There is a problem with that, but there are also relatively new laws to deal with it, so I'm considering that solved unless it turns out the law is inadequate.
Wow. Do you have neighbors? You'd only need a couple to make it more economical to erect a tower and set up a microwave feed for internet, if you're lucky enough to have even treetop line of site to a feed.
"Should there be something that cannot be accessed with a properly conceived and executed warrant?"
This question is equally asking "should there be thoughts that are illegal to think?" and "should there be math that is illegal to perform?" and a myriad of other things.
My answer is yes, there should, for the simple reason that to say there shouldn't is to inescapably say that there are a whole host of legitimate, ethical, moral things that you are forbidden from doing.
It is true that the existence of privacy means that terrible things can hide as well. But terrible things always find a way to hide, and we should not be so quick to jettison fundamental liberty in a rush to attain something that cannot be attained.
I know, but I would have hoped that even if they don't think it's worth the money to maintain a competent IT staff, they're at least be willing to fork over a few grand to have a contractor set things up properly.
I am not Australian, but know more than a few. I've heard them use the word "dribble" as slang, but only in reference to a certain kinds of waves that make for bad surfing.
Robots.txt might be a bit underpowered for their needs. However, they can do server-side checking of traffic sources and create more effective blocks.
But honestly -- they're off on the wrong foot in the first place. They shouldn't have such sensitive access points open to the web at large at all. Don't they have a VPN?
The problem you're describing is one that can be minimized through inexpensive educational efforts. Big warnings near the cartridges that using unautorized ink voids your warranty would do the trick.
But that's not what these companies do. Instead, they engage in behavior that legally restricts how I can use equipment that I own.
The way it's supposed to work is: the SC is as powerful as either of the other branches of government and has considerable authority, but its domain is slightly different than the other branches. Congress makes law, the courts interpret law, and the White House enforces law. So, a SC solution would have to be of the "interpret law" sort, the nuclear option of that being to declare some aspect of the law unconstitutional in some way.
Doing so wouldn't change the law, but it would make congress either implicitely agree with the SC decision or to rework the law to remove the SC objection.
"Far easier and safer to put a copy in a cloud or private account from where you start"
This. I have been doing this for years, and recommend it. I don't do the cloud, but I do keep a personal file server that I can access securely. I keep nothing on portable devices that are sensitive or that I can't afford to lose.
I started doing this not because of surveillance, but because I travelled a lot and couldn't take the risk of losing data because a laptop got lost, stolen, or broken.
That's a straight-up bug, not intentional behavior. Also, the device isn't technically bricked -- you can make it recover from that state by completely draining the battery.
Re: Re: Re: Why are they even bothing Google with this?
Well, you may be right that there's an element of anti-Americanism to this, but it's also true that this irrational* anti-Google attitude exists amongst segments of American too, and I had an almost identical experience as your French cafe one -- except mine was in America.
*I need to insert an explanation here -- I am not a pro-Google kind of guy. I take serious exception to many of their corporate and privacy policies and avoid using their services. However, there is a subgroup of people who criticize Google for stupid things or things Google doesn't do. This is what I mean by "irrational".
On the flip side, people skipping the commercials (or, like myself, simply refuse to watch ad-supported TV at all) is just the free market in action. If so many people so it that the shows cannot be sustained in that way, it's just people collectively saying that the shows aren't worth the commercial load.
I can come up with many reasonable hypothetical cases, but it doesn't matter.
Banning backdoors runs into a critical problem that is identical to mandating backdoors: you're making certain kinds of math illegal. I should be able to create and implement my own crypto scheme with a backdoor if I want. What would be the rationale for the ban?
The problem is in mandating backdoors, and if the existence of backdoors is kept a secret, then there is the additional problem of fraud.
On the post: The Need For Deep Pockets And Lawyers Means The FOIA Process Benefits Corporations The Most
Re:
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re:
On the post: AT&T Makes It Clear: It Bought DirecTV So It Doesn't Have To Upgrade Its Lagging Networks
Re: Wireless broadband
On the post: White House Is Either Lying About Apple Order Or Doesn't Understand What A Backdoor Is
Re: Re: Contradictory Question
On the post: White House Is Either Lying About Apple Order Or Doesn't Understand What A Backdoor Is
Re: Contradictory Question
This question is equally asking "should there be thoughts that are illegal to think?" and "should there be math that is illegal to perform?" and a myriad of other things.
My answer is yes, there should, for the simple reason that to say there shouldn't is to inescapably say that there are a whole host of legitimate, ethical, moral things that you are forbidden from doing.
It is true that the existence of privacy means that terrible things can hide as well. But terrible things always find a way to hide, and we should not be so quick to jettison fundamental liberty in a rush to attain something that cannot be attained.
On the post: Quiet 'Legal Scrub' Of TPP Makes Massive Change To Penalties For Copyright Infringement Without Telling Anyone
Re:
On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
Re: Re: Drivel vs Dribble
On the post: Wisconsin Supreme Court Grants Law Enforcement Broader Justifications For Warrantless Searches
Lesson Learned
On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It
Re:
But honestly -- they're off on the wrong foot in the first place. They shouldn't have such sensitive access points open to the web at large at all. Don't they have a VPN?
On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
Re: Response
On the post: Our Further Response To Australian Lawyer Stuart Gibson, Who Continues To Threaten Us
Re: My favorite part.
On the post: After Failing To Use Copyright & Trademark Law To Stop Printer Ink Resellers, Lexmark Finally Scores A Victory With Patent Law
Re:
But that's not what these companies do. Instead, they engage in behavior that legally restricts how I can use equipment that I own.
On the post: After Failing To Use Copyright & Trademark Law To Stop Printer Ink Resellers, Lexmark Finally Scores A Victory With Patent Law
Re: Supreme court power
Doing so wouldn't change the law, but it would make congress either implicitely agree with the SC decision or to rework the law to remove the SC objection.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Taking data on aircraft
This. I have been doing this for years, and recommend it. I don't do the cloud, but I do keep a personal file server that I can access securely. I keep nothing on portable devices that are sensitive or that I can't afford to lose.
I started doing this not because of surveillance, but because I travelled a lot and couldn't take the risk of losing data because a laptop got lost, stolen, or broken.
On the post: How A Treasury Terror List Is Preventing Americans With 'Scary' Names From Using Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gamasutra is poison
On the post: Apple Rejects Game Based On Bible Story Due To Content Including Violence Against Children
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Partially Caves To French Demands For More Global Censorship Of 'Forgotten' Links
Re: Re: Re: Why are they even bothing Google with this?
*I need to insert an explanation here -- I am not a pro-Google kind of guy. I take serious exception to many of their corporate and privacy policies and avoid using their services. However, there is a subgroup of people who criticize Google for stupid things or things Google doesn't do. This is what I mean by "irrational".
On the post: Dish Agrees To Cripple Its Ad-Skipping DVR To Settle Fox Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congressional Reps Submit Bill Banning Encryption Bans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Halfway there...
Banning backdoors runs into a critical problem that is identical to mandating backdoors: you're making certain kinds of math illegal. I should be able to create and implement my own crypto scheme with a backdoor if I want. What would be the rationale for the ban?
The problem is in mandating backdoors, and if the existence of backdoors is kept a secret, then there is the additional problem of fraud.
Next >>