Depends on whether the lawyers advised it was a losing proposition, and their client (plaintiff) insisted they go ahead anyway.
If however, as is likely, the lawyers didn't proffer any advice that this outcome was possible, even likely, then I'd think he'd have a case against them.
That if you can pass 'enough' of the 'right' laws, criminality will cease to exist.
That makes no sense at all. Something is legal until laws are passed to make it a crime. It is the passing of laws that makes something criminal, therefore by definition, passing laws makes more criminality.
Simple don't buy a printer that has an IP address. Buy one that is hard-wired to the computer using a USB cable is the way to go.
It's not the IP address of the printer Roger Strong was referring to (I believe), but the IP address of the premises (the internet connection) of where the printer is.
If you install drivers or firmware from the manufacturer, as part of the installation process on the computer attached to the printer could be a 'phone home' step. Or even in the O/S itself, e.g. one of the things Windows 10 (and 7/8 if various telemetry options are enabled) does is send information about installed (i.e. attached via USB) devices to MS - supposedly anonymised.
Auto-updates for installed drivers could, when checking for updates, provide printer details to the update service along with the IP address used to check for the updates, along with anything else the process wants to provide.
You can claim you're the Queen of England and it's not illegal.
Unless you are saying it with the intent to defraud (i.e. claiming you are the Queen of England so therefore you should be given access to the Queen of England's bank accounts).
Because since all the advertising for the product and paid product placement touts how good all that security is, you don't know until after you've already purchased it that there are issues.
And, depending on how 'into' phones you are, setting up a new phone - especially if changing manufacturer as well - can be a large effort. So if you discover these flaws in a $700+ phone after you've spent a couple weeks faffing about with it to set it up just right, well, I can understand not wanting to replace it (assuming you can get some sort of decent warranty/exchange) outside a normal (1-3 years depending on the person) upgrade cycle.
I had a quick scan of the Profumo scandal, and while interesting isn't part of the point I was trying (obviously badly) to make.
The point I was trying to make is that brothels, and hence visiting one, is perfectly legal in Germany. Therefore there should have been no scandal surrounding partaking of a perfectly legal activity. No more than doing any other legal activity such as the examples I gave.
I could see scandal in the same things as with any of the other activities - improperly charging the activity to government expense accounts for example. But that would apply to going to the opera or a football match as well.
I hope they have some conditions on the bounty like management-level staff at Blackbird are ineligible to claim. The bounty is getting to the point where it might be worthwhile for Blackbird itself to try and claim it themselves rather than continue litigation.
What's to stop them from remerging same as before?
Maybe some sort of review process could be put in place to assess any such mergers? To examine things like the effect of the merger, such as will it reduce competition in a way that will harm consumers?
And if it finds problems with a proposed merger/takeover, maybe it could dictate conditions on the post-merger entity to protect customers, such as having to divest certain business units, or provide certain minimal services, to allow the merger to go ahead. If they don't agree with the conditions, it could prevent the merger. And if the merger goes ahead, it could monitor compliance and issue meaningful penalties and under color of law enforceable directions to enforce compliance.
Maybe a regulatory body could be formed with the authority to perform such oversight? Call it something like, oh I don't know, the Federal Communications Commission? Something like that.
Re: Microsoft doesn't care about security -- only reputation damage
And if they really cared, they would have coded, tested, and issued patches for Windows XP
The WinXP patch released last week wasn't a new patch they had just created, it was a patch they'd created in February.
Therefore they did create a patch for WinXP at the same time as they did the patches for other versions in February. They did release it, but only to those who had a paid post EOL-support contract.
The patch details themselves note it was created in February.
So while MS is correct in its castigation of the NSA (and the government), they are also partially to blame as they didn't do a general release of a patch they had created 2-3 months earlier.
That's the sort of thing that happens when you don't have regulations preventing some of those activities.
People (in general, not saying you) running around saying "Get rid of regulation, let's have an open market" are the ones who enable that to happen and to keep happening.
This seems to fly in the face of those who like to claim third party liability. Does this make all claims against the prior entity null and void? If so, that is a huge loophole.
Not at all, it means the purchaser of the assets isn't liable for activities carried out by the original owner. You have issues, you want to sue, go sue the original owner. If they still exist as an entity that is.
An example used to teach this in a small business class I did decades ago:
If you want to buy a restaurant, never buy the business. Buy the assets. Take over the lease, purchase the fittings, purchase the goods (crockery, cooking utensils etc), take over the phone number, buy the name, but do not buy the business.
Doing this gets you all the assets of the restaurant, but not the liabilities. For example, if a week before you purchase the assets there is a food poisoning outbreak, you cannot be sued for it. The owners of the business that used to own the premises/assets you now have, are liable, and are the ones any lawsuit needs to be directed to, if they/that owning entity still exists and can be found.
However, if you buy the business, you are liable, because it is the business that is liable, and you now own the business.
On the post: Court Orders Man Who Sued News Orgs For Clipping His Facebook Video To Pay Everyone's Attorney's Fees
Re:
If however, as is likely, the lawyers didn't proffer any advice that this outcome was possible, even likely, then I'd think he'd have a case against them.
On the post: Legislators Want To Open Up Wiretap Laws To Target Sex Workers And Their Customers
Re: Re:
That makes no sense at all. Something is legal until laws are passed to make it a crime. It is the passing of laws that makes something criminal, therefore by definition, passing laws makes more criminality.
On the post: How Document-Tracking Dots Helped The FBI Track Down Russian Hacking Doc Leaker
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But how many people would think of hooking up to a VPN to update/download printer drivers?
You might, I might (if I could be bothered too..), but I doubt most people would even realise.
On the post: How Document-Tracking Dots Helped The FBI Track Down Russian Hacking Doc Leaker
Re: Re: Re:
It's not the IP address of the printer Roger Strong was referring to (I believe), but the IP address of the premises (the internet connection) of where the printer is.
If you install drivers or firmware from the manufacturer, as part of the installation process on the computer attached to the printer could be a 'phone home' step. Or even in the O/S itself, e.g. one of the things Windows 10 (and 7/8 if various telemetry options are enabled) does is send information about installed (i.e. attached via USB) devices to MS - supposedly anonymised.
Auto-updates for installed drivers could, when checking for updates, provide printer details to the update service along with the IP address used to check for the updates, along with anything else the process wants to provide.
On the post: DHS Steps Up Demands For Visa Applicants' Social Media Account Info
Re: Up Next...
Not this people...
On the post: Licensing Body Agrees To Temporarily Allow Man To Criticize The Government Without A License
Re: Queen of England
Unless you are saying it with the intent to defraud (i.e. claiming you are the Queen of England so therefore you should be given access to the Queen of England's bank accounts).
On the post: Licensing Body Agrees To Temporarily Allow Man To Criticize The Government Without A License
Re: Re: Professional
On the post: DHS, TSA To Make Boarding A Plane Even More Of A Pain In The Ass
Re:
(seriously, not sarcasm, will make the journey relaxing and fun).
On the post: Samsung's 'Airtight' Iris Scanning Technology For The S8 Defeated With A Camera, Printer, And Contact Lens
Re: Re: facial recognition flaws
And, depending on how 'into' phones you are, setting up a new phone - especially if changing manufacturer as well - can be a large effort. So if you discover these flaws in a $700+ phone after you've spent a couple weeks faffing about with it to set it up just right, well, I can understand not wanting to replace it (assuming you can get some sort of decent warranty/exchange) outside a normal (1-3 years depending on the person) upgrade cycle.
On the post: Samsung's 'Airtight' Iris Scanning Technology For The S8 Defeated With A Camera, Printer, And Contact Lens
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical question about phone security
On the post: Malta's Prime Minister Sues Panama Papers Journalist For Defamation; Gets Facebook To Delete His Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re: The limit?
The point I was trying to make is that brothels, and hence visiting one, is perfectly legal in Germany. Therefore there should have been no scandal surrounding partaking of a perfectly legal activity. No more than doing any other legal activity such as the examples I gave.
I could see scandal in the same things as with any of the other activities - improperly charging the activity to government expense accounts for example. But that would apply to going to the opera or a football match as well.
On the post: Cloudflare Ups The Ante In Search Of Prior Art To Invalidate ALL Patents From Patent Troll Blackbird Tech
On the post: Some Of The Best Net Neutrality Reporting Is... Coming From Sites Owned By Verizon?
Re: Re:
Maybe some sort of review process could be put in place to assess any such mergers? To examine things like the effect of the merger, such as will it reduce competition in a way that will harm consumers?
And if it finds problems with a proposed merger/takeover, maybe it could dictate conditions on the post-merger entity to protect customers, such as having to divest certain business units, or provide certain minimal services, to allow the merger to go ahead. If they don't agree with the conditions, it could prevent the merger. And if the merger goes ahead, it could monitor compliance and issue meaningful penalties and under color of law enforceable directions to enforce compliance.
Maybe a regulatory body could be formed with the authority to perform such oversight? Call it something like, oh I don't know, the Federal Communications Commission? Something like that.
Oh, wait, nevermind.
On the post: Malta's Prime Minister Sues Panama Papers Journalist For Defamation; Gets Facebook To Delete His Reporting
Re: Re: The limit?
Not sure why that would be worth reporting.
Would they have reported it if they went to the movies? A restaurant? A Play? Swimming pool? Museum? Sporting event? A bar?
On the post: Microsoft Is PISSED OFF At The NSA Over WannaCry Attack
Re: Microsoft doesn't care about security -- only reputation damage
The WinXP patch released last week wasn't a new patch they had just created, it was a patch they'd created in February.
Therefore they did create a patch for WinXP at the same time as they did the patches for other versions in February. They did release it, but only to those who had a paid post EOL-support contract.
The patch details themselves note it was created in February.
So while MS is correct in its castigation of the NSA (and the government), they are also partially to blame as they didn't do a general release of a patch they had created 2-3 months earlier.
On the post: Nier Automata Modder Includes Piracy Checks In Mod, Causing An Uproar, But Should It?
Re: Re: Re:
Or is this a RTFA! before commenting allusion? In which case I fail :(
On the post: Judge Alsup Threatens To Block Malibu Media From Any More Copyright Trolling In Northern California
Re: AVN
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Which were a result of the police activities.
On the post: Story About Ex-Sony Pictures Boss Magically Disappears From Gawker; His Lawyer Tells Reporters Not To Talk About It
Re: Re: Re:
People (in general, not saying you) running around saying "Get rid of regulation, let's have an open market" are the ones who enable that to happen and to keep happening.
On the post: Story About Ex-Sony Pictures Boss Magically Disappears From Gawker; His Lawyer Tells Reporters Not To Talk About It
Re:
Not at all, it means the purchaser of the assets isn't liable for activities carried out by the original owner. You have issues, you want to sue, go sue the original owner. If they still exist as an entity that is.
An example used to teach this in a small business class I did decades ago:
If you want to buy a restaurant, never buy the business. Buy the assets. Take over the lease, purchase the fittings, purchase the goods (crockery, cooking utensils etc), take over the phone number, buy the name, but do not buy the business.
Doing this gets you all the assets of the restaurant, but not the liabilities. For example, if a week before you purchase the assets there is a food poisoning outbreak, you cannot be sued for it. The owners of the business that used to own the premises/assets you now have, are liable, and are the ones any lawsuit needs to be directed to, if they/that owning entity still exists and can be found.
However, if you buy the business, you are liable, because it is the business that is liable, and you now own the business.
Next >>