Dan Lipka Web Log

In a recent post,  I wrote about the very significant dangers of removing the filibuster from the US Senate. Thinking about it further, I know realize that if the Democrats don't remove the filibuster, the next time the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and Presidency, they will 100% get rid of the filibuster. It was shocking that it didn't happen during Trump's first term and they won't miss that opportunity again. Knowing this, Democrats have two options. The one I think it best for the country would be to enact a law that will keep the filibuster for another 20 years. After 15 years, the Congress would have to vote on what will happen after that law expires. If they don't do this, they should get rid of the filibuster as soon as possible. In 2022, the Republicans have a very good chance of winning a majority in the House and there would be deadlock once again. Take these two years to enact meaningful changes in voting rights, immigration, campaign financ

I'm astonished that the world isn't doing something to prevent (or at least manage) deepfakes . Currently, technology can distinguish between real videos and deepfakes, but that won't last long (perhaps a few years). At that time, there will be a video showing something extremely incriminating. The defense will just say the video is fake and put the burden of proof on the world to prove it is real. The defense will than create dozens of fake versions of the video showing different people involved. Without a way of discerning which is real, will this be the end of video evidence (voice manipulation will be just easy in the near future making audio evidence irrelevant).  To avoid (or at least delay) this problem, there must be a technological standard that functional designates video as unmodified. Furthermore, modified videos have to make it clear that it is modified (failure to do so must result in significant fines or even imprisonment). This also must include the severest

The US Senate is considering removing the Filibuster, which basically requires 60 votes to pass any legislation (instead of 51 votes, which is a majority). Although removing the Filibuster would allow the Democrats to pass sweeping legislation, it is a terribly dangerous precedent. We are only a slight demographic shift (or crisis) away from the Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in four years. Imagine the turmoil it would cause for all the massive legislations the Democrats just enacted to not only be removed, but to be replaced with something as drastic on the other side of the political spectrum. It would be terrible for the country to have such dramatic shifts on a somewhat regular basis, and would exacerbate the pollical divide even more. Yes, the Filibuster slows down much needed reforms, but it also prevents significant problems. The laws and our budget are supposed to reflect the needs and desires of the whole country and if you can't manage