THE ESSENTIALS REPORT |
Today's Open Federal Communications Commission Meeting sparked high voltage conversations with adoptions of the agenda items from expanding reliable bandwidths to 13.25 megahertz to more security implementation to combat robocall scams. This meeting comes on the heels of a big tech market tumble so hopefully industry experts can learn what needs to be transmitted for recover. After all, broadband can't function on a faulty operating system, they must be reliable in hurricanes and hurdles of navigating through hotspot locations to simmering down the spread of any variants.
Resilient hardening networks was a common theme at today's meeting. Being able when disaster strikes is very critical and especially impactful for our communication systems which serve the community. Many of the Commissioners emphasized why the adoption of the notices of inquiry were important and Chairman Rosenworcel expressed on her trip to Puerto Rico a month after Hurrican Fiona, the FCC wanted to learn "how communication faired in those conditions, and it was clear more work to be done." They learned that restoration should be more rapid. During hurricane Maria, 5 years ago as a Commissioner Rosenworcel found that the urgency to connect was critical and that same area hit then was the same area affected by hurricane Fiona. Furthermore, not sure how communication has been or emergency response system in Florida from hurricane Julia, but the Commission may want to also consider Florida in that dataset. Caller-ID authentication was also an agenda item and raised a few concerns regarding non-internet protocol networks however, being able to identify any bad actors by matching information transmitted can curb the robocall scams. This agenda item had the support of all the Commissioners and Commissioner Car stated, "another step to further crack down on illegal robocalls, it has my support." Auto warranty scams are not alone in their bribery there has been an increase in Medicare insurance scams also since the Coronavirus pandemic. It was refreshing to learn the FCC will adopt caller ID methods which will authentic and match information to prevent scams. On October 27, 2020, Judge Glickman, Thompson, and Senior Judge Nebeker did not find the disclaimers of liability for inadvertent mistakes occurring in the use of its free video uploading platform so extreme or out of line with today's "mores and business practices" for online platforms as to be substantively unconscionable pertaining to a YouTube closed captioning. A tough act to follow or not when procedure is involved, but nonetheless "the Bureau is very busy" Chairman Jessica Rosenworcel expressed.
0 Comments
Re-examining the emotional connection to fashion and culture: Are you wearing your feelings?10/23/2022 Popping tags off a new shirt or taking a fresh pair of Air Force 1's out the box, makes anyone feel special but that isn't considered wearing your emotions. Fashion has always made a statement before New York Fashion Week runways. If we look back at history, fashion is one key element and factor to distinguish a class, society, ethnicity or culture. Fashion is a 13th century word which suggest physical make-up or composition, form, shape, appearance, and derived from an Old French word which means face, appearance, construction, pattern, design, thing done, manner, beauty, characteristic feature. The definitions or suggested meanings can go on but in the 21st century fashion has become a way to fight the social isms which plague the American societies.
During the days of Queen Nefertiti, gold was a fashion statement. And many adorn their crowns with a gold headdress or wore gold jewelry. Today, that trend still exists and has even expanded to include diamonds of all sorts, shapes and sizes. While in Indonesia I learned about the custom tradition wear which is Batik, a design and pattern of many small dots. The colors, patterns, and design are very traditional and also are representative of their provinces. Moreover, many people may have seen members of Congress adorn their necks with Kenti cloth, a fabric mostly worn in Africa, but has widespread appeal in North America. Recently, Ralph Lauren was called out because of disrespecting the custom wear of certain cultures in Mexico. So, the fashion threads can get really thin if the designer isn't careful in what mass appeal they're attempting to bring to the marketplace. Fashion has also found itself in a revolution climate and the mass appeal has ignited conversations that present some clashes in culture perception. What ever happened to style and grace? The Notorious BIG would like to know, considering he did start a song "to all the ladies in the place with style and grace"? The hoodie was the first garment that wasn't considered high fashion nor a great price point or fabric but the fact that little "Black" boys and teen in the United States were told not to wear them because of the killing of Trayvon Martin and the stigma it would place on them. That is until #wearamask mandates moved all across America not being able to see any facial expression in those fashions while facial recognition was at an all-time high for low density hotspot locations. Furthermore, many people did coordinate their #wearamask to match their wardrobe. Fashion has always been a part of ever ethnicity and culture no matter the socioeconomic background, because grandma knew how to sew. Most often on Sundays at the Baptist church, you can get to see the ladies in hats of various sizes, shapes, styles, and colors with their outfits, and men wearing suits and hats. And if it is Easter Sunday, then all the seer sucker and pastel fashions are coming out the closet. Throughout the years the fashion trends have changed but the style remains with those who gracefully manage it. The change is fashion has become more drastic than the designs intersecting with the isms which plague the American society now or are better spotted. It appears that many people will be dressing up in their high fashions to fight all the culture clashes garments are causing or is it the design that's the real issue? The fashion trends took a turn and tumble when the #MAGA (Make America Great Again) apparel reach mass appeal and the hat what the brands best seller. That fashion statement piece would later present a reason for people to question the greatness of America. Perhaps those who arrived in America during the global pandemic health emergency COVID-19 know how great America is, is why they're here. It didn't stop there! Families didn't want to dine with other members because of the fashion selections made. Moreover, depending on which design or wording the fashion item might sell out or be hard to sale. Once #BlackLivesMatter left the Facebook chats to become a social justice movement, apparel such as t-shirts and hats were made to support the movement. It hasn't been reported how much the phrase #BlackLivesMatter has made the fashion industry, but even a flag was born out of the movement. Moreover, it wasn't until a "White Lives Matter" t-shirt reached the Paris runways at a Balenciaga fashion show worn by Ye formerly known as Kanye West that many people would yell out in opposition to that style, and it shouldn't become a trend nor a fashion statement. Why not? Perhaps the freedom in having any taste for fashion isn't found in wearing the item nor expression but how expensive it was. Has fashion always caused such a culture clash and we couldn't see it? Or is it because more people have access to high fashion garments from stores like Fendi, Prada, Gucci, Balenciaga that it becomes a problem? The perception of fashion has changed not just in a culture context and setting but the reality of how style can be scrutinized if you send the wrong brand message. As long as you're shopping suppose your emotions are stable, it's just when you wear what you purchased presents a problem. What if you start making your own clothes to change the perception of what race should be able to wear a phrase for mass marketing appeal or sale? This would then present some concerns of oversaturating the fashion industry and then it wouldn't be any need to wear #BlackLivesMatter nor #WhiteLivesMatter because you are wearing what you made! Yes, fashion trends change but somehow the design still mimics a more passionate time and space that style was accepted and also was considered a distinctive characteristic. A style in the context of fashion is vintage and never expires. It's unfortunate not much grace is found in being able to wear designs that spark a little controversy not showing much bear skin. Who will continue to wear high fashions to engage in low budget conversations not being the change they want to see while the fashion designs change every season like the climate, but the same conditions of injustices still prevail and plague the American societies. Is this the cause for fashion? Are you spending money on expensive items to wear your feelings but can't have a reasonable conversation about the design if asked? Starting the 2022 calendar year off with a legal complaint against the United States Department of Education as it pertains to their educational lending standards is devastating and detours further future payments of student loans. What's even more peculiar is the process to reach the Attorney General who represents the United States Department of Education in its legal matters requires more than a Google search. Because so much is being built back better during the Biden-Harris Administration attempting to reach anyone of decency or accountability has very limited standard scope and essentially nonexistent with many referrals to websites or QR Code scans. A system only functions as best as its design and program operations. At the start of COVID-19 the education system in America despite the plethora of resources allocated during regular fiscal year budgets didn't have an effective program nor system design sufficient or sustainable to ensure and direct the outcomes of student's success through facilitating educational learning practices. The District of Columbia Public School systems and its clusters didn't want to digitally include Adobe software design as an option to being instrumental in a critical time of learning. They opt-out for a former Microsoft developers program format with not much finding of how students' records were managed, but it was possible Windows needed an update. That action then dictated a change in the curriculum and grading policy during the most critical learning time in America's history, virtual learning. That learning module was adopted then administered through a third-party with DC Public School perhaps having limited oversight and access to the students virtual learning records no matter how far the student went in completion of the assignment, a record of a login account should still be available. Considering a public health pandemic emergency was activated the availability and access to critical educational and learning resources were vastly restricted. There was no Starlink nor broadband service to negotiate spectrum with limited hotspot locations in rural areas so not much consideration nor cares for that need beyond ordering a happy meal from McDonald's in hope to connect to their Wi-Fi. Not much clarification nor commentary has been centered or catered to why leaving children behind during Coronavirus and COVID-19 was giving high priority with recommendations for future planning in, but nothing was present at such critical time which would ensure access to a child's education and the outcome was the entire education system failed many children enrolled in those schools. The messaging was cohesive and clear with #SocialDistance #Washhands #StayHome but no message to secure a learning environment conducive to the conditions of the city or state at the time of a global health public emergency pandemic. Stability, firmness of resolve, mental equilibrium or security are the basic building blocks for any structure and having some infrastructure to support that is how one builds a solid foundation. Parents are now left to pick up the pieces to make sure their child has the best education their city state has to offer as best as they know how with limited access to resources. Being ready is real regardless of any pandemic or global economic reset. It's like planning for snow days, the city administrators shouldn't treat the roads at snowfall but before the snow starts so it's chances of sticking to the cement creating a slippery black ice pile up is prevented. That's taking precaution and ensure the safety of those in that region or location. After all that is why those politicians get paid big bucks because they're always working on behalf of the people! From observation there was limited to no focus in preparing the education system for a public health emergency pandemic. Not even a drill looked to be done or was deemed necessary. There is so much to learn and grow from in the last 24 months which will determine the path of the education system in America. We should never place a child in a situation which would cause traumatic conditions which could affect and impact their growth and development. Where is the accountability as it pertains to the education system in America negligence not being fully accredited to provide adequate nor an effective education curriculum, learning material with limited access to resources further keeping the child in isolation while the learning standard is made up as best while the teacher is learning how to engage in virtual learning simultaneously. There was no policy nor procedure to ensure a child's success during Coronavirus nor COVID-19 and many children were left behind by automatic default system preparedness. Not certain parents had informed consent about that educational method. It is the sole responsibility and duty of a parent to ensure their child(ren) has the best education the city and state has to offer. And if they're socioeconomic background affords a more private and tailored learning educational style, they have that option to select from also. If a parent has been present in their child's education through participation, active and engage in their wellbeing as a priority, why would a system which had no back-up support during Coronavirus or COVID-19 attempt for regression of a pupil's education, if the mission of the education system is to ensure the success of students and not depriving them of an education? Success can only dwell or be incubated in progress not regression. It's no time for recess or play when the education system is look ridiculous right now. No amount of community partnerships can aide in that cleanup of no accountability present and limited to no access to critical education resources. Even the library was closed. The education systems discriminated against every child enrolled during Coronavirus and COVID-19 by not being prepared for virtual learning and exaggerating stressful conditions causing parents to create classrooms in their home with limited engagement from the teacher. Further attempting to accelerate learning across America restricting critical resources with limited access to a broadband connection. Moreover, teachers limited ability to utilize virtual learning tools created conditions to penalize the pupil for lack of education system preparedness in the presence of a pandemic to progress since that was the primary source for a change in course and curriculum. They deliberately designed a system leaving children behind during COVID-19 and that is an environmental justice concern. A scientific study or focus group case study would find that there's a strong possibility Washington, DC suffers from social media clouded syndrome. Lacking the ability to recall more than 240 calendar days of constituent services actions. Nor the ability to distinguish 240 characters even if Elon Musk has to make the Twitter bot wholesale deal for $44 billion. Their conduct has been in question with a markup of their measures to move on certain claims then act in a circus manner with no ring master, not civilized for a seat on Capitol Hill. What Washington forgot before Mansfield Declaration would enter the court records for Hill versus Google and YouTube is that Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati were originally retained for representing Alphabet Inc., the parents of the multinational corporations Google and YouTube. This was way before Google docs could arrive at the United States Supreme court docket. They were sent by the postal robots to Landcaster, Pennsylvania then rerouted back to Washington, how awful. Moreover, being mature in Big Tech litigation and mitigation matters assist in making the best decisions for 2023 with going back to the docket with Google in tow since Gonzales has entered the United States Supreme Court not a zoom chat. The statute of limitations on Big Tech civil action branch matters has been extended for 16 years which gives standing ground for Hill v Google rehearing at the United States Supreme Court. Entering The Twilight Zone Perhaps NBC being setup outside the United States Supreme Court on June 14, 2021, when they denied hearing the mysterious "what's up DC bitch girl maybe gel with," "simple technical glitch," case of Hill versus Google is what ushered in affording a big data opportunity for Gonzales to be granted due process of law. "Describe in detail all instances where any person engaged in Communication with You regarding the MGM video or the Dec 2016 Caption, including an identification of all persons involved in, description and dates of these Communication. Response No. 1: I sent an email to Brookings Institute, NBC: please see Oversight Committee on Technology: I sent an email to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Friday, July 21, 2017," documents served to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati on July 31, 2018. Furthermore, the "family glitch" business buzz didn't arrive at the White House until Obamacare reach a ten-year benchmark with limited coverage in 2022. In the matter of Gonzales versus Google, the case was brought forth in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania court back in 2006. It wouldn't be until April 6, 2022, the case would be docketed No. 21-1333 at the USSC with a June 22, 2022, decision date. US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has subpoenaed Google Inc. to compile a massive amount of information from Google's search index, and to turn over significant number of search queries entered by Google users. On March 14, 2006, the court held a hearing on the Government's motion. At the hearing scaled down the requested information it originally sought and gran00ted as to the sample of URLs from Google search index and DENIED as to the sample of users searched queries from Googles' query log. Google like AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft also provides search engine capabilities most widely used in about 45%. The search engine at Google yields URLs in response to a search query entered by a user. This also has some similarities in the civil action branch matter of Hill versus Google. "In addition to the foregoing General Objections, plaintiff objects to this Request as overly broad, burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. Plaintiff states that Defendants would be the best source of this information and that she is unable to provide an accurate answer to this question because it appears the amount of views are regulated based on which category of content the platform does not shill or subject to copyright claim disputes. Vie0ws also generate views based on viewer preference but not sure how the true and accurate amount of views generated is measured. Views can also increase if account holder is advertising a product in their content uploaded to YouTube," was the plaintiff's reply to Response No. 18. The initial subpoena to Google in the matter of Gonzales sought production of electronic file containing 2 general categories. First, requesting all URLs that are available to be located to a query on your company search engine. As of July 31, 2005, the government only seek 50,000 URLs at the time from Google's search index. Then the request was downsized to 5,000. Google's primarily argues that the information sought by the subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible in the underlying litigation and that production of information is unduly burdensome. Whether adult material exists on the internet could not seriously be contested by plaintiff with web content describing the slang terms "tea bagging" and "pearl necklace," in graphic detail (FAC at 43), or websites which contain numerous photographs of nude men and women in sexual poses with one another, and erotic stories that include graphic sexual scenes," (FAC at 34) such a reading of the complaint is also supported by the narrow question posed by Supreme Court to be answered on remand for trial on the merits. Based on the government statement that this information is to act as a "test set for the study" (Reply at 3:20) and a general statement that the purpose of the study is to "evaluate the effectiveness of content filtering software." The government disclose as to its planned categorization study is not particularly helpful in determining whether the sample of Google search index sought is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in the underlying litigation. Google argues that it faces an undue burden because it does not maintain search query on URL information in the ordinary course of business in the format requested by the Government. "Defendants have generally objected to Plaintiff's Interrogatories on the basis that the requests are not relevant to the needs of the case, seek the information of others or information that is more reasonably attainable from others, overbroad and unduly burdensome, call for proprietary, confidential, or trade secret information that may require a protective order and that they call for production of information that is precluded from discovery by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Defendents's cite the Electronic Communication Privacy Act as a general objection, however no personal information of any third party is requested by Plaintiff's Interrogatories at any point in the Discovery Request that would cause defendants to violate the privacy of any of Defendant's users. The interrogatory only requests the number of complaints Defendants have received by users of their service and no customer proprietary information is requested or required to answer these interrogatories. Plaintiff is more than happy to enter into a protective order with Defendant's to assist in having a thorough review of the record especially since a thorough review of Plaintiff's account will only help but illuminate the answers the questions that Plaintiff seeks to have answered. You have specifically objected to Interrogatories 5, 7, 19, and 19 on the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not proportional to the needs of the case, vague, calling for public information, assumes facts not in evidence and state that plaintiff has equal access to the information," according to the 2018 Hill v Google Meet and Conference. There is No Due Process in Law Because its Practice until Perfected Google's remaining trade secret argument is that despite the narrowness of the sample provided it would become entangled in the underlying litigation whether further discovery would risk trade secret disclosure. At oral arguments counsel for google acknowledge that samples from its proprietary search index and query log of 50,000 and 5,000 search queries are far less likely to lead to trade secrets disclose than the government originally request. At least Gonzales got that far because COVID-19 caused some calendar arrangements for Hill v. Google with no oral arguments. In Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group Inc., the 9th circuit inserted section 230 to mean that provider created emails are protected by section 230 if the emails are "tools meant to facilitate the Communication and Content of others," (934 F. 3d at 1098). It also held that section 230 protects websites when they display third-party content. Section 230 of the Communication Act really doesn't matter if you violate the 1934 Communications Act and Disability Rights Act along with infringing on the copyright of digital content creator through a "simple technical glitch" format. The court held that displaying videos related to users' input did not turn YouTube into the creator or developer of those videos "the complaint does not allege that Google" either created or developed ISIS content." According to Exhibit 2A in the civil action branch matter of Hill versus Google, Mansfield Declaration, in order to upload video content to YouTube, a user must have a YouTube account. And in order to create a YouTube account a user must accept Google's YouTube Terms of Service. The plaintiff did not agree to terms of being "simple technical glitch" out while using Google's YouTube video sharing and distribution service so there is a breach along with defamation, libel and negligence. Furthermore, oddly both the Plaintiff and the DC Superior Court have treated Plaintiff's claim for "libel and defamation" as a single claim for defamation. Plaintiff filed two causes of action for negligence and defamation and noting that the court would treat Plaintiff's separate claims for libel and defamation as one claim for defamation," according to Defendants appendix. The District Court opinions in Gonzales case analysis of Plaintiffs recommendation claim refer 13 times to "recommendations" or a variant but never uses the term "display." The petitioner did allege that YouTube was recommending videos created by ISIS is in the subsequent paragraph. There the court did not suggest that it thought recommend meant display or even use the term "display." The brief in opposition contends that the complaint was actually quite specific but defectively so. Although the complaint repeatedly asserted that YouTube recommended ISIS video the brief in opposition insists that what the attorney who drafted that allegation really meant to assert was only that YouTube was selecting which ISIS videos to display. What petitioner calls "targeted" recommendation are merely YouTube selection and arrangement of 3rd party content to display to users. That "targeted" phrase also is similar to the duly sworn oath statement given July 2018 by Plaintiff Hill. Gonzales challenged the district court's dismissal of 3 actions seeking damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act against Google, Facebook and Twitter on basis that defendant's social media platforms allowed ISIS to post video and other content to communicate the terrorist groups messages to radicalize new recruits and to general further its mission. Google place paid advertisement propriety to ISIS created content and shared the resulting ad revenue with ISIS. Before the Glitch Galvanizing Business Generated a Buzz for Google In 2006, not sure YouTube was this trendy and social media advertising friendly. Moreover, content creators didn't have to be bombarded with strikes on their account for content that is sensitive to the Terms of Service. While record labels licensing agreements with YouTube didn't generate so frequently copyright notices for 15 second instrumentals. Surely, hashtags weren't popular and social justice movements didn't have Google drive and momentum 16 years ago. The Google doodle was probably being discussed in the background to later markup as history milestone markers of remembrance for educational purposes and more. Moreover, in 2005, Ms. Hill was probably attending the University of Louisiana at Lafayette or Dillard University and broadband wasn't a discussion. But media synergy was the focus group study for KLFY TV a Lafayette Louisiana news station. What automatically prompt the United States Supreme Court to take on Big tech in 2022 a month before election time? They'd been denying certain American's their Constitutional right of due process of law. Is it because they found an alternative router for holding Google accountable for their behavior and unlawful acts of deception and manipulation? Google probably didn't have a Google play pick for pony show thrills to roam Washington and other states in 2005 like they had in 2016-2021. What predictive programming software could've recommended Obama's Brother's Keeper and former Department of Justice Deputy Roy Austin, Jr. as a defense lawyer for Google providing Ex-parte backup tech support to Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati to runner back on in 2022 to defend Google again? As Jack did when he entered the court on September 22, 2017, in the DC Superior Court room, when number 5 was called. After his 3rd appearance an opportunity at the Department of Justice Anti-trust division was filled by the former Google defense attorney. Does he go by John Q, Jack Mellyn, or just the jack of Antitrust adhesion bargains for big tech spacious seats at the Department of Justice? No special interest groups that pretended to advocate for the deaf and hard of hearing were around in 2005. Nor any of these culture cult societies that stomp and throw up signs while strolling campus yards which hijacked the case and make it as if nothing ever occurred since 2016. Then 16 years later just randomly show up at the United States Supreme Court for justice found in Section 230. What 69 position sex appeal grants one, decency gets denied. Justice is often found in the thread sheet count of social justice movements. #DontNeedtoGel What is generally obvious in the case of Hill versus Google is that the DC Superior Court must have missed the case caption from March 2005 in the Gonzales matter because the stack of papers Judge Holeman held up in the court room back in 2018 didn't allude nor disclose that case. Nonetheless, Gonzales didn't have to worry about any judges invoking Tik Tok into Google's legal affairs in 2005 despite them posing a national security threat in 2020. The DC Court of Appeals wouldn't accept that challenge and privilege until 2020. On July 2, 2018, Defendants which include the current lawyers at the Supreme court defending Google Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati sought summary judgement of the claims set forth in Plaintiff's amended complaint. After Hill verses Google case was filed many multinational corporations structure automatically switched. During the chill of October around 2019 it was mitigating bias brought into the halls of Congress by Al Sharpton's National Action Network supported and backed by New York Congresswoman Clarke's algorithm bill for the FTC to regulate and oversee. What's most mystical and fascinating without predictive programming or mind craft games, the plaintiff didn't discover until 16 years later that Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati would reenter the court to represent the same client they were adamant in denying a fair and speedy trial while performing all sorts of procedural tricks for big tech seats. The ex-parte below the bar experience and cheap carpet but big campaign contribution proprietors wouldn't come in for big tech back up support until Jack, John or John Q had a seat in the DC Superior Court February 2, 2018. Moreover, the big data algorithms and opportunity in civil rights allege co-author data under the direction of John Podesta wouldn't be the discussed again until its use in July 2018 when Plaintiff was duly sworn under oath against Google Inc. et al, and YouTube Inc., et al in the law office of Harris Wiltshire and Grannis. Roaming comes with a surcharge and T-Mobile can provide that data, so to determine it was ok to abuse, torture, create false child neglect claims to destroy her unique family structure because bad actors' networks mobilized to cyberattack an American woman and journalist through electronic media closed captioning. Furthermore, that terrible action has adverse consequences that many in Washington have yet to comprehend but let's circle back to December 9, 2016, before or after the UN Arbitrary Treaty was read. |
AuthorWelcome to the Mindy Jo News Show presents: The Essentials Report, examining the world through an environmental justice lens. Archives
April 2024
Categories |