Now that I think about it, it is a BAD idea to go warrantless.
Suppose my smartphone has access to my email accounts and that I am a smart lad and have an application that lets me access my home PC files from it. Also, I'm a security dummy and have my device memorize all of my passwords.
Suddenly, the police can snoop through my private emails and files without a warrant, just because I was speeding (for example).
Not a good idea. Get a warrant (but remember the special cases!).
On one hand, cell phones and other electronic devices may have evidence relevant to the crime the person is being arrested for, so they could be searched, the same way suspects are searched for weapons and evidence upon arrest. Also, if you are being arrested, I'd say that many of your liberties (including privacy) are put on hold (within reason, of course. We are, after all, innocent until proven guilty).
On the other hand, if I'm being arrested for speeding, for example, the police has no business snooping on my private stuff, and I can't really see what info they could acquire that could be relevant to the case. The police can always acquire a warrant to snoop on my data if they REALLY need it.
Probably the best overall solution would be to go the warrant way, unless very specific circumstances require that the police take immediate action (and that would have to be VERY thoroughly justified).
The Invisible Hand (profile), 3 Jan 2011 @ 12:17pm
Re: USA no different than any other Government
"No one's perfect, and all should answer for their actions - but sometimes rules have to be broken in order to achieve peace."
Ouch. I'd hate to live in a country where those in charge of keeping the law are exempt from following it. Rules exist to ensure that society can operate as harmoniously as possible, and those in charge of creating and enforcing those rules MUST BE the first ones to obey them, no matter the cost. If they do not obey their own laws, why should "the people"?
The Invisible Hand (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:12am
Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
Crap...I messed up the formatting. Here you go:
"It shows nothing, except perhaps that different terms are used to describe different things at different times."
It shows a few things.
The terms Copyright and Patents have been used frequently for the last century (with no abnormal proportion). However, the term "Intellectual Property" has only begun to be used recently, which means that the idea that you can "own" "intellectual" goods has only begun to gain traction recently (and I would hazard to guess that it coincides with the appearance of computers and better/cheaper recording equipment, such as VCRs and such).
Also, the term Copyright has (obviously) been popping up a lot lately, which explains the spike in the graph around the year 2000.
Unlike what you try to imply, different terms aren't being used at different times to explain the same thing (as you can see from the graph). The graph actually shows how the recording/movie industry has been pushing this (stupid) idea that you can own random assortments of bits/words/musical notes in the past few years, trying desperately to slow down their inevitable death (instead of embracing the new technologies to take EVEN MORE money).
The Invisible Hand (profile), 31 Dec 2010 @ 4:12am
Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
"It shows nothing, except perhaps that different terms are used to describe different things at different times."
It shows a few things.
The terms Copyright and Patents have been used frequently for the last century (with no abnormal proportion). However, the term "Intellectual Property" has only begun to be used recently, which means that the idea that you can "own" "intellectual" goods has only begun to gain traction recently (and I would hazard to guess that it coincides with the appearance of computers and better/cheaper recording equipment, such as VCRs and such).
Also, the term Copyright has (obviously) been popping up a lot lately, which explains the spike in the graph around the year 2000.
Unlike what you try to imply, different terms aren't being used at different times to explain the same thing (as you can see from the graph). The graph actually shows how the recording/movie industry has been pushing this (stupid) idea that you can own random assortments of bits/words/musical notes in the past few years, trying desperately to slow down their inevitable death (instead of embracing the new technologies to take EVEN MORE money).
Oh, and
"It once again smacks of desperate and whiny."
Right back at you buddy.
The Invisible Hand (profile), 23 Dec 2010 @ 2:31pm
Does anyone expect the UN to do anything against one of the members of the security council? More specifically, the member where the headquarters of the UN is located?
The Invisible Hand (profile), 23 Dec 2010 @ 2:21pm
Re:
(This is childish, but I'll play along)
Hey you! Yes you, with the forehead!
Don't you give a crap about people that are dying because they need blood transfusions? Why aren't you donating your blood right now!? In fact, why aren't you permanently wired to a blood extraction machine!?
I guess you talk the walk, but don't walk the talk, huh? Are you chicken? I'm daring you to donate blood right now!
The Invisible Hand (profile), 18 Dec 2010 @ 6:31am
Ok, sure, they can do deep packet inspection. Cool. But if they can do that, then don't come complaining when I plant myself on a public Wi-Fi zone and sniff people's passwords. I'm just doing some deep packet inspection after all.
The Invisible Hand (profile), 16 Dec 2010 @ 3:54pm
Hum... assuming that each notice goes to one (unique) person:
50,000 people infringing per day = 1,500,000 people infringing per month (30 day month). That's around 2% of the French population (according to wikipedia) committing copyright infringement every month.
How can these number be accurate? But, if they are, doesn't that show that there might be something wrong with the law (that may be too broad, too ambiguous or just completely wrong) or its enforcement/reporting mechanisms (that are causing too many false positives)?
Even copyright supporters must agree that there is something wrong with this picture.
The Invisible Hand (profile), 15 Dec 2010 @ 4:15pm
Re: "just like a book"
Not actually on topic, but physical books are infinitely more resilient than digital ones. The chance that you have to "replace" a digital file (what a stupid concept) is much higher than that of having to replace a physical book.
Oh sure, you make backups of you files, but if your disks decide to die, poof, there goes your data. Your ebook provider "might" restore your ebooks...unless they are Amazon and suddenly they decide not to.
Yet, you have examples of "real books" that have survived for thousands of years and are still (mostly) readable. I'd pay for that kind of reliability (and the fact that, you know, books costs money to print, while ebooks cost 0 to copy).
But let's be honest here: when was the last time you had to replace a book? I have hundreds still in top shape. You must be doing something wrong.
The Invisible Hand (profile), 14 Dec 2010 @ 12:58pm
Re:
"China now has the worlds fastest computer"
So? What are they going to do? Calculate really large prime numbers? Crack really strong encryption in less than a million years?
If you were complaining that they had a rather huge number of computer at their disposal (which they could use to drown several networks in packets), then you could have something.
"and considering how much our military relies on technology, do we want to be second?"
Heh, technology. If the shit ever hits the fan, we are going for nuclear annihilation. No technology is ever going to save our planet. But, even if we don't go for the extinction event, an M16 (which is probably older than you are) gets the job done, and doesn't need batteries.
War is fought by the man in the ground. You can have all the fancy technology you want, if you don't have guys with the balls to go in-your-face with someone and kill him, and strong leaders to inspire them with clear and worthy goals, you can shove that big technology up a small orifice.
"There is no second place in wars, only winners and losers."
Wrong. There are no winners in war. Every battle is just the warmup for the next one. So it was and so it shall ever be, as long as humans walk the Earth.
The Invisible Hand (profile), 11 Dec 2010 @ 2:19pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has Techdirt become a political organization?
Excuse me for interrupting this very "productive" "conversation", but I disagree with your take on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a relatively reliable source of scientific facts as many have already pointed out ([citation needed], I know. The only one I can remember right now is when the Nature journal. They compared the accuracy of Encyclopędia Britannica vs Wikipedia and found that they were on par with each other).
The main problem is that you don't have the guarantee that someone that is skilled in the subject will ever review the article for accuracy and Wikipedia itself does not guarantee accuracy.
However, if you read through most scientific articles (math, physics, computer science), you'll find that they are accurate and that Wikipedia does a good job providing credible references.
So I would say that Wikipedia is "reliable enough" for us "laypeople". Not so reliable in a scientific context though. It is, however, a good source of sources. In fact, if you did some digging, you would find this in the references:
The Invisible Hand (profile), 10 Dec 2010 @ 5:10pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are digging yourself into a hole here. Assuming all of the data is correct, we can extract the following assumptions:
1 (articles you pointed out): Pirates buy more than regular customers
2 (this article): Die-hard pirates buy less than casual pirates
Therefore we can conclude:
If pirates buy more than non-pirates, you are better off kicking your regular customers, or turning them into pirates. Even if all your pirates become die-hard pirates, according to 1, you are still better off, since pirates buy more than non-pirates.
This all, of course, assuming 1 and 2 are correct.
The Invisible Hand (profile), 10 Dec 2010 @ 4:48pm
People are so quick to stomp on Wikileaks that they forget one small detail: the only reason these leaks ever become public and are such a big deal is because there is actually something leak-worthy, i.e., something your government wants to keep hidden. I mean, if the documents were all about how everything is great and nothing is wrong in the world, there wouldn't be any leaks...ever.
Shouldn't you (we?) be more concerned that there is such leak-worthy material in the first place? Putting it in a better way: shouldn't we be more concerned that we are being lied to and manipulated by those people that were supposed to lead us and protect us? And then we should ask ourselves: why exactly are they lying and manipulating us? Is it for our own good, or do they have ulterior motives?
On the post: Another Court Says It's Okay For Police To Search Your Mobile Phone Without A Warrant
Re:
Suppose my smartphone has access to my email accounts and that I am a smart lad and have an application that lets me access my home PC files from it. Also, I'm a security dummy and have my device memorize all of my passwords.
Suddenly, the police can snoop through my private emails and files without a warrant, just because I was speeding (for example).
Not a good idea. Get a warrant (but remember the special cases!).
On the post: Another Court Says It's Okay For Police To Search Your Mobile Phone Without A Warrant
On one hand, cell phones and other electronic devices may have evidence relevant to the crime the person is being arrested for, so they could be searched, the same way suspects are searched for weapons and evidence upon arrest. Also, if you are being arrested, I'd say that many of your liberties (including privacy) are put on hold (within reason, of course. We are, after all, innocent until proven guilty).
On the other hand, if I'm being arrested for speeding, for example, the police has no business snooping on my private stuff, and I can't really see what info they could acquire that could be relevant to the case. The police can always acquire a warrant to snoop on my data if they REALLY need it.
Probably the best overall solution would be to go the warrant way, unless very specific circumstances require that the police take immediate action (and that would have to be VERY thoroughly justified).
On the post: Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content
Re: Re:
Ah, so you just choose to sit here and complain, instead of doing some fact checking (thus, doing exactly the same thing you accuse TechDirt of).
Good to know pinky.
On the post: Wikileaks Reveals That The US Won't Comply With Treaty Obligations Concerning Investigations Into CIA Rendition
Re: USA no different than any other Government
Ouch. I'd hate to live in a country where those in charge of keeping the law are exempt from following it. Rules exist to ensure that society can operate as harmoniously as possible, and those in charge of creating and enforcing those rules MUST BE the first ones to obey them, no matter the cost. If they do not obey their own laws, why should "the people"?
On the post: The History Of Intellectual Property Based On Its Use In Books
Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
"It shows nothing, except perhaps that different terms are used to describe different things at different times."
It shows a few things.
The terms Copyright and Patents have been used frequently for the last century (with no abnormal proportion). However, the term "Intellectual Property" has only begun to be used recently, which means that the idea that you can "own" "intellectual" goods has only begun to gain traction recently (and I would hazard to guess that it coincides with the appearance of computers and better/cheaper recording equipment, such as VCRs and such).
Also, the term Copyright has (obviously) been popping up a lot lately, which explains the spike in the graph around the year 2000.
Unlike what you try to imply, different terms aren't being used at different times to explain the same thing (as you can see from the graph). The graph actually shows how the recording/movie industry has been pushing this (stupid) idea that you can own random assortments of bits/words/musical notes in the past few years, trying desperately to slow down their inevitable death (instead of embracing the new technologies to take EVEN MORE money).
Oh, and
"It once again smacks of desperate and whiny."
Right back at you buddy.
On the post: The History Of Intellectual Property Based On Its Use In Books
Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
On the post: UN Investigating Whether Or Not US Is Torturing Bradley Manning
Anyone?
On the post: Now Random Webhosts Are Demanding Wikileaks Mirrors Be Taken Down Over Possibility Of DDoS?
Re:
Hey you! Yes you, with the forehead!
Don't you give a crap about people that are dying because they need blood transfusions? Why aren't you donating your blood right now!? In fact, why aren't you permanently wired to a blood extraction machine!?
I guess you talk the walk, but don't walk the talk, huh? Are you chicken? I'm daring you to donate blood right now!
.
.
.
I knew you couldn't do it.
On the post: UK Politicians Want People To Have To Apply For A Porn License Before Viewing Online Porn
Re: Re: License
"
Three words: Leisure Suite Larry.
On the post: Deep Packet Inspection Firms Trying To Turn Net Neutrality Satire Into Reality
On the post: Record Labels Angry That Hadopi Isn't Kicking People Off The Internet Fast Enough
50,000 people infringing per day = 1,500,000 people infringing per month (30 day month). That's around 2% of the French population (according to wikipedia) committing copyright infringement every month.
How can these number be accurate? But, if they are, doesn't that show that there might be something wrong with the law (that may be too broad, too ambiguous or just completely wrong) or its enforcement/reporting mechanisms (that are causing too many false positives)?
Even copyright supporters must agree that there is something wrong with this picture.
On the post: Another Reminder That You Don't Own Your eBooks: Amazon Removing More eBooks You 'Bought' From Archives
Re: "just like a book"
Oh sure, you make backups of you files, but if your disks decide to die, poof, there goes your data. Your ebook provider "might" restore your ebooks...unless they are Amazon and suddenly they decide not to.
Yet, you have examples of "real books" that have survived for thousands of years and are still (mostly) readable. I'd pay for that kind of reliability (and the fact that, you know, books costs money to print, while ebooks cost 0 to copy).
But let's be honest here: when was the last time you had to replace a book? I have hundreds still in top shape. You must be doing something wrong.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re:
Yeah...right...
On the post: Is The US Response To Wikileaks Really About Overhyping Online Threats To Pass New Laws?
Re:
So? What are they going to do? Calculate really large prime numbers? Crack really strong encryption in less than a million years?
If you were complaining that they had a rather huge number of computer at their disposal (which they could use to drown several networks in packets), then you could have something.
"and considering how much our military relies on technology, do we want to be second?"
Heh, technology. If the shit ever hits the fan, we are going for nuclear annihilation. No technology is ever going to save our planet. But, even if we don't go for the extinction event, an M16 (which is probably older than you are) gets the job done, and doesn't need batteries.
War is fought by the man in the ground. You can have all the fancy technology you want, if you don't have guys with the balls to go in-your-face with someone and kill him, and strong leaders to inspire them with clear and worthy goals, you can shove that big technology up a small orifice.
"There is no second place in wars, only winners and losers."
Wrong. There are no winners in war. Every battle is just the warmup for the next one. So it was and so it shall ever be, as long as humans walk the Earth.
On the post: Author Slams 'Piracy,' Then Admits To A Huge 'Pirated' Music Collection And Counterfeit Purses
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ron Paul's Sensible Thoughts On Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has Techdirt become a political organization?
Wikipedia is a relatively reliable source of scientific facts as many have already pointed out ([citation needed], I know. The only one I can remember right now is when the Nature journal. They compared the accuracy of Encyclopędia Britannica vs Wikipedia and found that they were on par with each other).
The main problem is that you don't have the guarantee that someone that is skilled in the subject will ever review the article for accuracy and Wikipedia itself does not guarantee accuracy.
However, if you read through most scientific articles (math, physics, computer science), you'll find that they are accurate and that Wikipedia does a good job providing credible references.
So I would say that Wikipedia is "reliable enough" for us "laypeople". Not so reliable in a scientific context though. It is, however, a good source of sources. In fact, if you did some digging, you would find this in the references:
[13] http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html
Which validates Wikipedia's statement (see the introduction).
On the post: A Look Back: Remember When Camera Phones Were A Dumb Idea?
Re: Re:
Hell, you people hate this site, yet you keep hanging around. Why? Are you masochists, retarded or do you just have a lot of time on your hands?
Oh wait, I know. It must be a case of this:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Well, good luck to both of you then.
On the post: Warner Bros. Finally Realizes That 'Pirates' Are Underserved Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1 (articles you pointed out): Pirates buy more than regular customers
2 (this article): Die-hard pirates buy less than casual pirates
Therefore we can conclude:
If pirates buy more than non-pirates, you are better off kicking your regular customers, or turning them into pirates. Even if all your pirates become die-hard pirates, according to 1, you are still better off, since pirates buy more than non-pirates.
This all, of course, assuming 1 and 2 are correct.
On the post: Ron Paul's Sensible Thoughts On Wikileaks
Shouldn't you (we?) be more concerned that there is such leak-worthy material in the first place? Putting it in a better way: shouldn't we be more concerned that we are being lied to and manipulated by those people that were supposed to lead us and protect us? And then we should ask ourselves: why exactly are they lying and manipulating us? Is it for our own good, or do they have ulterior motives?
Think about it.
On the post: Ron Paul's Sensible Thoughts On Wikileaks
Re:
Yalta Conference, 1945. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. Stalin is a communist. Do you see the pattern emerging? US and England are a land of pinkos!
Hey, distorting reality is kinda fun.
Next >>