If I were on a jury I'd call this a pretty clear-cut case of false advertising/false endorsement.
More like a case of a biting the hand that feeds you. A less curmudgeonly musician might have welcomed the free publicity and approached the retailer with a view to creating more - for mutual benefit. Technically he may have a case - but he would be shooting himself in the foot to pursue it!
. Everything is monitored, stored, and can haunt you to the end of time.
The most important point, maybe you can avoid associating with people who are officially on today's list of targets BUT.
1. The NSA might not be telling us the full list of "dangerous associations" (given their track record it would be really surprising if they were).
2. As has been pointed out before - not everyone with access to this data is necessarily "on our side". The government has been successful in identifying "whistleblowers" who have access to the data - but then that is comparatively easy because they put the information itself into the public domain. Edward Snowden could have secretly passed his information to the Iranians or even IS or Al Qaeda and no one would have found out.
3. The nightmare scenario is what happens if the nature of the US government changed and decided to act against groups or opinions that are currently regarded as fine. The data is there ready to be used even against those who currently think of themselves as "the good guys".
ut imagine what might happen if the ethos of the government changed
I think it's primarily funded by selling oil and ransom money.
It had to capture some oilfields/people before that revenue stream was possible. It must have had some funding to do that and I would be surprised if that funding has gone away.
Also it would be a straightforward low risk military operation to recapture the oilfields. If the US believed that that would be enough to stop these people then I'm sure they would do it - or sponsor someone else to do it.
Whilst selling oil and ransom is currently a source of funding it can only be a secondary one.
The key point in the original comment was the one about funding.
Currently ISIS is funded by people with a broadly similar religious agenda (as was the case with the US Catholics and the IRA) what is needed is to shame these people into stopping their support. One would have thought that the activities of ISIS would have done that without intervention on our part. However that does not seem to have happened so we need to find ways to cut the funding at a point further back in the chain. This could be done by stopping buying oil (as suggested) but it could also be done by reducing the number of people who hold that religious agenda, and that can only be done by intellectual engagement. This would include politely pressing "friendly" islamic countries to end their prohibition on other religions and philosophical viewpoints.
In the meantime we might have to accept that basically secular local leaders like Assad - however nasty they might be - are a better option for the short term than those whose agenda includes exporting their nastiness throughout the world. Genuine democratic groups in the region are too small and weak to do anything at present. Arming them militarily will not be enough. We need to arm them intellectually so they can win over more hearts and minds.
Ironically dictators like Assad and Saddam, because they came from minority sects have had to be more pluralist and tolerant. You could be a Christian, a Jew a Buddhist on an Atheist in Saddam's Iraq (and Assad's Syria) - but not in some other places that we have never dreamt of invading...
Assad has never been a threat to anyone outside the middle east (and actually Saddam never really was either) but ISIS and their ilk most certainly are.
seriously, over there it's our enemies fighting our enemies, so why not just stand back and let them?
I agree with everything you just said - except that line.
There are many innocent people being killed in that fight - especially the minority groups (Eastern Christians, Yazidis etc) - so "stand back and let them" is not a moral option.
Having said that it is also true that western interventions in that area have mostly been negative for these people - from the crusades to the overthrow of Saddam.
However the one thing we have never done is to actually listen to them we mostly ignore them unless their plight is journalistically photogenic - maybe we should start listening now.
A British judging if something is funny? I don't think it is actually required to succeed in being funny, it only has to be clearly intended to be funny - and hence not a competitor for the original.
Also note that this actually seems to go beyond US style fair use in that it allows satire (the appropriation of a work to poke fun at "some other target") as opposed to just parody - which strictly has to be a parody of the work itself.
Maybe someone should start sending in stupid patent applications deliberately (using random small company names) and then call out in public big time if the paptent office accepts one of them.
Wanting to silence someone for their beliefs like this bitch wants puts you on their level, but silencing someone that is trying to silence others is a justice. For this one the devil is definitely in the details.
The devil certainly is in the detail - especially when you bear in mind that one of the nasty aspects of those whom Mrs May wishes to silence is that they would also silence opposing views, given the chance. You try going to the territory controlled by ISIS and preaching any religion, world view or philosophy other than (their particular brand of) Islam and see if you even survive.
It's a matter of rational organisms trying to find and maximize win-win situations in game theory. That's why the markets work: they are based purely on the idea that trade is intrinsicly in-the-moment win-win. Moral (rational) thinking extends that beyond single transactions.
Tha is exactly (one version of) what I meant by "the universe has good built in".
So, prohibiting mass surveillance by NSA/FBI/CIA is bad idea? Search without order is allowed "by technology" - why prohibit it?
AH - you ignore the important words "may" and "naive".
Simply prohibiting surveillance would not prevent it anyway - that is why it is a bad idea.
Enabling technological countermeasures (eg encryption) is a better approach. Enabling the market to function properly in this area would result in a gravitation towards secure products that would frustrate the surveillance.
Ultimately one has to trust that the universe has a built in bias towards "good". This could be justified theologically or by evolutionary theory (or both) depending on your philosophical outlook.
If that bias does not exist then : a) We are stuffed. b) Where did this "morality" come frome anyway?
The fuel of corruption can't sustainably burn without an engine. Remove the incentives of evil and evil naturally removes itself.
A really good point. It has often seemed to me that many of our laws are little more than "criminal business opportunities" - ie ways to make a profit that can only be exploited by people who are prepared to break the law. This is true of drug laws - and also of copyright. As you point out this situation can also exist within government structures.
It's the age old question "Quis custodiet custodiens". In theory the "rule of law" is the best defence against this problem. The reality however is that the corrupt guardians subvert the rule of law for their own purposes. So the problem is not really the "rule of law" but rather that the spirit of the rule of law is undermined whilst the letter is preserved.
The founding fathers new that laws always tended to trod on human rights. This is why so much of the Bill of Rights is worded, "Congress shall make no law."
The term they used was "nature and nature's god". By "nature's god," what they meant was "natural laws",
Exactly where in natural law (ie the laws of physics) are human rights to be found?
"That simply makes them into god." How so?
Because they (would) have in fact invented for themselves, something that they attribute to god.
The reality here is that the founders thoughts came of the back of 1700+ years of Christian tradition, which itself drew on an amalgam of Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.
The things they thought to be self evident are not actually self evident unless you have been conditioned by that culture.
You yourself are conditioned by that culture even if you are not conscious of it - you can't escape it.
Yes, the founders included references to god, but they weren't really referring to a supernatural god
What other kind is there?
their view, we have inherent rights not because they come from some god, but because they are an intrinsic part of being human.
That simply makes them into god.
When you say something "intrinsic rights of being human" you need to add "in my, totally arbitrary opinion". Unless you can trace that opinion to some evidence in the natural world then it is an axiom that you have invented.
Effectively you are setting yourself up as god.
In your attempt to reduce the number of gods to zero you have succeeded instead in increasing them to several billion!
On the post: Don Henley Sues Clothing Retailer Over Its Use Of Common English Words
Re: Re: Re: I'm not persuaded
More like a case of a biting the hand that feeds you. A less curmudgeonly musician might have welcomed the free publicity and approached the retailer with a view to creating more - for mutual benefit. Technically he may have a case - but he would be shooting himself in the foot to pursue it!
On the post: Dutch Prosecutors Putting Pressure On Hosting Companies To Censor Content, Despite It Being Legal
Re:
On the post: Former NSA Head Says You Can Avoid Government Spying By Using This One Simple Trick
Re:
The most important point, maybe you can avoid associating with people who are officially on today's list of targets BUT.
1. The NSA might not be telling us the full list of "dangerous associations" (given their track record it would be really surprising if they were).
2. As has been pointed out before - not everyone with access to this data is necessarily "on our side". The government has been successful in identifying "whistleblowers" who have access to the data - but then that is comparatively easy because they put the information itself into the public domain. Edward Snowden could have secretly passed his information to the Iranians or even IS or Al Qaeda and no one would have found out.
3. The nightmare scenario is what happens if the nature of the US government changed and decided to act against groups or opinions that are currently regarded as fine. The data is there ready to be used even against those who currently think of themselves as "the good guys".
ut imagine what might happen if the ethos of the government changed
On the post: Former NSA Head Says You Can Avoid Government Spying By Using This One Simple Trick
Re: Not everyone can be perfect
Maybe - but he became careless. It is difficult to avoid creating a visible footprint when you are making money.
On the post: White House Says Its Rules Limiting Drone Attacks To Avoid Civilians Don't Apply In Syria
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It had to capture some oilfields/people before that revenue stream was possible. It must have had some funding to do that and I would be surprised if that funding has gone away.
Also it would be a straightforward low risk military operation to recapture the oilfields. If the US believed that that would be enough to stop these people then I'm sure they would do it - or sponsor someone else to do it.
Whilst selling oil and ransom is currently a source of funding it can only be a secondary one.
On the post: White House Says Its Rules Limiting Drone Attacks To Avoid Civilians Don't Apply In Syria
Re: Re: Re:
Currently ISIS is funded by people with a broadly similar religious agenda (as was the case with the US Catholics and the IRA) what is needed is to shame these people into stopping their support. One would have thought that the activities of ISIS would have done that without intervention on our part. However that does not seem to have happened so we need to find ways to cut the funding at a point further back in the chain. This could be done by stopping buying oil (as suggested) but it could also be done by reducing the number of people who hold that religious agenda, and that can only be done by intellectual engagement. This would include politely pressing "friendly" islamic countries to end their prohibition on other religions and philosophical viewpoints.
In the meantime we might have to accept that basically secular local leaders like Assad - however nasty they might be - are a better option for the short term than those whose agenda includes exporting their nastiness throughout the world. Genuine democratic groups in the region are too small and weak to do anything at present. Arming them militarily will not be enough. We need to arm them intellectually so they can win over more hearts and minds.
Ironically dictators like Assad and Saddam, because they came from minority sects have had to be more pluralist and tolerant. You could be a Christian, a Jew a Buddhist on an Atheist in Saddam's Iraq (and Assad's Syria) - but not in some other places that we have never dreamt of invading...
Assad has never been a threat to anyone outside the middle east (and actually Saddam never really was either) but ISIS and their ilk most certainly are.
On the post: DEA Impersonated Woman, Set Up Fake Facebook Page, Posted Photos From Her Seized Phone To Make It Look Real
The internet is a lawless place
On the post: White House Says Its Rules Limiting Drone Attacks To Avoid Civilians Don't Apply In Syria
Re:
I agree with everything you just said - except that line.
There are many innocent people being killed in that fight - especially the minority groups (Eastern Christians, Yazidis etc) - so "stand back and let them" is not a moral option.
Having said that it is also true that western interventions in that area have mostly been negative for these people - from the crusades to the overthrow of Saddam.
However the one thing we have never done is to actually listen to them we mostly ignore them unless their plight is journalistically photogenic - maybe we should start listening now.
On the post: New UK Copyright Exception Allows Mashups -- But Only If Judges Think They Are Funny
Re:
I don't think it is actually required to succeed in being funny, it only has to be clearly intended to be funny - and hence not a competitor for the original.
Also note that this actually seems to go beyond US style fair use in that it allows satire (the appropriation of a work to poke fun at "some other target") as opposed to just parody - which strictly has to be a parody of the work itself.
On the post: Serial Litigant Blue Spike Wins EFF's Stupid Patent Of The Month For September
Maybe
Maybe we could even use an automated patent generator
The costs would need to be crowdfunded - I'd contribute!
On the post: Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted 'Extremists' From Social Media, TV, Events
Re: Re:
The devil certainly is in the detail - especially when you bear in mind that one of the nasty aspects of those whom Mrs May wishes to silence is that they would also silence opposing views, given the chance. You try going to the territory controlled by ISIS and preaching any religion, world view or philosophy other than (their particular brand of) Islam and see if you even survive.
Does that make Mrs May's plan " a justice"?
On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tha is exactly (one version of) what I meant by "the universe has good built in".
Thank you!
On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AH - you ignore the important words "may" and "naive".
Simply prohibiting surveillance would not prevent it anyway - that is why it is a bad idea.
Enabling technological countermeasures (eg encryption) is a better approach. Enabling the market to function properly in this area would result in a gravitation towards secure products that would frustrate the surveillance.
Ultimately one has to trust that the universe has a built in bias towards "good". This could be justified theologically or by evolutionary theory (or both) depending on your philosophical outlook.
If that bias does not exist then :
a) We are stuffed.
b) Where did this "morality" come frome anyway?
On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights
Re: Re: Re:
A really good point. It has often seemed to me that many of our laws are little more than "criminal business opportunities" - ie ways to make a profit that can only be exploited by people who are prepared to break the law. This is true of drug laws - and also of copyright. As you point out this situation can also exist within government structures.
On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights
Re: Re:
But it may mean it's a bad idea to try and prevent it by naive prohibition.
On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights
Re:
It's the age old question "Quis custodiet custodiens".
In theory the "rule of law" is the best defence against this problem. The reality however is that the corrupt guardians subvert the rule of law for their own purposes. So the problem is not really the "rule of law" but rather that the spirit of the rule of law is undermined whilst the letter is preserved.
On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights
Re: This is why
Matbe they should have left it at that!
On the post: 11th Circuit Court On TSA Search Methods: Compared To A Terrorist Attack, Invasive Searches Aren't Invasive
Re:
Multiply the invasiveness of the TSA search by the probability of getting one as you board the plane (close to 1)
Multiply the invasiveness of being hit by a terrorist attack by the probability of that happening (
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in there.
Exactly where in natural law (ie the laws of physics) are human rights to be found?
"That simply makes them into god."
How so?
Because they (would) have in fact invented for themselves, something that they attribute to god.
The reality here is that the founders thoughts came of the back of 1700+ years of Christian tradition, which itself drew on an amalgam of Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.
The things they thought to be self evident are not actually self evident unless you have been conditioned by that culture.
You yourself are conditioned by that culture even if you are not conscious of it - you can't escape it.
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Re: Re: It's in there.
What other kind is there?
their view, we have inherent rights not because they come from some god, but because they are an intrinsic part of being human.
That simply makes them into god.
When you say something "intrinsic rights of being human" you need to add "in my, totally arbitrary opinion". Unless you can trace that opinion to some evidence in the natural world then it is an axiom that you have invented.
Effectively you are setting yourself up as god.
In your attempt to reduce the number of gods to zero you have succeeded instead in increasing them to several billion!
Next >>