As we've seen, Apple and Microsoft are patent trolls as well. The problem as they see it, is to prevent the "parasitical trolls", as they might call them, from suing; while reserving for themselves the right to troll at will for purposes of monopolization.
It's a huge problem with law in the United States: the idea that everyone is subject to the same law. If only it were possible for Apple/Microsoft to be under one set of laws and the parasitical trolls to be under another, the latter would have been out of business years ago.
Did I miss the search service for uninformed, in the dark, out to lunch, out of it, negligent, inattentive, and oblivous lawyers?
I've followed this Prenda stuff for a while and I don't think I've ever seen so many Sergeant "I see nothing! I know nothing!" Schultz clones in one place.
The Supreme Court is buried in cases; far more than it can reasonably hear. It's not taking a case that can be decided by a lower court, until the issue is ripe for decision at the Supreme Court.
That only happens when the Appeals court is clearly wrong, when different Appeals courts disagree, or (very rarely) when an issue is especially urgent.
So it's not a surprise they've refused to hear it now. Despite our frustrations, it's not urgent enough to require them to decide yet.
This is a flaw in the encryption software that allows you to read the memory of the system on which it is running. You not only have access to encrypted messages, but potentially the ability to look at everything in the machine's memory. (Basically the ability--at least--to view all user passwords, any other encryption keys in use by the machine, read the network configuration, and so on.)
Broken encryption means that when you sign on to your bank the attacker can read your communication with the bank.
But if you're running the broken version of this software, you might just as well hand your hard drive to the attacker. That's why it's worse.
In case no one's been watching, most of our worst government autocrats have an entirely different definition of citizenship than you or I. To them, citizenship is head-down, slow march, boot-licking obeisance to everything the autocrats proclaim; and never, ever question authority, rock the boat, or even ask the autocrats to explain.
To those autocrats, anyone who violates their "rules of good citizenship" must be silenced and then disposed of, normalized or otherwise rendered "harmless" by any available means.
Governor Malloy appears from this story to be one of those; the college president another.
DOJ must destroy all the files; all the real evidence. Because even the "evidence" it has taken is generally only metadata; that is to say, if the file has the same name and size as a copyrighted work, then it definitely is.
To defend itself, Megaupload needs to be able to show those files are not infringing, or that it did a reasonable job of removing infringing works in compliance with the DMCA. DOJ doesn't want them to be able to show that, since that might establish reasonable doubt.
So the best way to ensure that Megaupload cannot defend itself is the utter destruction of the files. This is why DOJ has been seeking two things from early in the case: To prevent Megaupload from having access to the files and; once DOJ culled out enough "culpatory" evidence to support their case, the utter destruction even of the files they claim are infringing.
All they want to remain is the culpatory metadata, against which Megaupload can offer no useful defense.
"I can't figure out for the life of me how such steadfast support of Israel -- a policy that Kissinger so strongly favored -- could possibly be in America's best 'interest'."
You have to understand that when Kissinger said, "America", he meant only certain "special interests" within the country.
Speaking of uncaring oligopolies: The "Comcast" video from Vimeo won't play for me, but the advertisement before the video plays just fine. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Hmmmm...Oh, wait, I know. That's Vimeo saying, "The advertisement is about money, but the rest is just a lousy video. Go watch another of our ads."
I'm sure they'll do a very good job of declassifying that document;right into the basement of a hut at an unpublished location on a remote pacific island.
This is a problem with abusive relationships, which is also called co-dependence. The victim of the abuse may feel that they are abused and trapped, but they often decline to resist. Even if separated from the abuser, they may return; such as, for example, bailing the abuser out of jail.
In actuality, this is a further manifestation of control by the abuser, who works to make the abused feel they have no options: "Who else would love you?" "How would you live?" "What would you do for money?" "If you leave, I'll kill (you/the kids)."
This can be done more subtly than the above and, when an abused feels they have no other option, they are inclined to return to--to accept--the deficiencies of the relationship.
It is one of the biggest problems in trying to reduce abuse.
"Because" is used by the government a lot these days.
"Why do you have to record everything?" ("Because.")
"Why do you have to have a no-fly list?" ("Because.")
"Why do we all have to be treated like terrorists at the airport? ("Because.")
Just like when parents use it, the word is used when they don't have a justification or don't want to go into it (which usually means they're not sure of the justification).
I think there's a simple tie-breaker that should be applied in all cases of this type. An indication that "laundering" of FAA-obtained evidence was used in a case should result in a ruling by the judge that all evidence in the case presumptively is fruit of a poison tree.
Then the government is given an opportunity to prove provenance of every element of the evidence and, only if they can prove the source of each element was constitutional, will it be ruled admissible.
This would be a variation of "beyond a reasonable doubt": The government simply shows that the evidence was validly obtained beyond a reasonable doubt, then they can proceed. But this shouldn't be used at random; only when "laundering" is suspected.
Of course, should it so desire, the government can simply show the constitutionally compliant FAA warrant for the evidence and move on.
On the post: History Repeats Itself: Patent Abusers Successfully Stymie Anti-Patent Troll Bill In The Senate
How to protect/eliminate right to troll
It's a huge problem with law in the United States: the idea that everyone is subject to the same law. If only it were possible for Apple/Microsoft to be under one set of laws and the parasitical trolls to be under another, the latter would have been out of business years ago.
On the post: DOJ Updates FISA Court On Its Bulk Record Data Retention, Glosses Over Earlier Misconduct
Color me surprised
On the post: Appeals Court Not At All Impressed By Prenda's Appeal
Dumb lawyer search engine?
I've followed this Prenda stuff for a while and I don't think I've ever seen so many Sergeant "I see nothing! I know nothing!" Schultz clones in one place.
On the post: The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area
Re: probing for lax judges
You can be sure the government is working very hard to rectify that oversight.
On the post: NSA Spied On Human Rights Watch And Amnesty International
Well, Duh
On the post: Supreme Court Still Not Ready To Hear Case Challenging NSA Surveillance
Not a surprise
That only happens when the Appeals court is clearly wrong, when different Appeals courts disagree, or (very rarely) when an issue is especially urgent.
So it's not a surprise they've refused to hear it now. Despite our frustrations, it's not urgent enough to require them to decide yet.
On the post: Heartbleed Bug In OpenSSL Makes It Worse Than No Encryption At All
Re: Yes, it's very serious, but...
Broken encryption means that when you sign on to your bank the attacker can read your communication with the bank.
But if you're running the broken version of this software, you might just as well hand your hard drive to the attacker. That's why it's worse.
On the post: College Violates Student's Rights, Follows It Up By Deleting Critical Comments From Its Facebook Page
Citizenship
To those autocrats, anyone who violates their "rules of good citizenship" must be silenced and then disposed of, normalized or otherwise rendered "harmless" by any available means.
Governor Malloy appears from this story to be one of those; the college president another.
On the post: Former NSA/CIA Boss' Anger Issues: Claims Senate Staffers Are 'Sissies' And Wyden Isn't 'Acting Like A Man'
Name-calling
On the post: DOJ Continues To Obstruct Efforts For Megaupload Users To Get Their Files Back
DOJ must destroy the evidence
To defend itself, Megaupload needs to be able to show those files are not infringing, or that it did a reasonable job of removing infringing works in compliance with the DMCA. DOJ doesn't want them to be able to show that, since that might establish reasonable doubt.
So the best way to ensure that Megaupload cannot defend itself is the utter destruction of the files. This is why DOJ has been seeking two things from early in the case: To prevent Megaupload from having access to the files and; once DOJ culled out enough "culpatory" evidence to support their case, the utter destruction even of the files they claim are infringing.
All they want to remain is the culpatory metadata, against which Megaupload can offer no useful defense.
On the post: State Department Official Freaks Out That Declassifying CIA Torture Report Might Make The World Angry
Re: Re: Re: useful idiots
You have to understand that when Kissinger said, "America", he meant only certain "special interests" within the country.
On the post: A Little Honesty: Comcast Doesn't Give A F**k What You Think Of Its Merger
Vimeo
Hmmmm...Oh, wait, I know. That's Vimeo saying, "The advertisement is about money, but the rest is just a lousy video. Go watch another of our ads."
On the post: Senate Report Shows CIA Agents Used Torture Techniques Not Approved By DOJ Or CIA
On the post: DOJ Apologizes For Misleading FISC Concerning Evidence; Hints Strongly That It Used Opportunity To Destroy Evidence
No worries, mate.
On the post: CIA Put In Charge Of Declassifying Senate's Report That Condemns The CIA's Torture Program
Expect the best
On the post: Comcast Says That If You Object To Its Merger With Time Warner Cable, You're Ignorant And Unreasonable
Insults
"Takes one to know one, bud!"
On the post: City Of London Police Create Secret 'Pirate Site Blacklist' For Advertisers, With No Transparency
Let's try some sauce for the gander
On the post: Mobile Spyware Use In Domestic Violence Ramps Up
A problem with abuse
In actuality, this is a further manifestation of control by the abuser, who works to make the abused feel they have no options: "Who else would love you?" "How would you live?" "What would you do for money?" "If you leave, I'll kill (you/the kids)."
This can be done more subtly than the above and, when an abused feels they have no other option, they are inclined to return to--to accept--the deficiencies of the relationship.
It is one of the biggest problems in trying to reduce abuse.
On the post: ICE Rejects My Request To Waive FOIA Fees 'Because .' Yes, 'Because .'
Government sure uses that word a lot
"Why do you have to record everything?" ("Because.")
"Why do you have to have a no-fly list?" ("Because.")
"Why do we all have to be treated like terrorists at the airport? ("Because.")
Just like when parents use it, the word is used when they don't have a justification or don't want to go into it (which usually means they're not sure of the justification).
On the post: DOJ Flips Out That Evidence Gathered Via FISA Orders Might Be Made Available To Defendants
Tie-breaker
Then the government is given an opportunity to prove provenance of every element of the evidence and, only if they can prove the source of each element was constitutional, will it be ruled admissible.
This would be a variation of "beyond a reasonable doubt": The government simply shows that the evidence was validly obtained beyond a reasonable doubt, then they can proceed. But this shouldn't be used at random; only when "laundering" is suspected.
Of course, should it so desire, the government can simply show the constitutionally compliant FAA warrant for the evidence and move on.
Next >>