The German govt could ban such AV software from being sold in Germany. Even if the AV companies took the high road and refused to cave, the govt could make it illegal to use/own AV software which can remove their trojans.
also give them the power to hack people who have not committed a crime or are suspected of having done so.
I really want to know what the stated rationale for this is. The rationales I can guess at involve the the (suspected) criminal having good enough computer security practices to avoid getting infected by the trojan:
The criminal is engaged in online communications with their victims (e.g., some sort of scam) and the authorities somehow know who the victims are despite not being able to hack the criminal's devices. This would allow the authorities to collect evidence without having to turn the victims into informants.
Install the trojan on the devices of non-criminal associates of the suspect in order to capture communication from the suspect. For instance, if they know that the suspect is going to be at their niece's birthday party at 2 PM on Tuesday, that's the perfect time for them to execute a search warrant on their home.
There's other reasons I can think of for why a govt would want to do this, but none that they'd want to admit to.
Traceability requires messaging services to store information that can be used to ascertain the content of people’s messages, thereby breaking the very guarantees that end-to-end encryption provides.
...
To comply, messaging services would have to keep giant databases of every message you send, ...
How exactly does that enable one to ascertain the contents of the messages?
Maz: you are visibly offering a Public Forum and have ZERO disclaimers reserving rights, YET you
So if I put up my own personal blog, let anyone comment, but forgot to put up a disclaimer saying "I reserve the right to delete any comments as I see fit", there's some law that would require me to not delete comments? If so, which law is that? If not, what do you mean?
I think he's claiming that the judge and each of the jury members was thinking:
If the cop is acquitted the Antifa will track me down and murder me, so for the sake of my own skin I'll make sure he's found guilty.
Y'know, just like how SCOTUS threw out the obviously meritorious pro-Trump lawsuits alleging election fraud because the SCOTUS judges were all afraid of being murdered by Antifa if they sided with Trump.
I was answering the question "why is he including these allegations against Dominion in his lawsuit filings" with "statements made in lawsuit filings are immune to defamation claims, so he's repeating the allegations in a place he know he can't be sued for them".
To be fair to Hodak, he meant "we could probably breed/engineer animals with the size and shape of dinosaurs". But then to be fair to people who misunderstood him, the entire point of Jurassic Park was that the park's attractions had DNA that was mostly genuine dinosaur DNA.
My point was always that shorting out due process was not a good idea.
No one's advocating for due processes to be discarded or ignored.
If the point is "video, therefore maul bad", then that's not any better than the people who go around murdering civilians.
If all people are doing is saying that he's guilty, without advocating for due process to be ignored, that's not all the same as people going around murdering civilians.
Juries decide if someone is to be punished by the state. No one here is encouraging people to extra-judicially punish the cop, they're just stating what they believe to be true.
And if it's been tampered with or not is for a jury to decide.
If the video was tampered with after the police released it to the public, I'm sure the police will be quick to point that out. If the video was tampered with before it was released to the public, one would assume it would be to exonerate the cop. If the video was tampered with before it was released to the public to make the cop look worse... how the hell would that happen?
So when, as a defense against the accusation of defamation, she claimed she didn't really believe the things she had said, that claim was a lie, she actually believes what she said about Dominion, and this should be obvious enough that the AG shouldn't do anything?
Or her claim in her defense is true, she actually doesn't believe the things she said in court about Dominion, but because she also said those same things to the public the AG should ignore her lying to the court?
offered up a bunch of hearsay and conjecture from QAnon-addled conspiracy theorists
Those same conspiracy theorists probably think that Powell somehow tricked Dominion into suing her, her saying "I didn't actually believe what I said" is all a part of that trick, and Dominion has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
Having seen the innards of Powell's lawsuits I wouldn't be at all surprised if she manages to cause Smartmatic's lawyers at least a few facepalms and head-deskings. But then being an annoyance is different than presenting any sort of challenge.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Press Secretary
Given this (flagged) comment, I think he's claiming that Scary Devil Monastery is a defendant in a case before Judge Alan D Albright.
On the post: Google, Facebook And Chaos Computer Club Join To Fight New German Law Allowing Government Spies And Police To Use Trojans Against Innocent Citizens
Re:
The German govt could ban such AV software from being sold in Germany. Even if the AV companies took the high road and refused to cave, the govt could make it illegal to use/own AV software which can remove their trojans.
On the post: Google, Facebook And Chaos Computer Club Join To Fight New German Law Allowing Government Spies And Police To Use Trojans Against Innocent Citizens
I really want to know what the stated rationale for this is. The rationales I can guess at involve the the (suspected) criminal having good enough computer security practices to avoid getting infected by the trojan:
There's other reasons I can think of for why a govt would want to do this, but none that they'd want to admit to.
On the post: WhatsApp Sues The Indian Government Over New Laws That Would Force It To Break Encryption
How exactly does that enable one to ascertain the contents of the messages?
On the post: Florida City Officials Spend $50,000 To Find Out Who Gave Journalists A Public Record
"Shame on you for following the law"
I probably shouldn't be surprised at a politician saying that out loud intending for everyone it hear it, yet I am.
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Argument not over views favorable to GOOGLE, Facebook, T
So then would you be okay with 230 still applying to non-profits and personally run sites?
On the post: Thanks To Section 230, I Can Correct Wired's Portrayal Of My Section 230 Advocacy
Re: Re: Re: O RLY?
So if I put up my own personal blog, let anyone comment, but forgot to put up a disclaimer saying "I reserve the right to delete any comments as I see fit", there's some law that would require me to not delete comments? If so, which law is that? If not, what do you mean?
On the post: Patent Troll Sable Networks Apparently Needs To Learn A Lesson: Cloudflare Wants To Destroy Another Troll
Re:
Isn't Sable a "non-practicing entity"? Meaning that it's doing nothing that anyone could file a patent suit over?
On the post: Florida Governor Signs Law That Punishes Protesters For Protesting, Denies Them Bail
Re: Re:
So you're okay with the bill redefining "riot" to include protests where there is no property destruction or violence?
On the post: Filming Cops Is The Best Accountability Tool: Officer Derek Chauvin Convicted Of Murder For Killing George Floyd
Re: Check out Fox news headlines
I think he's claiming that the judge and each of the jury members was thinking:
Y'know, just like how SCOTUS threw out the obviously meritorious pro-Trump lawsuits alleging election fraud because the SCOTUS judges were all afraid of being murdered by Antifa if they sided with Trump.
On the post: MyPillow CEO Sues Dominion For Violating His Company's Right To Say The Things About Election Fraud It Definitely Isn't Saying
Re: Re:
I was answering the question "why is he including these allegations against Dominion in his lawsuit filings" with "statements made in lawsuit filings are immune to defamation claims, so he's repeating the allegations in a place he know he can't be sued for them".
On the post: MyPillow CEO Sues Dominion For Violating His Company's Right To Say The Things About Election Fraud It Definitely Isn't Saying
"I'm not letting this litigation privilege go to waste."
On the post: From Jurassic Park To Telepathic Monkeys, Elon Musk Press Hype Is Getting A Bit Thick
To be fair to Hodak, he meant "we could probably breed/engineer animals with the size and shape of dinosaurs". But then to be fair to people who misunderstood him, the entire point of Jurassic Park was that the park's attractions had DNA that was mostly genuine dinosaur DNA.
On the post: Released Body Cam Footage Shows Chicago Cop Shoot And Kill An Unarmed 13-Year-Old
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one's advocating for due processes to be discarded or ignored.
If all people are doing is saying that he's guilty, without advocating for due process to be ignored, that's not all the same as people going around murdering civilians.
On the post: Released Body Cam Footage Shows Chicago Cop Shoot And Kill An Unarmed 13-Year-Old
Re: Re:
Juries decide if someone is to be punished by the state. No one here is encouraging people to extra-judicially punish the cop, they're just stating what they believe to be true.
On the post: Released Body Cam Footage Shows Chicago Cop Shoot And Kill An Unarmed 13-Year-Old
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the video was tampered with after the police released it to the public, I'm sure the police will be quick to point that out. If the video was tampered with before it was released to the public, one would assume it would be to exonerate the cop. If the video was tampered with before it was released to the public to make the cop look worse... how the hell would that happen?
On the post: Michigan AG Using Former Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell's 'No Reasonable Person Would Believe Me' Statements To Seek Sanctions Against Her
Re: Curious
So when, as a defense against the accusation of defamation, she claimed she didn't really believe the things she had said, that claim was a lie, she actually believes what she said about Dominion, and this should be obvious enough that the AG shouldn't do anything?
Or her claim in her defense is true, she actually doesn't believe the things she said in court about Dominion, but because she also said those same things to the public the AG should ignore her lying to the court?
Or what?
On the post: Michigan AG Using Former Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell's 'No Reasonable Person Would Believe Me' Statements To Seek Sanctions Against Her
Those same conspiracy theorists probably think that Powell somehow tricked Dominion into suing her, her saying "I didn't actually believe what I said" is all a part of that trick, and Dominion has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
On the post: Lawyer Whose Main Claim To Fame Is Suing A News Org To Get It Shut Down, Now Complains About 'Cancel Culture'
Re:
Wait, what?
On the post: Smartmatic Sues Two Trump Lawyers And Three Fox News Hosts For $2.7 Billion-Worth Of Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Kraken
Having seen the innards of Powell's lawsuits I wouldn't be at all surprised if she manages to cause Smartmatic's lawyers at least a few facepalms and head-deskings. But then being an annoyance is different than presenting any sort of challenge.
Next >>