> he is correct that giving false information to an officer who asks you where you are going -- even if they don't have a good reason for asking and if it would be within your rights to refuse to answer -- can be a crime.
Twice in the video, Lysiak appears to begin disputing the officer's claim that she told him she was going to a friend's house:
> But Hilde Lysiak, the editor of the Orange Street News, is the real deal. In 2016, when she was just nine years old, she broke the story of a homicide in her hometown of Selinsgrove, Arizona
This is incorrect. Lysiak's hometown is Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. There is no Selinsgrove, Arizona. This incident with the officer took place in Patagonia, Arizona.
Please re-read my first comment, as I feel like we are talking past each other. You are talking about generalized surveillance; I presented a specific example of how this particular technology can be used in my first post. The obvious truism that law enforcement agencies have access to a wide array of traveler information has no bearing on the fact that, as I said in my first comment, a bored passenger or flight attendant could use the system to peep on passengers depending on what 'never been activated' means.
I interpreted your reply to be that this camera is intended for entertainment, not surveillance purposes. My response was to point out that entertainment-purposed equipment can and has been repurposed to be surveillance equipment, effectively becoming multipurpose. And that it's therefore not implausible that these cameras could be used for impromptu surveillance such as the example I outlined in my first reply.
> these aren’t a surveillance tool if the airlines wanted to have security cameras they would’ve installed them already
The fact that it may be designed as an entertainment system and not as a surveillance system has no bearing on the fact that the former may readily be used for the latter. See Weeping Angel [1] for an example of one such manifested use-case.
> American Airlines spokesperson Ross Feinstein confirmed to BuzzFeed News that cameras are present on some of the airlines’ in-flight entertainment systems, but said “they have never been activated, and American is not considering using them.” Feinstein added, “Cameras are a standard feature on many in-flight entertainment systems used by multiple airlines. Manufacturers of those systems have included cameras for possible future uses, such as hand gestures to control in-flight entertainment.”
And what does 'never been activated' mean? Does it mean they are default off, but a flight attendant (or anyone who accesses the control panel while the flight attendant is otherwise occupied) can turn on a camera to see what someone sitting at a specific seat is doing?
I would be genuinely curious to hear, via throwaway accounts if need be, about how FB staff rationalise things like this happening.
Do you shrug it off as not a big deal in the long run? As FB still doing a net amount of good versus what you perceive as isolated incidents like this? I'm just in good faith trying to figure out how people willingly work and continue to work for outfits that repeatedly engage in behaviour such as this. I know there are lots of speculative reasons we can put forward, but I think we have a great opportunity here in our community to have first-hand input.
David Orr has been flinging the same mud at Bukowski and Bukowski's posthumous publications for years now.
He's been using the same exact jabs and barbs for more than a dozen years.
An example, in this 2019 review he writes:
> At this point, new books by Bukowski tend to be pretty old. Bukowski’s publisher has issued something like 20 volumes from “Buk” since the writer’s death in 1994, frequently with large chunks of them scavenged from previously published writing. The many recycled poems, letters and prose fragments in “On Drinking” follow previous collections including “On Cats” and “On Love” and “On Writing,” with “On Cats Who Love Drinking and Writing” presumably waiting in the wings.
In 2006, for a humor issue of _Poetry_ [1], he wrote a review titled:
> Reviewed Work: Charles Bukowski: Drafts, Scribbles, Doodles, Signed Leases, Cancelled Checks, Drawings on Cocktail Napkins, Things He Wrote on a Nerf Football with a Green Marker, Things He Wrote on a Waitress in Tulsa with the Same Green Marker, Things He Wrote (Possibly in Blood) on an Issue of Marie Claire, Things He Wrote (Possibly in Vomit) on a Copy of X-Men vs. the Fantastic Four No. 3, and Sestinas by Charles Bukowski
in which he goes on to write:
> If you've seen the 9,473 Charles Bukowski collections currently for sale in Barnes & Noble, you probably wondered, along with the rest of the poetry world, when we'd finally be given a full picture of this major artist by his choosy publisher. Sadly, this isn't it. Missing,
for example, are five poems known to have been written by "Buk" on scraps of toilet paper during a binge in Sante Fe
Repeating the same lame 'here's a long title to show my displeasure at the amount of posthumous material that is being published because for some reason it is personally irritating to me just how prolific Bukowski actually was' joke for more than a dozen years is pretty hackneyed.
It almost seems like he's just rewriting the 2006 review here and adding some concern trolling about drunk driving.
Does anyone else find these kinds of Twitter threads incredibly hard to follow?
It's very difficult to contextualize and adapt to reading these short incremental bursts of text or 'Twitter threads'. It always feels like important context and exposition is missing. I seem to understand the gist, that Youtube seems to have promoted flat earth videos disproportionately, but the 'whistleblower' aspect is not immediately apparent.
> I wonder what motivated the article's author to redact the scammer's email address.
This is good practice to prevent the possibility of revictimization in case the actual motive of the phishing attack was not phishing but to cause reputational damage to the owner of said email.
Consider: if someone wanted to target you and cause you potential legal and employment difficulties, they could launch a phishing attack using amateur code such as this, and have your work email appear as the "scammer's email", and then sit back and wait for the attack to be discovered and reported.
And even if not a reputation attack, the scammer could also simply be using a compromised email account, so once again redaction helps preempt the possibility of revictimization.
> Vice's view of politics is always like a naive high school kid who hasn't ever had a real job or read a single book on economics. Which probably accurately describes their (largely freelance) 'journalists' or more accurately bloggers.
> Makes for good clickbait for their demographic though. In an ideal world they should really have stuck to fashion and culture (which their 'talent' is good at) and left the serious topics to people who have a strong grasp of the subjects. But that's boring and doesn't generate outrage on social media aka clicks -> ad views.
The author of this piece worked at Bloomberg and CBC prior to her position as the Economics & Money editor at Vice.
> One interesting side note relates to the person driving these attacks, or at the least the author of the Facebook landing page - they linked it to their actual Facebook account, which is where the victim will land should they fall for the scam.
Is this based on any evidence or just an assumption? It seems to me that the 'actual Facebook account' could just as readily be either a random or intentional framing of someone else by the one(s) doing the phishing attack or the page designer, in which case it would appear that it worked perfectly in that it apparently convinced Akamai.
> I’ve created a set of three simple statements (with supporting references) that represent the fundamental arguments that brought me to veganism:
>It’s unnecessary for humans to consume animal products, i.e. we can thrive on a vegan diet [1, 2, 3].
> Consuming animal products is one of the largest individual contributions to climate change [4, 5, 6].
> Consuming animal products results in slaughtering ~75 billion sentient farm animals each year — animals that want to live [7, 8].
> Logically, from the above three points, it follows that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals.
Logically, this is textbook circular reasoning or a tautological fallacy. The author's three points are that consuming animal products is unnecessary and causes destruction to the environment as well as billions of sentient animals. To then say that the _exact same three things as the three points_ follow from those same three points is circular reasoning.
The article mentions that there are "even mixed color boards", does anyone have a photo of any? I did a cursory search and didn't see any, but am interested in how these looked.
What's striking is that nearly every one (with only a couple possible exceptions) of these photos show children and family occupants. Did single people (without kids) not live in these tenement blocks, or were in the overwhelmingly minority and these were mostly flats for housing family units? Or were singles just as common, but are not represented in the photographs?
Well, yes. This is true not just for independent journalists but for all people.