The purpose of such a law would be as a justification to stop and search anyone at any time. And while they're stopped, might as well search their phone too.
Put some TEETH into that penalty of perjury thing. Someone claiming to be the copyright owner but isn't, should get slapped with a gigantic penalty. I would think that even the crazy RIAA and MPAA would be behind that.
Then make it a requirement that Fair Use be taken into consideration. If you're going to file a legal notice such as a DMCA takedown, then a human should at least look at it to be sure it is not obvious Fair Use. This would also prevent a copyright owner from claiming copyright on someone else's recording of nature sounds. Of course, I guess that could fall under the penalty of perjury thing of claiming to be the copyright owner when you are not.
Maybe the FBI did NOT manage to crack the iOS 9 device. Maybe they just said they did to make that PR disaster, and a possible 'bad' precedent go away.
Maybe the FBI really does need help with cracking any other phone than this one that was supposedly cracked using secret methods, and the results of which we will never hear about again -- other than the FBI saying: make this case go away, thanks for playing.
Isn't throttling the exclusive right of ISPs and network operators?
How dare Netflix throttle its own traffic!
Doesn't Netflix know that the only proper way to throttle traffic is to throttle someone else's traffic?
If you are just one of the end points of a connection, why should you be allowed to decide how much traffic you want to send over the wire to the other party?
Throttling of internet traffic should ONLY be allowed when you are being paid by one or both ends of a connection, and none of the data being throttled is coming from or intended for you. (eg, when the content itself is none of your business, then you can throttle it.)
Doesn't Netflix throttling violate some kind of right that is exclusively reserved to networks?
As I said in a previous TD article about this, one outcome I suggested was that the FBI would now somehow magically crack this phone. Or would try, but be unsuccessful. I also suggested in the process that the phone might be 'accidentally' destroyed during the attempt.
But one thing I was clear about: this ruse was going to happen in order for the FBI to back out of this case before it might set a precedent they didn't want. Nevermind the bad PR they were getting. Better to try again another day, in a secret court.
Or maybe CNN got the quote right. The FBI wanted this to be the party line. For consistency with prior untruths. But then realized after it was published that it doesn't pass the sniff test. So a new lie about the quote being incorrect can cover up the first lie.
So many different lies becomes difficult to manage.
CNN won't dispute the incorrect quote, no matter what the reporter thinks they heard, even if an audio recorder also mis-recorded it as saying the incorrect thing. Becuase CNN is the government's lap dog. That's why I quit watching after watching their astonishingly one sided coverage of Snowden in '13. And SOPA prior to that, but I kept watching.
This is one of the outcomes I suggested would happen in an earlier post. The FBI wants this case to go away before it sets a precedent they don't like. Nevermind them losing the public relations battle.
I suggested that the FBI would find another way to break into the phone. That it may or may not work. I also suggested that the phone would be destroyed in the process, maybe by 'accident'. That didn't seem to happen.
Next I would suggest that if the lying FBI really was just wanting to get into this one phone, they would then disclose this vulnerability to Apple. As per president Obama's policy that they should help make the nation's cyber security safer. I won't hold my breath.
As an example of how secret technology gets abused, look no further than a tool like Stingray once it gets into the wrong hands like the FBI. Useful for catching bad guys, yes. But easily and widely abused, also yes. Lying to courts about what it is, how it is used, the scope of what it does, yes.
Suppose someone does not have a permanent address?
Or credit or debit cards, but only cash?
They still very probably need a mobile phone to obtain a job, which can lead to having a bank account and a permanent address.
The government really needs to get it's act together. I propose the following reforms: 1. you need a bank account to get a home or apartment 2. you need a permanent physical residence address to get a bank account 3. you need both 1 and 2 to get a phone 4. you need 1, 2 and 3 to get a job. 5. you need a job (4) to get the first two (1 and 2) Please support this proposed bill.
This followed the head of the UK's GCHQ throwing both terrorism and child porn into the mix while vocally handwringing about encrypted communications -- portraying tech companies as callous accomplices of child abusers and jihadists.
Don't bad guys use disposable mobile phones?
It seems like it might be the mobile phone companies that are callous accomplices of child abusers and jihadists. Shouldn't they be monitoring (aka, listening in on) all mobile phone calls in order to prevent their networks from being used by bad guys?
This seems to ignore how streaming SHOULD work. Why, oh why, can't the music business work like it did 50 years ago?
What to fix: It's simple: Pay full price $10.00 for the entire album each time you want to listen to any one song on it. So you might as well listen to all of them since you paid for them.
How it fits the RIAA business model: This payment model would make music work more like it should: you buy the album and then after each time you listen to it, some RIAA goons come and break your record so you have to buy it again next time.
What to fix: Why can't streaming eliminate this idea that music should be downloadable onto filthy pirate devices? Why not stream the music from the cloud each and every time you listen to it? Not online at the moment, tough. That's how it worked 50 years ago. (But don't hum the tune or think of it in your head because that is copyright infringement.)
How it fits the RIAA business model: That would make it work more like radio. Someone (but not the artists) get paid for every airplay. And if you don't have a radio signal, tough.
What to fix: The RIAA needs to earn much more from each streaming play than from each radio airplay.
How it fits the RIAA business model: Yachts, being hand spoon fed Caviar, blow, hookers, and lighting cigars with rolled up federal reserve notes are all expensive. Making matters worse, greedy artists want a pittance of the RIAA's money right out of the RIAA's pocket!
50 years ago, artists didn't make any money because they were properly exploited. And the RIAA didn't complain about artists not making money. But today the RIAA does complain about artists not making money because the RIAA needs more money.
The FBI could produce a pad that makes encrypted data say whatever it wants it to say.
Then plant that manufactured pad onto the party you wish to prosecute.
Of course, I'm probably giving them ideas for their next manufactured "look we stopped a terrorist plot!" PR booster.
But is that previous sentence any more offensive than the suggestion that Apple chooses to build secure systems strictly for marketing reasons while innocent people get killed?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Indiana's Bad Anti-Texting Law Can't Be Used To Justify Stops Or Searches
How about a Blinking While Walking law?
The purpose of such a law would be as a justification to stop and search anyone at any time. And while they're stopped, might as well search their phone too.
On the post: DMCA's Notice And Takedown Procedure Is A Total Mess, And It's Mainly Because Of Bogus Automated Takedowns
The fix is simple and we've said it for years
Put some TEETH into that penalty of perjury thing. Someone claiming to be the copyright owner but isn't, should get slapped with a gigantic penalty. I would think that even the crazy RIAA and MPAA would be behind that.
Then make it a requirement that Fair Use be taken into consideration. If you're going to file a legal notice such as a DMCA takedown, then a human should at least look at it to be sure it is not obvious Fair Use. This would also prevent a copyright owner from claiming copyright on someone else's recording of nature sounds. Of course, I guess that could fall under the penalty of perjury thing of claiming to be the copyright owner when you are not.
On the post: If FBI Can Get Into A Device Running iOS 9, Why Does It Say It Still Needs Apple's Help To Get Into One Running iOS 7?
Consider this possibility
Maybe the FBI really does need help with cracking any other phone than this one that was supposedly cracked using secret methods, and the results of which we will never hear about again -- other than the FBI saying: make this case go away, thanks for playing.
On the post: Congressman Wants To Make Attacking A Cop A Federal 'Hate' Crime
Re:
> hated, then perhaps they should start fixing their image.
Isn't that what they have been doing by trying to criminalize photographing the police?
On the post: Congressman Wants To Make Attacking A Cop A Federal 'Hate' Crime
Police should be a protected class from hate crimes
Some police departments have a maximum IQ that officers are allowed to have as a condition of employment.
So doesn't it make sense that it could be construed as a hate crime to attack a police officer?
On the post: The Cable Industry Wants Netflix Investigated... For Throttling Itself
Isn't throttling the exclusive right of ISPs and network operators?
Doesn't Netflix know that the only proper way to throttle traffic is to throttle someone else's traffic?
If you are just one of the end points of a connection, why should you be allowed to decide how much traffic you want to send over the wire to the other party?
Throttling of internet traffic should ONLY be allowed when you are being paid by one or both ends of a connection, and none of the data being throttled is coming from or intended for you. (eg, when the content itself is none of your business, then you can throttle it.)
Doesn't Netflix throttling violate some kind of right that is exclusively reserved to networks?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 67: The Great Encryption Debate: Should There Be Back Doors?
Back doors, of course
On the post: Rep. Speier Wants To Register Every Prepaid Phone Purchase, In Case Someone Bad Uses One As A Burner Phone
Re: Re: Shouldn't private conversations be registered?
Government Official == Inner Party
On the post: DOJ Says That The Crack Of Syed Farook's iPhone Only Applies To That Model Of iPhone
Did the FBI actually crack this phone?
But one thing I was clear about: this ruse was going to happen in order for the FBI to back out of this case before it might set a precedent they didn't want. Nevermind the bad PR they were getting. Better to try again another day, in a secret court.
On the post: DOJ Says That The Crack Of Syed Farook's iPhone Only Applies To That Model Of iPhone
Re: One of the FBI technician's kids showed them how to do it...
On the post: DOJ Says That The Crack Of Syed Farook's iPhone Only Applies To That Model Of iPhone
Re:
On the post: DOJ Says That The Crack Of Syed Farook's iPhone Only Applies To That Model Of iPhone
Re: Updated
So many different lies becomes difficult to manage.
CNN won't dispute the incorrect quote, no matter what the reporter thinks they heard, even if an audio recorder also mis-recorded it as saying the incorrect thing. Becuase CNN is the government's lap dog. That's why I quit watching after watching their astonishingly one sided coverage of Snowden in '13. And SOPA prior to that, but I kept watching.
On the post: DOJ To Court: We Got Into The iPhone, So Please Drop Our Demand To Force Apple To Help Us... This Time
Re: Re: Nice security
This is one of the outcomes I suggested would happen in an earlier post. The FBI wants this case to go away before it sets a precedent they don't like. Nevermind them losing the public relations battle.
I suggested that the FBI would find another way to break into the phone. That it may or may not work. I also suggested that the phone would be destroyed in the process, maybe by 'accident'. That didn't seem to happen.
Next I would suggest that if the lying FBI really was just wanting to get into this one phone, they would then disclose this vulnerability to Apple. As per president Obama's policy that they should help make the nation's cyber security safer. I won't hold my breath.
As an example of how secret technology gets abused, look no further than a tool like Stingray once it gets into the wrong hands like the FBI. Useful for catching bad guys, yes. But easily and widely abused, also yes. Lying to courts about what it is, how it is used, the scope of what it does, yes.
On the post: Rep. Speier Wants To Register Every Prepaid Phone Purchase, In Case Someone Bad Uses One As A Burner Phone
Shouldn't private conversations be registered?
On the post: Rep. Speier Wants To Register Every Prepaid Phone Purchase, In Case Someone Bad Uses One As A Burner Phone
Homeless people need phones too
Or credit or debit cards, but only cash?
They still very probably need a mobile phone to obtain a job, which can lead to having a bank account and a permanent address.
The government really needs to get it's act together. I propose the following reforms:
1. you need a bank account to get a home or apartment
2. you need a permanent physical residence address to get a bank account
3. you need both 1 and 2 to get a phone
4. you need 1, 2 and 3 to get a job.
5. you need a job (4) to get the first two (1 and 2)
Please support this proposed bill.
On the post: Law Enforcement's Nemesis -- WhatsApp -- Is Also Law Enforcement's Best Friend
Don't bad guys use burner phones?
It seems like it might be the mobile phone companies that are callous accomplices of child abusers and jihadists. Shouldn't they be monitoring (aka, listening in on) all mobile phone calls in order to prevent their networks from being used by bad guys?
On the post: Despite Massive Streaming Revenue Gains, RIAA Still Lying & Crying
Re: Once more, with feeling...
What to fix:
It's simple: Pay full price $10.00 for the entire album each time you want to listen to any one song on it. So you might as well listen to all of them since you paid for them.
How it fits the RIAA business model:
This payment model would make music work more like it should: you buy the album and then after each time you listen to it, some RIAA goons come and break your record so you have to buy it again next time.
What to fix:
Why can't streaming eliminate this idea that music should be downloadable onto filthy pirate devices? Why not stream the music from the cloud each and every time you listen to it? Not online at the moment, tough. That's how it worked 50 years ago. (But don't hum the tune or think of it in your head because that is copyright infringement.)
How it fits the RIAA business model:
That would make it work more like radio. Someone (but not the artists) get paid for every airplay. And if you don't have a radio signal, tough.
What to fix:
The RIAA needs to earn much more from each streaming play than from each radio airplay.
How it fits the RIAA business model:
Yachts, being hand spoon fed Caviar, blow, hookers, and lighting cigars with rolled up federal reserve notes are all expensive. Making matters worse, greedy artists want a pittance of the RIAA's money right out of the RIAA's pocket!
50 years ago, artists didn't make any money because they were properly exploited. And the RIAA didn't complain about artists not making money. But today the RIAA does complain about artists not making money because the RIAA needs more money.
On the post: Cybersecurity Firm With A History Of 'Corporate Blackmail' Raided By The FBI
Re:
Righthaven?
On the post: Did The DOJ Lie At The Beginning Of Its iPhone Fight, Or Did It Lie This Week?
Re: Re: Latest rumors
Ooops. I probably shouldn't have revealed that secret.
On the post: Did The DOJ Lie At The Beginning Of Its iPhone Fight, Or Did It Lie This Week?
Re:
The FBI could produce a pad that makes encrypted data say whatever it wants it to say.
Then plant that manufactured pad onto the party you wish to prosecute.
Of course, I'm probably giving them ideas for their next manufactured "look we stopped a terrorist plot!" PR booster.
But is that previous sentence any more offensive than the suggestion that Apple chooses to build secure systems strictly for marketing reasons while innocent people get killed?
Next >>