I get the willies just reading the first line of that thing:
Would you spend countless hours developing a novel business method if you knew you couldn't protect it with a patent? Most of us wouldn't.
That's his premise? And then there's this gem
It is true that other means exist for creative people to profit from their effort. In the case of copyright, authors can charge fees for reading their works to paying audiences. Charles Dickens did this, but his heavy schedule of public performances in the United States, where his works were not protected by copyright, arguably contributed to his untimely death.
So he acknowledges that perhaps the system is sometimes not necessary, but it'll kill people to try, literally. Astounding.
Seriously? Legislating from the bench was your best argument against this one? You're worse than Mike for grasping at straws, can you not even admit that Nesson's defense was inadequate? "Oh no, even the judge said Nesson's defense was bad, activist!"
It doesn't take an activist to see a bad defense and comment on it, and it doesn't destroy the foundation for your arguments if you concede that point. Conceding that would only show that you're human and capable of listening to reason, and it would do well for all of us to admit that once in a while.
I really hope most of you aside from this AC looked at the article and not just Mike's rant on one item brought up in it.
(1) Nothing reported in the article was shown to be wrong, but we did get slightly more details on ONE of the numbers mentioned, which if nothing else, is a net positive from bringing all this up. Sprint responding and giving information is a good thing, and helps support the merits and intent of the article.
(2) There were several other gaps aside from the "8 million" pointed out in the article itself. Such as: First, Verizon revealed in its letter that it "receives tens of thousands of requests for customer records, or other customer information from law enforcement."
Assuming a conservative estimate of 20,000 requests per year, Verizon alone receives more requests from law enforcement per year than can be explained by any published surveillance statistics.
Mike is just looking for more moral outrage again.
Perhaps, but does that mean you should dismiss everything said as "well, that's clearly got emotion in it, let's ignore any facts or points of view that may be valid within the post and call out the emotional fallacy again."
I get shivers down my spine reading this article, not least of which:
(1) The whole "it is being rushed through the last months of a parliament of an unpopular government" concept, gives the appearance it will get passed and attributed to unpopular politicians no longer in office.
(2) That Hall speaks of the movement of the bill, the agenda of the committees, and the resulting law as if they are one continuous thread. It sounds as if these groups think they write laws and pass them. And if my tone sounds condescending and naive there, isn't that scary too?
"Bring as many people as you want on to the plane!! Hooray it's unlimited!!! Except you, you brought too many"
"But I already planned my trip ... and you left my grandma in the terminal."
And you don't see a problem with that situation either? "The staff tried to hide behind the first amendment". Why are racist (or anti-islamic for that matter) cartoons and high schoolers talking about sex and drugs not considered speech worth fighting for and protecting? Are they really over that line of clear and present danger?
Yes, these organizations have a right to shut down their papers, but No, I'm not going to sit by and praise their censorship because they have a right to do so. Does anyone else care about free speech?
Just like an editor of a newspaper has the right to tell a writer to change his story or not publish it. Does that mean there's nothing to worry about?
This fear of disrupting the learning environment is often taken too far. This may or may not be one of those cases, but to simply dismiss it as "They have a legal right to do so, it's totally ok" is as silly as applying that same logic to anything else discussed here.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's smart or beneficial to any of the parties involved.
Of course we've seen plenty of cases of schools / school districts censoring students outside of the classroom, so that means they shouldn't even bother trying to speak their minds? Sorry kids, you don't have free speech any more because you're in school, give up and shut up until you graduate.
I have, on occasion, seen a high school student or two do something not just for a grade, but for fun or to make a point. It's rare, but it does happen.
Hear hear, I agree, the administration should absolutely censor and shut down the students for talking about reality. And if there's a court precedent for them doing so, double bonus. Give them a taste of how the real world works with mainstream press/media and such. One can only hope this encourages them to take a different path, perhaps some form of what was suggested "set up shop online" or returning fire some other way.
Update: Sprint is now trying to explain this by saying that the numbers represent number of "pings" and that can include thousands of pings per a single investigation. In a single investigation, once law enforcement has a court order, it can check someone's location every 3 minutes for up to 60 days -- and that's what made the number so inflated.
A few words different and there would have been no attitude. Even if you really feel the need to make it clear that you doubt Sprint's response, there's no need to put it in those exact words. "Sprint is now trying to explain this" could be easily written as "Sprint has responded". Things like this only serve as fodder for your critics. I'm by no means saying I'm above this, but I hold your writing to a higher standard because of your greater visibility and the editing resources you (should) have. A few choice wording differences could really raise the level of professionalism without detracting from the voice of your opinions.
I hear what you're saying, there's definitely just cause for an ISP saying we get X requests, and that number being significantly higher than the Y requests that are reported by enforcement, not least of which the examples you cite and the update from sprint in Mike's summary. My concern is the lack of transparency shown by the downward trend in Y requests, and in the clear lack of transparency on what those X requests are as evidenced by the tooth and nail fighting to even get hints at what those numbers are.
We don't know, you may be right, but there are things to be concerned about here.
A valid point, and one not raised in Mike's opinion nor the original article as you've correctly pointed out, but if you're implying there's nothing to be concerned about here I think you also making a lapse in judgement that could cause more harm than good.
One of the other main points brought up by Soghoian is the downward trend in reported electronic surveillance requests. It's highly suspect that that is the case, or if it is, it's hiding what's really going on. Even if electronic surveillance hasn't skyrocketed, we just don't know because the true picture isn't shown by the reported numbers.
There's more than just that "8 million GPS" requests being bandied about here, call records and wiretaps have some incredibly interesting trends in reported numbers and requests over the last 10 years. From the linked article:
First, Verizon revealed in its letter that it "receives tens of thousands of requests for customer records, or other customer information from law enforcement."
Assuming a conservative estimate of 20,000 requests per year, Verizon alone receives more requests from law enforcement per year than can be explained by any published surveillance statistics.
That full article is impressive. To all, I'd strongly recommend at least skimming it. Christopher Soghoian makes very few assertions (still makes a few though) without backing them up with links to documents or audio. He often follows what could be taken out of context as a slanderous conjecture with disclaimers such as "That doesn't mean the published stats are necessarily incorrect -- merely that most types of surveillance are not reported."
It's a good read, and if nothing else, plenty of links to damning documents and audio.
I think I finally get what that senile old coot is ranting about. He's upset that Google has become a starting point for news, that his newspapers aren't in control from the start. So Google has "stolen" that starting position. What Rupert wants is to destroy Google's starting position, and he thinks it's feasible for a large amount of newspapers to block Google AND that this will allow him to get to be the spring board again. He doesn't want to lose on the traffic he has now from Google because he does see the short term revenue from that. I think that's hilarious that its more short term thinking that's causing him to not move forward with his insanely idiotic plan.
He doesn't want to take risk for long term gains, he doesn't understand that other search engines will take Google's place even if he did kill it, and he doesn't see that every newspaper removed from the conversation is just another opportunity for someone else (newspaper or otherwise) to step in and fill the gap. In his world, there is only Google and him and these one way viewer eyeballs and no one else currently exists or ever will exist.
And t-shirts and autographed pictures aren't containers for a brand/artist/content?
Even if the "FREE!" people said the container is irrelevant (who did?), and even though the content is free and infinite (it is), there is still clearly a market for containers (as you said).
Maybe not Google, but you may have a good case against Stop&Shop, Kenmore, Sears, Toyota and Cumberland Farms. I mean aren't they all responsible for enabling your burnt tongue? Who cares who actually burned it.
On the post: Editorial On Why The Patent System Should Be Abolished
Re: Re: But Wait, This is a Two For One Offer!
Would you spend countless hours developing a novel business method if you knew you couldn't protect it with a patent? Most of us wouldn't.
That's his premise? And then there's this gem
It is true that other means exist for creative people to profit from their effort. In the case of copyright, authors can charge fees for reading their works to paying audiences. Charles Dickens did this, but his heavy schedule of public performances in the United States, where his works were not protected by copyright, arguably contributed to his untimely death.
So he acknowledges that perhaps the system is sometimes not necessary, but it'll kill people to try, literally. Astounding.
On the post: Judge Finalizes Tenenbaum Ruling, Trashes Nesson For Chaotically Bad Defense
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't take an activist to see a bad defense and comment on it, and it doesn't destroy the foundation for your arguments if you concede that point. Conceding that would only show that you're human and capable of listening to reason, and it would do well for all of us to admit that once in a while.
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Sensationalist Reporting - Not News
(1) Nothing reported in the article was shown to be wrong, but we did get slightly more details on ONE of the numbers mentioned, which if nothing else, is a net positive from bringing all this up. Sprint responding and giving information is a good thing, and helps support the merits and intent of the article.
(2) There were several other gaps aside from the "8 million" pointed out in the article itself. Such as:
First, Verizon revealed in its letter that it "receives tens of thousands of requests for customer records, or other customer information from law enforcement."
Assuming a conservative estimate of 20,000 requests per year, Verizon alone receives more requests from law enforcement per year than can be explained by any published surveillance statistics.
On the post: Does It Make Sense To Ban Players From Xbox Live Just For Using A Glitch?
Re: Re: Ban Them
Perhaps, but does that mean you should dismiss everything said as "well, that's clearly got emotion in it, let's ignore any facts or points of view that may be valid within the post and call out the emotional fallacy again."
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
Re: Re: The Update
I do spend too much time reading (into) this. Perhaps others (such as AC above me here) made the better point.
On the post: UK Record Label Boss Resigns From BPI/IFPI Committees Due To Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill
Scary stuff
(1) The whole "it is being rushed through the last months of a parliament of an unpopular government" concept, gives the appearance it will get passed and attributed to unpopular politicians no longer in office.
(2) That Hall speaks of the movement of the bill, the agenda of the committees, and the resulting law as if they are one continuous thread. It sounds as if these groups think they write laws and pass them. And if my tone sounds condescending and naive there, isn't that scary too?
On the post: If You Make A Mistake With A Paywall, It Can Linger For A Long Time
Re:
I noticed that WSJ re-erected their paywall yesterday
Wait - re-erected? I thought WSJ still had a paywall.
On the post: Should We Add Bandwidth Hogs To The Myth List With That Impending Exaflood?
Re:
"But I already planned my trip ... and you left my grandma in the terminal."
On the post: Students Blocked From Publishing School Paper, Given 2 Hours To Write New Stories Or Fail
Re:
Yes, these organizations have a right to shut down their papers, but No, I'm not going to sit by and praise their censorship because they have a right to do so. Does anyone else care about free speech?
On the post: Students Blocked From Publishing School Paper, Given 2 Hours To Write New Stories Or Fail
Re:
This fear of disrupting the learning environment is often taken too far. This may or may not be one of those cases, but to simply dismiss it as "They have a legal right to do so, it's totally ok" is as silly as applying that same logic to anything else discussed here.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's smart or beneficial to any of the parties involved.
On the post: Students Blocked From Publishing School Paper, Given 2 Hours To Write New Stories Or Fail
Re: Online isn't safe, either
I have, on occasion, seen a high school student or two do something not just for a grade, but for fun or to make a point. It's rare, but it does happen.
On the post: Students Blocked From Publishing School Paper, Given 2 Hours To Write New Stories Or Fail
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
The Update
Update: Sprint is now trying to explain this by saying that the numbers represent number of "pings" and that can include thousands of pings per a single investigation. In a single investigation, once law enforcement has a court order, it can check someone's location every 3 minutes for up to 60 days -- and that's what made the number so inflated.
A few words different and there would have been no attitude. Even if you really feel the need to make it clear that you doubt Sprint's response, there's no need to put it in those exact words. "Sprint is now trying to explain this" could be easily written as "Sprint has responded". Things like this only serve as fodder for your critics. I'm by no means saying I'm above this, but I hold your writing to a higher standard because of your greater visibility and the editing resources you (should) have. A few choice wording differences could really raise the level of professionalism without detracting from the voice of your opinions.
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't know, you may be right, but there are things to be concerned about here.
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
A valid point, and one not raised in Mike's opinion nor the original article as you've correctly pointed out, but if you're implying there's nothing to be concerned about here I think you also making a lapse in judgement that could cause more harm than good.
One of the other main points brought up by Soghoian is the downward trend in reported electronic surveillance requests. It's highly suspect that that is the case, or if it is, it's hiding what's really going on. Even if electronic surveillance hasn't skyrocketed, we just don't know because the true picture isn't shown by the reported numbers.
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
Re:
First, Verizon revealed in its letter that it "receives tens of thousands of requests for customer records, or other customer information from law enforcement."
Assuming a conservative estimate of 20,000 requests per year, Verizon alone receives more requests from law enforcement per year than can be explained by any published surveillance statistics.
On the post: Sprint Revealed GPS Data To Authorities 8 Million Times In The Last Year [Updated]
Wow
It's a good read, and if nothing else, plenty of links to damning documents and audio.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch: Feds Should Stay Out Of News Business, Except, Of Course To Smack Down Google For Sending Me Traffic
I get it!
He doesn't want to take risk for long term gains, he doesn't understand that other search engines will take Google's place even if he did kill it, and he doesn't see that every newspaper removed from the conversation is just another opportunity for someone else (newspaper or otherwise) to step in and fill the gap. In his world, there is only Google and him and these one way viewer eyeballs and no one else currently exists or ever will exist.
I think I finally follow his misguided logic.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: Content is free
Even if the "FREE!" people said the container is irrelevant (who did?), and even though the content is free and infinite (it is), there is still clearly a market for containers (as you said).
On the post: Shooting Victim Sues Google Over Search Results On His Name
Re: Can I sue Google?
Next >>