If "Good Faith" means anything at all, it was applied correctly here
In this particular case, this was not an instance of an agent conveniently "forgetting" to mention relevant facts. Instead, they explicitly stated that the searches, as applied-for, were going to take place all over the country. And if a judge approves an honestly-applied-for warrant with no controlling precedent to the contrary, it is, by definition, not "bad faith" to ask for it.
And, really, how is justice served by requiring separate applications for warrants in each Federal jurisdiction nationwide? What part of the constitution requires this? What exactly does that accomplish, given that the circumstances around each warrant would be identical? Has any court found that the warrants would not have been granted if they HAD filed the 94 applications it would require to be valid nationwide?
And in the age where computer operations can be far-flung, why DON'T we have "digital warrants" of nationwide applicability? If somebody is doing something illegal on, say, Google Cloud, how does it make sense to have to file separate warrants for each state in which Google has a data center?
If you are going to use quotation marks, then perhaps it should be about something I actually said. I searched for "leftists", and not only did I not use that word, nobody here did, just you.
If you truly have some new wrinkle on the matter, like some law with which the FCC is required to apply, but is unaware of, or an obscure court precedent, or a well-backed and unique economic analysis of the situation, then by all means, submit a comment.
But parroting something else you've read here on TechDirt or heard on John Oliver, or relating a personal story, no matter how true and heartfelt, is neither useful nor really the point of the comment policy. Rulemaking is not up for vote, and not subject to the whims of grass-roots campaigns (real or fake) from either side.
When the inevitable lawsuit over the new rules takes place, the number of comments is irrelevant. All that matters is that the FCC took into account things it was required to take into account, and that means the law and court precedent.
There are useful acts of political advocacy that can be performed (like working through the legislative process to have actual laws passed), but writing comments consisting of the same "hard" information that's being repeated in thousands of other comments isn't one of them; it's about as effective as "Change Your Facebook Status to Raise Awareness of X" or "Sign this online petition about Y".)
I'll take Shortsighted Thinking for $1,000 Alex...
Yes, Nielsen, your direct customers (the ones paying the bills) are the networks you collect statistics on. But THEIR customers (the advertisers) are the eventual consumers of the data.
If the advertisers lose confidence in the data, they'll get their data from somebody else (instead of letting the networks pass it on), and it's unlikely that source is going to end up being Nielsen.
"The basic ability to reason and understand your own ignorance will make you more expert than anyone on anything!"
Let me see if I follow this thought process... critical thinking skills make somebody, literally, the smartest person on the planet? But what if more than one person has those skills? And experience and study count for nothing? Under any circumstances? What if one has experience, study, AND critical thinking skills?
It's true that the quantity of comments is irrelevant
The quantity of comments submitted (by either side) is irrelevant, except as to how they provide eventual talking points during speeches by congress-critters.
The rulemaking process is not up for vote; the point of the comment period is not to solicit how many people feel like commenting; the point is to see if there is any information with which the rulemaking body was not aware. Comments that merely paraphrase a late-night comedy program don't get paid attention to, and neither are comments that parrot industry talking points.
Content viewed over the web is, by definition, streaming content and therefore is transitory. There's no file to buy or convert. The arguments against DRM for, say, e-books, or downloaded music do not apply here.
There certainly ARE arguments against web-based DRM, but the "I want control in perpetuity over the content I paid for" isn't one of them.
"One, the offer ignores the fact that many subscribers already skip ads using their DVRs, making this kind of unnecessary and insulting to the savvy consumer." It's "insulting"? Some people don't have DVR's and might find this offer useful. Or they don't want to have to keep fiddling with FF and occasionally overshooting. It's like saying that Jiffy Lube is insulting because many people can change their own oil.
"AMC's also ignoring the lessons learned about needing to compete with piracy, something that doesn't stop being true just because you're offended by piracy's existence." Huh? Who said anything about piracy? AMC didn't.
"If the cable and broadcast industry really wanted to be innovative, it would work to respond to the rise in streaming competitors and actually compete on price and channel bundle flexibility. Until it does that, everything else is hollow lip service." Holy False Dichotomy Batman! Who came up with the this rule that they can't even explore something like this until they do those other things first?
Sheesh; sometimes this site seems to just reflexively disagree with something the media industry does for no other reason other than it's the media industry doing it, and it doesn't involve giving away $hit for free.
AMC pays their bills with a combination of ads and carriage fees. Offering to drop the ads in exchange for the revenue they'd otherwise collect from them seems like a fair deal to me.
"Except, of course, in this case that risk was entirely borne by the US public, which paid for the early stage development of the vaccine with their taxes."
"Early-Stage Development" != Ready to Inject Into Humans by the Millions. There's quite a lot of risk (and expense) involved to bring a drug fully to market.
That's not to say the Army got a good deal (far from it), or that Sanofi isn't a bunch of greed bastards (they are), just that the deal isn't quite as awful as claimed.
Okay, if the SD event is called "ComicCon", it would have been reasonable, years ago, to protect that particular trademark. It's not a huge leap that somebody might think an event calling itself the "XYZ ComicCon" might have some sort of affiliation with the SD event. This would have been both unremarkable and easy to work around (Officially call your event the XYZ Comic Convention (which is merely a descriptive name; a convention in XYZ regarding comics), and the SD folks can't complain to you when unaffiliated people use shorthand to refer to your event.)
But after ignoring all these widely publicized events for years, it's a little late to decide this is a trademark now.
FedEx doesn't openly advertise itself as a way to ship drugs. Zuckerberg doesn't send out invitations to producers of snuff films. E-Bay has entire gigantic teams dedicated to fighting fraud that occurs on their site.
Silk Road openly sold itself as a site to trade criminal contraband, which is kind of a description of "Conspiracy to Sell [x]". They were far more than just a disinterested provider of generic services that happened to end up in the middle of various criminal enterprises.
"The government got its man, but it also showed it's willing to pin life sentences on third party marketplace facilitators, [who casually order murder hits on their enemies.]"
FTFY
If any drug dealer is going to land life in prison, he certainly deserves to join their ranks.
(Oh, and the "I am not the real Dread Pirate Roberts; his name is Karpeles, and he's been living like a king in Japan these past several years" defense wasn't exactly a great idea either.)
"There's a good chance this move will receive unanimous support from airlines."
This is actually quite untrue. Firstly, Southwest doesn't charge baggage fees, and they are the largest domestic airline.
But, in general, the airlines loathe the TSA about as much as passengers do. Congested TSA checkpoints make people late for flights, limit the capacity of airline terminals, and cause them to avoid air travel in general. Passenger security fees raise the price of tickets in a way the airlines don't get a cut of. And for fire-safety reasons, they'd really prefer to keep as many lithium batteries out of the hold as they can.
Yeah, many of them like baggage fees, but they'd prefer to convince passengers to pay them on their own. They don't want the TSA doing it for them in a way that drives people away from air transport entirely.
If one is a whistleblower, and is found out, your punishment (or not) won't depend on how many of these guidelines you did or did not trigger. Okay, if you sold information for actual money, you are in extra-deep $hit. But "working long hours" isn't something they can exactly include in their sentencing recommendation.
These guidelines exist to help them FIND leakers of all stripes (whether they are whistleblowers, spies, or people selling information for money), but they don't have anything to do with the resulting consequences.
While "Lateral Entry" might be new for Enlisted ranks, it's quite common for certain kinds of officers... Lawyers, Doctors, Chaplains, etc. They go through "Officer Indoctrination School" (degree already in-hand) and BAM! instant commission.
I could totally see the same thing for "Cyber Troops" or whatever they want to call them.
I don't agree with the Net Neutrality rollback, not one bit, but the FCC isn't (and shouldn't) pay attention to the number of comments received one way or another. They are a regulatory agency, and their job is to issue regulations they believe implements the will of the Legislature.
The point of the comment process is for members of the public to bring facts to the FCC's attention that they might be unaware of. A bazillion people repeating the same talking points they heard in a late-night comedy show is just going to get ignored, no matter how correct they are.
If citizens don't have any unique insight on the situation, but want to stop a regulatory agency from doing something, the method for doing so is through the legislature (as imperfect a mechanism as that is.) Flooding the agency with comments is just waste-of-time clicktivism.
Meh; I doubt NetFlix cares about the lost business
I very much doubt that the group of users that has rooted/unlocked Android devices AND would drop the service over this is large enough for them to care.
(Speaking for myself, I've never watched Netflix on my phone; it's all on my iPad or TV. I guess it might be different if I had to spent an hour a day on a train commute or something...)
"The group claims that while the contract was printed, signed, scanned and returned to them, Larson got cold feet about paying up."
Perhaps these folks need to better familiarize themselves with some of the basics of contract law, like how a contract to pay for criminal extortion doesn't even deserve the word "void".
More like: "So worthless, we mourn the pointless sacrifice of the few grams of tree pulp it took to print it, the defenseless pen ink, and the innocent electrons used to transmit it." They might as well have signed it "Mick E. Mouse, Esq."
I can totally understand why hotels are upset; they are subject to a very large pile of regulations, laws, and taxes that AirBnB (and their landlords) choose to simply ignore. Livery firms have a legit beef with Uber, et al, when they do the same thing.
And what's with "Why is the hotel industry more focused on harming AirBnB than improving their own product?" Holy False Dichotomy Batman! Who is saying they aren't? It's not an either-or proposition.
On the post: Another Appeals Court Denies Suppression Of Evidence Obtained With An Invalid FBI Warrant
If "Good Faith" means anything at all, it was applied correctly here
And, really, how is justice served by requiring separate applications for warrants in each Federal jurisdiction nationwide? What part of the constitution requires this? What exactly does that accomplish, given that the circumstances around each warrant would be identical? Has any court found that the warrants would not have been granted if they HAD filed the 94 applications it would require to be valid nationwide?
And in the age where computer operations can be far-flung, why DON'T we have "digital warrants" of nationwide applicability? If somebody is doing something illegal on, say, Google Cloud, how does it make sense to have to file separate warrants for each state in which Google has a data center?
On the post: From Sans Serif To Sans Sharif: #Fontgate Leads To Calls For Pakistan's Prime Minister To Resign
Typography jokes are the best jokes
Now all we need is a font-related bumper sticker of the "Divers do it deeper" variety.
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
Who said anything about "leftists"?
On the post: Our Net Neutrality Comments To The FCC: We Changed Our Mind, You Can Too
This ain't gonna help
But parroting something else you've read here on TechDirt or heard on John Oliver, or relating a personal story, no matter how true and heartfelt, is neither useful nor really the point of the comment policy. Rulemaking is not up for vote, and not subject to the whims of grass-roots campaigns (real or fake) from either side.
When the inevitable lawsuit over the new rules takes place, the number of comments is irrelevant. All that matters is that the FCC took into account things it was required to take into account, and that means the law and court precedent.
There are useful acts of political advocacy that can be performed (like working through the legislative process to have actual laws passed), but writing comments consisting of the same "hard" information that's being repeated in thousands of other comments isn't one of them; it's about as effective as "Change Your Facebook Status to Raise Awareness of X" or "Sign this online petition about Y".)
On the post: Comcast/NBC Caught Intentionally Misspelling Show Names To Help Hide Sagging Nielsen Ratings
I'll take Shortsighted Thinking for $1,000 Alex...
If the advertisers lose confidence in the data, they'll get their data from somebody else (instead of letting the networks pass it on), and it's unlikely that source is going to end up being Nielsen.
On the post: Taking The 'S' Out Of 'TSA:' Minneapolis Screeners Fail To Detect Contraband 94% Of The Time
Errr... wha?
Let me see if I follow this thought process... critical thinking skills make somebody, literally, the smartest person on the planet? But what if more than one person has those skills? And experience and study count for nothing? Under any circumstances? What if one has experience, study, AND critical thinking skills?
On the post: The FCC Insists It Can't Stop Impostors From Lying About My Views On Net Neutrality
It's true that the quantity of comments is irrelevant
The rulemaking process is not up for vote; the point of the comment period is not to solicit how many people feel like commenting; the point is to see if there is any information with which the rulemaking body was not aware. Comments that merely paraphrase a late-night comedy program don't get paid attention to, and neither are comments that parrot industry talking points.
On the post: Tim Berners-Lee Sells Out His Creation: Officially Supports DRM In HTML
Convert what file?
There certainly ARE arguments against web-based DRM, but the "I want control in perpetuity over the content I paid for" isn't one of them.
On the post: AMC To Charge Cable Customers $5 More To Avoid Advertisements
What's the problem here?
"AMC's also ignoring the lessons learned about needing to compete with piracy, something that doesn't stop being true just because you're offended by piracy's existence." Huh? Who said anything about piracy? AMC didn't.
"If the cable and broadcast industry really wanted to be innovative, it would work to respond to the rise in streaming competitors and actually compete on price and channel bundle flexibility. Until it does that, everything else is hollow lip service." Holy False Dichotomy Batman! Who came up with the this rule that they can't even explore something like this until they do those other things first?
Sheesh; sometimes this site seems to just reflexively disagree with something the media industry does for no other reason other than it's the media industry doing it, and it doesn't involve giving away $hit for free.
AMC pays their bills with a combination of ads and carriage fees. Offering to drop the ads in exchange for the revenue they'd otherwise collect from them seems like a fair deal to me.
On the post: Why Is US Government Giving A Pharma Giant Exclusive Rights To A Zika Vaccine Whose Development Was Paid For By The US Public?
This isn't entirely accurate
"Early-Stage Development" != Ready to Inject Into Humans by the Millions. There's quite a lot of risk (and expense) involved to bring a drug fully to market.
That's not to say the Army got a good deal (far from it), or that Sanofi isn't a bunch of greed bastards (they are), just that the deal isn't quite as awful as claimed.
On the post:
This would have been reasonable years ago
But after ignoring all these widely publicized events for years, it's a little late to decide this is a trademark now.
On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Life Sentences For Silk Road Mastermind
FedEx doesn't market to drug dealers
Silk Road openly sold itself as a site to trade criminal contraband, which is kind of a description of "Conspiracy to Sell [x]". They were far more than just a disinterested provider of generic services that happened to end up in the middle of various criminal enterprises.
On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Life Sentences For Silk Road Mastermind
What's the deal with that last sentence?
FTFY
If any drug dealer is going to land life in prison, he certainly deserves to join their ranks.
(Oh, and the "I am not the real Dread Pirate Roberts; his name is Karpeles, and he's been living like a king in Japan these past several years" defense wasn't exactly a great idea either.)
On the post: DHS, TSA To Make Boarding A Plane Even More Of A Pain In The Ass
Airlines do not, in fact, care for the TSA
This is actually quite untrue. Firstly, Southwest doesn't charge baggage fees, and they are the largest domestic airline.
But, in general, the airlines loathe the TSA about as much as passengers do. Congested TSA checkpoints make people late for flights, limit the capacity of airline terminals, and cause them to avoid air travel in general. Passenger security fees raise the price of tickets in a way the airlines don't get a cut of. And for fire-safety reasons, they'd really prefer to keep as many lithium batteries out of the hold as they can.
Yeah, many of them like baggage fees, but they'd prefer to convince passengers to pay them on their own. They don't want the TSA doing it for them in a way that drives people away from air transport entirely.
On the post: FBI Insider Threat Program Documents Show How Little It Takes To Be Branded A Threat To The Agency
"Abused" to do what though?
These guidelines exist to help them FIND leakers of all stripes (whether they are whistleblowers, spies, or people selling information for money), but they don't have anything to do with the resulting consequences.
On the post: As The Battleground For Warfare Moves To Cyberspace, DOD Contemplates Altering Recruitment Requirements
Not particularly unusual
I could totally see the same thing for "Cyber Troops" or whatever they want to call them.
On the post: It's Time For The FCC To Actually Listen: The Vast Majority Of FCC Commenters Support Net Neutrality
Regulations aren't up for popular vote
The point of the comment process is for members of the public to bring facts to the FCC's attention that they might be unaware of. A bazillion people repeating the same talking points they heard in a late-night comedy show is just going to get ignored, no matter how correct they are.
If citizens don't have any unique insight on the situation, but want to stop a regulatory agency from doing something, the method for doing so is through the legislature (as imperfect a mechanism as that is.) Flooding the agency with comments is just waste-of-time clicktivism.
On the post: New Netflix DRM Blocks Rooted Phone Owners From Downloading The Netflix App
Meh; I doubt NetFlix cares about the lost business
(Speaking for myself, I've never watched Netflix on my phone; it's all on my iPad or TV. I guess it might be different if I had to spent an hour a day on a train commute or something...)
On the post: Hacker Extortion Attempt Falls Flat Because Netflix Actually Competes With Piracy
You gotta love that "contract"
Perhaps these folks need to better familiarize themselves with some of the basics of contract law, like how a contract to pay for criminal extortion doesn't even deserve the word "void".
More like: "So worthless, we mourn the pointless sacrifice of the few grams of tree pulp it took to print it, the defenseless pen ink, and the innocent electrons used to transmit it." They might as well have signed it "Mick E. Mouse, Esq."
On the post: Why Is The Hotel Industry More Focused On Harming Airbnb Than Improving Their Own Product?
I can see why the hotels are upset
And what's with "Why is the hotel industry more focused on harming AirBnB than improving their own product?" Holy False Dichotomy Batman! Who is saying they aren't? It's not an either-or proposition.
Next >>