From brianhray at gmail.com Tue Aug 1 16:15:16 2017 From: brianhray at gmail.com (Brian Ray) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:15:16 -0400 Subject: [Chicago] Host ChiPy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for all the positive support on this. Good news, ProcuredHealth has come to our rescue. *When:* Aug. 10, 2017, 6 p.m. *Where:* ProcuredHealth 33 N LaSalle Chicago, IL 60602 Looking forward to the best meeting ever. Please let's not hesitate if you have a venue. We need to get better ahead of this to ensure we always have a space. Keep the offers coming! It's value members like you who keep ChiPy rocking forward. See you on the 10th! Regards, Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brianhray at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 13:47:44 2017 From: brianhray at gmail.com (Brian Ray) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:47:44 -0400 Subject: [Chicago] PolyGlot Mingle 2017 Message-ID: This is the Meetup / Event that you don't want to miss. ChiPy has partnered with CJUG and the ChicagoRuby user groups to bring a new Polyglot Mingle Party! Come Join us this August 17th to some food, drinks, and overall geeking out at one of the largest tech community parties here in Chicago. Talk to our members, or learn a little about other languages (like Ruby, Java, .net, devops) and get to make new connections, talk about what you do, learn what is happening in the Tech industry in Chicago and overall have a great time! The best part, it's Free for members! our little way to say thank you for being part of this great community. But space is limited, so hurry up and sign-up! You don't want to miss the boat on this one Go to http://chicagopolyglot.com/ and RSVP under ChiPy Hope to see you all there! -- Brian Ray @brianray (773) 669-7717 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lee at thisismetis.com Thu Aug 3 16:40:58 2017 From: lee at thisismetis.com (Lee Ngo) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:40:58 -0700 Subject: [Chicago] Sign up for Demystifying Data Science: A FREE Live Online Conference on 9/27! Message-ID: *Are you data-curious? An aspiring data scientist?* Metis is launching Demystifying Data Science: A FREE Live Online Conference from 10:00 am to 10:00 pm (ET). Over 25 top-level speakers in the field will discuss the training, the tools, and the career path needed to achieve the "best job in the United States." *Demystifying Data Science will also feature the following*: - Live talks of 18-minutes each followed by Q&A - Interactivity involving real-time chat, worldwide Q&A, polling, and sharing - Replay for those who sign up and wish to access content later Interested in sponsoring? Click here to learn more about our offerings. *Read more about the event and get updated below*: https://thisismetis.com/demystify *To register for the free conference, please go to the following link to apply*: https://bit.ly/demystifying-data-science-signup Questions? Email Siobhan at siobhan at thisismetis.com. ''' *Lee Ngo* | National Data Science Evangelist |* Metis* *Voicemail:* (971) 220-5472 | *Schedule:* calendly.com/lee-metis *Connect:* linkedin.com/in/leengo | *Follow: *twitter.com/LeePNgo *Accelerate your data science career. Learn more at thisismetis.com * *Join our international community here! bit.ly/metis-community-slack * *Sign up for Demystifying Data Science, an FREE live online conference: thisismetis.com/demystify * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brianhray at gmail.com Thu Aug 3 22:05:27 2017 From: brianhray at gmail.com (Brian Ray) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:05:27 -0400 Subject: [Chicago] [Chicago-organizers] [Partner Invite] Crunching the Numbers: Launch a Career in Data (8/23/17) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Teresa: We don't currently have a relationship with GA. Would love to discuss with you sponsorship opportunities. Are you the correct person to approach on this matter? Brian On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Teresa Sandoval < teresa.sandoval at generalassemb.ly> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > I hope this email finds you doing well! > > General Assembly is planning our Q3 schedule and I wanted to reach out to > see if you'd be interested in partnering up on the following event, which I > think ChiPy would be great for! > > - > > *Crunching the Numbers: How to Launch a Career in Data* > > *:* August 23 > > As an event partner, we're looking at: > > - *Estimated Attendance:* 50-100 > - *Ask of Promotional Partner:* Provide one speaker (either a panelist > of moderator), share the event in two email newsletter sends, share on > social media channels at least twice prior to the event > - *General Assembly will:* Promote ChiPy our emails (50K), the event > page, marketing materials, and social media. We can have a marketing table > available to you during the event, if that is of interest. Additionally, > the option to have someone from your team give a 1 minute pitch during the > event introduction. > > Please let me know if you're interested or would like to hop on a call to > chat further. > > Thanks! > Teresa > > > *Teresa Sandoval* | *Chicago* > *Local Marketing & CWE Producer* > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago-organizers mailing list > Chicago-organizers at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago-organizers > > -- Brian Ray @brianray (773) 669-7717 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe.jasinski at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 09:31:00 2017 From: joe.jasinski at gmail.com (Joe Jasinski) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:31:00 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] ChiPy August 2017 Meeting Message-ID: Hey all, ChiPy's August meeting is almost here. We have some good talks lined up this month. Hope to see you there! *When:*Thursday August 10th 6:00pm: Doors open; food arrives 7:00pm: Talks Start promptly at 7 *How:*You can rsvp at chipy.org or via our Meetup group. *Where:* ProcuredHealth 33 N LaSalle Chicago, IL 60602 After entering the building, check in with security and go down one level to The Vault. *What:* - *Selenium: Doing Magic with Websites Using Python* By: Seth Weidman Experience Level: Intermediate Selenium is an excellent package that lets you dynamically interact with websites right from your Jupyter Notebook. At Metis, we teach Selenium early in our bootcamp. We have a great Selenium tutorial that involves lets you make a reservation on OpenTable using Python. In addition, several students have already completed excellent projects using Selenium. During this talk, Seth Weidman, a Senior Data Science Instructor at Metis, as well as the following two current Metis students [TO BE DETERMINED] will be presenting the projects that they just completed. - *Tracking FCC bots with Python* By: Chris Sinchok Experience Level: Novice I've been doing a bunch of analysis on the recent FCC public comments in Python (https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc). Due to this work, I was quoted in Gizmodo, Ars Technica, and the BBC. I'd like to talk about how I approached this problem, how Python helped make sense of my findings, and what my conclusions are. - *Fortune-Telling with Python: An Intro to Time Series Modeling * By: Jonathan Balaban Experience Level: Intermediate Description: a pythonic tour of time series methodologies and packages, including ARIMA, seasonal models, and Markov approaches. Intermediate level with basic statistics and time data familiarity required. Bio: Jonathan Balaban is a senior data scientist, strategy consultant, and entrepreneur with ten years of private, public, and philanthropic experience. He currently teaches business professionals and leaders the art of impact-focused, practical data science at Metis. Thank you always to all our sponsors, including our Diamond sponsor: Metis. Also thank you to our Platinum sponsors: Braintree, Imaginary Landscape, Signature Consultants, and Telnyx. Please be aware of our code of conduct http://www.chipy.org/pages/conduct/ -- Joe J. Jasinski www.joejasinski.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at sinchok.com Fri Aug 11 11:21:52 2017 From: chris at sinchok.com (Chris Sinchok) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:21:52 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! Message-ID: Hey All, Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc For further reading on this issue: http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I am pretty obsessed with. Chris Sinchok -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 12:26:15 2017 From: mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com (Michael Tamillow) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:26:15 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of comments. Do we live in 1960? One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com, but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil " but it seems they have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok wrote: > Hey All, > > Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. > > If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: > https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation > > My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@ > csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc > > For further reading on this issue: > > http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html > https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those- > identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e > http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality- > commenters-compete-1795095982 > > For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I > am pretty obsessed with. > > > Chris Sinchok > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foresmac at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 12:31:37 2017 From: foresmac at gmail.com (Chris Foresman) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:31:37 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. Chris Foresman foresmac at gmail.com > On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow wrote: > > I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of comments. Do we live in 1960? > > One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com, but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? > > http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ > http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 > > Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil " but it seems they have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok > wrote: > Hey All, > > Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. > > If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation > > My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc > > For further reading on this issue: > > http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html > https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e > http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 > > For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I am pretty obsessed with. > > > Chris Sinchok > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 12:41:02 2017 From: mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com (Michael Tamillow) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:41:02 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal movie. Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on the defense that Title 2 protects them. Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing it adequately. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: > You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of > Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. > > > Chris Foresman > foresmac at gmail.com > > > > > On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow > wrote: > > I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like > your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the > level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of > comments. Do we live in 1960? > > One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which > is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com , but > they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. > Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort > people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an > omelette, right? > > http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ > http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found- > missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 > > Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil > " but it seems they have > succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's > right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok wrote: > >> Hey All, >> >> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >> >> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >> >> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin >> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >> >> For further reading on this issue: >> >> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical >> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm >> enters-compete-1795095982 >> >> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I >> am pretty obsessed with. >> >> >> Chris Sinchok >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at sinchok.com Fri Aug 11 12:46:58 2017 From: chris at sinchok.com (Chris Sinchok) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey Mike, My code is on github here: https://github.com/csinchok/fcc-comment-analysis. It's really pretty simple--just some basic crawling and tagging. You're right that the level of sophistication is pretty low. I don't think they were expecting to get caught, as the FCC doesn't seem to care about the botting. If anything, they would like to include these comments in the record. However, since there was some PR around this issue, the bots have gotten more sophisticated. I haven't ever heard of any connection with Title II and human trafficking. Title II basically prevents ISP's from slowing/blocking content from specific sources. Are you sure you're not thinking of a different Title II? https://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/61106.htm - Chris On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like > your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the > level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of > comments. Do we live in 1960? > > One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which > is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com, but they repeatedly deny it > because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites > that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. > You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? > > http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ > http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found- > missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 > > Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil > " but it seems they have > succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's > right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok wrote: > >> Hey All, >> >> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >> >> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >> >> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin >> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >> >> For further reading on this issue: >> >> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical >> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm >> enters-compete-1795095982 >> >> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I >> am pretty obsessed with. >> >> >> Chris Sinchok >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foresmac at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 12:50:47 2017 From: foresmac at gmail.com (Chris Foresman) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:50:47 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the reasoning behind such an incredible claim. Chris Foresman foresmac at gmail.com > On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow wrote: > > It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal movie. > > Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on the defense that Title 2 protects them. > > Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing it adequately. > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman > wrote: > You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. > > > Chris Foresman > foresmac at gmail.com > > > > >> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow > wrote: >> >> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of comments. Do we live in 1960? >> >> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com , but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >> >> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >> >> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil " but it seems they have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok > wrote: >> Hey All, >> >> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >> >> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >> >> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >> >> For further reading on this issue: >> >> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 >> >> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I am pretty obsessed with. >> >> >> Chris Sinchok >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 13:04:15 2017 From: mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com (Michael Tamillow) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:04:15 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for everybody's true interests. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: > I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving Backpage, > I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. I believe > they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe harbor > provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can > ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a > movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the > reasoning behind such an incredible claim. > > > Chris Foresman > foresmac at gmail.com > > > > > On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow > wrote: > > It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal > movie. > > Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on > the defense that Title 2 protects them. > > Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing it > adequately. > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman > wrote: > >> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of >> Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >> >> >> Chris Foresman >> foresmac at gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < >> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like >> your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the >> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of >> comments. Do we live in 1960? >> >> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which >> is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com , >> but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. >> Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort >> people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an >> omelette, right? >> >> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing- >> daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >> >> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil >> " but it seems they have >> succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's >> right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok >> wrote: >> >>> Hey All, >>> >>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>> >>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>> >>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin >>> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>> >>> For further reading on this issue: >>> >>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical >>> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm >>> enters-compete-1795095982 >>> >>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic >>> I am pretty obsessed with. >>> >>> >>> Chris Sinchok >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at personnelware.com Fri Aug 11 13:08:45 2017 From: carl at personnelware.com (Carl Karsten) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:08:45 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: somewhat related: http://youtu.be/p0iIMDC5BT8 InvestiGator by Eric Schles How I use Python to fight slavery. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > > You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. > > I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for everybody's true interests. > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: >> >> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >> >> >> Chris Foresman >> foresmac at gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal movie. >> >> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >> >> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing it adequately. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: >>> >>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>> >>> >>> Chris Foresman >>> foresmac at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of comments. Do we live in 1960? >>> >>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com, but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>> >>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>> >>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil" but it seems they have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey All, >>>> >>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>> >>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>> >>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>> >>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>> >>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 >>>> >>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Sinchok >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > -- Carl K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prometheus235 at gmail.com Sat Aug 12 11:37:03 2017 From: prometheus235 at gmail.com (Nick Timkovich) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had seven titles. Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not sure how is connected. Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point to the specific section you're referring to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/ Nick On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to > Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. > > I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who > can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for > everybody's true interests. > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman > wrote: > >> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving >> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. >> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe >> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can >> ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a >> movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the >> reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >> >> >> Chris Foresman >> foresmac at gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow < >> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal >> movie. >> >> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on >> the defense that Title 2 protects them. >> >> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing >> it adequately. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman >> wrote: >> >>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of >>> Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>> >>> >>> Chris Foresman >>> foresmac at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks >>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the >>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of >>> comments. Do we live in 1960? >>> >>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, >>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com >>> , but they repeatedly deny it because they hide >>> behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung >>> up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a >>> few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>> >>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing- >>> daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>> >>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil >>> " but it seems they have >>> succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's >>> right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey All, >>>> >>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>> >>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>> >>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin >>>> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>> >>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>> >>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical >>>> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm >>>> enters-compete-1795095982 >>>> >>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic >>>> I am pretty obsessed with. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Sinchok >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com Sat Aug 12 14:51:14 2017 From: mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com (Michael Tamillow) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:51:14 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I? John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest. Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to comment on the FCC website anyways... Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich wrote: > > It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had seven titles. > > Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not sure how is connected. > > Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point to the specific section you're referring to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/ > > Nick > >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. >> >> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for everybody's true interests. >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: >>> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >>> >>> >>> Chris Foresman >>> foresmac at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >>>> >>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal movie. >>>> >>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >>>> >>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing it adequately. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: >>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of comments. Do we live in 1960? >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com, but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>>>>> >>>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil" but it seems they have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok wrote: >>>>>>> Hey All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris Sinchok >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prometheus235 at gmail.com Sat Aug 12 20:52:05 2017 From: prometheus235 at gmail.com (Nick Timkovich) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 19:52:05 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now. Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!" Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can?t ?make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.? Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven. On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues > relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of > reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I? > > John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the > issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though > I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest. > > Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet > service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to > comment on the FCC website anyways... > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich > wrote: > > It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The > argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net > neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to > stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the > Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had > seven titles. > > Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the > "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not > sure how is connected. > > Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the Code > of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the rules > it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM > bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point > to the specific section you're referring to: https://www.law.cornell. > edu/cfr/text/47/ > > Nick > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow < > mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to >> Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. >> >> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who >> can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for >> everybody's true interests. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman >> wrote: >> >>> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving >>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. >>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe >>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can >>> ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a >>> movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the >>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >>> >>> >>> Chris Foresman >>> foresmac at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal >>> movie. >>> >>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit >>> on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >>> >>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing >>> it adequately. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications >>>> of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Foresman >>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks >>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the >>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of >>>> comments. Do we live in 1960? >>>> >>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, >>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com >>>> , but they repeatedly deny it because they hide >>>> behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung >>>> up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a >>>> few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>>> >>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing- >>>> daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>>> >>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil >>>> " but it seems they >>>> have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind >>>> what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it >>>> changed. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey All, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>>> >>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>>> >>>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin >>>>> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>>> >>>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>>> >>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical >>>>> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm >>>>> enters-compete-1795095982 >>>>> >>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a >>>>> topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Sinchok >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com Sat Aug 12 23:38:40 2017 From: mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com (Michael Tamillow) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 22:38:40 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think it's a wash. Is Netflix bound by some code of ethics not to take advantage of rules in their favor? Weren't they putting an excessive burden on ISPs by their service at on point? Netflix is also another gigantic company. Is there really any way the average person won't get screwed? Either way, I'll probably just go with the flow. I wouldn't be wholly dissatisfied if all smartphones imploded or the internet ceased to exist and people suddenly had to look at each other on the train. Although, I'd probably be out of a living... kind of a Catch-22. On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Nick Timkovich wrote: > Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of > hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies > like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply > with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into > providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting > internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per > subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now. > > Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor > services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit > connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but > unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to > Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!" > Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can?t > ?make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, > classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.? > > Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and > we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven. > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow < > mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues >> relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of >> reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I? >> >> John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the >> issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though >> I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest. >> >> Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet >> service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to >> comment on the FCC website anyways... >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich >> wrote: >> >> It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The >> argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net >> neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to >> stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the >> Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had >> seven titles. >> >> Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the >> "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not >> sure how is connected. >> >> Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the >> Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the >> rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM >> bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point >> to the specific section you're referring to: https://www.law.cornell.ed >> u/cfr/text/47/ >> >> Nick >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow < >> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to >>> Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. >>> >>> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who >>> can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for >>> everybody's true interests. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving >>>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. >>>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe >>>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can >>>> ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a >>>> movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the >>>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris Foresman >>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal >>>> movie. >>>> >>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit >>>> on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >>>> >>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing >>>> it adequately. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications >>>>> of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks >>>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the >>>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of >>>>> comments. Do we live in 1960? >>>>> >>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, >>>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com >>>>> , but they repeatedly deny it because they >>>>> hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have >>>>> sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to >>>>> crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing- >>>>> daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>>>> >>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil >>>>> " but it seems they >>>>> have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind >>>>> what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it >>>>> changed. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >>>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>>>> >>>>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin >>>>>> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>>>> >>>>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical >>>>>> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm >>>>>> enters-compete-1795095982 >>>>>> >>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a >>>>>> topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Sinchok >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zitterbewegung at gmail.com Sat Aug 12 23:42:28 2017 From: zitterbewegung at gmail.com (Joshua Herman) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I believe that Netflix and or Google have edge servers inside of ISPs now. On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:39 PM Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's a wash. Is Netflix bound by some code of ethics not to take > advantage of rules in their favor? Weren't they putting an excessive burden > on ISPs by their service at on point? Netflix is also another gigantic > company. Is there really any way the average person won't get screwed? > > Either way, I'll probably just go with the flow. I wouldn't be wholly > dissatisfied if all smartphones imploded or the internet ceased to exist > and people suddenly had to look at each other on the train. Although, I'd > probably be out of a living... kind of a Catch-22. > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Nick Timkovich > wrote: > >> Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of >> hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies >> like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply >> with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into >> providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting >> internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per >> subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now. >> >> Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor >> services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit >> connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but >> unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to >> Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!" >> Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can?t >> ?make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, >> classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.? >> >> Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and >> we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven. >> >> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow < >> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues >>> relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of >>> reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I? >>> >>> John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the >>> issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though >>> I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest. >>> >>> Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet >>> service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to >>> comment on the FCC website anyways... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich >>> wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The >>> argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net >>> neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to >>> stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the >>> Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had >>> seven titles. >>> >>> Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the >>> "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not >>> sure how is connected. >>> >>> Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the >>> Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the >>> rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM >>> bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point >>> to the specific section you're referring to: >>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/ >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow < >>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to >>>> Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. >>>> >>>> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who >>>> can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for >>>> everybody's true interests. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving >>>>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. >>>>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe >>>>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can >>>>> ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a >>>>> movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the >>>>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a >>>>> legal movie. >>>>> >>>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit >>>>> on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >>>>> >>>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not >>>>> preventing it adequately. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications >>>>>> of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks >>>>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the >>>>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of >>>>>> comments. Do we live in 1960? >>>>>> >>>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, >>>>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com >>>>>> , but they repeatedly deny it because they >>>>>> hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have >>>>>> sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to >>>>>> crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>>>>> >>>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil >>>>>> " but it seems they >>>>>> have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind >>>>>> what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it >>>>>> changed. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >>>>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My original blog post is here: >>>>>>> https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a >>>>>>> topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris Sinchok >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com Sun Aug 13 13:37:21 2017 From: mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com (Michael Tamillow) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:37:21 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Josh, can you speak more to that? Do they only have to provide edge servers for some (major) ISPs, or is it an equal representation to all ISPs? What about smaller, growing companies? Is there some provision about when and how to provide edge servers, or is it a vague requirement? > On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:42 PM, Joshua Herman wrote: > > I believe that Netflix and or Google have edge servers inside of ISPs now. >> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:39 PM Michael Tamillow wrote: >> I think it's a wash. Is Netflix bound by some code of ethics not to take advantage of rules in their favor? Weren't they putting an excessive burden on ISPs by their service at on point? Netflix is also another gigantic company. Is there really any way the average person won't get screwed? >> >> Either way, I'll probably just go with the flow. I wouldn't be wholly dissatisfied if all smartphones imploded or the internet ceased to exist and people suddenly had to look at each other on the train. Although, I'd probably be out of a living... kind of a Catch-22. >> >>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Nick Timkovich wrote: >>> Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now. >>> >>> Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!" Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can?t ?make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.? >>> >>> Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven. >>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >>>> So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I? >>>> >>>> John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest. >>>> >>>> Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to comment on the FCC website anyways... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had seven titles. >>>>> >>>>> Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not sure how is connected. >>>>> >>>>> Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point to the specific section you're referring to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/ >>>>> >>>>> Nick >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >>>>>> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for everybody's true interests. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: >>>>>>> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal movie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing it adequately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman wrote: >>>>>>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of comments. Do we live in 1960? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com, but they repeatedly deny it because they hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>>>>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil" but it seems they have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it changed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hey All, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>>>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>>>>>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Chris Sinchok >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zitterbewegung at gmail.com Sun Aug 13 18:28:32 2017 From: zitterbewegung at gmail.com (Joshua Herman) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 22:28:32 +0000 Subject: [Chicago] Thanks for having me! In-Reply-To: References: <00683C5B-738E-41BB-A8A4-2C17A7C274A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: If you have $$$ and users that want a fast experience and those users use a bunch of bandwidth sure . Small growing companies would use someone?s other CDN. Also it?s only a narrow set of companies that would even require this . https://peering.google.com/#/ http://www.networkworld.com/article/2222558/smb/netflix-goes-to-the-edge-of-the-internet.html On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 12:38 PM Michael Tamillow < mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > Josh, can you speak more to that? Do they only have to provide edge > servers for some (major) ISPs, or is it an equal representation to all ISPs? > > What about smaller, growing companies? Is there some provision about when > and how to provide edge servers, or is it a vague requirement? > > > On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:42 PM, Joshua Herman > wrote: > > I believe that Netflix and or Google have edge servers inside of ISPs now. > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:39 PM Michael Tamillow < > mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think it's a wash. Is Netflix bound by some code of ethics not to take >> advantage of rules in their favor? Weren't they putting an excessive burden >> on ISPs by their service at on point? Netflix is also another gigantic >> company. Is there really any way the average person won't get screwed? >> >> Either way, I'll probably just go with the flow. I wouldn't be wholly >> dissatisfied if all smartphones imploded or the internet ceased to exist >> and people suddenly had to look at each other on the train. Although, I'd >> probably be out of a living... kind of a Catch-22. >> >> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Nick Timkovich >> wrote: >> >>> Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of >>> hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies >>> like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply >>> with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into >>> providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting >>> internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per >>> subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now. >>> >>> Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor >>> services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit >>> connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but >>> unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to >>> Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!" >>> Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can?t >>> ?make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, >>> classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.? >>> >>> Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and >>> we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven. >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow < >>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues >>>> relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of >>>> reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I? >>>> >>>> John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of >>>> the issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. >>>> Though I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest. >>>> >>>> Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet >>>> service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to >>>> comment on the FCC website anyways... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. >>>> The argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net >>>> neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to >>>> stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the >>>> Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had >>>> seven titles. >>>> >>>> Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the >>>> "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not >>>> sure how is connected. >>>> >>>> Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the >>>> Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the >>>> rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM >>>> bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point >>>> to the specific section you're referring to: >>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/ >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow < >>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related >>>>> to Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is. >>>>> >>>>> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those >>>>> who can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for >>>>> everybody's true interests. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I?ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving >>>>>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II ?protects? them. >>>>>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe >>>>>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can >>>>>> ?protect? them from abetting human trafficking? I?m not asking to watch a >>>>>> movie on the subject, and I don?t think it?s unfair to explain the >>>>>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a >>>>>> legal movie. >>>>>> >>>>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every >>>>>> lawsuit on the defense that Title 2 protects them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not >>>>>> preventing it adequately. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the >>>>>>> implications of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris Foresman >>>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow < >>>>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks >>>>>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the >>>>>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of >>>>>>> comments. Do we live in 1960? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking, >>>>>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com >>>>>>> , but they repeatedly deny it because they >>>>>>> hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have >>>>>>> sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to >>>>>>> crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil >>>>>>> " but it seems they >>>>>>> have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind >>>>>>> what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it >>>>>>> changed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hey All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here: >>>>>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My original blog post is here: >>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@csinchok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For further reading on this issue: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical-comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-commenters-compete-1795095982 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a >>>>>>>> topic I am pretty obsessed with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Chris Sinchok >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Chicago mailing list >>>>> Chicago at python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chicago mailing list >>>> Chicago at python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chicago mailing list >>> Chicago at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Chicago mailing list >> Chicago at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago >> > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > > _______________________________________________ > Chicago mailing list > Chicago at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raymondwberg at gmail.com Mon Aug 14 21:45:29 2017 From: raymondwberg at gmail.com (Ray Berg) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:45:29 -0500 Subject: [Chicago] Mentorship Program Extension Message-ID: Hey folks, We got a request or two to extend the Mentorship program application window which closed last night. Since we are super nice and have the power of Python at our finger tips....we're going to do it! chipymentor.org/portal You have until tomorrow (Tuesday, 8/14) at noon (Central time) to get in your Mentorship applications. This goes for Mentors and Mentees. After that, I rack and stack as we prepare for our selection process. Turn your `Draft` into `Submitted` to get a chance at this Fall's program. Tell your last-minute friends and family about this last chance! Respectfully, Ray Berg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screenshot 2017-08-14 20.42.45.png Type: image/png Size: 93743 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dinaldo at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 16:25:06 2017 From: dinaldo at gmail.com (Don Sheu) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:25:06 -0700 Subject: [Chicago] Telnyx API Message-ID: Hey folks, I saw Telnyx's API is up. Wondering if anybody has tried it out. -- Don Sheu 312.880.9389 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My Python user group convenes every month 2nd Wednesdays http://www.meetup.com/PSPPython/events/232708762/ *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*: *The information contained in this message may be protected trade secrets or protected by applicable intellectual property laws of the United States and International agreements. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: