I'm curious about when Patent Trolls decide to sue. For instance, if you open a business, retain employees, can you be sued by patent trolls if you use software apps on company owned cellphones, or are you granted immunity to such things as that?
Just what does Feinstein think that 'surveilance' means?
Surveilance is described as: the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them. This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as CCTV cameras), or interception of electronically transmitted information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls); and it can include simple, relatively no- or low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception.
Collecting metadata sent over the internet is 'surveilance', there's nothing else that explains it.
Obviously, Timothy Geigner has never been the victim of a crime, I've been the victim of many crimes. From armed robbery to having my life physically endangered by someone who has the capacity to hand out such violence.
I find it deplorable that Mr. Geigner would make such a comment about capital punishment because it sounds like he's never been on the receiving end of such violent crimes.
Capital Punishment should be ever present in every state in this country because if you remove the threat of that particular form of punishment, then you have criminals who will wantonly go out and commit unspeakable acts.
Want to know what a society becomes when you remove such punishments? Ask the woman who set her daughter's rapist on fire because the police wouldn't do their job. If Capital Punishment was the end result for all crimes, no matter what they were, we would have less crime because nobody would be willing to tempt that fate.
"Our previous spying has increased the number of attacks"? Seriously? Keith Alexander is a complete moron.
First, previous spying has increased terrorist attacks? I want to know where. The moron who tried to set his underwear on fire? The moron who tried to turn his car into a bomb and then locked his car keys in his car, which he was caught when he tried to retrieve something from his car? The moron who tried to set his shoes on fire?
Second, the previous attempts in which his agency was caught spying on terrorists in the first place?
The whole of spying on someone is NOT TO GET CAUGHT DOING SO. If Keith Alexander's agency got caught spying, the it's obvious that his agency is not very good at it.
I repeat, Keith Alexander's agency spying on terrorists, they're not very good at it if they caught spying in the first place.
Blame the idiots at the Supreme Court? LG is NOT an American company. LG is a Korean company. Blame President Obama. Blame President Clinton. It's because of these idiotic Free Trade Agreements that this crap has been allowed to happen.
Each country is liable for its own policies and law, not the courts.
If you purchase a TV that has certain features and the manufacturer decides to create limitations for your TV, such as telling you when you can watch it during a 24 hour time period, the manufacturer would be at fault because they are disabling the services of the TV that you legally purchased.
I don't know if this falls in line with 'purchasing contract' disputes but this isn't like some software package that you have purchased. This is a home appliance. Manufacturers like LG and Samsung cannot arbitrarily disable features of your HDTV or SmartTV just because you don't agree with a policy they drafted after you have purchased it.
I suspect that manufacturers like LG and Samsung are going to be slapped, just like Apple was, over their product line as well. Manufacturers are simply pushing the envelop, trying to see what countries will allow them to get away with crap like this.
Everything about these blocks and bans on websites and social media are just about various governments trying to one-up each other. If anyone thought it was about a country's laws, they're wrong. It nothing more but a massive power grab and who has the most leverage.
I don't disagree with Russia's stand on this issue. We spend so much time trying to equate American rules of law on other countries and it's not exactly the right way to go.
Many countries are socialist, communist or whatever. Argue all you want, but if twitter, facebook, google, microsoft or whatever expect to continue to be accessible in other countries, regardless if they have offices or retail space in those countries, they are still legally bound to follow their laws.
What amazes me is that people are shocked and surprised that this is happening. Did anyone honestly think that the fallout over Ukraine would stop and just be one-sided? The fallout continues and try as the United States might like, there isn't anything that Washington can do to penalize Russia.
What's Russia to do? Well, they could align with China and many other countries who are tired of the United States meddling in everyone else's affairs.
The United States has more to lose over this than Russia does and this is only going to make things worse for Washington now that we're in an election season. With Democrats running things, it's not going to be pretty for this country.
The government may have to take "another run at this warrant in front of Judge Facciola"? Yeah, I'd like to be in court when that happens, especially when Judge Facciola discovers that the government tried to submit the same warrant request in another court in another state.
4th Amendment? According to the DOJ, you don't have any 4th Amendment rights, unless the courts say you do. The DOJ routinely violates everyone's rights and if the courts smack them down, the DOJ just says "no big deal" and the courts let them get away with that.
Can you imagine Kellog's debveloing new rules regarding the consumption of its foods?
when eating a Kellog's pop-tart, you may not change its form by eating it into the shape of a real weapon or assault rifle; to do violates the terms of service of this pop-tart and we may sue you for violating our ToS
Aspen needs to wake up to reality. Many campus bookstores rely on reselling used textbooks. Just what are trying to do? If I purchase a textbook with hard cash, I'm surely not going to be giving that textbook back unless the publisher is refunding my money at least 50%.
Seriously? The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires networks disclose who is actually buying political ads on TV. That would defeat the purpose of the Citizen's United ruling.
I guess these idiots that filed this lawsuit plum-dumb forgot that "the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns".
TV Networks are not obligated to report who advertised what and until the Supreme Court decision is overturned by the Supreme Court itself, this lawsuit won't go anywhere.
I don't side with either the broadcasters or Aereo but what Aereo has done is violate the rights of the broadcasters. This is no different than distributing pirated content. Aereo is simply trying to argue that it has the right to use that content since broadcasters are using the public spectrum.
Fact is, Aereo is taking content that is protected by copyright law, by which they have no copyright claim to and stealing that content to rebroadcast it and to make money from it.
Your argument that buying a DVD for each user doesn't violate copyright law is inaccurate. Aereo is simply storing a copy of copyrighted content for each antennae and then rebroadcasting it. In the end, Aereo is going to lose and they are going to lose big when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision.
NO matter how much Aereo claims that it's offering a valuable service, the fact remains that it has engaged in copyright theft of licensed content that remains under the control of the broadcasters.
This is no different than going to the store, purchasing a DVD or a Blu-ray movie, ripping that to your hard drive, and then sharing it online through a filesharing or torrent website.
Aereo hasn't convinced me that what it has done should project itself from copyright lawsuits. I'm simply shocked that ICE hasn't seized its domain name since it's distributing pirated content. "Seizing" a transmission should automatically be seen by Federal authorities as violating FCC rules and regulations and I sincerely doubt that they have been granted the right to do that either.
Officer discretion will prevent abuse? Seriously? Officer discretion increases abuse as we have seen since September 11th as well as video recording of police officers. Courts have routinely said that videotaping is legal and cops continue to arrest people for videotaping them.
WOW! The reason we should believe NBC is because .... why? The fact that NBC and other networks routinely send DMCA notices to all kinds of websites preventing tweeting, posting on Facebook, uploading to Youtube and because their DMCA campaign works so well and nobody posts about NBC on websites that they now say that social media is useless?
WOW!
That's like a grocery store saying their competitors have a monopoly because their competitors have more stores than they do.
Maybe, but if you trust your government, even though they routinely violate your rights as granted by constitution and by law, then you deserve to be victimized, subjugated and violated by your government.
Laws need to be respected and followed by everyone, not just the people. If a law exists to which the people need to follow, then the government needs to do the same. The government cannot summarily force you to follow a law that which they decide not to follow themselves.
That is why governments routinely fall to rebellion. Government exists to serve the people, people do NOT serve government.
Back as far as 2008, I had noticed the fact that everyone from the courts to congress had become the problem instead of the solution. From Cspan to the internet to 24 hours news coverage, our government is the one who is spied upon more often than the people they themselves spy upon.
Everything our government does is suspect and their demands that we trust them implicitly just belies the corruption that exists in government.
The government belies in the old cliche that if you tell someone a lie enough times that the person you're telling the lie to will ultimately start believing in it.
On the post: Patent Troll Apparently Didn't Appreciate Being Called A Piece Of Shit, Sues Over Basic Location Functionality
On the post: Feinstein (Again) Says Metadata Program 'Is Not Surveillance'
Surveilance is described as: the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them. This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as CCTV cameras), or interception of electronically transmitted information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls); and it can include simple, relatively no- or low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception.
Collecting metadata sent over the internet is 'surveilance', there's nothing else that explains it.
On the post: Georgia To Protect Execution Pharmacists From Transparency So They Can Execute Disabled Man
I find it deplorable that Mr. Geigner would make such a comment about capital punishment because it sounds like he's never been on the receiving end of such violent crimes.
Capital Punishment should be ever present in every state in this country because if you remove the threat of that particular form of punishment, then you have criminals who will wantonly go out and commit unspeakable acts.
Want to know what a society becomes when you remove such punishments? Ask the woman who set her daughter's rapist on fire because the police wouldn't do their job. If Capital Punishment was the end result for all crimes, no matter what they were, we would have less crime because nobody would be willing to tempt that fate.
On the post: Keith Alexander: We Need More Spying In The Future Because All Of Our Previous Spying Has Only Increased The Number Of Terrorist Attacks
First, previous spying has increased terrorist attacks? I want to know where. The moron who tried to set his underwear on fire? The moron who tried to turn his car into a bomb and then locked his car keys in his car, which he was caught when he tried to retrieve something from his car? The moron who tried to set his shoes on fire?
Second, the previous attempts in which his agency was caught spying on terrorists in the first place?
The whole of spying on someone is NOT TO GET CAUGHT DOING SO. If Keith Alexander's agency got caught spying, the it's obvious that his agency is not very good at it.
I repeat, Keith Alexander's agency spying on terrorists, they're not very good at it if they caught spying in the first place.
LOLS
On the post: LG Will Take The 'Smart' Out Of Your Smart TV If You Don't Agree To Share Your Viewing And Search Data With Third Parties
Each country is liable for its own policies and law, not the courts.
On the post: LG Will Take The 'Smart' Out Of Your Smart TV If You Don't Agree To Share Your Viewing And Search Data With Third Parties
I don't know if this falls in line with 'purchasing contract' disputes but this isn't like some software package that you have purchased. This is a home appliance. Manufacturers like LG and Samsung cannot arbitrarily disable features of your HDTV or SmartTV just because you don't agree with a policy they drafted after you have purchased it.
I suspect that manufacturers like LG and Samsung are going to be slapped, just like Apple was, over their product line as well. Manufacturers are simply pushing the envelop, trying to see what countries will allow them to get away with crap like this.
On the post: Russian Official Threatens To Block Twitter And Facebook In Russia
On the post: Russian Official Threatens To Block Twitter And Facebook In Russia
Many countries are socialist, communist or whatever. Argue all you want, but if twitter, facebook, google, microsoft or whatever expect to continue to be accessible in other countries, regardless if they have offices or retail space in those countries, they are still legally bound to follow their laws.
What amazes me is that people are shocked and surprised that this is happening. Did anyone honestly think that the fallout over Ukraine would stop and just be one-sided? The fallout continues and try as the United States might like, there isn't anything that Washington can do to penalize Russia.
What's Russia to do? Well, they could align with China and many other countries who are tired of the United States meddling in everyone else's affairs.
The United States has more to lose over this than Russia does and this is only going to make things worse for Washington now that we're in an election season. With Democrats running things, it's not going to be pretty for this country.
On the post: Government Goes 'Judge Shopping' For Email Warrant Rubber Stamp, Gets Request Shot Down By Second Judge In A Row
On the post: DOJ Says Americans Have No 4th Amendment Protections At All When They Communicate With Foreigners
On the post: Florida Lawmakers Aim To Restore Childrens' Rights To Openly Carry Pop Tart 'Guns' On Campus
when eating a Kellog's pop-tart, you may not change its form by eating it into the shape of a real weapon or assault rifle; to do violates the terms of service of this pop-tart and we may sue you for violating our ToS
lols
On the post: Webhost Protests FCC's Net Neutrality Proposal By Limiting FCC Access To 28.8Kbps
On the post: Publisher 'DRMs' Physical Legal Textbook About 'Property,' Undermines Property And First Sale Concepts
On the post: TV Networks Sued For Hiding Who's Buying Political Ads
I guess these idiots that filed this lawsuit plum-dumb forgot that "the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns".
TV Networks are not obligated to report who advertised what and until the Supreme Court decision is overturned by the Supreme Court itself, this lawsuit won't go anywhere.
On the post: Broadcasters' Lawyer Lays Out Every Bogus Trope Possible Against Aereo
Fact is, Aereo is taking content that is protected by copyright law, by which they have no copyright claim to and stealing that content to rebroadcast it and to make money from it.
Your argument that buying a DVD for each user doesn't violate copyright law is inaccurate. Aereo is simply storing a copy of copyrighted content for each antennae and then rebroadcasting it. In the end, Aereo is going to lose and they are going to lose big when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision.
On the post: Broadcasters' Lawyer Lays Out Every Bogus Trope Possible Against Aereo
This is no different than going to the store, purchasing a DVD or a Blu-ray movie, ripping that to your hard drive, and then sharing it online through a filesharing or torrent website.
Aereo hasn't convinced me that what it has done should project itself from copyright lawsuits. I'm simply shocked that ICE hasn't seized its domain name since it's distributing pirated content. "Seizing" a transmission should automatically be seen by Federal authorities as violating FCC rules and regulations and I sincerely doubt that they have been granted the right to do that either.
On the post: Government Presents Its Arguments For Warrantless Cellphone Searches, Thinks Officer Discretion Will Prevent Abuse
On the post: NBC Insists Twitter Is Useless Because Not Enough People Tweeted During The Olympics... Which NBC Made Difficult To Watch Online
WOW!
That's like a grocery store saying their competitors have a monopoly because their competitors have more stores than they do.
LOLS
On the post: Magistrate Judges Emboldened By Snowden, Pushing Back On Overly Broad DOJ Requests
Laws need to be respected and followed by everyone, not just the people. If a law exists to which the people need to follow, then the government needs to do the same. The government cannot summarily force you to follow a law that which they decide not to follow themselves.
That is why governments routinely fall to rebellion. Government exists to serve the people, people do NOT serve government.
On the post: Magistrate Judges Emboldened By Snowden, Pushing Back On Overly Broad DOJ Requests
Everything our government does is suspect and their demands that we trust them implicitly just belies the corruption that exists in government.
The government belies in the old cliche that if you tell someone a lie enough times that the person you're telling the lie to will ultimately start believing in it.
Next >>