Yeah it's just so ISO 900x-something (an equally if not more hilarious thing than patents, but i digress) that i honestly fail to see anything patentable. Blah blah, on a computer. Blah blah, at a security checkpoint. Blah blah, moving trays, but at your Mom's.
It's a stupid risk to manage. That is, there should be no risk. The turkey company did not invent the word. In fact, this is one of those "how is such a broad trademark allowed on a common word in itself in the first place" situations. Smells like Monster Cable to me.
Being the end of 2016 and this occurring in 2013, and courts nearly miraculously finding against the officer and department, I can only imagine it is pretty damn dried.
But hey, hold on there three more years or so while the department and friends get a chance, post-ruling, to tell their side of the story.
IT is. It is specific to how these things affect your search results.
That aside, techdirt cannot report on every single last thing. It isn't just a writing staff paid by someone. They have a business. And they don't just mention (re-report news like other outlets), they write when they have something to add -an analysis, pointing to a trend, etc.
I seriously don't know why people complain about some particular thing techdirt wrote or did not write about. Or when the same happens most other places for that matter.
But thanks for mentioning that about Google. I am not a particular fan of theirs and i welcome the confirmation to my bias. (Although their employees generally seem to be treated pretty freaking well.)
How does this even have anything to do with some unstated purported wrongdoing on Google's part? How is allowing yet another monopoly-boosting merger (far worse than what the original AT&T was dismembered for) address some putative wrongdoing of Google? Or is this just another boilerplate Mike-is-a-shill-for-X comment pasted wherever you see Google or whatever favorite target mentioned on techdirt?
As to that, I am hardly a Google fan, and have never seem Mike doing anything to shill or defend bad actions by Google, and i would be predisposed, i think, to see such things.
You want to kill these companies? Start infiltrating the advertising world and corporate marketing with people who think sensibly. Of course, the same companies who want Google or Facebook dead so bad are large corporations who must spend hefty amounts advertising on... Facebook and Google. Their ad revenue is not coming from the little guys.
Re: Re: Re: Now Obama is spouting off about the election being hacked
I thought it was already covered earlier, but yeah since Obama and the hilarious stories from "leaks" run by things like WaPo, and the repetition by people and sources who have generally displayed better judgement before, uncritically believing something supposedly from the CIA with about zero evidence as though that outfit is mysteriously credible now. Noticed how they have pointed this out at The Intercept, though.
But honestly techdirt has been running so many other stories, i would think that further coverage is currently triaged.
No, rooting iPhones, for example, is "illegal" unless the LoC happens to say it is ok at the moment. The same for pen and bug testing various things, including cars, where the intent wasn't even to patch vulns or add free code. These activities can and have been attacked using the DMCA, even when there is zero commercial purpose or even an offering of free to use and modify alternate code. Hell, even if there wasn't a public disclosure yet.
It's the difference between those who are innately socially "conservative", as we call it, and various forms of political or fiscal conservatism that may be arrived at from some consideration. They do tend to hew together, and are sometimes lumped together externally, or simply conflated through the different uses of the word not being defined. It happens with other labels, and the other labels with which they are associated (as if there are not conservative Democrats (lols) which both Democrats and Republicans would have you believe). At root, it is generally the un-empathetic and authoritarian type humans who don't get things like irony, and tend to be more or less congruent with "conservative" in at least some other senses.
It's not even that. Plenty of this sold -as-a-service, when they hardly need to be dependent on the service part in the first place, are built and sold that way with control and planned obsolescence in mind in the first place. Others simply move on to "improved" products or sell out without a care for the fans and customers who made them possible in the first place. Too much runs over the internet and on remote servers for absolutely no reason at all other than this kind of control, and sheer laziness.
Failures are more understandable, but surely one could maintain the remote support necessary rather cheaply, move all functionality to the devices or local servers, and more directly relevant to the claims of the article title: Remove any restrictions on user self-support that never should have been there in the first place. The DMCA and CFAA are completely irrelevant if the vendor isn't a dick.
As far as I have seen, Snowden _did_ try taking taking concerns though channels, and they _were_ more than disregarded. He simply chose another route before reaching the more extensive retaliation stage.
It's not the oath but the game rules they had long adopted to ensure the continuity of their own agency while pretending it is about protecting the continuity of government while pretending that, in turn, is about protecting the nation and the people. It's what got us government nuke shelters and how to pay your taxes after we fucked up so bad that we allowed a nuclear war to occur plans. It's why any means necessary to supposedly defend the ideals we hold so dear, upon which the country was theoretically founded, are totes ok, and violating principles and people in the name of defending them is completely normal.
Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
And completely disregarding the complete lack of evidence for all the expanded intrusions from any agency having any positive effect whatsoever on security.
A lot of them are hosted ISP customer mail accounts. Seem to be popular in Asia-Pacific too. So yeah probably a lot of initial mail accounts that may not actually be used for anything other than a signup email address elsewhere, or dead. They seem to have enough active traffic to get criminals and governments (yeah, redundant) interested.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Carrying Trays On A Cart
Re: Henry Ford has risen from his grave
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Carrying Trays On A Cart
SecurityPoint Holdings ? Seriously?
Seriously?
On the post: Butterball Sues Australian Wine Company Over Its 'Butterball' Chardonnay
Re: Re: Re: Foot Shot
On the post: Court Won't Grant Immunity To Officer Who Issued A 'Be On The Lookout' Order On Whistleblowing Cop
Re: Re:
But hey, hold on there three more years or so while the department and friends get a chance, post-ruling, to tell their side of the story.
On the post: South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn
Re: How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course
On the post: South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Finally Wins One Of Those Nutty Defamation Lawsuits Down Under
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IT is. It is specific to how these things affect your search results.
That aside, techdirt cannot report on every single last thing. It isn't just a writing staff paid by someone. They have a business. And they don't just mention (re-report news like other outlets), they write when they have something to add -an analysis, pointing to a trend, etc.
I seriously don't know why people complain about some particular thing techdirt wrote or did not write about. Or when the same happens most other places for that matter.
But thanks for mentioning that about Google. I am not a particular fan of theirs and i welcome the confirmation to my bias. (Although their employees generally seem to be treated pretty freaking well.)
On the post: You Have To Distort The Facts Pretty Badly To Argue That Google & Facebook Are Worse For Consumers Than AT&T
Re: Give it the fuck up Mike.
As to that, I am hardly a Google fan, and have never seem Mike doing anything to shill or defend bad actions by Google, and i would be predisposed, i think, to see such things.
You want to kill these companies? Start infiltrating the advertising world and corporate marketing with people who think sensibly. Of course, the same companies who want Google or Facebook dead so bad are large corporations who must spend hefty amounts advertising on... Facebook and Google. Their ad revenue is not coming from the little guys.
On the post: Snowden's 'Proper Channel' For Whistleblowing Being Booted From The NSA For Retaliating Against A Whistleblower
Re: Re: Re: Now Obama is spouting off about the election being hacked
I thought it was already covered earlier, but yeah since Obama and the hilarious stories from "leaks" run by things like WaPo, and the repetition by people and sources who have generally displayed better judgement before, uncritically believing something supposedly from the CIA with about zero evidence as though that outfit is mysteriously credible now. Noticed how they have pointed this out at The Intercept, though.
But honestly techdirt has been running so many other stories, i would think that further coverage is currently triaged.
On the post: How The DMCA And The CFAA Are Preventing People From Saving Their Soon-To-Be-Broken Pebble Watches
Re:
On the post: Samantha Bee Gets Talib Kweli To Rap About Protecting Your Phone With A Passcode
Re: Re: Re: Great stuff
On the post: How The DMCA And The CFAA Are Preventing People From Saving Their Soon-To-Be-Broken Pebble Watches
Re: Re: Nope, I'm not buying them
It's not even that. Plenty of this sold -as-a-service, when they hardly need to be dependent on the service part in the first place, are built and sold that way with control and planned obsolescence in mind in the first place. Others simply move on to "improved" products or sell out without a care for the fans and customers who made them possible in the first place. Too much runs over the internet and on remote servers for absolutely no reason at all other than this kind of control, and sheer laziness.
Failures are more understandable, but surely one could maintain the remote support necessary rather cheaply, move all functionality to the devices or local servers, and more directly relevant to the claims of the article title: Remove any restrictions on user self-support that never should have been there in the first place. The DMCA and CFAA are completely irrelevant if the vendor isn't a dick.
On the post: Snowden's 'Proper Channel' For Whistleblowing Being Booted From The NSA For Retaliating Against A Whistleblower
Re:
On the post: Snowden's 'Proper Channel' For Whistleblowing Being Booted From The NSA For Retaliating Against A Whistleblower
On the post: The Intercept Publishes A Post From James Clapper's Classified Blog... the 'Intercept'
Re: The oath we took
On the post: The Intercept Publishes A Post From James Clapper's Classified Blog... the 'Intercept'
Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
On the post: UK's Ridiculous Internet Porn Crackdown Can Be Used To Kill Social Media Accounts
Re: Re: But what about REAL violence??
On the post: Command Line Interface Copyright Case: Not Fair Use... But Not Infringing Thanks To Scenes A Faire
Re: Re:
On the post: Verizon Wants A Yahoo Price Cut After Company Reveals Another, Massive Hack Attack
Re: Re:
Next >>