You have to remember it is the average person, who is uncomfortable with the homeless, driving the police to arrests like this. Those people are on juries, too.
* No lips, so as to not leak secrets. * Spies on everyone, even Ken. * Has a form letter to be given to deny all FOIA requests. * Has a Constitution carpet to wipe her feet on. * Has a heap of documents, all fully redacted. * Package includes a cardboard cutout Senator doll in boot-licking position. * Package contains a folding cardboard zettabyte data center. * Package contains a folding cardboard work center with neon blue lighting. * Automatically takes over every wireless device in your house. * Trains your child to be a citizen "helper". * Reports all findings to the real NSA.
All this intense resistance can only mean one thing: The capabilities of the Stingray are far beyond what has been hinted and will create a firestorm if exposed.
The capability most likely being concealed is that Stingray permits recording of all voice calls, without a warrant.
Possible other capabilities: Take over any phone, turn on any phone microphone, download software onto any phone, more?
Make up your own. The point is: they are concealing something that will raise alarms with everyone. There's no other reasonable explanation for this fight-to-the-death protection of the secrets of Stingray.
Now just what I want to know is: Where y'all been?
All this heat over surveillance has not been about the three-letter agencies watching foreigners. It's been about those agencies watching U.S. citizens, which is supposed to be illegal under the constitution.
- All the best technology they've built has been built to be used against U.S. citizens. - All the exceptions to the law they've sought have been so they could watch U.S. citizens. - The data they have collected has mostly been from surveillance on U.S. citizens. - The legal techniques they've invented, like parallel construction, were developed to be applied against U.S. citizens. - The torture they developed...well, I'm sure they intended to use it on U.S. citizens, but then the infernal politics got in the way.
It's really not possible to tell if they give a rat's whisker about watching any particular foreigner. But everything we've seen, that has raised a concern, demonstrates that their surveillance is primarily drected at U.S. citizens.
Why would anyone wonder, "why the following news makes so little sense." It doesn't make "little sense"; it makes perfect sense.
"This question ('Have you EVER been a member of an organization that advocates or practices commission of acts of force or violence to discourage others from exercising their rights under the U.S. Constitution or any state of the United states with the specific intent to further such action?') seems to disqualify nearly every law enforcement officer in the United States."
This is a qualifying question, not a disqualifying question. If you check "yes", it proves your're a LEO, so you're automatically qualified.
I'm wondering if that document linked isn't explicitly literal: That the government's original warrant said exactly the ranges specified in the document (such as "30 days following the first posting"); and that Google was not told what the posting dates were.
That either they failed to inform Google that the posting date related to a Craigslist advertisement, or that the government refused to give them the posting dates involved. That the government told Google privately not to worry about the dates, but just give us everything and we'll filter it.
The parody is clear to me, but not so obvious--I had to look twice to see that it was actually a different comic. It is a small part, perhaps 5% of the overall work.
Imagine I took the original comic and changed one pixel to black, then claimed all the other pixels were mine. Should that be considered "transformation"? If I change one word of a 10,000 word book in "parody", shall I then be able to call the rest of the 9,999 words mine?
It's not a matter of whether transformation or parody occurred, but how much as a proportion of the work. If I were the judge in this case, I would rule it was not enough; therefore that infringement occurred.
So, after they start their moratorium and piracy promptly goes through the roof, they'll realize their lack of wisdom in trying to herd customers to the abattoir; and start giving the customers what they want. Right?
If I were to make such a change to a cartoon, I would expect to run afoul of copyright. There's simply not enough transformation in this work, especially since the "parody" is buried within the larger artwork.
So my position is that this was theft of artwork to support an almost invisible parody; and that's not enough to avoid infringement.
It would have been quite easy to transform it sufficiently. The simplest concept that occurred to me was showing a TV on the wall containing the comic to be parodied, and having a different pair of watchers comment on the cartoon on the TV. That would have been as effective and, I think, would have avoided any copyright conflict.
We lost the password. It was accidentally misplaced. No, wait, it was accidentally erased. No, really, it was discarded during a routine evidence purge. It was shredded along with other documents.
It is amazing what people will due to avoid discussing--or even having to think about--an uncomfortable subject. The message of the image was impossible to miss, yet it is attacked on the wrong grounds entirely.
What do you suppose those same people would have done if his newspapers had been formed into big, boxy letters spelling "HATE"?
That would drive these same people bananas...because such a construct wouldn't carry the built-in excuse that was implicit in the KKK symbol.
On the post: US Marshals Service Withholds Publicly-Available Data From Its Stingray Device FOIA Response
Re: Stingray
Absolutely. But then the cellphone is kind of a boat anchor, isn't it?
On the post: Portland Police Bravely Defend Public From Homeless Woman Looking To Charge Her Cell Phone
Re: She should demand a jury trial
It's a very sad statement on our society.
On the post: Barbie Joins The Growing Chorus Of People And Devices Spying On You
Features of NSA Barbie
* No lips, so as to not leak secrets.
* Spies on everyone, even Ken.
* Has a form letter to be given to deny all FOIA requests.
* Has a Constitution carpet to wipe her feet on.
* Has a heap of documents, all fully redacted.
* Package includes a cardboard cutout Senator doll in boot-licking position.
* Package contains a folding cardboard zettabyte data center.
* Package contains a folding cardboard work center with neon blue lighting.
* Automatically takes over every wireless device in your house.
* Trains your child to be a citizen "helper".
* Reports all findings to the real NSA.
On the post: Patent Not Sufficiently Broad Or Generic? Cloem Will Help You By Automatically Generating Dozens Of Nearly Identical Patents
Lakes are mine!
So...dibs on everything related to lakes!
On the post: US Marshals Service Withholds Publicly-Available Data From Its Stingray Device FOIA Response
The capability most likely being concealed is that Stingray permits recording of all voice calls, without a warrant.
Possible other capabilities: Take over any phone, turn on any phone microphone, download software onto any phone, more?
Make up your own. The point is: they are concealing something that will raise alarms with everyone. There's no other reasonable explanation for this fight-to-the-death protection of the secrets of Stingray.
On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain
Disney strategy, simplified
"That is why we will never let our intellectual property right expire, because we want to charge for Mickey forever."
On the post: USTR Pushes Congress To Approve Trade Deals... But Threatens Reps With Criminal Prosecution If They Tell The Public What's In Them
On the post: Spain About To Bring In Software Patents -- Just As US Starts Moving Away From Them
Re: Copyright
For example, take a look at the flowchart in this patent, and then read up on the Amazon 1-click lawsuit against Barnes & Noble.
The key thing to notice is that the lawsuit was not about Barnes & Noble copying Amazon's code; it was about that pitiful six-box flowchart.
On the post: CIA Worked With DOJ To Re-Purpose Foreign Surveillance Airborne Cell Tower Spoofers For Domestic Use
Surveillance of U.S. citizens
All this heat over surveillance has not been about the three-letter agencies watching foreigners. It's been about those agencies watching U.S. citizens, which is supposed to be illegal under the constitution.
- All the best technology they've built has been built to be used against U.S. citizens.
- All the exceptions to the law they've sought have been so they could watch U.S. citizens.
- The data they have collected has mostly been from surveillance on U.S. citizens.
- The legal techniques they've invented, like parallel construction, were developed to be applied against U.S. citizens.
- The torture they developed...well, I'm sure they intended to use it on U.S. citizens, but then the infernal politics got in the way.
It's really not possible to tell if they give a rat's whisker about watching any particular foreigner. But everything we've seen, that has raised a concern, demonstrates that their surveillance is primarily drected at U.S. citizens.
Why would anyone wonder, "why the following news makes so little sense." It doesn't make "little sense"; it makes perfect sense.
On the post: Officials Upset Tech Companies Reluctant To Play Along With Administration's 'Information Sharing' Charade
It's a qualifying question
This is a qualifying question, not a disqualifying question. If you check "yes", it proves your're a LEO, so you're automatically qualified.
On the post: Google Denies Narrow Warrant Request For Emails; Government Responds By Asking For Everything Ever
Taken literally
That either they failed to inform Google that the posting date related to a Craigslist advertisement, or that the government refused to give them the posting dates involved. That the government told Google privately not to worry about the dates, but just give us everything and we'll filter it.
On the post: The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
Imagine I took the original comic and changed one pixel to black, then claimed all the other pixels were mine. Should that be considered "transformation"? If I change one word of a 10,000 word book in "parody", shall I then be able to call the rest of the 9,999 words mine?
It's not a matter of whether transformation or parody occurred, but how much as a proportion of the work. If I were the judge in this case, I would rule it was not enough; therefore that infringement occurred.
On the post: NZ Prime Minister: 'I'll Resign If GCSB Did Mass Surveillance'; GCSB: 'We Did Mass Surveillance'; NZPM: 'Uh...'
Uhh...
On the post: Michigan Attorney General Slaps Reporter With Bogus Subpoenas For Doing Her Job
Play nice
On the post: Indian Film Industry To Punish
PiratesPaying Customers With 3-Month Film Release BoycottWisdom pending?
On the post: Hall & Oates Suing Breakfast Company Over Haulin' Oats Granola... And For A Pretty Good Reason
Hauling Notes
On the post: The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
So my position is that this was theft of artwork to support an almost invisible parody; and that's not enough to avoid infringement.
It would have been quite easy to transform it sufficiently. The simplest concept that occurred to me was showing a TV on the wall containing the comic to be parodied, and having a different pair of watchers comment on the cartoon on the TV. That would have been as effective and, I think, would have avoided any copyright conflict.
On the post: Albuquerque Police Dept. 'Complies' With Records Request By Releasing Password-Protected Videos... But Not The Password
APD response
Ever so sorry.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Demands $2,100 To Reveal The Emails He's Had With The MPAA
Why the estimate was so high
These days, that estimate was so high because, try as they might, Hood's office just could not find a way to justify $21,030,100.00.
I mean, seriously, what part of, "Go away," didn't you understand?
On the post: Iowa College Grants Hecklers More Veto Power, Resulting In Summoning Of Campus Police To Offending 'Free Speech Wall'
Avoiding a subject
What do you suppose those same people would have done if his newspapers had been formed into big, boxy letters spelling "HATE"?
That would drive these same people bananas...because such a construct wouldn't carry the built-in excuse that was implicit in the KKK symbol.
Next >>