The other day, I pulled up to my office parking lot, and the car parked next to me was a Mercedes with the doors unlocked and the keys sitting out in the open. Does very nature of the car's owner's setup effectively say, "Welcome, feel free to steal my car."
Nope, but if you want your analogy to be close to an open WiFi setup then the Mercedes would also have a sign on the windshield that says: "The owner of this car gives permission for anyone to test drive it". The very nature of open WiFi gives this explicit permission by broadcasting it's existence to every device within range.
Similarly, if a neighbor uses a weak WPA password, they are protecting their network with WPA, but the very nature of choosing a weak password effectively says, "Welcome, feel free to connect to this network."
Nope, the existence of a password, no matter how weak, denies permission and therefore it wouldn't be an open WiFi connection, which is what we are talking about here. Breaking or guessing the password to gain access is unauthorized access, not open access.
You're basically saying if the wireless network can be easily connected to, then it should be fair game for anyone to use.
Nope, we are talking about open WiFi, not ease of access. Permission to use is implied by the fact that it's not secured.
What is someone saying when they leave their wifi unsecured? Here are a few possibilities off the top of my head.
Regardless of the motivation behind leaving the WiFi open, the signal itself is saying "I'm open, come on and connect to me". A lot of devices will automatically connect to unsecured WiFi all by themselves.
Is the question comparable to an unlocked door on a house?
In my opinion, no. More like your neighbor's kid tossing his football over the fence into your yard and you pick it up to toss around with your kid for awhile. No trespass of real property has occurred in either case.
Netflix customers are not paying Verizon for Netflix's service.
They ARE paying Verizon to deliver Netflix. Just like when you order from a retailer - you pay the retailer the cost of the goods and then you pay UPS to deliver the goods.
Everyone is confusing the issue.
The only one confused here is you.
If Netflix is having problems with its streaming service, it's not the fault of Verizon.
It is if it's Verzion's system that is slowing down the stream. Just like it is UPS's fault if your purchased goods end up in Walla Walla, Washington instead of at your doorstep.
This isn't rocket surgery here, but, I'm not surprised you fail to grasp even the basics kenichi, I've read other posts of yours...
Oh Gwiz...I guess you missed it.Third paragraph from the top.
Yep. You are right. I missed that.
Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.
In addition to what John said, there are certain viable reasons for a right to know that don't necessarily involve the government, public safety being one of them. For example, most believe they have the right to know when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood or next door to their kid's school.
And I tend to agree with you that this phrase gets tossed about a bit too freely, but like I said above, it really doesn't apply here since we are talking about information that is already public and widely disseminated. We aren't talking about my right to know what you had for breakfast, but more along the lines of my right to revisit a newspaper article that accurately list all of your DUI's over the years.
I think that training programs for mass shooters (aka shooting games) might be a step in the right direction.
Why stop there? Let's ban sticks too. Every young boy I've ever known has picked one up to play Cowboys & Indians or G.I. Joe at sometime or another. Ban all TV and movies too, since they contain a lot of violence too. What the hell, let's keep all of our children in hermetically sealed boxes until they're 21.
OR
We could, oh I don't know, actually talk to our children and provide them the skills and confidence to become well adjusted, productive members of our society.
What is this "Right to Know" I keep hearing about?
I've seen nobody talking about a "right to know". But you're comment is silly anyways, since we are talking about censoring information that is already public knowledge.
Now, we all do have an inalienable right to remember, which cannot be legislated away, no matter how many laws are passed.
I wonder if the Berne Convention allows a requirement to register for copyright.
Unfortunately, it doesn't allow registration to be a requirement:
Article 5(2) of the Convention states:
The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work...
So yeah, that's a bit of a problem. Although, the US kind of ignores other parts of Berne, like the moral rights stuff, so I don't really know.
I wonder if having the first few years as automatic, then requiring registration for renewals would be sufficient.
As an added bonus, a graduated system like that would not only reduce the actual length of copyrights, I believe it would also keep us in compliance with the Berne Convention because you *could* maintain your copyright up to and past the time lengths required.
Now one can believe that the members of both parties on the intelligence committees in both houses are just lying about the damage. But if you believe that, you might as well find another place to live, because all hope is already gone!
You strike me as a very intelligent person, so I find hard to believe that you really think that partisan politics is anything more that a dog & pony show in this fine age of Super PACS and rampant lobbying. Following the money trail is the only real indication of determining a politicians allegiances these days.
My point is: the threats are real. Sure, any individual American is unlikely to be killed in them. But, terrorism isn't about killing lots of people - it is about causing societal or economic damage through the fear generated by such attacks (hence the word "terror"). It is an ancient and tried and true technique.
Do you not acknowledge the enormous societal damage of having an Orwellian government? I fear that more than dying, because it will shape how my grandchildren and their children will live.
I could be wrong, but I thought Bin Laden's main goal was to cause our government to become a police state and destroy our way of life. Thanks to those with mindsets similar to yours, it seems he's winning. That's what scares me.
Al Qaeda is one obvious example - they introduced three new encryption programs shortly after the NSA internet programs were made public.
That means nothing really. Do you really think that Al Qaeda is unaware that the USG uses every means possible to gain intel on them and wouldn't have increased their communication security anyways? That's pretty naive.
Another example: the tapping of Merkel's phone. Germany is an ally, but Germany can and does act against US national interests. Revealing that we had the means to intercept her phone is quite dangerous.
Why? Seems nothing more that a diplomatic embarrassment to me. Where's the danger?
Intelligence is largely the process of collecting lots of bits of data and building a picture from it. Our adversaries do this. In the case of the Snowden releases, instead of bits of data, it's mountains of data.
Ummm...what "mountains of data" are you talking about? As far as I know only a few people have access to the documents and only a small percentage has been released (and in a very responsible manner, IMHO) to the public.
Do you really think that those many documents Snowden took are just about spying on Americans?
Thus far, quite a few are. But I really wouldn't know. Do you?
A journalist writing for a foreign left-wing anti-American paper (The Guardian).
Ahhh. I'm sure you think that a lapdog, press pass chasing mainstream media reporter would have handled it better, right? Not me. I'd rather have truth over propaganda.
Yeah... except before that happened, Snowden had already fled to China, that human rights haven which is constantly spying on Americans, stealing our secrets, and rapidly building a military whose stated purpose is to sink our ships.
Then he went to Russia, another paragon of virtue.
Dude, at least get your facts straight. He went to Hong Kong (ie: somewhere marginally neutral) to pass on the documents to the press. That didn't work out so well because of intense pressure from the USG. He was on his way to Ecuador to seek asylum and the USG stranded him en route at the Moscow airport by yanking his passport.
It is that he released information that is clearly gravely damaging to US national security, and that he chose to do so based purely on his own arrogance, the arrogance that he knew better than Congress, the FISA courts, and the Administration.
Care to elaborate on what is "clearly gravely damaging to US national security"? I haven't seen an once of evidence of this yet, so I'm not sure how you claim it's clear to anyone.
And based on what we learned of the these programs and the unconstitutionality of it all, it appears he DID know better than those in power.
It is that he released this information to a journalist who is strongly anti-American.
Wait a minute. A journalist who is exposing Constitutional violations is un-American? What kind of crazy dictionary are you using?
It is that he didn't even try releasing it to a congressman - when it is clear that many congressmen (many of my own party) who are happy to pummel the NSA for political gain.
I'm not sure I would have chosen that option myself. Money and power have a funny way of convincing even our best congress people to abandon their scruples.
It is that he fled to enemy countries.
Don't be daft. The US stranded Snowden in Russia by revoking his passport, he didn't choose to stay there.
In this case, Bullock has a legal claim under Civ. Code 3344 if Toy Watch used her name and/or likeness in advertising without her permission. Apparently they did not have her consent, so they were liable. Whether or not the statement that her character wore the watch in "Blind Side" is factual, is irrelevant to her cause of action.
You worded that like a lawyer, for sure.
I also agree with nasch that the discussion her isn't whether this situation is actionable, but rather if the law itself is reprehensible.
As for myself, I wonder if this California statute could possibly be incompatible with the First Amendment protections on free speech.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re:
Nope, but if you want your analogy to be close to an open WiFi setup then the Mercedes would also have a sign on the windshield that says: "The owner of this car gives permission for anyone to test drive it". The very nature of open WiFi gives this explicit permission by broadcasting it's existence to every device within range.
Similarly, if a neighbor uses a weak WPA password, they are protecting their network with WPA, but the very nature of choosing a weak password effectively says, "Welcome, feel free to connect to this network."
Nope, the existence of a password, no matter how weak, denies permission and therefore it wouldn't be an open WiFi connection, which is what we are talking about here. Breaking or guessing the password to gain access is unauthorized access, not open access.
You're basically saying if the wireless network can be easily connected to, then it should be fair game for anyone to use.
Nope, we are talking about open WiFi, not ease of access. Permission to use is implied by the fact that it's not secured.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Re: To quote Wayne, Asshole say what?
Regardless of the motivation behind leaving the WiFi open, the signal itself is saying "I'm open, come on and connect to me". A lot of devices will automatically connect to unsecured WiFi all by themselves.
Is the question comparable to an unlocked door on a house?
In my opinion, no. More like your neighbor's kid tossing his football over the fence into your yard and you pick it up to toss around with your kid for awhile. No trespass of real property has occurred in either case.
On the post: Forget The FCC: Should We Be Looking To The FTC To Save An Open Internet?
Re: Dear Mikey
I'm assuming you mean this statement by Mike:
Could you explain why you think that was "an unneccessary shot"?
If the USPTO hasn't done anything to combat patent trolls, then it is a very relevant point, if you ask me.
On the post: Yes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold Customers
Re:
They ARE paying Verizon to deliver Netflix. Just like when you order from a retailer - you pay the retailer the cost of the goods and then you pay UPS to deliver the goods.
Everyone is confusing the issue.
The only one confused here is you.
If Netflix is having problems with its streaming service, it's not the fault of Verizon.
It is if it's Verzion's system that is slowing down the stream. Just like it is UPS's fault if your purchased goods end up in Walla Walla, Washington instead of at your doorstep.
This isn't rocket surgery here, but, I'm not surprised you fail to grasp even the basics kenichi, I've read other posts of yours...
On the post: German Court Rules Ex-Lovers Must Disappear Consensual Previously Taken Nude Pictures Of The Other
Re: The op is just plain stupid
That is very sexist of you.
We also live in a world where men suffer the same fates from vindictive women. Have you never heard the term "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?
On the post: Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
Re: Re: Re: Right to Know
Yep. You are right. I missed that.
Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.
In addition to what John said, there are certain viable reasons for a right to know that don't necessarily involve the government, public safety being one of them. For example, most believe they have the right to know when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood or next door to their kid's school.
And I tend to agree with you that this phrase gets tossed about a bit too freely, but like I said above, it really doesn't apply here since we are talking about information that is already public and widely disseminated. We aren't talking about my right to know what you had for breakfast, but more along the lines of my right to revisit a newspaper article that accurately list all of your DUI's over the years.
On the post: Glenn Beck Claims Watch Dogs Is Teaching Children How To Hack The Public For Realz
Re: Man, what a hatefest
Why stop there? Let's ban sticks too. Every young boy I've ever known has picked one up to play Cowboys & Indians or G.I. Joe at sometime or another. Ban all TV and movies too, since they contain a lot of violence too. What the hell, let's keep all of our children in hermetically sealed boxes until they're 21.
OR
We could, oh I don't know, actually talk to our children and provide them the skills and confidence to become well adjusted, productive members of our society.
On the post: Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
Re: Right to Know
I've seen nobody talking about a "right to know". But you're comment is silly anyways, since we are talking about censoring information that is already public knowledge.
Now, we all do have an inalienable right to remember, which cannot be legislated away, no matter how many laws are passed.
On the post: Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live
Right to remember
I also hope that Google releases information on which sites they are forced to censor, just to make sure they get crawled and put into YaCy's index.
On the post: The Supreme Court's Real Technology Problem: It Thinks Carrying 2 Phones Means You're A Drug Dealer
Re: Re: Re:
Keeping it classy as usual I see, vance.
On the post: Google AdSense's Idiotic And Hypocritical Morality Police Force Us To Remove Ads On News Stories
Re: Re: Re:
Really? Mocked by whom?
I know that The Trichordist and it's dozen or so loyal sycophants do, but who else?
And for a site you claim is without influence and that is so readily mocked, Techdirt's million+ monthly page views seem to dispute that.
On the post: The Web Is In The Public Domain... But The Document That Put It There Is Locked Up By Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Automatic Copyrights
Unfortunately, it doesn't allow registration to be a requirement:
So yeah, that's a bit of a problem. Although, the US kind of ignores other parts of Berne, like the moral rights stuff, so I don't really know.
I wonder if having the first few years as automatic, then requiring registration for renewals would be sufficient.
On the post: The Web Is In The Public Domain... But The Document That Put It There Is Locked Up By Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Automatic Copyrights
On the post: FBI Joins The 20th Century, Will Begin Using Recording Equipment During Custodial Interviews
Sound Advice
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-elec tronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml#c306
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You strike me as a very intelligent person, so I find hard to believe that you really think that partisan politics is anything more that a dog & pony show in this fine age of Super PACS and rampant lobbying. Following the money trail is the only real indication of determining a politicians allegiances these days.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re: Risk of terrorism
Do you not acknowledge the enormous societal damage of having an Orwellian government? I fear that more than dying, because it will shape how my grandchildren and their children will live.
I could be wrong, but I thought Bin Laden's main goal was to cause our government to become a police state and destroy our way of life. Thanks to those with mindsets similar to yours, it seems he's winning. That's what scares me.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re: Re: Re:
That means nothing really. Do you really think that Al Qaeda is unaware that the USG uses every means possible to gain intel on them and wouldn't have increased their communication security anyways? That's pretty naive.
Another example: the tapping of Merkel's phone. Germany is an ally, but Germany can and does act against US national interests. Revealing that we had the means to intercept her phone is quite dangerous.
Why? Seems nothing more that a diplomatic embarrassment to me. Where's the danger?
Intelligence is largely the process of collecting lots of bits of data and building a picture from it. Our adversaries do this. In the case of the Snowden releases, instead of bits of data, it's mountains of data.
Ummm...what "mountains of data" are you talking about? As far as I know only a few people have access to the documents and only a small percentage has been released (and in a very responsible manner, IMHO) to the public.
Do you really think that those many documents Snowden took are just about spying on Americans?
Thus far, quite a few are. But I really wouldn't know. Do you?
A journalist writing for a foreign left-wing anti-American paper (The Guardian).
Ahhh. I'm sure you think that a lapdog, press pass chasing mainstream media reporter would have handled it better, right? Not me. I'd rather have truth over propaganda.
Yeah... except before that happened, Snowden had already fled to China, that human rights haven which is constantly spying on Americans, stealing our secrets, and rapidly building a military whose stated purpose is to sink our ships.
Then he went to Russia, another paragon of virtue.
Dude, at least get your facts straight. He went to Hong Kong (ie: somewhere marginally neutral) to pass on the documents to the press. That didn't work out so well because of intense pressure from the USG. He was on his way to Ecuador to seek asylum and the USG stranded him en route at the Moscow airport by yanking his passport.
On the post: Snowden Ran A Major Tor Exit Relay, Hosted CryptoParty In Hawaii While Waiting For Greenwald To Reply
Re:
Care to elaborate on what is "clearly gravely damaging to US national security"? I haven't seen an once of evidence of this yet, so I'm not sure how you claim it's clear to anyone.
And based on what we learned of the these programs and the unconstitutionality of it all, it appears he DID know better than those in power.
It is that he released this information to a journalist who is strongly anti-American.
Wait a minute. A journalist who is exposing Constitutional violations is un-American? What kind of crazy dictionary are you using?
It is that he didn't even try releasing it to a congressman - when it is clear that many congressmen (many of my own party) who are happy to pummel the NSA for political gain.
I'm not sure I would have chosen that option myself. Money and power have a funny way of convincing even our best congress people to abandon their scruples.
It is that he fled to enemy countries.
Don't be daft. The US stranded Snowden in Russia by revoking his passport, he didn't choose to stay there.
On the post: Harry Reid Bows Down To Trial Lawyers And Big Pharma In Killing Patent Reform
Re: Re: Re: Dear Anonymous Coward...Re: Re:
Must be cozy under that rock of yours, my friend:
http://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=broad+patent
To quote the US Chamber of Commerce....
First off, the US Chamber of Commerce is nothing more than a lobbying group for large entrenched corporations.
And secondly, I believe those figures are based on that silly study that included grocery stores as an "IP intensive industry".
How about some figures from an unbiased source?
On the post: Should It Be Against The Law To Say That The Watch You're Selling Was Worn By Sandra Bullock?
Re:
You worded that like a lawyer, for sure.
I also agree with nasch that the discussion her isn't whether this situation is actionable, but rather if the law itself is reprehensible.
As for myself, I wonder if this California statute could possibly be incompatible with the First Amendment protections on free speech.
Next >>