I'm not especially fond of crowds. I'm even less fond of paying $5 for a soda and another $5 for a bag of popcorn. In most theaters, I can't get a beer or real food with my movie (I know there are exceptions, but not local to me in Savannah). Ticket prices, though not terrible, add up. And though I'm far from a germophobe, the movie theaters I've been to just aren't very clean.
Balance that against waiting a couple of months to see the movie. I can buy the DVD/Blu-Ray for less than two tickets (never mind renting or streaming), and I can watch it where I want, when I want, and how I want. If I want to get a drink, or use the restroom, I can pause the movie so I don't miss anything. I can eat and drink whatever I choose. I don't think I'd say, overall, that going to the theater is an unpleasant experience, but watching at home is generally a far more pleasant experience.
The law recognizes that whoever takes a photo owns the copyright. It doesn’t hinge on the photographer’s age, gender, race, or even species.
Nice try, but the bolded portion is simply not a correct statement of the law. As far as the law is concerned, "whoever" includes only homo sapiens. No other life form is considered a natural person (corporations are neither life forms nor natural persons). There is a fringe minority of nutty people who believe that should change, and perhaps some day it will. I personally don't think it should unless we make friendly contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence, but you're free to lobby Congress to make a change. But that's where the change should be made, if at all--not in the courts.
Public Citizen didn't wait 6 years, but they didn't respond instantaneously either. The suit was filed (according to the pleading shown in the article) on 21 August 2015. Still well beyond the statute of limitations.
While I agree with your bottom line, some of the reasoning here is pretty bad. I do agree that police officers should be subject to random drug testing. I'm a Soldier, and I am; I face criminal charges if I can't pee in a cup on command. But with that said...
The Fourth Amendment. Come on, you know this. The Fourth Amendment restrains (in theory) the government, not private people or companies. If my private employer wants me to submit a urine sample every day under threat of termination, there's no Fourth Amendment issue there--but if my government employer demands that, there is. A government employer can implement drug testing without violating the Fourth Amendment, but they need to do it right.
The contract. Well, it depends on exactly what the contract says, which neither you nor I know. If it says, "officers may be tested only in circumstances X, Y, and Z," and the department is trying to require drug tests under circumstance A, they most likely lose. If the contract says, "officers may be tested in circumstances X, Y, and Z," without stating whether that's an exclusive list or note, it's a closer case, but I'd guess the department still loses.
Implied consent. Well, there's an express law that says you impliedly consent to testing by driving. If you think that should apply to wearing a badge, then amend the law. They aren't the same thing.
Many states have a "single-subject rule", which requires that any legislation relate only to one subject. In some states, it is interpreted more strictly than in others. There is no such provision at the federal level, though I think there should be.
The other problem here is that so many "requirements" are implemented by way of funding. The nationwide speed limit of 55 MPH (since adjusted) was implemented by way of funding--Congress knew it didn't have the authority to directly impose a speed limit, but it could (and did) require the states to impose one in order to get their highway funding from the federal government. Congress may not have the authority to keep the President from closing Gitmo, but they can make sure he has no money to do so. And so on. So even if there were a single-subject rule at the federal level, a lot of the stuff that goes in these omnibus acts might still be valid.
The DMCA empowers rightsholders to decide if a work is infringing.
Not sure if troll or idiot. But on the off chance that you're neither (but rather ignorant), this is completely incorrect. The DMCA provides a mechanism for rights holders to ask that a work be taken down, based on their claim that it's infringing. If the request is properly made, to the proper person, and the (alleged) infringer does take the work down within a certain timeline, the DMCA further provides that the alleged infringer cannot be held liable for the alleged infringement.
The DMCA does not confer any adjudicative powers on rights holders. All it does is provide a mechanism for them to ask that material be taken down.
If someone misuses the DMCA, they should be sued, as the DMCA provides for stiff penalties for abusing the notice system.
I agree completely--yet we see that DMCA notices are routinely abused, but the imposition of the supposed stiff penalties is vanishingly rare.
An accusation is not the same as an adjudication. We've seen so much abuse of DMCA takedowns (whether they're against material that is clearly not copyrightable, or against material the requestor doesn't own in the first place, or against material that's clearly fair use, or they're filed simply to harass) that no sensible ISP would implement a policy based on "we received a complaint, so you must be guilty."
In addition to the question of physical security of the device, and security of the data it sends to the cloud, there's also the issue of its potential harm to other devices on your network. My home network is behind a Linux-based firewall/router which I trust to deal with outside threats, but so far I've treated internal devices as safe and trusted. With the security record of the "IoT" devices, it looks like I might need to change that model, perhaps shunting any such devices to a DMZ.
You're making an orthogonal point. Yes, their (former) method is poorly thought out. Yes, it could result (mind you, "could result" is not the same as "has resulted") in other people (i.e., not them) sending private information to malicious third parties. But that's not what the article claims. The article--specifically, the headline--claims, "Chipotle exposes private data". That claim, at least as applied to the rest of the article, is false--Chipotle has exposed no data at all. The worst that can be said is that they've created a risk that someone else will expose private data.
The analogy presented by AC#1, and the hypothetical presented by AC#2, are both completely off-base.
To AC#1: Your analogy would work if Chipotle were leaving their systems unsecured. As far as this article portrays, though, there's no lack of security on their systems.
To AC#2: The email that was sent did not request any information, and it specifically directed that recipients not reply to it. How exactly do you think your hypothetical relates to this story?
Again, there's just no excuse for their setting up their autoresponder to reply from an address they don't own, on a domain they don't own, or have any control over. That's bad enough, and it makes them look like complete n00bz. Reveal their incompetence for what it is, but don't invent harms that haven't happened.
I agree that Chipotle is very similar to Qdoba (and Moe's, for that matter), both of which I prefer over Chipotle if given the option. But I've eaten at a lot of Mexican restaurants, and I don't recall any where I had trouble finding a dish that wasn't uncomfortably spicy. Maybe you've been eating at the wrong restaurants.
Your headline says "Chipotle exposes private data"--how, precisely, does Chipotle do this? You've described a hypothetical scenario, which so far as you know (or at least, so far as you've said) hasn't actually happened, in which a job applicant might inadvertently expose their private data to a malicious third party. But so far as you've described, Chipotle hasn't exposed anything to anybody. Could you clarify, or fix your headline?
This isn't to defend them--this is a completely boneheaded mistake. But what it is, is bad enough that you don't need to invent other things that it isn't.
It's up to the respective state supreme courts, but typically if an attorney's been disbarred in one jurisdiction, disbarment in any others where he's licensed is pretty much automatic. They'd have to hold proceedings in each jurisdiction, but it'd be highly unusual for Hansmeier to keep his IL license, for example, if he were disbarred in MN.
No less an authority than the Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled as much in a case that is virtually identical to the present request.
The "Supreme Court of the State of New York" is the trial-level court in that state; the highest court in New York is the Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court is the Supreme Court, Appellate Division). IOW, the "Supreme Court of the State of New York" isn't a very high authority--this is a trial court decision, which isn't really precedential, and they generally aren't published anywhere.
It's made somewhat higher in this case by the fact that it was a fairly-recent decision, against the same department (i.e., NYPD), involving the same requested materials, to which they asserted the same exemptions.
On the post: Sean Parker's New Service Offers Theaters A New Revenue Stream But All They Can See Is Business Model Intereference And Piracy
Re: Re:
Balance that against waiting a couple of months to see the movie. I can buy the DVD/Blu-Ray for less than two tickets (never mind renting or streaming), and I can watch it where I want, when I want, and how I want. If I want to get a drink, or use the restroom, I can pause the movie so I don't miss anything. I can eat and drink whatever I choose. I don't think I'd say, overall, that going to the theater is an unpleasant experience, but watching at home is generally a far more pleasant experience.
On the post: PETA, Pretending It Can Represent A Photogenic, Selfie-Snapping Monkey In Indonesia, Has Appealed Its Copyright Loss
Re: Re:
Nice try, but the bolded portion is simply not a correct statement of the law. As far as the law is concerned, "whoever" includes only homo sapiens. No other life form is considered a natural person (corporations are neither life forms nor natural persons). There is a fringe minority of nutty people who believe that should change, and perhaps some day it will. I personally don't think it should unless we make friendly contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence, but you're free to lobby Congress to make a change. But that's where the change should be made, if at all--not in the courts.
On the post: Rhode Island Attorney General Pushes Yet Another Terrible Cybercrime Bill
Re: Re: They might want to check the wording on that...
On the post: 1,845 Cases Filed For 'Insulting' Turkish President In Just 18 Months
Math is wrong
On the post: Disgraced Georgia Dentist Files Bogus Defamation Lawsuit To Go After Person Who Posted News Report To YouTube
Re:
On the post: Disgraced Georgia Dentist Files Bogus Defamation Lawsuit To Go After Person Who Posted News Report To YouTube
Re: Re:
On the post: Disgraced Georgia Dentist Files Bogus Defamation Lawsuit To Go After Person Who Posted News Report To YouTube
Re:
On the post: Legislator Wants To Ban People From Posting Pictures Of Accidents To Social Media... For At Least One Hour
Re: The media exemption is especially insane
There is no such legal requirement in the United States. There may be a common practice of the media in this regard, but that's hardly the same thing.
On the post: Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers
So much fail...
The Fourth Amendment. Come on, you know this. The Fourth Amendment restrains (in theory) the government, not private people or companies. If my private employer wants me to submit a urine sample every day under threat of termination, there's no Fourth Amendment issue there--but if my government employer demands that, there is. A government employer can implement drug testing without violating the Fourth Amendment, but they need to do it right.
The contract. Well, it depends on exactly what the contract says, which neither you nor I know. If it says, "officers may be tested only in circumstances X, Y, and Z," and the department is trying to require drug tests under circumstance A, they most likely lose. If the contract says, "officers may be tested in circumstances X, Y, and Z," without stating whether that's an exclusive list or note, it's a closer case, but I'd guess the department still loses.
Implied consent. Well, there's an express law that says you impliedly consent to testing by driving. If you think that should apply to wearing a badge, then amend the law. They aren't the same thing.
On the post: Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
Re: Re: Re:
The other problem here is that so many "requirements" are implemented by way of funding. The nationwide speed limit of 55 MPH (since adjusted) was implemented by way of funding--Congress knew it didn't have the authority to directly impose a speed limit, but it could (and did) require the states to impose one in order to get their highway funding from the federal government. Congress may not have the authority to keep the President from closing Gitmo, but they can make sure he has no money to do so. And so on. So even if there were a single-subject rule at the federal level, a lot of the stuff that goes in these omnibus acts might still be valid.
On the post: Florida Bar Laughs Off Nonsensical 'Bar Complaint' By Reputation Management Bro Patrick Zarrelli
Re:
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re:
Not sure if troll or idiot. But on the off chance that you're neither (but rather ignorant), this is completely incorrect. The DMCA provides a mechanism for rights holders to ask that a work be taken down, based on their claim that it's infringing. If the request is properly made, to the proper person, and the (alleged) infringer does take the work down within a certain timeline, the DMCA further provides that the alleged infringer cannot be held liable for the alleged infringement.
The DMCA does not confer any adjudicative powers on rights holders. All it does is provide a mechanism for them to ask that material be taken down.
I agree completely--yet we see that DMCA notices are routinely abused, but the imposition of the supposed stiff penalties is vanishingly rare.
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re:
On the post: Mom, My Barbie Needs A Better Firewall
Other security issues...
On the post: Chipotle Exposes Private Data By Sending HR E-mails Via Unowned Domain, Doesn't See The Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading headline
On the post: Chipotle Exposes Private Data By Sending HR E-mails Via Unowned Domain, Doesn't See The Problem
Re: Re: Misleading headline
To AC#1: Your analogy would work if Chipotle were leaving their systems unsecured. As far as this article portrays, though, there's no lack of security on their systems.
To AC#2: The email that was sent did not request any information, and it specifically directed that recipients not reply to it. How exactly do you think your hypothetical relates to this story?
Again, there's just no excuse for their setting up their autoresponder to reply from an address they don't own, on a domain they don't own, or have any control over. That's bad enough, and it makes them look like complete n00bz. Reveal their incompetence for what it is, but don't invent harms that haven't happened.
On the post: Chipotle Exposes Private Data By Sending HR E-mails Via Unowned Domain, Doesn't See The Problem
Re:
On the post: Chipotle Exposes Private Data By Sending HR E-mails Via Unowned Domain, Doesn't See The Problem
Misleading headline
This isn't to defend them--this is a completely boneheaded mistake. But what it is, is bad enough that you don't need to invent other things that it isn't.
On the post: Next Shoe Drops For Prenda's Paul Hansmeier: Minnesota Law Board Seeks To Disbar Him
Re:
On the post: NYPD Wants $42,000 To Turn Over Documents Related To Discharges Of Officers' Firearms
"Supreme Court"
The "Supreme Court of the State of New York" is the trial-level court in that state; the highest court in New York is the Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court is the Supreme Court, Appellate Division). IOW, the "Supreme Court of the State of New York" isn't a very high authority--this is a trial court decision, which isn't really precedential, and they generally aren't published anywhere.
It's made somewhat higher in this case by the fact that it was a fairly-recent decision, against the same department (i.e., NYPD), involving the same requested materials, to which they asserted the same exemptions.
Next >>