Suppose someone did have a history of criminal activity.
Are you suggesting that they should probably choose to remain a criminal for the rest of their life because the police have a right to treat them that way for life?
Is it a worthy goal of the police to discourage anyone from ever getting their act together and becoming a law abiding citizen?
It is probably worth extending this thinking to family relations as well. If your grandfather had any criminal activity, then you might too. Or your cousin, etc.
If people can now freely read short snippets from out of print books that will never be in print ever, ever again, then how will the authors of those books get paid?
Andrus Ansip, who is overseeing an overhaul of the bloc’s copyright rules, said the YouTube’s comparatively small payments to artists gave it an unfair advantage over rivals such as Spotify, the Swedish streaming service.
Please tell me why Google / YouTube should be paying ANYTHING to artists at all?
If an artist doesn't want their work on YouTube, then DON'T UPLOAD IT.
If someone else uploads it, and you're sure it's not obvious fair use, then avail yourself of the remedy to sue the uploader for copyright infringement.
If YouTube wants to offer you a way to monetize videos that you upload, which you have the proper copyright authority to upload, then don't complain. Either take the deal or don't take the deal. Or try to negotiate. Just like any other business arrangement.
Why is any special regulation needed to cover this?
If saying you work with the police is bad marketing, then whose fault is that?
The Police! That's who.
Once upon a time, it would simply go unsaid that you work with law enforcement. In fact, working against law enforcement would be seen negatively.
The fact that it is now a marketing feature to safeguard you from abusive law enforcement is the best evidence that something is deeply wrong in law enforcement. At all levels.
In a nutshell, the processor won't start (AMD) or will only run for 30 minutes (Intel) unless the 'active management' engine says everything is okay. That engine of invasion is a separate computer subsystem within the CPU that must be running an encrypted binary blob in order for 'everything to be okay'. To add injury to injury, the micoprocessor, under control of that engine, has direct hardware access to everything. The disk. The network.
So would Intel be a FON? (FON is an acronym from the slide deck.)
So do you think PCs are totally and completely compromised enough yet?
Paranoid yet?
Is this far, far worse than compromising the C compiler to secretly embed back doors into other programs as it compiles them?
And it's all right out there in the open. Under our noses. Right in front of God and everyone.
Maybe FBI should offer an inducement for everyone entering the mall to plug their phone into a kiosk each time they visit the mall.
NEW!! FIB Hack-A-Fone Kiosk! Chance to win up to $1000 each time you visit the mall!
That would save law enforcement from having to round up every US citizen to 'inspect' their phones. And after all, this is about pirac... er, I meant to say, about terrorism.
And just like any offer to win up to $1000, you only have to pay it once. And the meaning of 'up to' is not well defined. And you can pay it to any of your cronies or hired goons.
The hen house is well protected. But outside the protection area are hen kiosks which may be visited by foxes who have an appointment to use the kiosk.
It is only an assumption, an IF, on TechDirt's part.
There MAY be a proprietary connection on the FBI kiosk...
It is unknown whether proprietary cables are needed.
Given that the FBI would want to promote abuse of these kiosks, why should they require anything other than standard off the shelf cables. And yes, it is correct to assume that they deliberately intend to promote abuse. Otherwise why go to all the trouble to put these into kiosks that anyone can access with no controls other than a mere token that allows them to claim that usage is controlled by an appointment, a form and required cables.
If the cables requirement is so easy to work around, how difficult is it to work around the appointment requirement and the signature requirement.
I seem to recall that CFAA can get you 35 years in prison.
I seem to recall that CFAA has been stretched, twisted and construed to include violating a web site's TOS. (terms of service)
I don't know which social media sites the prosecutor might have created a fake account on, and have not read it's TOS (terms of slavery), but I strongly suspect that the prosecutor was in violation of the social media site's TOS.
Now if you connect the dots*, the prosecutor should have been threatened with 35 years in prison. After all, what's good for Aaron Swartz is good for the prosecutor.
But then there's that 'high court, low court' thing. And old boy networks. And blue wall of silence. Etc. So I guess that makes it all okay.
And they wonder why the courts, court officers, law enforcement and its officers, the law, the legislature and the government are not respected. They demand your respect! Right now!
* remedial 'connect the dots' because these days too few people are able to 'do the math'.
A bit of googling tells me that the number of people have been killed in terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001 are far, far fewer than the number of people who die in automobile accidents every single year as a result of cars driven by inferior, annoying, distracted, sleepy humans.
What if we took away all of the resources wasted on the War On Terror and spent it on a new 'moon shot' or 'manhattan project'? Let's call it: The War On Human Driven Cars.
The number of lives saved would be enormously larger.
"If the public does nothing, encryption like that will continue to roll out," he said. "It has public safety costs. Folks have to understand that, and figure out how they are going to deal with that. Do they want the public to bear those costs? Do they want the victims of terrorism to bear those costs?"
Maybe bearing those costs would be far better than bearing the costs of human driven vehicles?
Foreign phone manufacturers will simply have: 1. a backdoored version for the US and other repressive regimes. 2. a secure phone for free countries.
US manufacturers will have either one phone version for everyone, or will as in the previous paragraph have two versions for free and non-free countries. Either way, nobody will trust US made phones. The other 96% of the world's population will not want US made phones. (Even if they are physically manufactured in China.)
Good job California! Great way to destroy American business.
So proudly announcing the sponsorship of a newsworthy article, in the public interest, is selling out?
How would you react if a company approached TechDirt, says, write this specific content favorable to me, in exchange for money, and keep it a secret. Would you call that 'selling out' or would you call it good honest 'lobbying'?
Similarly, what would your reaction be if TechDirt has an ad disguised as if it were an article? Not 'selling out' but good ol' dishonest 'advertising'?
Selling Out is what happens when an artist signs with an RIAA label. Not what happens with an article is sponsored.
On the post: Police Officer Attempts To Set Record For Most Constitutional Violations In A Single Traffic Stop
Re:
Are you suggesting that they should probably choose to remain a criminal for the rest of their life because the police have a right to treat them that way for life?
Is it a worthy goal of the police to discourage anyone from ever getting their act together and becoming a law abiding citizen?
It is probably worth extending this thinking to family relations as well. If your grandfather had any criminal activity, then you might too. Or your cousin, etc.
On the post: Supreme Court Says It Won't Hear Authors Guild Appeal Over Google Books Ruling
Re: But how will authors get paid?
On the post: Supreme Court Says It Won't Hear Authors Guild Appeal Over Google Books Ruling
But how will authors get paid?
On the post: EU Regulators Seem To Think They Can Tell YouTube That Its Business Model Should Be More Like Spotify
YouTube's small payments to artists?
Please tell me why Google / YouTube should be paying ANYTHING to artists at all?
If an artist doesn't want their work on YouTube, then DON'T UPLOAD IT.
If someone else uploads it, and you're sure it's not obvious fair use, then avail yourself of the remedy to sue the uploader for copyright infringement.
If YouTube wants to offer you a way to monetize videos that you upload, which you have the proper copyright authority to upload, then don't complain. Either take the deal or don't take the deal. Or try to negotiate. Just like any other business arrangement.
Why is any special regulation needed to cover this?
On the post: The Broadband Industry Is Now Officially Blaming Google (Alphabet) For...Everything
Google actually undermines businesses that we don't need
I can see why those businesses complain and gripe.
I was just watching a Google Tech Talk a couple days ago about how technology is putting a dent in human trafficking. (yes, really)
On the post: Nothing About The Story Of An Artist Being Threatened With A Lawsuit Over A Painting Of A Small-Dicked Donald Trump Makes Sense
An comparison of Trump supporters with Terrorists
Compare to the Charlie Hebdo attack over an unflattering depiction of another group's prophet.
So are Trump supporters acting like terrorists?
Yet in the name of protecting us from such terrorists, they want to ban people of a particular religion from entering the US.
On the post: Canadian Law Enforcement Can Intercept, Decrypt Blackberry Messages
Working With the Police is Bad Marketing?
The Police! That's who.
Once upon a time, it would simply go unsaid that you work with law enforcement. In fact, working against law enforcement would be seen negatively.
The fact that it is now a marketing feature to safeguard you from abusive law enforcement is the best evidence that something is deeply wrong in law enforcement. At all levels.
On the post: Maybe The NSA Has Already Broken Every Security System, Not By Hacking Computers, But By Hacking The Entire Industry
Compromise is built right into to your microprocessor by NSA
See Intel Active Management Technology.
https://fsf.org/blogs/community/active-management-technology
AMD has a counterpart.
In a nutshell, the processor won't start (AMD) or will only run for 30 minutes (Intel) unless the 'active management' engine says everything is okay. That engine of invasion is a separate computer subsystem within the CPU that must be running an encrypted binary blob in order for 'everything to be okay'. To add injury to injury, the micoprocessor, under control of that engine, has direct hardware access to everything. The disk. The network.
So would Intel be a FON? (FON is an acronym from the slide deck.)
So do you think PCs are totally and completely compromised enough yet?
Paranoid yet?
Is this far, far worse than compromising the C compiler to secretly embed back doors into other programs as it compiles them?
And it's all right out there in the open. Under our noses. Right in front of God and everyone.
On the post: Maybe The NSA Has Already Broken Every Security System, Not By Hacking Computers, But By Hacking The Entire Industry
Re:
The biggest actual thing that Snowden revealed was simply this:
What the NSA is already doing is far worse than what I imagined they were doing.
On the post: Inspector General Says FBI Not Doing Enough To Prevent Abuse Of Cell Phone Forensic Equipment By Law Enforcement Officers
Re:
NEW!! FIB Hack-A-Fone Kiosk!
Chance to win up to $1000 each time you visit the mall!
That would save law enforcement from having to round up every US citizen to 'inspect' their phones. And after all, this is about pirac... er, I meant to say, about terrorism.
And just like any offer to win up to $1000, you only have to pay it once. And the meaning of 'up to' is not well defined. And you can pay it to any of your cronies or hired goons.
On the post: Inspector General Says FBI Not Doing Enough To Prevent Abuse Of Cell Phone Forensic Equipment By Law Enforcement Officers
Re:
On the post: Inspector General Says FBI Not Doing Enough To Prevent Abuse Of Cell Phone Forensic Equipment By Law Enforcement Officers
Re:
It is unknown whether proprietary cables are needed.
Given that the FBI would want to promote abuse of these kiosks, why should they require anything other than standard off the shelf cables. And yes, it is correct to assume that they deliberately intend to promote abuse. Otherwise why go to all the trouble to put these into kiosks that anyone can access with no controls other than a mere token that allows them to claim that usage is controlled by an appointment, a form and required cables.
If the cables requirement is so easy to work around, how difficult is it to work around the appointment requirement and the signature requirement.
On the post: Lucasfilm Threatens And Threatens Non-Profit Over Lightsaber Battle Event
CwF + RtB
Censor Worthless Fans + Reason to Boycott
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Re:
Don't the ends justify the means?
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
I seem to recall that CFAA has been stretched, twisted and construed to include violating a web site's TOS. (terms of service)
I don't know which social media sites the prosecutor might have created a fake account on, and have not read it's TOS (terms of slavery), but I strongly suspect that the prosecutor was in violation of the social media site's TOS.
Now if you connect the dots*, the prosecutor should have been threatened with 35 years in prison. After all, what's good for Aaron Swartz is good for the prosecutor.
But then there's that 'high court, low court' thing. And old boy networks. And blue wall of silence. Etc. So I guess that makes it all okay.
And they wonder why the courts, court officers, law enforcement and its officers, the law, the legislature and the government are not respected. They demand your respect! Right now!
* remedial 'connect the dots' because these days too few people are able to 'do the math'.
On the post: California Lawmakers Manage To Turn Encrypted Phone Ban Legislation Into Encryption Backdoor Legislation
What if a THIRD PARTY APP has the encryption?
Suppose the user is using an app like WhatsApp that is end to end encrypted?
What if the user is using an obscure app not on the phone's app store, but was installed manually onto the phone? (Not that hard to do on Android.)
On the post: California Lawmakers Manage To Turn Encrypted Phone Ban Legislation Into Encryption Backdoor Legislation
The War On Terror
A bit of googling tells me that the number of people have been killed in terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001 are far, far fewer than the number of people who die in automobile accidents every single year as a result of cars driven by inferior, annoying, distracted, sleepy humans.
What if we took away all of the resources wasted on the War On Terror and spent it on a new 'moon shot' or 'manhattan project'? Let's call it: The War On Human Driven Cars.
The number of lives saved would be enormously larger.
The FBI's top attorney says:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-05/top-fbi-attorney-james-baker-worried-about-whats app-encryption
Maybe bearing those costs would be far better than bearing the costs of human driven vehicles?
On the post: California Lawmakers Manage To Turn Encrypted Phone Ban Legislation Into Encryption Backdoor Legislation
Re:
1. a backdoored version for the US and other repressive regimes.
2. a secure phone for free countries.
US manufacturers will have either one phone version for everyone, or will as in the previous paragraph have two versions for free and non-free countries. Either way, nobody will trust US made phones. The other 96% of the world's population will not want US made phones. (Even if they are physically manufactured in China.)
Good job California! Great way to destroy American business.
On the post: California Lawmakers Manage To Turn Encrypted Phone Ban Legislation Into Encryption Backdoor Legislation
Re: Techdirt sells out
How would you react if a company approached TechDirt, says, write this specific content favorable to me, in exchange for money, and keep it a secret. Would you call that 'selling out' or would you call it good honest 'lobbying'?
Similarly, what would your reaction be if TechDirt has an ad disguised as if it were an article? Not 'selling out' but good ol' dishonest 'advertising'?
Selling Out is what happens when an artist signs with an RIAA label. Not what happens with an article is sponsored.
On the post: All Those Evil Violent Video Games Apparently Failed At Turning Kids Into Deviant Murder-Terrorists
Re:
Are you in the right board? This is not about Martin Shkreli.
Next >>