So is this implying that commercial sales are perfectly fine, or sales or sharing not performed by NGOs? Or is it all illegal and NGOs are the only entities being considered for being allowed to perform this activity? NGO seems to be the operative bit here.
It's weird because I don't see anything where this has to do with IP, environmental protection, or controlled origin. I suppose it would take finding and reading through a lot of vague references.
Yeah it's pretty much worse than playing Overwatch and cheating the game instead of working for it in a multiplayer environment when you are playing Overreach and cheating at copyright law in an environment where bad rulings become precedents instead of working some sane legal and technical measures.
I still want to know why autonomous vehicles should be depending on anything over a fucking network.
And seriously, screw smart cars, and smart TVs, and the whole IoT. No security at all. And there has been ample opportunity and time, and so far there is nothing good going over the network, just another way to commoditize consumers (and sometimes not even a clear plan to do that, just store the data on servers with tissue-paper thin security).
So... what is that threat all about?
And the dumbest thing is that QoS provisions are perfectly normal. They just want to conflate that with monopoly prioritization that has no technical basis whatsoever.
If Buhl didn't post them... that's a problem. Or if she didn't make the text available to the person who did. (And if that's the case, there is no "protected source" involved. Also, I don't know how you can claim it wasn't public, then also claim you are protecting a source...) Some of the other employment of the law, and wording of the law used, seems problematic. So is the lawyer's use of "real world", as if Things On The Internet are in some fictitious fantasy land universe. But another problem is... why does it matter how "public" something is? When it is clearly available to some people, and those people can tell other people, and to the point where the person who wrote the journal entries found out. Beyond that, why does there even need to be an intent to annoy or harass? You can stick that bar on the floor and kick it away, i think, in cases like this.
The point is, they could have blown up anyone and said he's the guy. Whether they think he was, or not. Until they release evidence otherwise, people will wonder. Their story changed multiple times, and in good faith i will simply assume they were idiotic assumptions, the same kind police make every day about a threat or non-threat that ends up with them killing someone. 1)Multiple 2)snipers 3)triangulating on police 4) from an elevated position. because of course. Even their bomb story changed several times. They also failed to take down their suspect! Tweet long after the one man showed up at the police station and the other guy was blown up with a rather expensive piece of kit. Yeah, it ain't causing that dude any problems.
So yeah, don't be surprised when people question this stuff when they use a rather unique method to really really kill a trapped suspect / shooter, and the first person this ever happens to is of course Black, regardless of the reputation and intent of the Dallas police. All too often, the cries of "Are you going to let him keep doing X", or "You can't let him get away with this", end up with the wrong people dead or in prison.
I really hope they are forthcoming with evidence, or... the mere appearance of impropriety, and all.
The amount of useful algorithms ever used in a useful and decent manner will probably be so small as to be worth explaining as far as possible, and otherwise explaining what is inexplicable. The personalized marketing, advertising, and content sorting, along with their invasive, commoditized data gathering can fuck right off. Of course, the push in the EU, otherwise, seems to be the opposite, which is catering to BS whining from companies about how data protection makes things soooo haaarrrrd. No one is good with data. They don't secure it, properly anonymize what should be anonymized, and use it for manipulative purposes. Let's see the amazing algorithms and non-abusive uses of data first. There are some pretty interesting things one can do already, only those things mostly aren't in any kind of general use and made available to the public. Never mind the increasing data and algorithmic processing with respect to the rise of the hideously awful IoT, or what governments can demand or slurp off the data or processed data. Really, if this might impede some innovation, pretty much so be it. If it's all that good, you'll be able to explain it satisfactorily. I'd opt for more of this, as long as we don't have control over how our data is commoditized or what algorithms (mysterious human thinking included) affect us. If i don't care about an explanation, i'll just opt in. Oh wait, that isn't a choice we get to make either.
It's become common game by many in America and elsewhere to crap on lawyers whenever the opportunity presents itself.
They sure go out of their way to create opportunities.
It's partly, but not by any means entirely, a game. Lawyers, in their legal capacity and in other realms to which they are endemic (such as politics) or where they choose to branch out, as an industry, have made themselves a target for a good squat now and then. Unfortunately, it has little effect. Poor lawyers. They are an entrenched and self-growing profession, like a bad bureaucracy, by their own choices, and the failure to police their peers even according to their own rules.
Sure, defense attorneys take some extra crap simply by doing their job, especially in an environment where law enforcement behaves as it does, and the way public perception behaves, as well as the way prosecutors and judges (lawyers) behave. Mounting a vigorous defense does not, however, require being a completely disgusting shitbag playing games with things that shouldn't be open for discussion or consideration by anyone when judging the facts or relative merits of opposing claims.
There are plenty of good lawyers, but like with anything, there are far too many of them to be statistically all that good. And no, no one should be undeservedly crapped on just for doing their job. For fulfilling their mandate. But stop letting jerks get away with poor behavior using that as an excuse, because sustained objections mean practically nothing, and that behavior tends to reflect on the profession as a whole. Never minding ridiculous things that happen in corporate, IP, and other interesting arenas, the legal opinions of what some part of the government might technically be able to get away with in secret, and the practices of so many prosecutors, as well as the sheer race for bad ideas exhibited by our legislative bodies and their lobbies, which are just packed with lawyers.
Nice slippery slope argument. I thought those were purportedly the province of those sorts of "other groups".
There are a lot of things that are racially or otherwise discriminatory in unfair ways. Just because they are unconscious doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed. There is always someone who will file a ridiculous lawsuit, but the larger problem is that once having it pointed out that some behavior is racist (or otherwise bigoted, regardless of the intent of the one doing the behavior), instead of reflecting on the issue and maybe changing the behavior, the decision frequently is enough to double down and continue to perpetuate it.
If you want to pretend that subtle, cultural, institutional, and otherwise unconscious racist (or sexist, or whatever) biases and behaviors don't exist and aren't a problem for people (or algorithms) that wouldn't consciously choose to promote or continue problematic biases, you can choose to believe that, or choose to worry that some stupid lawsuit here and there is more important. We will never have an end of bad lawsuits and rulings. But you can drastically eliminate the fodder for them in this arena by simply doing the right thing. And in plenty of cases, I'm sure i'd cry a river for the privileged few who are put through the wringer when they won't bother to give a rat's ass about things like racism, or unintended consequences, or, being by and large corporate entities, human beings in general. Which they don't. And which seems to be a huge deal to people around here if do some other stupid thing, intentional or not, regarding other popular subjects on Techdirt. Including other idiotic applications of the CFAA and First Amendment issues, and privacy issues with slurpy Big Data.
If they want to be serious about enforcing the CFAA this way, they can start jailing sites, services, and software vendors every time they do something incredibly messed up and invasive and data spongey. Along with government agencies that do the same.
Yeah, signing on to TTIP / TAFTA in a non-Brexit world, or some even worse deal with the US years down the line would be just the acme of the UK "taking back it's sovereignty".
Given the service relies (because we say it does) on providing you with new and exciting content regularly, we aren't going to be doing that anymore. Also for some reason, content you already possess will cease to exist. We thank you for your patronage.
And still with the "updates" that are pretty much a complete re-install, with no choice to avoid it. It's lovely when you are limited expensive data and trying to do some serious work with time constraints. Especially when the update fails, which seems to be most of the time. On machines that shipped with, and are certified for, Windows 10. Oh, and the insane known bugs that remain unfixed. Start menu disappeared? Grey screen? User account destroyed? Yeah, we know.
On the post: Minneapolis PD Issues Questionable DMCA Notice To Bury Its Controversial Recruitment Video
On the post: France Might Allow NGOs To Sell Public Domain Seeds To Non-Commercial Buyers. Might?
It's weird because I don't see anything where this has to do with IP, environmental protection, or controlled origin. I suppose it would take finding and reading through a lot of vague references.
On the post: Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice Filed Over Post Calling Lawyer Out For Copyright Infringement
Re: reputation management
On the post: Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice Filed Over Post Calling Lawyer Out For Copyright Infringement
Re:
Need. Oxygen...
On the post: Questionable DMCA Takedown Notice Filed Over Post Calling Lawyer Out For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Updated
On the post: Checking In: Blizzard Still Suing Hack/Cheat Makers For Copyright Infringement? Yup!
Re: As easy as one-two-three
On the post: Checking In: Blizzard Still Suing Hack/Cheat Makers For Copyright Infringement? Yup!
On the post: European Telcos Threaten To Withhold Next Gen Wireless Upgrades If Net Neutrality Rules Passed
And seriously, screw smart cars, and smart TVs, and the whole IoT. No security at all. And there has been ample opportunity and time, and so far there is nothing good going over the network, just another way to commoditize consumers (and sometimes not even a clear plan to do that, just store the data on servers with tissue-paper thin security).
So... what is that threat all about?
And the dumbest thing is that QoS provisions are perfectly normal. They just want to conflate that with monopoly prioritization that has no technical basis whatsoever.
On the post: State Supreme Court Says 'Smashmouth Journo' Teri Buhl Must Go To Jail For Posting Teen's Journal Pages
On the post: Now That We've Entered The Age Of Robocop, How About Ones That Detain, Rather Than Kill?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Now That We've Entered The Age Of Robocop, How About Ones That Detain, Rather Than Kill?
Re: Boom
On the post: Now That We've Entered The Age Of Robocop, How About Ones That Detain, Rather Than Kill?
Re: Re: Extrajudicial Killing
So yeah, don't be surprised when people question this stuff when they use a rather unique method to really really kill a trapped suspect / shooter, and the first person this ever happens to is of course Black, regardless of the reputation and intent of the Dallas police. All too often, the cries of "Are you going to let him keep doing X", or "You can't let him get away with this", end up with the wrong people dead or in prison.
I really hope they are forthcoming with evidence, or... the mere appearance of impropriety, and all.
On the post: Activists Cheer On EU's 'Right To An Explanation' For Algorithmic Decisions, But How Will It Work When There's Nothing To Explain?
On the post: Johnny Manziel's Lawyer Accidentally Texts The AP And Then Threatens To Sue Them If They Report On It
Dong saya dae
They sure go out of their way to create opportunities.
It's partly, but not by any means entirely, a game. Lawyers, in their legal capacity and in other realms to which they are endemic (such as politics) or where they choose to branch out, as an industry, have made themselves a target for a good squat now and then. Unfortunately, it has little effect. Poor lawyers. They are an entrenched and self-growing profession, like a bad bureaucracy, by their own choices, and the failure to police their peers even according to their own rules.
Sure, defense attorneys take some extra crap simply by doing their job, especially in an environment where law enforcement behaves as it does, and the way public perception behaves, as well as the way prosecutors and judges (lawyers) behave. Mounting a vigorous defense does not, however, require being a completely disgusting shitbag playing games with things that shouldn't be open for discussion or consideration by anyone when judging the facts or relative merits of opposing claims.
There are plenty of good lawyers, but like with anything, there are far too many of them to be statistically all that good. And no, no one should be undeservedly crapped on just for doing their job. For fulfilling their mandate. But stop letting jerks get away with poor behavior using that as an excuse, because sustained objections mean practically nothing, and that behavior tends to reflect on the profession as a whole. Never minding ridiculous things that happen in corporate, IP, and other interesting arenas, the legal opinions of what some part of the government might technically be able to get away with in secret, and the practices of so many prosecutors, as well as the sheer race for bad ideas exhibited by our legislative bodies and their lobbies, which are just packed with lawyers.
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies To Americans Travelling Abroad: Trust No One, Use Burner Phones, They're All Out To Get You
And make sure you use encryption on everything!
Also, these things never happen in the US possibly more than anywhere else, at all.
On the post: ACLU Files Challenge To CFAA Over Blocking Research Into Discrimination Online
Re: Careful What You Wish For
There are a lot of things that are racially or otherwise discriminatory in unfair ways. Just because they are unconscious doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed. There is always someone who will file a ridiculous lawsuit, but the larger problem is that once having it pointed out that some behavior is racist (or otherwise bigoted, regardless of the intent of the one doing the behavior), instead of reflecting on the issue and maybe changing the behavior, the decision frequently is enough to double down and continue to perpetuate it.
If you want to pretend that subtle, cultural, institutional, and otherwise unconscious racist (or sexist, or whatever) biases and behaviors don't exist and aren't a problem for people (or algorithms) that wouldn't consciously choose to promote or continue problematic biases, you can choose to believe that, or choose to worry that some stupid lawsuit here and there is more important. We will never have an end of bad lawsuits and rulings. But you can drastically eliminate the fodder for them in this arena by simply doing the right thing. And in plenty of cases, I'm sure i'd cry a river for the privileged few who are put through the wringer when they won't bother to give a rat's ass about things like racism, or unintended consequences, or, being by and large corporate entities, human beings in general. Which they don't. And which seems to be a huge deal to people around here if do some other stupid thing, intentional or not, regarding other popular subjects on Techdirt. Including other idiotic applications of the CFAA and First Amendment issues, and privacy issues with slurpy Big Data.
On the post: ACLU Files Challenge To CFAA Over Blocking Research Into Discrimination Online
On the post: TAFTA/TTIP Just Got Harder: Brexit Is 'A Midsummer Night's Nightmare' Says EU Trade Commissioner
On the post: Xbox Fitness Users Shelled Out Big Bucks For Workout Programs They'll Soon Be Totally Unable To Use
On the post: After Multi-Month Tone Deaf Shitshow, Microsoft Finally Lets Users Control Obnoxious Windows 10 Upgrade
Next >>