According to this page the government was charging researchers for access to this information. If that information all came out due to a public records request then they'd lose the revenue stream.
Just out of morbid curiosity I'm looking forward to the sheriff trying to justify himself. That even if a person 100% has the coronavirus that it's still illegal for them to share that info, because it could lead to a panic, so every should just shut up? That citizens need to first prove to the government that they're infected before they can publicly share that info?
I'm sure Godfree will be happy to explain why the Social Credit System is a good thing and not at all something from straight out of a dystopian novel.
The police already have access to those videos. The only scenario which makes sense of the video exonerating the police but the police not describing what in the videos is exonerating is so weird or so implausible that no one would believe their summary. How likely is that? And even in such a scenario, why didn't they release the video before the lawsuit? Other police departments have released videos in such situations before any lawsuit.
We here aren't members of a jury trying them, or their bosses who could fire them, or anything similar. If we're wrong, nothing bad happens to the officers in question, and the worst that happens to us is that we were wrong, which happens to humans all the time.
As I said during our conference call on Friday, I am interested in obtaining the name(s) of the public interest groups behind Mom and the cow.
Does Biss actually believe that those accounts aren't operated by private individuals? Or does Nunes actually believe it, and Biss is just humoring his client? Or is it all just performative?
Those employees might have told management and/or executives about the vulnerabilities but were ignored because fixing the problems would cost money. They could have tried going whistleblower, but given the slap on the wrist Equifax got that probably wouldn't have gone well for them.
Despite not being a state, those born in Puerto Rico are full United State citizens, and have due process rights, as well as 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights. See Wikipedia's Implications of Puerto Rico's current political status.
Re: Re: So using logical fallacy to attack Nunes again.
This is just a guess, but:
Of course, as more evidence comes out that, at the very least, suggests that Nunes is somehow tied up with all of the mess around impeachment -- including reports revealing that the indicted Lev Parnas spoke by phone with Nunes --
So, it might be that Zof is saying that you're making a dichotomy between Nunes not talking to Parnas at all vs Nunes talked to Parnas about the mess around the impeachment, when there's the third possibility that Nunes talked to Parnas about things having nothing to do with the mess around the impeachment.
Or, hmmm, how about this: the dichotomy is between Nunes having a valid defamation lawsuit against Lieu vs Nunes intending to punish Lieu for public participation (or chill Lieu from public participation), when their might be other motives for Nunes threatening such a lawsuit.
Those are the only ways I can wrest a false dichotomy out of what you wrote.
I know that in fiction murderers will visit the graves of their victims. If this happens in real life (or if police think it happens in real life) then putting a camera at the gravesite of a murder victim can tell you who's visiting the gravesite when, without having to tie up an officer on a stakeout, and without the chance of the perp spotting the stakeout and staying away. And if the they include the optional audio recordings, they could get a recording of the perp apologizing for or gloating over their crime (as murderers do in fiction).
When the DOJ does stuff like this it could either get a favorable precedent from a court ruling or the target could cave and put in a backdoor for law enforcement. For Android phones I'm assuming that they can't go directly after Google but have to go after a particular Android producer.
1) Any given Android producer is probably significantly smaller than Apple and thus more likely to cave, preventing the DOJ from getting a precedent which can be used against all smartphone producers.
2) If a particular Android producer caves then people might dump that producer in favor of another one, or just root their device to undo the backdoor. But if Apple caves then iPhone users either have to jailbreak or switch from an iPhone to an Android. Not only is such a switch a much bigger pain than merely switching from one variant of Android to another, but lots of iPhone users are rather dedicated/loyal to iDevices and Apple.
Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
From what I understand, what Robert Barnes filed doesn't claim that "punchable face" is defamatory. Rather, it claims that the tweet which contained "punchable face" also was a retweet of a news article about the Covington Catholic High School encounter, and retweeting a news article implies that everything in that news article is true, and thus Reza Aslan is liable for defamation for all the statements in the news article. Which is as least as absurd, if not more, than saying that "punchable face" is defamatory.
Say a woman who is sexually harassed and files a lawsuit. In the past, employers might not have found it, but now that they GOOGLE their applicants, whistleblowers are put on blast at no cost. Before that, they could find a place that didn't care enough to look (not that they should have to care about someone looking but retaliation against snitches is persistent). Section 230 immunizes google against this retaliation.
Are you talking about defamatory content against the plaintiff (woman) being found via search engines, or the lawsuit itself being found by search engines? If the latter, are you saying that, absent section 230, the woman would have some grounds for suing Google for indexing pages about her lawsuit? If so, on what ground would she sue?
A more interesting case would be against a lawyer who radicalized someone into making death threats after the lawyer linked the person making the threats to a libelous website designed to incite them
What are your talking about, specifically?
Even MORE interesting would be a challenge to Section 230 if this was done in retaliation for someone excercising their Title VII rights, since courts have ruled that "natural adversaries" (business competitors) cannot rely on 230 to stand down when someone is their enemy's enemy.
On the post: Court Tells Agency That Tried To Charge $1.5 Million For A Records Request It Now Owes The Requestor $12,000 In Fines
It was probably about protecting revenue
According to this page the government was charging researchers for access to this information. If that information all came out due to a public records request then they'd lose the revenue stream.
On the post: Sheriff Sued After Threatening To Arrest A High School Student Over Her Coronavirus-Related Instagram Posts
Just out of morbid curiosity I'm looking forward to the sheriff trying to justify himself. That even if a person 100% has the coronavirus that it's still illegal for them to share that info, because it could lead to a panic, so every should just shut up? That citizens need to first prove to the government that they're infected before they can publicly share that info?
On the post: Chinese Embassy Gets Briefly Suspended From Twitter; Insists 'Free Speech Must Be Honored' On Platform Banned Across China
Re: Re:
I'm sure Godfree will be happy to explain why the Social Credit System is a good thing and not at all something from straight out of a dystopian novel.
On the post: Trump Campaign Suing All His Media 'Enemies': Files Another Silly SLAPP Suit Over CNN Opinion Piece
How does the Trump campaign have standing to sue for defamation against Trump?
On the post: Group Promoting 'Religious Freedom' Around Vaccines Appears To Want To Stifle Free Expression Of Critics
"SEAGULLS!" was references in a legal letter. We can all just pack things up, nothing will top that.
On the post: College Student Gets Thrown On The Ground And A Gun Pointed At His Head For Committing The Crime Of 'Taking A Selfie While Black'
Re: Re:
The police already have access to those videos. The only scenario which makes sense of the video exonerating the police but the police not describing what in the videos is exonerating is so weird or so implausible that no one would believe their summary. How likely is that? And even in such a scenario, why didn't they release the video before the lawsuit? Other police departments have released videos in such situations before any lawsuit.
On the post: College Student Gets Thrown On The Ground And A Gun Pointed At His Head For Committing The Crime Of 'Taking A Selfie While Black'
Re:
We here aren't members of a jury trying them, or their bosses who could fire them, or anything similar. If we're wrong, nothing bad happens to the officers in question, and the worst that happens to us is that we were wrong, which happens to humans all the time.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Continues To Use Unrelated Case To Try To Unearth Satirical Internet Cow Account
Does Biss actually believe that those accounts aren't operated by private individuals? Or does Nunes actually believe it, and Biss is just humoring his client? Or is it all just performative?
On the post: China's To Blame For The Equifax Hack. But It Shouldn't Let Equifax, Or US Regulators, Off The Hook.
Re: Re: Re: What should happen is...
Oops, sorry.
On the post: China's To Blame For The Equifax Hack. But It Shouldn't Let Equifax, Or US Regulators, Off The Hook.
Re: What should happen is...
Those employees might have told management and/or executives about the vulnerabilities but were ignored because fixing the problems would cost money. They could have tried going whistleblower, but given the slap on the wrist Equifax got that probably wouldn't have gone well for them.
On the post: Home Owners Association Threatens Residents With Lawsuit For Online Criticism
Re:
If done right a HOA can be a big help. It's just if one is done right that you never hear about them because no one complains about them.
On the post: Puerto Rico's Justice Department Demanded Info From Facebook About Journalists Who Livestreamed Protests
Re:
Ha! I'm going to have to steal that.
On the post: Puerto Rico's Justice Department Demanded Info From Facebook About Journalists Who Livestreamed Protests
A reminder/refresher
Despite not being a state, those born in Puerto Rico are full United State citizens, and have due process rights, as well as 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights. See Wikipedia's Implications of Puerto Rico's current political status.
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Now Threatening To Sue Fellow Congressional Reps
Re: Re: So using logical fallacy to attack Nunes again.
This is just a guess, but:
So, it might be that Zof is saying that you're making a dichotomy between Nunes not talking to Parnas at all vs Nunes talked to Parnas about the mess around the impeachment, when there's the third possibility that Nunes talked to Parnas about things having nothing to do with the mess around the impeachment.
Or, hmmm, how about this: the dichotomy is between Nunes having a valid defamation lawsuit against Lieu vs Nunes intending to punish Lieu for public participation (or chill Lieu from public participation), when their might be other motives for Nunes threatening such a lawsuit.
Those are the only ways I can wrest a false dichotomy out of what you wrote.
On the post: Company Sells Surveillance Cameras Hidden In Tombstones, Threatens Websites For Talking About Its Tombstone Cameras
Re: Re:
I know that in fiction murderers will visit the graves of their victims. If this happens in real life (or if police think it happens in real life) then putting a camera at the gravesite of a murder victim can tell you who's visiting the gravesite when, without having to tie up an officer on a stakeout, and without the chance of the perp spotting the stakeout and staying away. And if the they include the optional audio recordings, they could get a recording of the perp apologizing for or gloating over their crime (as murderers do in fiction).
On the post: Attorney General William Barr Says Apple Isn't Doing Enough To Let The DOJ Check Out A Dead Man's Phones
Re: An honest question...
This is just speculation:
When the DOJ does stuff like this it could either get a favorable precedent from a court ruling or the target could cave and put in a backdoor for law enforcement. For Android phones I'm assuming that they can't go directly after Google but have to go after a particular Android producer.
1) Any given Android producer is probably significantly smaller than Apple and thus more likely to cave, preventing the DOJ from getting a precedent which can be used against all smartphone producers.
2) If a particular Android producer caves then people might dump that producer in favor of another one, or just root their device to undo the backdoor. But if Apple caves then iPhone users either have to jailbreak or switch from an iPhone to an Android. Not only is such a switch a much bigger pain than merely switching from one variant of Android to another, but lots of iPhone users are rather dedicated/loyal to iDevices and Apple.
On the post: The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
Re: Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
Oops, that wasn't quite correct. Reza Aslan retweeted a new article separately from the "punchable face" tweet.
On the post: The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
Not the "punchable face" statement that's the issue
From what I understand, what Robert Barnes filed doesn't claim that "punchable face" is defamatory. Rather, it claims that the tweet which contained "punchable face" also was a retweet of a news article about the Covington Catholic High School encounter, and retweeting a news article implies that everything in that news article is true, and thus Reza Aslan is liable for defamation for all the statements in the news article. Which is as least as absurd, if not more, than saying that "punchable face" is defamatory.
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re: Re: Re:
Are you talking about defamatory content against the plaintiff (woman) being found via search engines, or the lawsuit itself being found by search engines? If the latter, are you saying that, absent section 230, the woman would have some grounds for suing Google for indexing pages about her lawsuit? If so, on what ground would she sue?
On the post: Losing Streak Continues For Litigants Suing Social Media Companies Over Violence Committed By Terrorists
Re:
What are your talking about, specifically?
Next >>