farmer: "These good solid locks and self locking doors should keep my animals from 'wandering off' again.
gov: "Yes, while we were spying on the milk maid, all of the horses, cows, chickens, pigs, and we believe field mice have all managed to escape the barn"
farmer: "I understand that last time you got the barn manufacturer to 'let you in'.
gov: "I assure you it was all completely legal and above board"
farmer: "I didn't see no warrant."
gov: "A secret court had a secret review of our secret application based on a secret interpretation of a secret law."
farmer: "Huh?"
gov: "It was determined to be completely legal and above board, we are the most transparent administration the US has ever had."
farmer: "Uh huh, I'm sure it was." {tightens screws, test locks}
gov: "With these new self locking doors, we won't be able to indiscriminately, um I mean, stop the terrorists, pedophiles and other criminal elements."
farmer:"...or milkmaids...."
gov: "I think we should have a public debate before people start installing these more secure self locking doors."
farmer: "I think you should have thought about that 'before' you let the horses, cows, pigs, chickens out of the barn. Why _were_ you spying on the milkmaid for anyway?"
gov: "ummm... national security. It's all _very_ legal _very_ transparent..."
farmer: "but you can't actually _show_ me a warrant?"
gov: "National security, perfectly legal, most transparent ever...."
farmer: "Yea, {closes door and shakes it to make sure it's locked} well I needs to buy me some more; horses, cows, pigs, and chickens."
Just like the arguments presented by the marketing side in the Do Not Track header fiasco.
Verizon was pushing the Opt-Out only means opting out of targeted advertising, the marketers were pushing the view that Do Not Track didn't _actually_ mean _do_not_track_, it _really_ meant just don't serve targeted ads.
Until the FCC, or some other government agency starts punishing companies for these shenanigans, it's just going to keep on happening.
Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to claim victory, as I still haven't seen just _HOW_ people will be able to opt-out, and if it will _actually_ work the way normal people expect it to.
(p.s. For those of you who would suggest that _market_forces_ will keep companies honest, you are either disingenuous or you haven't been paying attention. Most users don't have a choice, or if there is one, all of the other choices are doing the same thing. A profitable race to the bottom that only regulation [good consumer protecting regulation] can address. )
According to the title, the _bot_ was seized. According to the text of the article, the things the bot _bought_ were seized.
Since this _bot_ wasn't actually a physical _ro_bot (like say R2D2), but a bit of software, what _can_ the cops actually _seize_?
The computer(s) that it's currently running in? An SD Card (or USB stick) that holds a copy of the software)? A hard copy print out of the source code?
What if it's running on many computers? Perhaps there are many copies, or maybe it's some kind of hive mind.
If you _turn_off_ the computer (or all of them) that it's running on, wouldn't that be the equivalent of capital punishment? Sounds kind of extreme for making a few drug purchases.
Perhaps you turn off all the computers except one and then take _that_ one into 'custody'?
Do we take into account the intellectual sophistication of the _bot_? We don't prosecute a mentally challenged criminal (or a small child) as harshly as a competent adult criminal do we? Will we now need 'competency hearings' when we arrest a _bot_?
If your adult child commits a crime, we don't arrest their parents. So why would it be O.K. to arrest the programmers of a criminal _bot_?
There's along way to go from there to HAL (or SkyNet).
Obama apparently never intended to _end_ the program (big surprise there, I know).
He didn't say that the government should _stop_ unconstitutionally collecting and storing data on everyone, _just_ that he would have someone _else_ (not the government) hold on to the data.
In other words, it wasn't going to remove the cameras from everyone's bathrooms and bedrooms, he was just proposing that instead of all the tapes (are tapes too archaic?) sitting in a room (warehouse) at the NSA, they would store them at UStore (imaginary storage place) personal warehouse and storage facility.
Since Congress won't agree to that, well he'll just _have_ to let the NSA keep them.
I mean it's not _his_ fault Congress couldn't make a decision. Right?.......?....
That wouldn't eliminate the fee, just change the name of it.
If enough people complained about the sports channel fee, loud enough to get it removed it still wouldn't help.
Instead of a $29.95/mo sports channel fee, they would _remove_ the sports channels from your package and charge you a $31.09/mo sports channel removal and maintenance fee (or some other like sounding silliness).
Those in charge have already decided how much they want to charge you, all that's left is what to call it.
Whether it's a 'cost per bullet used' fee, or a 'bullet recovery fee', you are still getting shot, and they are still going to charge you for the privilege.
If they were realliy interested in transparancy they'ld include the fees in the advertised price.
The simplest way to call the cable (and ISP) industry's transparency bluff is to ask them to _include_all_of_the_fees_ in the _advertised_price_.
In a fair and just marketplace, the advertised price would be the price you are expected to pay.
Instead of advertising:
Package X $49/mo.
Then socking you with below the line fees (regulatory fee, cable box fee, because we feel like it fee, etc.) and presenting you with a $257.89/mo actual bill.
Advertise $260/mo.
Then explain that the cost includes a $10/mo set top box fee, a $22.95 sports transmission fee, a $2.62/mo because we feel like it fee, etc.
That would be _increasing_transparency_. Anything less is self serving B.S..
It would be like someone amputating both of your legs, presenting you with the bill and then claiming they were only interested in reducing your footwear costs.
Actually the 'public domain' is the exact _opposite_ of ownership. It means that _no_one_owns_it_.
In other words, it's just lying around in public available for anyone to use for anything [legal that is].
The everything must be owned mentality is the reason some groups don't allow public domain works on their sites. Since everything must be owned by someone they require permission of the copyright holder before allowing things to be uploaded (posted). Public Domain items, by definition don't have an owner, hence no one can give permission [none is needed].
Last time I checked, making legally libelous statements was already illegal under the laws that... you know... made libel a crime.
No need to include exceptions into a law that outlaws egregious contract terms concerning complaints to restate that libeling someone is still illegal. Otherwise you would need to include terms to state that murder, theft, extortion, etc. are also still illegal under their respective laws.
The whole license agreement/contract scam is a mess. The entire 'click-wrap' agreement where the company 'reserves the right to change the terms at _their_ discretion' is so transparently unfair it should have been outlawed ages ago.
Sure, two companies with their teams of on retainer lawyers should have the freedom to negotiate contracts between themselves (within limits of course, no slavery, murder for hire, etc.). The problems occur when it's a company with it's team of on retainer lawyers writing a take it or leave it contract where they get all the rights and the consumer gets all the limitations.
There are some people who will always try to excuse this by claiming that if you don't like the terms you don't have to do business with them. That's an unproductive cop out on many levels.
First, in many cases the consumer isn't even aware of the terms at the time of sale (licenses buried in the box anyone?). Next it's couched in nearly impenetrable legalese that requires a law degree to correctly reinterpret how they have twisted the english language to the extent that words you thought you knew mean the exact opposite. Then there's the ever popular right to rewrite the agreement at any later point in time so that the agreement that you agreed to isn't anything like the one that's being enforced against you. Finally there's the fact that when one group of over achieving lawyers finds a new way to take advantage of the consumer, everyone else rushes to do the same thing (just look at how fast AT&T's 'you can't file a class action suit' language has spread).
Consumers should have certain rights in the market place (such as resale, warranty, returnability, no retroactive license changes, ability to sue for damages, etc.). In general no click-wrap or other point of sale licenses should be allowed. If there ever turns out to be an exception (and I can't think of one at the moment) in no case should they be allowed to abridge any of the guarantied rights, no matter what a piece of lawyeresse claims to say. No contract, regardless of the parties should grant one party the unilateral right to change the terms and still be binding.
These non-disparagement clauses are just the latest in a long list of wrongs our current system allows companies to foist on the public.
The California law making disparagement clauses illegal is like the 'Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act'. In both cases government is outlawing a symptom of a larger disease. In the cell phone case the disease is the overreach of the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. It shouldn't apply to cases where there isn't a breach of the copyright act (fair use, coffee DRM, etc.) Congress has decided to make an attempt to fix a symptom of the problem (cell phone unlocking) as opposed to addressing the larger problems with the DMCA. In a similar vein, instead of addressing the problems of applying business to business contract law to the general public, they have passed a law to address one symptom, clauses that penalize people who write or say negative things about a company.
In both cases the people who are supposed to be representing the public are unwilling to tackle the larger problem. Most likely to avoid upsetting the interests they _actually_ do represent, businesses that contribute large amounts of money to them.
Too bad it wasn't used for what it was intended for....
If I understand correctly, this program (military gear for police departments) was _supposed_ to help prepare our local law enforcement to handle the next 9/11. Not that I think another 9/11 is likely anytime soon, but regardless.
Unfortunately many of our police departments are unregulated, unsupervised, and undisciplined. They seem to believe, not only that they are above the law, but in many cases they _are_ the law. Just look at any run of the mill tin-pot dictatorship to see where that leads (or most U.S. police forces, sadly).
If we stopped using our National Guardsmen as underpaid Reservists and kept them state side to handle disasters and domestic emergencies, _they_ would be around to handle the next Katrina or 9/11. If you don't think we have enough of them, and _still_ want to involve the police this is how I think it _should_ have been handled;
Let police departments acquire surplus military equipment via the pentagon's 1033 program.
Require that they receive proper training on how to use this equipment, say from those National Guardsmen.
Restrict it's use to _very_ specific situations; national emergencies, _actual_ terrorist attack, etc. Some sort of declaration from the governor or president. Otherwise it's off limits.
While you're at it, limit the use of S.W.A.T. teams to what they were designed for; bomber in the mall, shooter with hostages in a grade school, heavily armed bank robbers, etc.
Stop using them to raid houses for unauthorized DVD production or to deliver no-knock warrants for suspected pot use to homes with small children at two o'clock in the morning will make everyone safer.
Perhaps I haven't received the latest copy of Copyright Laws as updated by Major Corporations Unabridged [it just has to be the unabridged version of course...] but I don't see;
"...the freedom of the author to determine the use of their works themselves..."
enumerated as one of the rights protected by copyright.
If I want to purchase copies of the United States Tax Code to use as tinder in my fireplace, or the New York Times to line my bird cage, or convert all seven books of the Harry Potter series into wall paper for my bathroom, I am fairly certain that isn't against any of the reserved rights granted to authors under the current copyright regime.
Then again I haven't seen any of the pending secret international trade agreement negotiations. So.........
To release a report of the privacy impact would impact your privacy
It's simple. The reason the FBI is withholding the privacy impact report in its entirety is to safeguard your privacy.
As other important government agents have previously remarked, so long as you don't know your privacy is being impacted, it isn't. Therefore if the FBI were to release _any_ part of the privacy impact report, you would _know_ just how badly the government is invading your privacy. Sure you might _suspect_ that the government is definitely not respecting your privacy, but that's not the same as _knowing_. This would lead to a greater privacy impact which would necessitate redoing the original privacy impact report to handle the increased impact on your privacy caused by the confirmation of your loss of privacy which only occurred upon release of the unredacted privacy impact report. This would inevitably lead to a redacted privacy report concerning the recently unredacted privacy report. If members of the public insisted on the release of an unredacted privacy impact report of the privacy impact of the recently unredacted, yet initially redacted, privacy impact report, this would lead to the generation of yet another privacy impact report to document the expected privacy impact of unredacting the previously redacted privacy impact report of unredacting the initial redacted privacy impact report of the FBI's drone program.
As you can _clearly_ see (based on the aforementioned privacy impacts) the only way to minimize the privacy impact of any government program is _not_ to release a privacy impact report. If such a report _must_ be released, the course of action that maximizes the preservation of the public's privacy and minimizes the impact to that privacy is to completely redact any such release.
Based on this perfectly straight forward and logical assessment of the situation, the FBI has only done what it had to do to best safeguard the privacy of the public.
[*note the above does not reflect the options of this author and simply utilizes previous governmental responses to help shed light on the current FBI actions in this instance.]
"Wild west" doesn't refer to the user of the internet but the providers....
Capitalism in action. If you remove government regulation you don't get a free market utopia all you get is an ugly race to the bottom in pursuit of more and more profit.
We have seen that in every segment it's been _deregulated_ (not like history, or even a quick game of monopoly doesn't provide enough examples) a few at the top make out like bandits and the rest..... well it isn't so pretty.
Broadband is a _natural_monopoly_. Monopolies, natural or otherwise, need to be regulated. Anyone who doesn't see that hasn't been paying attention (or is profiting off that monopoly). Why are ISP's (Verizon, ATT&T) trying so hard to ditch fixed line POTS? Because they are regulated as Common Carriers (Title II). Well that and the ridiculously _under_regulated_ wireless market.
Why invest in infrastructure to provide a better, faster, more capable experience? More innovations, jobs, economic growth and prosperity, a higher standard of living... nah. It's easier and more profitable (at least in the near term) to leverage your monopoly position to squeeze higher and higher profits out of worse and worse service. Just look what happened when the last Verizon CEO wanted to convert to fiber (a good solid long term strategy) to position Verizon to offer better, more sustainable service for years to come. Short term Wall St. investors crucified him for wasting money that could have been paid out in the current quarter.
Broadband _is_ a _utility_. It needs to be regulated like one. Water, roads, electric, telephone, broadband all utilities, all need to be regulated for the greater good of the country.
If Verizon, CableVision, Time Warner, AT&T, etc. don't want to be regulated as the common carriers that they are, fine. There's the door. Just remember to leave the tax payer bought and paid for infrastructure there on your way out. It's not like they've been doing such a bang up job taking care of it anyway.
Being an ISP isn't a sexy business, but it is a needed one.
Reclassify Broadband providers as "Common Carriers".
Split any companies into a portion that handles the internet/telephony and everything else. [while your are at it do the same with the cable and satellite television companies]
Internet Service Providers should do just that, be a company that manages/upgrades/maintains the "pipes" in other words provides access to the internet. Allow any number of companies to offer internet features/functions on those pipes (email, telephony, web hosting, file hosting, video, etc.).
Tax (yes I said the ugly "T" word) everyone to maintain the shared infrastructure. It's nothing new. We have a gas tax to help maintain the highway system, a 911 tax to help fund 911 service, we could use another one to help offset the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Users would be charged a _reasonable_ amount for internet access based on the level (speed) they want. Nothing for slow/emergency access (think 1/1 service for the poor and elderly) more for 10/10, 100/100, 1000/1000, etc. With an internet surcharge that goes to fund the backbone.
Current telcoms will absolutely _hate_ it. Which only goes to prove that it's the right thing to do. Everyone else will love it.
As they say, "A rising tide lifts all boats". Faster, more stable, reliable internet access will improve jobs, medicine, education, etc. We managed to get electricity, running water, telephone service to pretty much the entire country in ages past. There's no reason we can't do the same with broadband (and no, cellular/satellite service is _not_ a realistic replacement for fixed line broadband). We just have to put an end to the dysfunctional disincentives that reward companies for holding back the rest of the country in the selfish pursuit of larger profits for themselves.
Wait a moment while I try to twist my thought processes into an approximation of a paranoid government spook.......
The reason to keep the organization that receives a National Security Letter secret is that if the "target" uses that company and found out that they had just received a NSL then they would;
1. Know we were tracking them 2. Stop using that company 3. Stop using that method of communication, bank account, brand of toothpaste
[O.K. maybe not that last one.... maybe.]
Normally we [the government] would only keep this information classified ['gagged'] until we brought the perpetrator to justice [filed a case in a court of law]. New terrorist threat models [government speak for ignoring the constitution] require us to continually collect intelligence on existing and emerging threats [ a.k.a. people we know are bad, people we think might be bad someday, and people we just don't like, heck everyone just to be safe]. Contrary to terrorist apologists [a.k.a. people who care about the constitution] these National Security Letter recipient non disclosure [gag] orders are not permanent, nor unending. Recipients are free to discuss them, once the terrorist threats to the country have been eliminated [so that would be just like the legal term for copyright limits, forever minus one day].
See, that wasn't do hard to understand was it....[I think I need a mental shower now]?
Competition is probably what's needed, but it has to be at the ISP level _not_ at the infrastructure level. The wires/cables/fiber optics is a natural monopoly. It doesn't make sense; practically, economically to force everyone to run their own set of lines to every household (and no, wireless/satellite isn't an adequate substitute).
We don't expect every delivery service to run their own roads, nor every electric company to run their own power wires, nor every water company to run their own pipes to everyone's house, it's silly to expect every potential ISP to do the same.
Split the wires from the access and let anyone who wants to compete as an ISP. Then you'll have a chance of seeing the real competition that your looking for.
On the post: President Obama: I'm A Big Believer In Strong Encryption... But...
Re: Having the public debate.
gov: "Yes, while we were spying on the milk maid, all of the horses, cows, chickens, pigs, and we believe field mice have all managed to escape the barn"
farmer: "I understand that last time you got the barn manufacturer to 'let you in'.
gov: "I assure you it was all completely legal and above board"
farmer: "I didn't see no warrant."
gov: "A secret court had a secret review of our secret application based on a secret interpretation of a secret law."
farmer: "Huh?"
gov: "It was determined to be completely legal and above board, we are the most transparent administration the US has ever had."
farmer: "Uh huh, I'm sure it was." {tightens screws, test locks}
gov: "With these new self locking doors, we won't be able to indiscriminately, um I mean, stop the terrorists, pedophiles and other criminal elements."
farmer:"...or milkmaids...."
gov: "I think we should have a public debate before people start installing these more secure self locking doors."
farmer: "I think you should have thought about that 'before' you let the horses, cows, pigs, chickens out of the barn. Why _were_ you spying on the milkmaid for anyway?"
gov: "ummm... national security. It's all _very_ legal _very_ transparent..."
farmer: "but you can't actually _show_ me a warrant?"
gov: "National security, perfectly legal, most transparent ever...."
farmer: "Yea, {closes door and shakes it to make sure it's locked} well I needs to buy me some more; horses, cows, pigs, and chickens."
{walks away from the government man}
gov: "don't forget those field mice......."
On the post: Verizon Finally Buckles, Will Allow A Total Opt Out From Sneaky Super Cookies
Just like Do Not Track header....
Verizon was pushing the Opt-Out only means opting out of targeted advertising, the marketers were pushing the view that Do Not Track didn't _actually_ mean _do_not_track_, it _really_ meant just don't serve targeted ads.
Until the FCC, or some other government agency starts punishing companies for these shenanigans, it's just going to keep on happening.
Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to claim victory, as I still haven't seen just _HOW_ people will be able to opt-out, and if it will _actually_ work the way normal people expect it to.
(p.s. For those of you who would suggest that _market_forces_ will keep companies honest, you are either disingenuous or you haven't been paying attention. Most users don't have a choice, or if there is one, all of the other choices are doing the same thing. A profitable race to the bottom that only regulation [good consumer protecting regulation] can address. )
On the post: Autonomous Bot Seized For Illegal Purchases: Who's Liable When A Bot Breaks The Law?
So, just how do you go about seizing a 'bot'?
Since this _bot_ wasn't actually a physical _ro_bot (like say R2D2), but a bit of software, what _can_ the cops actually _seize_?
The computer(s) that it's currently running in?
An SD Card (or USB stick) that holds a copy of the software)?
A hard copy print out of the source code?
What if it's running on many computers? Perhaps there are many copies, or maybe it's some kind of hive mind.
If you _turn_off_ the computer (or all of them) that it's running on, wouldn't that be the equivalent of capital punishment? Sounds kind of extreme for making a few drug purchases.
Perhaps you turn off all the computers except one and then take _that_ one into 'custody'?
Do we take into account the intellectual sophistication of the _bot_? We don't prosecute a mentally challenged criminal (or a small child) as harshly as a competent adult criminal do we? Will we now need 'competency hearings' when we arrest a _bot_?
If your adult child commits a crime, we don't arrest their parents. So why would it be O.K. to arrest the programmers of a criminal _bot_?
There's along way to go from there to HAL (or SkyNet).
On the post: President Obama Drops His Promise To Take Phone Metadata Away From NSA... But Perhaps That's Fine [Updated]
He never planed to stop, just 'reorganize'
He didn't say that the government should _stop_ unconstitutionally collecting and storing data on everyone, _just_ that he would have someone _else_ (not the government) hold on to the data.
In other words, it wasn't going to remove the cameras from everyone's bathrooms and bedrooms, he was just proposing that instead of all the tapes (are tapes too archaic?) sitting in a room (warehouse) at the NSA, they would store them at UStore (imaginary storage place) personal warehouse and storage facility.
Since Congress won't agree to that, well he'll just _have_ to let the NSA keep them.
I mean it's not _his_ fault Congress couldn't make a decision. Right?.......?....
On the post: The Cable Industry's Latest Lame Argument: We're Burying Sneaky Fees In Your Bill As Part Of An Effort To Be More Transparent
That wouldn't eliminate the fee, just change the name of it.
Instead of a $29.95/mo sports channel fee, they would _remove_ the sports channels from your package and charge you a $31.09/mo sports channel removal and maintenance fee (or some other like sounding silliness).
Those in charge have already decided how much they want to charge you, all that's left is what to call it.
Whether it's a 'cost per bullet used' fee, or a 'bullet recovery fee', you are still getting shot, and they are still going to charge you for the privilege.
On the post: The Cable Industry's Latest Lame Argument: We're Burying Sneaky Fees In Your Bill As Part Of An Effort To Be More Transparent
If they were realliy interested in transparancy they'ld include the fees in the advertised price.
In a fair and just marketplace, the advertised price would be the price you are expected to pay.
Instead of advertising:
Package X $49/mo.
Then socking you with below the line fees (regulatory fee, cable box fee, because we feel like it fee, etc.) and presenting you with a $257.89/mo actual bill.
Advertise $260/mo.
Then explain that the cost includes a $10/mo set top box fee, a $22.95 sports transmission fee, a $2.62/mo because we feel like it fee, etc.
That would be _increasing_transparency_. Anything less is self serving B.S..
It would be like someone amputating both of your legs, presenting you with the bill and then claiming they were only interested in reducing your footwear costs.
On the post: UK Intelligence Boss: We Had All This Info And Totally Failed To Prevent Charlie Hebdo Attack... So Give Us More Info
It's the old witch's test
Just substitute privacy/civil liberties/etc. for witch and you get the current government(intelligence organization) mindset.
Same basic idea in use since the inquisition (and before). Glad to see they are recycling old ideas.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Everything must be owned.
In other words, it's just lying around in public available for anyone to use for anything [legal that is].
The everything must be owned mentality is the reason some groups don't allow public domain works on their sites. Since everything must be owned by someone they require permission of the copyright holder before allowing things to be uploaded (posted). Public Domain items, by definition don't have an owner, hence no one can give permission [none is needed].
On the post: California Outlaws Consumer-Silencing Non-Disparagement Clauses
Re: Good start - Libel already illegal
No need to include exceptions into a law that outlaws egregious contract terms concerning complaints to restate that libeling someone is still illegal. Otherwise you would need to include terms to state that murder, theft, extortion, etc. are also still illegal under their respective laws.
On the post: California Outlaws Consumer-Silencing Non-Disparagement Clauses
Outlaw _all_ such terms on consumer sales.
Sure, two companies with their teams of on retainer lawyers should have the freedom to negotiate contracts between themselves (within limits of course, no slavery, murder for hire, etc.). The problems occur when it's a company with it's team of on retainer lawyers writing a take it or leave it contract where they get all the rights and the consumer gets all the limitations.
There are some people who will always try to excuse this by claiming that if you don't like the terms you don't have to do business with them. That's an unproductive cop out on many levels.
First, in many cases the consumer isn't even aware of the terms at the time of sale (licenses buried in the box anyone?). Next it's couched in nearly impenetrable legalese that requires a law degree to correctly reinterpret how they have twisted the english language to the extent that words you thought you knew mean the exact opposite. Then there's the ever popular right to rewrite the agreement at any later point in time so that the agreement that you agreed to isn't anything like the one that's being enforced against you. Finally there's the fact that when one group of over achieving lawyers finds a new way to take advantage of the consumer, everyone else rushes to do the same thing (just look at how fast AT&T's 'you can't file a class action suit' language has spread).
Consumers should have certain rights in the market place (such as resale, warranty, returnability, no retroactive license changes, ability to sue for damages, etc.). In general no click-wrap or other point of sale licenses should be allowed. If there ever turns out to be an exception (and I can't think of one at the moment) in no case should they be allowed to abridge any of the guarantied rights, no matter what a piece of lawyeresse claims to say. No contract, regardless of the parties should grant one party the unilateral right to change the terms and still be binding.
These non-disparagement clauses are just the latest in a long list of wrongs our current system allows companies to foist on the public.
The California law making disparagement clauses illegal is like the 'Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act'. In both cases government is outlawing a symptom of a larger disease. In the cell phone case the disease is the overreach of the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA. It shouldn't apply to cases where there isn't a breach of the copyright act (fair use, coffee DRM, etc.) Congress has decided to make an attempt to fix a symptom of the problem (cell phone unlocking) as opposed to addressing the larger problems with the DMCA. In a similar vein, instead of addressing the problems of applying business to business contract law to the general public, they have passed a law to address one symptom, clauses that penalize people who write or say negative things about a company.
In both cases the people who are supposed to be representing the public are unwilling to tackle the larger problem. Most likely to avoid upsetting the interests they _actually_ do represent, businesses that contribute large amounts of money to them.
On the post: Ferguson Debacle Results In Armored Vehicles Being Removed From Two California Police Departments
Too bad it wasn't used for what it was intended for....
Unfortunately many of our police departments are unregulated, unsupervised, and undisciplined. They seem to believe, not only that they are above the law, but in many cases they _are_ the law. Just look at any run of the mill tin-pot dictatorship to see where that leads (or most U.S. police forces, sadly).
If we stopped using our National Guardsmen as underpaid Reservists and kept them state side to handle disasters and domestic emergencies, _they_ would be around to handle the next Katrina or 9/11. If you don't think we have enough of them, and _still_ want to involve the police this is how I think it _should_ have been handled;
Let police departments acquire surplus military equipment via the pentagon's 1033 program.
Require that they receive proper training on how to use this equipment, say from those National Guardsmen.
Restrict it's use to _very_ specific situations; national emergencies, _actual_ terrorist attack, etc. Some sort of declaration from the governor or president. Otherwise it's off limits.
While you're at it, limit the use of S.W.A.T. teams to what they were designed for; bomber in the mall, shooter with hostages in a grade school, heavily armed bank robbers, etc.
Stop using them to raid houses for unauthorized DVD production or to deliver no-knock warrants for suspected pot use to homes with small children at two o'clock in the morning will make everyone safer.
On the post: Recording Industry Exec Says It's Not Censorship To Block Sites He Doesn't Like
"...the freedom of the author to determine the use of their works themselves..."
enumerated as one of the rights protected by copyright.
If I want to purchase copies of the United States Tax Code to use as tinder in my fireplace, or the New York Times to line my bird cage, or convert all seven books of the Harry Potter series into wall paper for my bathroom, I am fairly certain that isn't against any of the reserved rights granted to authors under the current copyright regime.
Then again I haven't seen any of the pending secret international trade agreement negotiations. So.........
On the post: FBI Refuses To Let Public Know How Its Drone Usage Affects Their Privacy
To release a report of the privacy impact would impact your privacy
As other important government agents have previously remarked, so long as you don't know your privacy is being impacted, it isn't. Therefore if the FBI were to release _any_ part of the privacy impact report, you would _know_ just how badly the government is invading your privacy. Sure you might _suspect_ that the government is definitely not respecting your privacy, but that's not the same as _knowing_. This would lead to a greater privacy impact which would necessitate redoing the original privacy impact report to handle the increased impact on your privacy caused by the confirmation of your loss of privacy which only occurred upon release of the unredacted privacy impact report. This would inevitably lead to a redacted privacy report concerning the recently unredacted privacy report. If members of the public insisted on the release of an unredacted privacy impact report of the privacy impact of the recently unredacted, yet initially redacted, privacy impact report, this would lead to the generation of yet another privacy impact report to document the expected privacy impact of unredacting the previously redacted privacy impact report of unredacting the initial redacted privacy impact report of the FBI's drone program.
As you can _clearly_ see (based on the aforementioned privacy impacts) the only way to minimize the privacy impact of any government program is _not_ to release a privacy impact report. If such a report _must_ be released, the course of action that maximizes the preservation of the public's privacy and minimizes the impact to that privacy is to completely redact any such release.
Based on this perfectly straight forward and logical assessment of the situation, the FBI has only done what it had to do to best safeguard the privacy of the public.
[*note the above does not reflect the options of this author and simply utilizes previous governmental responses to help shed light on the current FBI actions in this instance.]
On the post: Language School's Blogger Fired For Writing A Post On Homophones; Director Fears Association With 'Gay Sex'
Should have stuck with homonyms
;>
On the post: Verizon Math Strikes Again: Promises 2 Years Of Free Data Access To Chromebook Users; Delivers Just 1
So that's what happened to Verizon's digital wallet.
Verizon would have been better off letting Google's Wallet alone (or at least come up with a name change).
On the post: Lobbyists (And, Oh Yes, Everyone Else), Start Your Engines: FCC Opens The Floor For Comments On Net Neutrality
"Wild west" doesn't refer to the user of the internet but the providers....
We have seen that in every segment it's been _deregulated_ (not like history, or even a quick game of monopoly doesn't provide enough examples) a few at the top make out like bandits and the rest..... well it isn't so pretty.
Broadband is a _natural_monopoly_. Monopolies, natural or otherwise, need to be regulated. Anyone who doesn't see that hasn't been paying attention (or is profiting off that monopoly). Why are ISP's (Verizon, ATT&T) trying so hard to ditch fixed line POTS? Because they are regulated as Common Carriers (Title II). Well that and the ridiculously _under_regulated_ wireless market.
Why invest in infrastructure to provide a better, faster, more capable experience? More innovations, jobs, economic growth and prosperity, a higher standard of living... nah. It's easier and more profitable (at least in the near term) to leverage your monopoly position to squeeze higher and higher profits out of worse and worse service. Just look what happened when the last Verizon CEO wanted to convert to fiber (a good solid long term strategy) to position Verizon to offer better, more sustainable service for years to come. Short term Wall St. investors crucified him for wasting money that could have been paid out in the current quarter.
Broadband _is_ a _utility_. It needs to be regulated like one. Water, roads, electric, telephone, broadband all utilities, all need to be regulated for the greater good of the country.
If Verizon, CableVision, Time Warner, AT&T, etc. don't want to be regulated as the common carriers that they are, fine. There's the door. Just remember to leave the tax payer bought and paid for infrastructure there on your way out. It's not like they've been doing such a bang up job taking care of it anyway.
Being an ISP isn't a sexy business, but it is a needed one.
Reclassify Broadband providers as "Common Carriers".
Split any companies into a portion that handles the internet/telephony and everything else. [while your are at it do the same with the cable and satellite television companies]
Internet Service Providers should do just that, be a company that manages/upgrades/maintains the "pipes" in other words provides access to the internet. Allow any number of companies to offer internet features/functions on those pipes (email, telephony, web hosting, file hosting, video, etc.).
Tax (yes I said the ugly "T" word) everyone to maintain the shared infrastructure. It's nothing new. We have a gas tax to help maintain the highway system, a 911 tax to help fund 911 service, we could use another one to help offset the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Users would be charged a _reasonable_ amount for internet access based on the level (speed) they want. Nothing for slow/emergency access (think 1/1 service for the poor and elderly) more for 10/10, 100/100, 1000/1000, etc. With an internet surcharge that goes to fund the backbone.
Current telcoms will absolutely _hate_ it. Which only goes to prove that it's the right thing to do. Everyone else will love it.
As they say, "A rising tide lifts all boats". Faster, more stable, reliable internet access will improve jobs, medicine, education, etc. We managed to get electricity, running water, telephone service to pretty much the entire country in ages past. There's no reason we can't do the same with broadband (and no, cellular/satellite service is _not_ a realistic replacement for fixed line broadband). We just have to put an end to the dysfunctional disincentives that reward companies for holding back the rest of the country in the selfish pursuit of larger profits for themselves.
On the post: EFF Sues Over National Security Letters... But Can't Tell You Who Its Clients Are
Re: Re: Possible reason....
I just proposed a possible reason for those people who say that couldn't think of any reason why the government thought it was a good idea.
On the post: EFF Sues Over National Security Letters... But Can't Tell You Who Its Clients Are
Possible reason....
The reason to keep the organization that receives a National Security Letter secret is that if the "target" uses that company and found out that they had just received a NSL then they would;
1. Know we were tracking them
2. Stop using that company
3. Stop using that method of communication, bank account, brand of toothpaste
[O.K. maybe not that last one.... maybe.]
Normally we [the government] would only keep this information classified ['gagged'] until we brought the perpetrator to justice [filed a case in a court of law]. New terrorist threat models [government speak for ignoring the constitution] require us to continually collect intelligence on existing and emerging threats [ a.k.a. people we know are bad, people we think might be bad someday, and people we just don't like, heck everyone just to be safe]. Contrary to terrorist apologists [a.k.a. people who care about the constitution] these National Security Letter recipient non disclosure [gag] orders are not permanent, nor unending. Recipients are free to discuss them, once the terrorist threats to the country have been eliminated [so that would be just like the legal term for copyright limits, forever minus one day].
See, that wasn't do hard to understand was it....[I think I need a mental shower now]?
On the post: New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing
Natural monopoly
We don't expect every delivery service to run their own roads, nor every electric company to run their own power wires, nor every water company to run their own pipes to everyone's house, it's silly to expect every potential ISP to do the same.
Split the wires from the access and let anyone who wants to compete as an ISP. Then you'll have a chance of seeing the real competition that your looking for.
On the post: Bayer's CEO: We Develop Drugs For Rich Westerners, Not Poor Indians
Indian is a side show... look to South Africa
sample:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edsilverman/2014/01/18/as-pharma-eyes-patent-changes-i n-south-africa-a-government-minister-cries-genocide/
Next >>