I have personally executed the NIT on a computer under my control and observed that it did not make any changes to the security settings on my computer or otherwise render it more vulnerable to intrusion than it already was. Additionally, it did not “infect” my computer or leave any residual malware on my computer.
Sorry, Agent Alfin, but that's not what malware means. Malware is software that takes control of a computer away from the owner/user and causes the computer to act against their interests.
Have you included links in your submissions? IME that seems to trip the automated filter pretty reliably, if you put more than one link. (A bit ironic considering how liberally they tend to be scattered throughout the typical Techdirt article...)
Because competence and being well-informed necessarily introduces a bias towards the truth. In a trial that hinges on a technical matter, "unbiased" is synonymous with "ignorant", which is dangerous when it might end up setting precedents.
No matter what you think of Google as an entity, having courts tell it what can and cannot be in its index seems very dangerous.
Why? Isn't that what courts are for: to determine when a certain behavior breaks the law and tell people who are breaking it to stop? Isn't that literally the most basic function of the court system--and now you're saying it's "very dangerous"?
It's not like owning slaves was free. You had to pay to maintain them, to provide food and clothing and housing for them, etc. If anything, corporates have it better under the current system. They can get away with paying most workers at a level approximately equivalent to (or, frequently, below) slave maintenance levels, (what we call "the cost of living" or "a living wage" today,) but without any slave revolts going on because the workers know they're free. (But heaven help anyone who tries to quit their job for a better opportunity in the current climate. Remember, you're lucky to even have a job, so don't complain!)
I'm not sure this kind of law is the right way to do it, but if the press is literally destroying people by misuse of its freedom then who steps in to prevent that?
The justice system, by way of libel laws. That's pretty specifically what it was designed for.
"We find ourselves the target of a relentless regulatory assault,” Powell told attendees.
Mr. Powell appears to be confused regarding the difference between "assault" and "act of self-defense." This is a small part of what it looks like when democracy fights back.
Speak for yourself. Just this morning, I watched the new episodes of Person of Interest and The Flash online, streamed for free from their respective broadcasters' sites. Heck, The CW's streaming system doesn't even care if I use Adblock!
...because, as you just pointed out, they're much harder to see? (I don't actually know anything about the subject, but that seems like an obvious reason.)
When copyright was first put in place in the US, we were told it was to encourage the sharing of such educational resources. That may have been a lie at the time (it was designed as a tool for publishers),
Where are you getting this from? That's the exact opposite of the truth; copyright was designed as a tool to keep abusive publishers in line. And it worked surprisingly well throughout most of its history--just not the parts that most of us lived in. The 1970s is when it really started getting turned on its head and perverted into a tool for publishers to use to further abuse people.
What it indicates is that most people don't know how to think beyond a single degree of cause and effect to look for long-term harm. (Ugly fact: we're actually specifically taught not to do this in school: if you say "x will cause y, which will cause z, and therefore you shouldn't do x because z is bad," that's "the slippery slope fallacy" and you're formally wrong.) So when they see "lower prices," well, who wouldn't want that?
WRT Tesla being a "luxury car" brand that's moving downmarket, it's important to note that this has been their stated goal all along.
Elon Musk never set out to run a luxury car company. He's a visionary, a guy who wants to bring transformative change, and he knows that you can't transform a system by only penetrating into a tiny percentage of the market. So he used the high-end market as a stepping stone, a means to an end, to build a brand and to raise capital so that they'd have the resources to put into the R&D necessary to make affordable, high-quality EVs available to the masses.
When Henry Ford set out to build a car for the masses, he wasn't doing anything particularly revolutionary. Automobile technology was pretty well established by that point, and the cars were simple to make, so he could jump straight into it. A century of improvements in the state of the art, not to mention vital safety standards that were nonexistent in Ford's day, means that making an entry-level car from nothing is a difficult endeavor. Now add in an entirely new fuel system with minimal infrastructure to support it (Ford originally intended for the Model T to run on alcohol which anyone with a still could make in their own garage) and you can see why Tesla's incremental system was necessary to get off the ground!
No, Tesla is the new Amazon. Look at the criticisms people are aiming at Tesla, about their financial and business models, then look at criticisms people were aiming at Amazon in the late 1990s about their financial and business models, and it all starts to look very familiar.
On the post: FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware
Sorry, Agent Alfin, but that's not what malware means. Malware is software that takes control of a computer away from the owner/user and causes the computer to act against their interests.
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Motion to Dismiss
On the post: Dallas Buyers Club Demands Accused Pirate Take Polygraph, Asks For Judgment When He Agrees Anyway
Re: A verbal promise and an empty sack is worth... an empty sack
On the post: Photojournalist Being Sued For Publishing Image Of Aftermath Of Paris Attacks
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Leak Reveals Proposal To Extend Corporate Sovereignty Massively To Include Intra-EU Investments
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Is Twitter Sending Legal Letters Warning People About Tweeting About The Gagged Topic Of A 'Celebrity Threesome'
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Re:
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Motion to Dismiss
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Why? Isn't that what courts are for: to determine when a certain behavior breaks the law and tell people who are breaking it to stop? Isn't that literally the most basic function of the court system--and now you're saying it's "very dangerous"?
On the post: New Leak Reveals Proposal To Extend Corporate Sovereignty Massively To Include Intra-EU Investments
Re:
On the post: Photojournalist Being Sued For Publishing Image Of Aftermath Of Paris Attacks
Re:
The justice system, by way of libel laws. That's pretty specifically what it was designed for.
On the post: Photojournalist Being Sued For Publishing Image Of Aftermath Of Paris Attacks
Re: Re:
On the post: Former FCC Boss Turned Top Cable Lobbyist Says Cable Industry Being Unfairly Attacked, 'No Evidence' Of Consumer Harm
Mr. Powell appears to be confused regarding the difference between "assault" and "act of self-defense." This is a small part of what it looks like when democracy fights back.
On the post: Cable Company CEO Calls TV Business A 'Tragedy Of The Commons' That Ends Badly
Re: Illusion of 'Free'
On the post: DailyDirt: All Alone In The Universe With Nowhere To Go...
Re: The TRAPPIST Project
On the post: Disappointing: Elsevier Buys Open Access Academic Pre-Publisher SSRN
Where are you getting this from? That's the exact opposite of the truth; copyright was designed as a tool to keep abusive publishers in line. And it worked surprisingly well throughout most of its history--just not the parts that most of us lived in. The 1970s is when it really started getting turned on its head and perverted into a tool for publishers to use to further abuse people.
On the post: Cable Lobbying Group Claims More Competition Would Hurt Consumers
Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 74: Why Is Tesla So Successful?
Elon Musk never set out to run a luxury car company. He's a visionary, a guy who wants to bring transformative change, and he knows that you can't transform a system by only penetrating into a tiny percentage of the market. So he used the high-end market as a stepping stone, a means to an end, to build a brand and to raise capital so that they'd have the resources to put into the R&D necessary to make affordable, high-quality EVs available to the masses.
When Henry Ford set out to build a car for the masses, he wasn't doing anything particularly revolutionary. Automobile technology was pretty well established by that point, and the cars were simple to make, so he could jump straight into it. A century of improvements in the state of the art, not to mention vital safety standards that were nonexistent in Ford's day, means that making an entry-level car from nothing is a difficult endeavor. Now add in an entirely new fuel system with minimal infrastructure to support it (Ford originally intended for the Model T to run on alcohol which anyone with a still could make in their own garage) and you can see why Tesla's incremental system was necessary to get off the ground!
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 74: Why Is Tesla So Successful?
Re: Is Tesla the New Tucker*?
On the post: Add Philadelphia To The Long List Of Cities That Think Verizon Ripped Them Off On Fiber Promises
Next >>