It seems to me that if a law says too much, it should be revised to say less. This amendment is a (tiny) step in the right direction, but instead of adding a narrow exception (making the law longer and more complex in the bargain), wouldn't it be better to look at the existing law and change the parts of it that make the exception necessary?
How about amending (a)(2) so that "information" must be private or restricted information, not just any old information. And let's remove (a)(2)(C) ("information from any protected computer;") because it includes everything.
How about stating very clearly that "authorized" means "what the owner set the computer up to allow" (rather than "what the owner had in mind"). If there isn't a clean way to do that, then maybe the word "authorized" shouldn't be in the law at all.
How about changing "value of the information" to "free market value of the information"-- and if the information is not available in the free market (e.g. if it is under copyright) then it has no such value. Any economic harm must be proved, not just claimed with speculation (I'm looking at you, (a)(4)(A)(i)(I)).
How about defining "damage" as something more than epsilon? Or maybe splitting it out of the law entirely, since it doesn't seem to serve any good purpose.
How about eliminating the "conspiracy" language altogether?
And one of my favorites: How about allowing legal recourse against officials of the Justice Department who abuse the law?
If you're in the FBI, you don't get ahead by encouraging the development of secure networks. You get ahead by busting bad guys. Think about that for a moment.
There has already been an interesting proposal for the design, but it doesn't specify size. Would your proposal also allow it to be used in a parking meter or gumball machine?
If you don't know what happens to a struggling young artist when mysterious patrons show up with suitcases full of gold bullion, you haven't been reading enough science fiction.
Lucky for him it specifies electronic devices. So pencils, paper and very old film cameras are still permitted. Maybe he could go live with the Amish for three years.
They'll be sorry when he sneaks a 1930's hand-cranked movie camera into the 2018 release of the latest Justin Bieber romantic comedy. Instead of webstreaming it from microscopic retina-dots, like everyone else in the theater. That is, if those things are still electronic...
What could they have done? They could have searched her, and then thought logically:
"Well, she may have traces of explosives on her hands, but she's not carrying explosives, so she's not a threat to this flight. She may have swallowed explosives and a detonator, but if she's that smart and well-prepared she probably would have washed her hands. So there's no evidence that she's any kind of threat, so let her through."
"A vital part of this is making sure the intellectual property landscape encourages and cements success and growth."
Am I the only one who gets a mental image of a couple of big decrepit old trees surrounded my acres and acres of fresh concrete? Is it possible that Mr. Cable has the same thought, at least subconsciously?
To the past, or to the future... from a dead man... greetings.
It would have been beyond awesome if someone had quietly slipped it into the university library's rare book vault, to be discovered a few decades hence (perhaps by top men).
A few DC politicians may protest in soft voices. Most will go along quietly as everyone in law enforcement, intelligence, pharmaceutics, IP protection, security theater (sorry, theatre) or a dozen other fields sets up transatlantic deals to trade EU citizens' info for US citizens' info.
I know this topic has been kicking around for a while, but...
"The trolls.. use the money extorted from young startups to fund the more expensive and ambitious cases against larger more established companies with deeper pockets."
So from the point of view of a larger company, it would be a lot more efficient to fight the trolls while they're still small by contributing to the startups' defense. All it takes is a way to convince the executives that their company is next on a particular troll's hit-list...
But that's determined by patents; a troll that uses patent A to knock over a startup today, may be be planning to use the settlement to attack a larger company tomorrow using patent B. So the large company does a patent search, discovers that it's vulnerable to one in the arsenal of a small troll presently shaking down a startup, and realizes... that even if it could magically stop the suit, the troll would simply go belly-up and sell the patents to other trolls, and everyone would be right back where they started. If only there were a way to neutralize the patent itself (without waiting for patent reform)...
Ah...
A large company publishes a list of patents with which it might be attacked (not much of an admission, it's all in the public patent database), and pledges to help any defendant sued by a troll holding that patent even if the patent isn't involved in the lawsuit.
There could be other conditions, as in a kickstarter campaign, to encourage other big players to join in. Really bad patents could be made toxic. Filing for bad patents could be made much less attractive as investments of time and money.
Then come the adaptations, the shell companies, the legal equivalents of the suitcase nuke, the escalation of toxicity versus anti-trust...
Hey, if it's going to be a colossal waste of time anyway, we might as well get some entertainment out of it.
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
writing laws backwards
How about amending (a)(2) so that "information" must be private or restricted information, not just any old information. And let's remove (a)(2)(C) ("information from any protected computer;") because it includes everything.
How about stating very clearly that "authorized" means "what the owner set the computer up to allow" (rather than "what the owner had in mind"). If there isn't a clean way to do that, then maybe the word "authorized" shouldn't be in the law at all.
How about changing "value of the information" to "free market value of the information"-- and if the information is not available in the free market (e.g. if it is under copyright) then it has no such value. Any economic harm must be proved, not just claimed with speculation (I'm looking at you, (a)(4)(A)(i)(I)).
How about defining "damage" as something more than epsilon? Or maybe splitting it out of the law entirely, since it doesn't seem to serve any good purpose.
How about eliminating the "conspiracy" language altogether?
And one of my favorites: How about allowing legal recourse against officials of the Justice Department who abuse the law?
On the post: How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe
basic economics, again
On the post: Church Site Blocked By Mobile Networks, Classified Under 'Alcohol'
they say it's NOT a metaphor
On the post: Church Site Blocked By Mobile Networks, Classified Under 'Alcohol'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Extortion, pedophilia, xenophobia, infant genital mutilation, suppression of science, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women?
And that's just a few from the major, modern religions!
On the post: Despite Financial Destruction, Greece Not Favoring Open Source Software
in other news...
We're talking about Greece.
On the post: DailyDirt: Big Money, Small Change
Re: $1 Trillion Coin
On the post: Pirated Buildings In China And The Rise Of Architectural Mashups
Same work, same pay, double the credit.
On the post: DailyDirt: Big Money, Small Change
cosmological inflation
Umm... Did 100000% inflation occur between the times those two sentences were written?
On the post: Bradley Manning's Defense: Releasing Over-Classified Information To The Public Would Be Good For The US, Not Bad
don't tell those guys freed after 20 years by DNA evidence
I have never heard of such a thing before, but it certainly raises some interesting possibilities, especially if he's acquitted.
"Your Honor, how much would I get if I burned down the local Army recruiting office, then turned myself in?"
"I'd say about three months-- oh, dear."
On the post: Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work
Re:
On the post: Camming Group Leader Sentenced To 5 Years; Barred From Owning 'Any Device' That Can Infringe Copyrights After Release
Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
They'll be sorry when he sneaks a 1930's hand-cranked movie camera into the 2018 release of the latest Justin Bieber romantic comedy. Instead of webstreaming it from microscopic retina-dots, like everyone else in the theater. That is, if those things are still electronic...
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Re:
If they want me to pay for these things then I want to hear a good argument from them, with more logic and less hysteria.
On the post: NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments
Was Bertrand Russell insane?
On the post: Child With Brittle Bone Disease Detained By TSA For An Hour
Re: Not that I want to defend the TSA...
"Well, she may have traces of explosives on her hands, but she's not carrying explosives, so she's not a threat to this flight. She may have swallowed explosives and a detonator, but if she's that smart and well-prepared she probably would have washed her hands. So there's no evidence that she's any kind of threat, so let her through."
On the post: London Police To Set Up Special Copyright Crime Police Force
it'll cement the landscape for growth all right
Am I the only one who gets a mental image of a couple of big decrepit old trees surrounded my acres and acres of fresh concrete? Is it possible that Mr. Cable has the same thought, at least subconsciously?
On the post: Mysterious Indiana Jones Journal Arrived At UChicago After USPS Tried To Be Helpful With Lost Package
To the past, or to the future... from a dead man... greetings.
On the post: Creators: Kill The Hobbit To Save Regular Earth, And Win!
They delved too deep.
That causes me almost physical pain. I never knew I was that big a fantasy nerd.
On the post: The Inevitable Post-Tragedy Witch Hunt: 'Mass Effect' Facebook Page Attacked Because Of Link To Misidentified Shooting Suspect
Re: But, of course
On the post: US Government Agencies Will Soon Be Able To Access Foreign Medical Dossiers Due To Patriot Act
Re:
On the post: No, Making Patent Trolls Pay Up For Bogus Lawsuits Does Not Violate International Agreements
free market solution?
"The trolls.. use the money extorted from young startups to fund the more expensive and ambitious cases against larger more established companies with deeper pockets."
So from the point of view of a larger company, it would be a lot more efficient to fight the trolls while they're still small by contributing to the startups' defense. All it takes is a way to convince the executives that their company is next on a particular troll's hit-list...
But that's determined by patents; a troll that uses patent A to knock over a startup today, may be be planning to use the settlement to attack a larger company tomorrow using patent B. So the large company does a patent search, discovers that it's vulnerable to one in the arsenal of a small troll presently shaking down a startup, and realizes... that even if it could magically stop the suit, the troll would simply go belly-up and sell the patents to other trolls, and everyone would be right back where they started. If only there were a way to neutralize the patent itself (without waiting for patent reform)...
Ah...
A large company publishes a list of patents with which it might be attacked (not much of an admission, it's all in the public patent database), and pledges to help any defendant sued by a troll holding that patent even if the patent isn't involved in the lawsuit.
There could be other conditions, as in a kickstarter campaign, to encourage other big players to join in. Really bad patents could be made toxic. Filing for bad patents could be made much less attractive as investments of time and money.
Then come the adaptations, the shell companies, the legal equivalents of the suitcase nuke, the escalation of toxicity versus anti-trust...
Hey, if it's going to be a colossal waste of time anyway, we might as well get some entertainment out of it.
Next >>