Then the US system is broken. Things like due process aren't rewards for good behavior and removing them is not punishment for bad. These things are to ensure the integrity of the system itself.
If you are really taking the stance that the state should weaken the integrity of its own system because it really hates someone, then you're arguing that the rule of law is a bad thing.
"and ContentID was implemented primarily as a direct result of all the major lawsuits being launched against YouTube"
Yes, but it was (and remains) an entirely voluntary effort by YouTube. There is nothing in any law that requires this, so I don't think it's exactly accurate to place the blame on anyone other than YouTube.
YouTube could have insulated themselves from liability by simply following the law. Instead, what they tried to do was to ingratiate themselves with major companies.
Streaming services might be OK, since they don't store a temporary copy. The do buffer, but that's just a few seconds of the work, not the whole thing (just in case that matters to RCEP).
However, browsing web sites would be out. Every web page you see has been stored temporarily on your machine.
I think it's malice. Things like Netflix pose a greater threat to the studio system than piracy ever could. The major thing that studios provide is access to a major distribution network. Netflix and such threaten to destroy that distribution monopoly (as does the internet in general, which is why they want to cripple it as much as they can.)
" if a camera crew has the urinals staked out or is doing an "upskirt" piece on judges, that would undermine the dignity of the court without the court behaving in an undignified manner."
It certainly would not. It might undermine the dignity of the judges (but only if you think being a human being is undignified), but the judges are not the court.
"For example, if a film crew kept interrupting a judge presenting his deliberations so they could get it again from a different angle"
Also not undermining the dignity of the court. That's simply interfering in the operation of the court, and there are existing non-dignity-related laws about that.
"A fragmented market is a very messy thing, and both confusing and frustrating for consumers and producers alike."
I disagree that this would be a factor in video distribution. This would be easily handled by doing what was done in the old days: producers would collect links to their videos on their own website. Then it wouldn't matter to the viewer where the video was hosted. As far as being confusing to producers -- maybe, but it would be a very tiny confusion that is easily managed with existing tools.
"only because they're such a big, visible and well-known target"
No, that's not the only reason. It's not even the biggest reason. The biggest problem is ContentID, which is very error-prone and takes videos down or mutes them automatically, even when nobody has complained.
I found this bizarre enough to single out for ridicule.
"Law enforcement does not want mass surveillance.
"Mass surveillance, high volumes of data we have no interest in, causes us problems.
"A narrative has to be developed that reassures the public.
"I think there's this sense of Big Brother monitoring and we are all nervous around that.
"Law enforcement have had that capability in a traditional policing environment for many years and have managed it in a very responsible way."
So, let me get this straight. He's saying that the police don't want mass surveillance, but the police put the time and effort into developing and doing it "for many years". Those poor police are being forced to engage in mass surveillance against their will!
I am guessing that the "reassuring narrative" is that part about how the surveillance that the police don't want to do has been managed in a "very responsible way" for years, so it's all good.
I find that entire section the opposite of reassuring. It's downright schizophrenic. Or, it's the pretzel logic of someone who is lying. I'm not sure which would be worse.
Most people in my part of the country don't have air conditioners in their homes, so one might expect that they would rather travel to the air-conditioned ice cream shop instead.
(BTW, the reason ice cream sale start to fall off when the temperatures get too high is because ice cream makes you thirsty and when you're hot, you want the opposite of that.)
I think that you're assuming quite a lot in order to make this accusation. Your accusation may be correct -- I don't know -- but the evidence you're presenting is pretty weak and circumstantial. There are a number of ways that what he said could be true despite it.
"When Ice Cream sales are highest, the temperature goes up as a result."
I know the owners of two ice cream shops, and they both told me a similar story: that ice cream sales go down when the temperature exceed a certain point (around 90F).
Whatever the causal relationship between ice cream consumption and temperature, it's much more complicated than a straight linear one!
As a matter of habit, I've been configuring my browsers so they don't retain a web history at all (I also disable things like autcompletion, etc.) for many years now.
What then? Nobody can make the argument that I took any specific action to "cover up" anything, but the end result is the same.
"I thought most governmental espionage was also industrial espionage?"
I don't know if "most" fits there, but even if it does, it still remains true that most industrial espionage is not performed by the government. Most governmental industrial spying is also against foreign companies.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are really taking the stance that the state should weaken the integrity of its own system because it really hates someone, then you're arguing that the rule of law is a bad thing.
On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters
Re: Re:
On the post: Revealed Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The TPP
Re: Re: If...
A statement uttered by (and only by) every tyrant ever.
On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals... Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but it was (and remains) an entirely voluntary effort by YouTube. There is nothing in any law that requires this, so I don't think it's exactly accurate to place the blame on anyone other than YouTube.
YouTube could have insulated themselves from liability by simply following the law. Instead, what they tried to do was to ingratiate themselves with major companies.
On the post: Torrent Madness: UK Cybercrime Official Argues That File Sharing Is A Gateway Drug To Crime
Re: What about Andy?
I don't think that they care if what they're saying is true. They care about making their paymasters happy.
On the post: DailyDirt: That Lucy In The Sky... Is A Diamond
Re: Re: I've got winged monkeys flying out of my ass too...
On the post: Meet RCEP: Yet Another Big Bad Trade Agreement No One Has Heard Of
Re:
However, browsing web sites would be out. Every web page you see has been stored temporarily on your machine.
On the post: Netflix Says Piracy Helped It Succeed In The Netherlands, And Will Help When It Launches In Spain
Re: Who's Fail?
On the post: New Mexico Judge Says First Amendment Is Subservient To The 'Dignity Of The Court'
Re: Re: Dignity of the court protection
It certainly would not. It might undermine the dignity of the judges (but only if you think being a human being is undignified), but the judges are not the court.
"For example, if a film crew kept interrupting a judge presenting his deliberations so they could get it again from a different angle"
Also not undermining the dignity of the court. That's simply interfering in the operation of the court, and there are existing non-dignity-related laws about that.
On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals... Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree that this would be a factor in video distribution. This would be easily handled by doing what was done in the old days: producers would collect links to their videos on their own website. Then it wouldn't matter to the viewer where the video was hosted. As far as being confusing to producers -- maybe, but it would be a very tiny confusion that is easily managed with existing tools.
On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals... Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not the only reason. It's not even the biggest reason. The biggest problem is ContentID, which is very error-prone and takes videos down or mutes them automatically, even when nobody has complained.
On the post: Torrent Madness: UK Cybercrime Official Argues That File Sharing Is A Gateway Drug To Crime
Pretzel logic
So, let me get this straight. He's saying that the police don't want mass surveillance, but the police put the time and effort into developing and doing it "for many years". Those poor police are being forced to engage in mass surveillance against their will!
I am guessing that the "reassuring narrative" is that part about how the surveillance that the police don't want to do has been managed in a "very responsible way" for years, so it's all good.
I find that entire section the opposite of reassuring. It's downright schizophrenic. Or, it's the pretzel logic of someone who is lying. I'm not sure which would be worse.
On the post: Netflix Says Piracy Helped It Succeed In The Netherlands, And Will Help When It Launches In Spain
Re: Re: Re: Correlation IS Causation
(BTW, the reason ice cream sale start to fall off when the temperatures get too high is because ice cream makes you thirsty and when you're hot, you want the opposite of that.)
On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals... Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background
Re: Re:
On the post: Lawyer Asman Drops Lawsuit Against EFF, But Claims That 'Ass man' Comments Are Defamatory
Re: Re: Re: MIT CS degree?
On the post: Did Letting Section 215 Expire Completely Change USA Freedom Without Anyone Noticing?
Re: Re: Re:
Which, in my opinion, is actively worse than the status quo.
On the post: Netflix Says Piracy Helped It Succeed In The Netherlands, And Will Help When It Launches In Spain
Re: Correlation IS Causation
I know the owners of two ice cream shops, and they both told me a similar story: that ice cream sales go down when the temperature exceed a certain point (around 90F).
Whatever the causal relationship between ice cream consumption and temperature, it's much more complicated than a straight linear one!
On the post: According To The Government, Clearing Your Browser History Is A Felony
Re: Re: What happen when?
On the post: According To The Government, Clearing Your Browser History Is A Felony
What happen when?
What then? Nobody can make the argument that I took any specific action to "cover up" anything, but the end result is the same.
On the post: Top FBI Official Says Tech Companies Need To 'Prevent Encryption Above All Else'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
I don't know if "most" fits there, but even if it does, it still remains true that most industrial espionage is not performed by the government. Most governmental industrial spying is also against foreign companies.
Next >>