reason to doubt their integrity.
Meanwhile, Drummond has announced his intention to run for Governor of Oklahoma. Based on his official bio page, he appears to be quite conservative on immigration, industry regulation, and various other issues. Taking a high-profile stance on behalf of a person convicted of murder is hardly going to benefit him politically. Drummond would thus be likely to do so only if he had some really good reason to take such a stance. …”
- Messages
- 23,341
Supreme Court Upholds Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’
Justices find in 7-2 decision that federal law covers firearms kits
GIFT LINK
—> https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/sup...45?st=ZbEvzy&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink“… The gun industry had challenged a Biden-era regulation treating ghost guns like other firearms, with the same licensing, background checks and serial number requirements. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had set aside the regulation, reasoning that weapons parts aren’t weapons and thus weren’t covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
On Wednesday, a 7-2 Supreme Court disagreed. At least some gun kits fit the definition that Congress set out, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, and therefore the regulation stands. The court left open the possibility that some kits might be so far from a finished gun as to fall outside the regulation. …”
- Messages
- 23,341
“… Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote that opinion, dissented Wednesday, saying the court was inconsistent by “rewriting” statutory text to cover ghost guns when last year it wouldn’t do so to permit regulation of bump stocks. He argued that incomplete frames or receivers—such as those that require holes to be drilled to finish the weapon’s assembly—weren’t covered by the language of the law.Supreme Court Upholds Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’
Justices find in 7-2 decision that federal law covers firearms kits
GIFT LINK
“… The gun industry had challenged a Biden-era regulation treating ghost guns like other firearms, with the same licensing, background checks and serial number requirements. A federal appeals court in New Orleans had set aside the regulation, reasoning that weapons parts aren’t weapons and thus weren’t covered by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
On Wednesday, a 7-2 Supreme Court disagreed. At least some gun kits fit the definition that Congress set out, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, and therefore the regulation stands. The court left open the possibility that some kits might be so far from a finished gun as to fall outside the regulation. …”
“The ordinary meaning of ‘frame or receiver’ does not include objects that may be ‘converted’ into a frame or receiver,” Thomas wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented separately. …”
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,128
I'd like to say that this is a measure of the Supreme Court maybe pulling back a little bit on the outcome-oriented reasoning, but it's a really technical decision that hews very closely to the specific language of the statute in question.
It's not surprising that an easy case was decided the right way. As much as the Court is sensitive to the oppression of gun buyers in this country, who have had to put up with suggestions about onerous regulations for a generation, I don't think they give a fuck about ghost guns. And the personal feelings of the justices are a key to predicting these outcomes.
Why did they take a different view of bump stocks and ghost guns? Probably because bump stocks are fun. You can go to a firing range and have some fun shooting big guns fast. And even if you don't use bump stocks per se, they don't want to do anything that might validate a crackdown on ARs, because ARs are fun. By contrast, I can't imagine the Justices see themselves, or anyone they know, buying and/or getting off on ghost guns.
It's not surprising that an easy case was decided the right way. As much as the Court is sensitive to the oppression of gun buyers in this country, who have had to put up with suggestions about onerous regulations for a generation, I don't think they give a fuck about ghost guns. And the personal feelings of the justices are a key to predicting these outcomes.
Why did they take a different view of bump stocks and ghost guns? Probably because bump stocks are fun. You can go to a firing range and have some fun shooting big guns fast. And even if you don't use bump stocks per se, they don't want to do anything that might validate a crackdown on ARs, because ARs are fun. By contrast, I can't imagine the Justices see themselves, or anyone they know, buying and/or getting off on ghost guns.