...but no amount of money can fix the problems incurred.
As has been stated many times, here on Techdirt and elsewhere, biometrics is is username, not a password. When the system uses biometrics as the password, and the 'password' becomes compromised, how in the hell does one change it? Fingerprint, eye scan, even a DNA sample (not available yet but I bet someone is working on it $$$) it is not changeable when compromised.
Any entity that thinks biometrics is a reasonable way to allow access to anything needs to be investigated for their lack of thinking.
Agreed. I think there should be some proof of the relevance to 'National Security' every time it is claimed. Each and every time. Otherwise it just sounds like a lame excuse, and probably often is.
Of course they are going to come back with that old saw 'but, but, but, sources and methods will be compromised' (or some other nonsense designed to scare), then we need to come back with tell us the 'National Security' implications, believably, without telling us about sources and methods or other nonsense (not that we can't figure those out, just like the opponents can't figure them out). Ha!
While I don't disagree with your premise that certain professions keep their methods difficult for the average person to comprehend in the interest of differentiating their 'expertise' (and charging a premium), there is nothing about this law that won't benefit lawyers. Whether they apply the savings to their clients bills is another thing.
That pro se respondents will also have an easier time won't reduce the need for lawyers as there is still this thing called interpretation and another thing called rules. Knowledge and applicability of those interpretations and knowing when to act (according to the rules) can make all the difference in some cases. Ever hear an Appellate Court say they should have brought that up at the original trial (as an example)?
The whole concept of law, the whole concept of accounting (and there are others) are based upon the necessity of expertise. While I might have some disdain for how they go about valuing their expertise, I do not deny that there are times when their expertise is of value. They have expertise in their fields, and I have expertise in mine.
Often when they have gotten involved in my field (I am unaware of any that didn't) they have needed to call on me or someone like me because they are expert in their fields, and not mine. I need both hands, both feet and a few more people's hand and feet to relate the number of times my expertise was needed to help lawyers and accountants (and some others) when they invested out of their fields. They have all been satisfied customers. I don't feel the need to document them as I have the satisfaction of having served them well to sustain me, and don't need your approval.
Now your field, which is unknown to us, you claim expertise. You claim writing books that explain your expertise. You claim that your expertise in your written form is in demand, so much so that that "millions of copies" have been downloaded, and one assumes valued. Or was it laughed at?
Just what is your expertise? Mine is known, so your comeback needs to be about you, not me or us.
Why do you have to sell your rights to an agency to have them enforced? Why cannot you hire some agency to perform these duties and not give up your rights?
Now you are correct in that the concept of regional distribution is not longer a needed thing (except in the minds of people who are solely concerned with monetary output and see regional licensing as an asset), but there is the potential opportunity to license translations to those regions that might need translations, but I would not expect that to produce any significant revenue. The alternatives to paying a premium for a translation are not insignificant. Offering translated versions, easily obtainable anywhere, seems like a better method of moving product off the shelf (so to speak).
Which brings us to the point. What are the appropriate methods of reducing 'piracy' (a poor choice of words, infringer's is better, but the nomenclature has evolved)? Remove restrictions, offer better access, offer a reasonable price, make it easy to buy, connect with your fans and give them a reason to buy, listen to the market (not what you want to hear, but what they actually say), offer something they might want (discerned by listening to the market, not your own 'feelings about what they want'), and offering your product to undeserved markets for free, but the OP of this thread doesn't listen to reason. He thinks he knows better than anyone else.
I will admit that I have not done a lot of research on this, but nothing I have read points to whether the surveillance was of people on US soil or in foreign soil. If the latter, then the surveillance was legal, but then why are they in a US court in Ohio? If the former, then why does the Fourth Amendment not apply? Right, the warrant provided by the FISA court. Then why is the 6th Amendment not applicable and the exparte communications allowed?
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
The ability of the Government to have exparte communications with the judge certainly appears to violate this constitutional REQUIREMENT.
Somehow I have a hard time imagining John Spartan and Lenina Huxley having as elegant a meal in a Pizza Hut rather than a Taco Bell.
But maybe I have some food prejudices. Or a lack of imagination. Or difficulty imagining any Pepsico product becoming 'it' as they are all about quantity and limited menus rather than quality and the concept of the 'set of all food' along with possibilities.
But it was a fun movie (the Taco Bell one, I cannot speak to the Pizza Hut one as I am regionally prevented from seeing it).
US ISP's are more concerned with protecting themselves from competition and other efforts to protect their customers to be bothered with the fact that they might be co-conspirators in the extortion practices of certain copyright protagonists. Would that the courts, who have done some decent things (and some not so decent) with regard to the extortioners need to spread some of the blame to ISP's for co-conspiracy in the fraud that is being perpetrated.
This is not to say that some of the accusations by the copyright strongmen are wrong (what is the ratio of wrong accusation vs actually correct accusations?), but a few corrections to the copyright law would make it less copywrong and actually start to encourage creativity again. Things such as an accusation is not proof, more reasonable terms of copyright length, correct the DMCA so that false accusations are actually punished (harshly), make copyrights nontransferable but could be limitedly licensed to producers/labels/publishers/etc., and others with the purpose being reducing the incentives that so called 'pirates' have (and not spending money isn't one of the major ones). What they really are has been discussed many many times here, but copyright hard cores never listen.
I think it has a good chance of happening. The 'ruling' party loves things that increase the national debt, and this one probably wouldn't even be noticed, what with all the tax breaks and tariffs that will reduce tax collection and all.
"I guess in the cartels minds if he owned DVD's & went to Oz he would have to buy the content again b/c he can't get a DVD player with the right region."
I don't know for sure, but if I were moving to Oz and knew anything about Oz before I moved there, I might decide to bring my DVD player with me.
Of course it's a long move and one might reduce the load by selling items before packing, but it is likely that replacing those items in the new local would cost more than the sale of the used items produced. Rather than trying to discern the best financial option, I would think the simpler option, bring the damn DVD player along, would be the better choice.
BTW, we are talking about the Oz with the yellow brick road here right? Cause this guy moved from Australia (aka Oz) to Canada, not the reverse.
Not sure I agree. A better way to secure the doctrine (which should not exist) would be to better define the qualifiers in qualified immunity. Remove the settle law crap and put in place both a constitutional review as well as the laws that police officers should know (depending upon jurisdiction) despite the Supreme Courts antics.
Maybe that is where Congress should be acting. New law that requires law enforcement agents to actually know the laws they are hired to enforce. If there are too many laws, that could be dealt with as well.
While I am not in favor of supplying more money to insurance companies, I think the premise of the AC's idea is that individual police would be paying the premiums, and that the insurance companies would refuse coverage to those who cost them more. Of course it would be necessary to require such insurance in order to get a law enforcement...well let's call it a license...and that without such coverage no license could be issued, or if coverage lost the license revoked.
That idea is not bad, with the exception of giving more money to the insurance companies. Which makes me wonder if such a law could also require whatever government entity that employs law enforcement personnel could be required to be self insured, and not allowed to use taxpayer money to settle disputes that should be covered by their self insurance program? All premiums would be paid by the individual LEO's, and their unions prohibited from objecting to this process.
Up and Down, recognizing the responsibility Congress has
It isn't just that it is up to Congress, it's that Congress needs to get down. Down from their 'must do something' about whatever was in last nights headline perspective. Down from their incessant lust for power (aka re-election) money grubbing deal making with cash brokers (aka lobbyists) behavior. Down from their productivity schedule where making more laws seems better than making good law. Down from their partisan rules where even when good laws are proposed adding riders to achieve 'moral' points or where internally elected 'officials' can prevent legislation from ever being voted on by the entirety of the legislature. Down from doing the business of 'government' (often aka corporations or party leaders) and up to doing the business of the people.
In my use of tools there is a significant difference between screwing and wrenching, even though they both involve threads. Threads is where the officers may have become confused.
When one thinks of threads, they might think of cloth. When they also have drugs on their minds they might also think about marijuana which can be confused with hemp which is made into cloth in some places.
So we have a confluence of tools, threads, cloth, drugs and...well the head just spins. And spins. When ones head is spinning what is one to do? Is it possible to think clearly? Is it possible not to be paranoid? Is it possible for all of these things to happen at the same time? Why would a visual display not send them to some alternative head space where anything might be real?
Given the above conjecture, there is reasonable reason to consider that the cops might have been on drugs. At least in their minds. Is there a virtual test that can be applied months after the fact, or must we rely on analysis of various behaviors where motive must be impugned?
Where is my virtual headset? I have some impugning to do. I hear they have live sex on Steam nowadays. Is that anything like drugs?
Methinks this will turn into a contracts trial, one that focuses on claims of property rights that weren't actually owned. That is the material facts part.
It probably won't be a trademark trial simply because the trademark in question is in Croatia, and a Florida court will not have any jurisdiction over that.
"...To the extent antitrust is concerned with bias it’s not the "kick the Nazis off the platform" kind. It's more like a concern about, for instance, Google altering search results to prefer products and services it owns."
Which makes one wonder if bias is so bad and ISP's and Telecoms are zero rating THEIR content, why aren't they being investigated for 'bias'? At least that 'bias' is provable.
Also if Trump is so concerned with bias, why is he allowing Pai to let these other companies be biased? Right, independent agency. Then one has to ask why Trump appointed someone who so blatantly expressed their desire to allow such bias prior to their appointment? Does he not understand that these 'biases' will leak over into politics, and not necessarily in a way he will like?
The term bias refers to the tendency of a person to favor one thing, idea, or person over another. In a legal context, bias can lead an individual, such as a judge or juror, to treat someone unfairly, in spite of the fact that hearings and trials are designed to be unbiased assessments of the facts of a case. Bias may also affect such issues as applications for jobs or entry into the country, and recruitment of individuals for other purposes. To explore this concept, consider the following bias definition.
Definition of Bias
Noun
A tendency, opinion, or inclination that is preconceived or unreasoned
A predisposition or preconceived opinion that bars impartial evaluation of facts
A prejudice
The way bias is often used one could easily stand in the middle and look left or right and see bias. At the same time on could stand to the right and look left or right and see bias. Or they could stand way to the right and still look left or right and see bias. The same goes for standing to the left and looking, or standing way to the left and looking. The same goes for progressive or conservative. It is just a matter of perspective, and your perspective is your bias while trying to blame other for their bias's is biased in and of itself.
So who is right? No one, and everyone. Together we make up the spectrum. All sides of the spectrum are heard from, but some are so frantic in their observations or statements as to be considered extreme and/or extremely rude, nasty, intolerant, and overtly prejudiced. Those are the ones who get kicked off platforms. Not necessarily for their views, but how they go about expressing those views. Especially if threats are included.
The National Security Agency (aka No Such Agency), a group that has secrecy instilled in its very being, keeps secrets from a secret court and seems unabashed at doing so.
Unless one gets into the nitty gritty of these collections the NSA can't even claim 'sources and methods' as a reason to withhold. That leaves the conclusion that withholding is purposeful and not just unconstitutional and illegal but is intent upon the very worst of dastardly implications that they have been charged with, even by the most inane of conspiracy theorists. It is up to them to prove otherwise.
It is past time to break this conspiracy of secrecy. There are reasons for the government to keep some secrets, for a short time, but embarrassment should not be one of those reasons, nor should plotting to make the populace controllable.
The claim that they are searching for 'terrorists' has become laughable, since they have failed to catch any, and they have been doing this for a long time. Longer than the time since actual terrorist activities happened on US soil.
Hard to order a Premier Cru wine, or Champagne or cognac without getting them from their origins. There are good wines made elsewhere, but I have never had one stand up like a 40 year old Chateau Lafitte Rothschild I had the opportunity to taste once. I drink brandies from elsewhere, but my favorite is a cognac, not a top of the line cognac but an upper shelf one. As for sparkling wine, there are some good ones that don't come from the Champagne region in France, there was an Asti Spumante Fontana Freda (Italian) that I just adored.
Thing is, if one cannot go to France to get these things, or order them from France, because we forgot it, what is going to happen to the producers of these products? I imagine that prices will fall and then when desperation sets in something worse. Somewhere in that mix employment gets hurt.
On the post: Software Patch Claimed To Allow Aadhaar's Security To Be Bypassed, Calling Into Question Biometric Database's Integrity
Money causes they system to be sold...
...but no amount of money can fix the problems incurred.
As has been stated many times, here on Techdirt and elsewhere, biometrics is is username, not a password. When the system uses biometrics as the password, and the 'password' becomes compromised, how in the hell does one change it? Fingerprint, eye scan, even a DNA sample (not available yet but I bet someone is working on it $$$) it is not changeable when compromised.
Any entity that thinks biometrics is a reasonable way to allow access to anything needs to be investigated for their lack of thinking.
On the post: Federal Court Says NSA PRISM Surveillance Good And Legal Because The Gov't Said It Was Good And Legal
Re: National security
Of course they are going to come back with that old saw 'but, but, but, sources and methods will be compromised' (or some other nonsense designed to scare), then we need to come back with tell us the 'National Security' implications, believably, without telling us about sources and methods or other nonsense (not that we can't figure those out, just like the opponents can't figure them out). Ha!
On the post: Surprise: Bill Introduced To Finally Make PACER Free To All
Re:
That pro se respondents will also have an easier time won't reduce the need for lawyers as there is still this thing called interpretation and another thing called rules. Knowledge and applicability of those interpretations and knowing when to act (according to the rules) can make all the difference in some cases. Ever hear an Appellate Court say they should have brought that up at the original trial (as an example)?
The whole concept of law, the whole concept of accounting (and there are others) are based upon the necessity of expertise. While I might have some disdain for how they go about valuing their expertise, I do not deny that there are times when their expertise is of value. They have expertise in their fields, and I have expertise in mine.
Often when they have gotten involved in my field (I am unaware of any that didn't) they have needed to call on me or someone like me because they are expert in their fields, and not mine. I need both hands, both feet and a few more people's hand and feet to relate the number of times my expertise was needed to help lawyers and accountants (and some others) when they invested out of their fields. They have all been satisfied customers. I don't feel the need to document them as I have the satisfaction of having served them well to sustain me, and don't need your approval.
Now your field, which is unknown to us, you claim expertise. You claim writing books that explain your expertise. You claim that your expertise in your written form is in demand, so much so that that "millions of copies" have been downloaded, and one assumes valued. Or was it laughed at?
Just what is your expertise? Mine is known, so your comeback needs to be about you, not me or us.
You don't know...do you?
On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright
Re: Re:
Why do you have to sell your rights to an agency to have them enforced? Why cannot you hire some agency to perform these duties and not give up your rights?
Now you are correct in that the concept of regional distribution is not longer a needed thing (except in the minds of people who are solely concerned with monetary output and see regional licensing as an asset), but there is the potential opportunity to license translations to those regions that might need translations, but I would not expect that to produce any significant revenue. The alternatives to paying a premium for a translation are not insignificant. Offering translated versions, easily obtainable anywhere, seems like a better method of moving product off the shelf (so to speak).
Which brings us to the point. What are the appropriate methods of reducing 'piracy' (a poor choice of words, infringer's is better, but the nomenclature has evolved)? Remove restrictions, offer better access, offer a reasonable price, make it easy to buy, connect with your fans and give them a reason to buy, listen to the market (not what you want to hear, but what they actually say), offer something they might want (discerned by listening to the market, not your own 'feelings about what they want'), and offering your product to undeserved markets for free, but the OP of this thread doesn't listen to reason. He thinks he knows better than anyone else.
On the post: Federal Court Says NSA PRISM Surveillance Good And Legal Because The Gov't Said It Was Good And Legal
But was it foreign or US surveillance?
I will admit that I have not done a lot of research on this, but nothing I have read points to whether the surveillance was of people on US soil or in foreign soil. If the latter, then the surveillance was legal, but then why are they in a US court in Ohio? If the former, then why does the Fourth Amendment not apply? Right, the warrant provided by the FISA court. Then why is the 6th Amendment not applicable and the exparte communications allowed?
The ability of the Government to have exparte communications with the judge certainly appears to violate this constitutional REQUIREMENT.
On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright
Re: Demoman -- the last restaurant
But maybe I have some food prejudices. Or a lack of imagination. Or difficulty imagining any Pepsico product becoming 'it' as they are all about quantity and limited menus rather than quality and the concept of the 'set of all food' along with possibilities.
But it was a fun movie (the Taco Bell one, I cannot speak to the Pizza Hut one as I am regionally prevented from seeing it).
On the post: Thanks To ISP Bahnhof, We Know Just How Crazy Copyright Trolling In Sweden Is Getting
US ISP's are more concerned with protecting themselves from competition and other efforts to protect their customers to be bothered with the fact that they might be co-conspirators in the extortion practices of certain copyright protagonists. Would that the courts, who have done some decent things (and some not so decent) with regard to the extortioners need to spread some of the blame to ISP's for co-conspiracy in the fraud that is being perpetrated.
This is not to say that some of the accusations by the copyright strongmen are wrong (what is the ratio of wrong accusation vs actually correct accusations?), but a few corrections to the copyright law would make it less copywrong and actually start to encourage creativity again. Things such as an accusation is not proof, more reasonable terms of copyright length, correct the DMCA so that false accusations are actually punished (harshly), make copyrights nontransferable but could be limitedly licensed to producers/labels/publishers/etc., and others with the purpose being reducing the incentives that so called 'pirates' have (and not spending money isn't one of the major ones). What they really are has been discussed many many times here, but copyright hard cores never listen.
On the post: Surprise: Bill Introduced To Finally Make PACER Free To All
Re: Open
On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright
Re:
I don't know for sure, but if I were moving to Oz and knew anything about Oz before I moved there, I might decide to bring my DVD player with me.
Of course it's a long move and one might reduce the load by selling items before packing, but it is likely that replacing those items in the new local would cost more than the sale of the used items produced. Rather than trying to discern the best financial option, I would think the simpler option, bring the damn DVD player along, would be the better choice.
BTW, we are talking about the Oz with the yellow brick road here right? Cause this guy moved from Australia (aka Oz) to Canada, not the reverse.
On the post: Apple Didn't Delete That Guys iTunes Movies, But What Happened Still Shows The Insanity Of Copyright
Re:
On the post: Qualified Immunity Contradicts Congressional Intent. It's Time To Kill It Off.
Re: Why Qualified Immunity
Maybe that is where Congress should be acting. New law that requires law enforcement agents to actually know the laws they are hired to enforce. If there are too many laws, that could be dealt with as well.
On the post: Qualified Immunity Contradicts Congressional Intent. It's Time To Kill It Off.
Re: Re:
That idea is not bad, with the exception of giving more money to the insurance companies. Which makes me wonder if such a law could also require whatever government entity that employs law enforcement personnel could be required to be self insured, and not allowed to use taxpayer money to settle disputes that should be covered by their self insurance program? All premiums would be paid by the individual LEO's, and their unions prohibited from objecting to this process.
One can dream, can't they?
On the post: Qualified Immunity Contradicts Congressional Intent. It's Time To Kill It Off.
Up and Down, recognizing the responsibility Congress has
On the post: That Bizarre Trademark Suit Between Music Promoters Over An 'Ultra' Trademark Nobody Owned Is Still Going On
Re: Ultra Ultra Everywhere
Wait, is that in the same market segment? Would it matter?
On the post: Cop: Screwdrivers And Wrenches Are Drug Dealer Things; Appeals Court: WTF
Re: Oh come on.
When one thinks of threads, they might think of cloth. When they also have drugs on their minds they might also think about marijuana which can be confused with hemp which is made into cloth in some places.
So we have a confluence of tools, threads, cloth, drugs and...well the head just spins. And spins. When ones head is spinning what is one to do? Is it possible to think clearly? Is it possible not to be paranoid? Is it possible for all of these things to happen at the same time? Why would a visual display not send them to some alternative head space where anything might be real?
Given the above conjecture, there is reasonable reason to consider that the cops might have been on drugs. At least in their minds. Is there a virtual test that can be applied months after the fact, or must we rely on analysis of various behaviors where motive must be impugned?
Where is my virtual headset? I have some impugning to do. I hear they have live sex on Steam nowadays. Is that anything like drugs?
/s
On the post: That Bizarre Trademark Suit Between Music Promoters Over An 'Ultra' Trademark Nobody Owned Is Still Going On
Re: Hope springs eternal
It probably won't be a trademark trial simply because the trademark in question is in Croatia, and a Florida court will not have any jurisdiction over that.
On the post: White House Potentially Exploring Executive Order On 'Social Media Bias'
From Ken Whites analysis on antitrust
Which makes one wonder if bias is so bad and ISP's and Telecoms are zero rating THEIR content, why aren't they being investigated for 'bias'? At least that 'bias' is provable.
Also if Trump is so concerned with bias, why is he allowing Pai to let these other companies be biased? Right, independent agency. Then one has to ask why Trump appointed someone who so blatantly expressed their desire to allow such bias prior to their appointment? Does he not understand that these 'biases' will leak over into politics, and not necessarily in a way he will like?
On the post: White House Potentially Exploring Executive Order On 'Social Media Bias'
What are we talking about
From https://legaldictionary.net/bias/
The way bias is often used one could easily stand in the middle and look left or right and see bias. At the same time on could stand to the right and look left or right and see bias. Or they could stand way to the right and still look left or right and see bias. The same goes for standing to the left and looking, or standing way to the left and looking. The same goes for progressive or conservative. It is just a matter of perspective, and your perspective is your bias while trying to blame other for their bias's is biased in and of itself.
So who is right? No one, and everyone. Together we make up the spectrum. All sides of the spectrum are heard from, but some are so frantic in their observations or statements as to be considered extreme and/or extremely rude, nasty, intolerant, and overtly prejudiced. Those are the ones who get kicked off platforms. Not necessarily for their views, but how they go about expressing those views. Especially if threats are included.
On the post: Another Batch Of FISA Court Docs Confirms The NSA Frequently Abuses Its Collection Powers
Out of control
The National Security Agency (aka No Such Agency), a group that has secrecy instilled in its very being, keeps secrets from a secret court and seems unabashed at doing so.
Unless one gets into the nitty gritty of these collections the NSA can't even claim 'sources and methods' as a reason to withhold. That leaves the conclusion that withholding is purposeful and not just unconstitutional and illegal but is intent upon the very worst of dastardly implications that they have been charged with, even by the most inane of conspiracy theorists. It is up to them to prove otherwise.
It is past time to break this conspiracy of secrecy. There are reasons for the government to keep some secrets, for a short time, but embarrassment should not be one of those reasons, nor should plotting to make the populace controllable.
The claim that they are searching for 'terrorists' has become laughable, since they have failed to catch any, and they have been doing this for a long time. Longer than the time since actual terrorist activities happened on US soil.
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
Re: Re: Pride vs Shame
Thing is, if one cannot go to France to get these things, or order them from France, because we forgot it, what is going to happen to the producers of these products? I imagine that prices will fall and then when desperation sets in something worse. Somewhere in that mix employment gets hurt.
France has just not thought this through.
Next >>