Microsoft 'convinced the clueless judge' by withholding the fact that the discs did not contain licenses and are useless without said licenses, which they certainly knew. Microsoft should have told the truth, the whole truth, but they didn't. They went along with the fiction the prosecutor created. Maybe they helped the prosecutor create that fiction, but that is only conjecture.
The thing that bothers me most about things like this is that at some point the government is going to latch onto one of them and via trumped up legislation that has no relation to sensibility, reality, or anything to do with doing things right, force folks who make encrypted things to use the bogus 'safe' backdoor. Then we will just go back to doing things in person, or using cash, or use carrier pigeons, or tin cans with string between them, or all of the above and others I haven't thought of today.
This, along with other incidents, tells us why every law enforcement act of aggression should be investigated by a third party, non law enforcement related entity (secret in that its members are not named publicly) that has full powers to require subpoenas, search warrants, arrests, terminations, prosecution initiation, etc.. They should have the power for everything except claim them guilty of some criminality without a jury. The termination would not require criminality, just sufficient behavior of obstruction or obfuscation. There should be no way for any law enforcement entity to apply influence of any kind on these groups, and if there is, those who do would become complicit in conspiracy, and eligible for inclusion in the proceedings of said groups.
The good cops cannot clean up the mess. The bad cops want the mess. The prosecutors office is compromised, The legislature is weak willed. Short of capital termination of all law enforcement personnel (not a recommendation or even a suggestion), what's left?
What are you saying? That there is an RSS link to the podcast? Yes there is. That there is an RSS link to Techdirt articles. Yes there is. That there is some way of noticing a comment on Techdirt is discernible to some comment on one of their RSS links? No, there isn't. I don't use RSS to bring me Techdirt articles. They are my homepage. It doesn't need to be yours, but it is mine.
I do believe the AC was referring to getting ones news through RSS feeds. Lots of headlines, read what interests you, and you get to pick sites that tend to not produce 'fake news'. Personally I review several hundred headlines daily via RSS, and read those that catch my interest.
I am having an enjoyable fantasy where the DoJ and NOAA get prosecuted and the law is found to be unconstitutional. That is, at least for government websites. The sex sites that did the hack are all found guilty.
Didn't Caymus Vineyards have to list the market segments in which they would be using their trademark in the trademark application? Don't they have to be doing business in those market segments to get their trademark application approved? Don't lawyers, who deal in trademark law, actually have to understand this?
I tried looking up the trademark application, but the USPTO database returned some information, but not which market segments they are registered for. Maybe someone with more experience with that monstrosity can find it.
Which religion do you support? One of the may varieties of Christianity? One of the Muslim sects? How about Buddhism? Or Hindu, or Zoroastrian, or hell I don't know there are thousands of religions. Which one is right? Or, are the all right?
Right. It is only their religion. Which one was that again?
If we remain with the Christian religions, we have to take into account the many contradictions exhibited in the bible. Slavery is OK. Two threads must not be incorporated in one cloth. Working on the Sabbath is subject to penalty of death. Etc., etc., etc..
My point is that these objections on 'religious' grounds are merely a methodology for objection, and in the long run 'control'. Do I want to demean anyone's beliefs? Hell no. They can believe what they like. Just don't attempt to foist it on the rest of us.
Which religion do you support? One of the may varieties of Christianity? One of the Muslim sects? How about Buddhism? Or Hindu, or Zoroastrian, or hell I don't know there are thousands of religions. Which one is right? Or, are the all right?
Right. It is only their religion. Which one was that again?
If we remain with the Christian religions, we have to take into account the many contradictions exhibited in the bible. Slavery is OK. Two threads must not be incorporated in one cloth. Working on the Sabbath is subject to penalty of death. Etc., etc., etc..
My point is that these objections on 'religious' grounds are merely a methodology for objection, and in the long run 'control'. Do I want to demean anyone's beliefs? Hell no. They can believe what they like. Just don't attempt to foist it on the rest of us.
Even if you are not part of the crime, but the lawyers is, it still leaves your business where it does not belong. Even with the so called 'taint team', or a special master, your stuff is out there and may be seen at some point by your enemies. Those enemies might include a prosecutor who uses parallel construction rather than direct evidence. While I understand the need for the crime/fraud exception, I am very uncomfortable with potential unintended consequences in today's world.
What Cathy says about the extent of government intrusion into the lives of everyone is true, even if they are lawyers. I think, however, it is important to note that the search warrant for Michael Cohen's records was likely issued due to the Crime/Fraud Exception where:
Is it even possible for a search warrant of a lawyer’s office? Sure. There is the crime/fraud exception to attorney/client privilege, where a lawyer cannot be party to a client’s crime under cover of the privilege. There is also the possibility that the lawyer, independent of his profession, commits a crime. He no more gets a free ride for committing a crime than anyone else. Such search warrants are rare and disfavored, as they send a chilling message as to the sanctity of the attorney/client privilege. That’s why they are vetted so heavily. People, especially other lawyers, find them extremely unsavory.
So one takeaway is to hire honest lawyers. Stop laughing, I think they do exist, the issue is how to go about finding one. Another is that Trump appears to have hired a not so honest lawyer, and one wonders if he did that on purpose.
Some more information about the Cohen case from Ken White can be found here and here.
All the people that work in a casino and they can't be bothered to walk by the fish tank and take note of the temperature.
But seriously. How hard is it to have multiple networks? One for the internet, one for security, one for business, etc.. Only one of those would be connected to the internet (guess which one) and none of them connected to each other.
I see it as an exercise in electoral college math. The campaign managers use polls to determine where they might have strength, and where they don't, then spend time and money in those states they think they can move, and ignore the others. They only need enough electoral college votes to win, and maybe a few for a safety margin. Why spend time and money elsewhere?
Much of the magnification of small population states is muted when they are not even considered important enough to campaign in.
This article will be declared 'Fake News' by someone.
How long will it take the Singaporean Government to declare that their new law has effect worldwide? I expect that Techdirt will receive a takedown notice from them for this article. This year, next year, the year after? Don't know, but I expect it.
I think I am going to have to disagree with that, at least partially.
There is a difference between responsibility and requirement. While voting is a responsibility enumerated along with others when some discussions about being a good citizen come along, it is not a requirement. The problem with your use of 'all' is the electoral college. Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the election because he fared better in states with more electoral college votes than Clinton did. Therefore, non voters in low electoral college states were not necessarily votes for Trump.
The biggest problem I see with the whole system of electoral college (besides the reasons for its creation no longer being valid) is that it marginalizes the population in states that have a low number of electoral college votes.
The problem with continuing this case in order to be emphatic about the fact that monkeys cannot own property (patents, copyright, trademarks, land, houses, cars, etc.),(and assuming that that is what they want to nail down) is that any result will only be viable in one circuit. It might be quoted in other circuits, but it won't be a precedent.
On the post: How Microsoft Convinced Clueless Judges To Send A Man To Jail For Copying Software It Gives Out For Free
Re:
On the post: Software Legend Ray Ozzie Thinks He Can Safely Backdoor Encryption; He's Very Wrong
Not if, when
On the post: State Trooper Facing Murder Charges After Tasing A Teen Riding An ATV
Cleaning the house, first steps
The good cops cannot clean up the mess. The bad cops want the mess. The prosecutors office is compromised, The legislature is weak willed. Short of capital termination of all law enforcement personnel (not a recommendation or even a suggestion), what's left?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 164: Getting News Without Social Media
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Could The DOJ Be Violating SESTA/FOSTA?
Re: It gets better
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 164: Getting News Without Social Media
Re: Re:
On the post: Could The DOJ Be Violating SESTA/FOSTA?
Irony in process
On the post: We Interrupt The News Again With Hopefully The Last Update From The Monkey Selfie Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Caymus Vineyard Sues Caymus Builders Because It Built Some Buildings For Its Wine Business
More lawyers looking for billable hours, or what?
I tried looking up the trademark application, but the USPTO database returned some information, but not which market segments they are registered for. Maybe someone with more experience with that monstrosity can find it.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re:
Just curious. Which God are you?
Which religion do you support? One of the may varieties of Christianity? One of the Muslim sects? How about Buddhism? Or Hindu, or Zoroastrian, or hell I don't know there are thousands of religions. Which one is right? Or, are the all right?
Right. It is only their religion. Which one was that again?
If we remain with the Christian religions, we have to take into account the many contradictions exhibited in the bible. Slavery is OK. Two threads must not be incorporated in one cloth. Working on the Sabbath is subject to penalty of death. Etc., etc., etc..
My point is that these objections on 'religious' grounds are merely a methodology for objection, and in the long run 'control'. Do I want to demean anyone's beliefs? Hell no. They can believe what they like. Just don't attempt to foist it on the rest of us.
On the post: There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them
Re: Re:
Just curious. Which God are you?
Which religion do you support? One of the may varieties of Christianity? One of the Muslim sects? How about Buddhism? Or Hindu, or Zoroastrian, or hell I don't know there are thousands of religions. Which one is right? Or, are the all right?
Right. It is only their religion. Which one was that again?
If we remain with the Christian religions, we have to take into account the many contradictions exhibited in the bible. Slavery is OK. Two threads must not be incorporated in one cloth. Working on the Sabbath is subject to penalty of death. Etc., etc., etc..
My point is that these objections on 'religious' grounds are merely a methodology for objection, and in the long run 'control'. Do I want to demean anyone's beliefs? Hell no. They can believe what they like. Just don't attempt to foist it on the rest of us.
On the post: If Trump Is So Worried About Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege, He Should End The NSA's Bulk Surveillance (And CPB Device Seizures)
Re: Re: Crime/Fraud Exception
On the post: If Trump Is So Worried About Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege, He Should End The NSA's Bulk Surveillance (And CPB Device Seizures)
Re: Re: Crime/Fraud Exception
On the post: If Trump Is So Worried About Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege, He Should End The NSA's Bulk Surveillance (And CPB Device Seizures)
Crime/Fraud Exception
What Cathy says about the extent of government intrusion into the lives of everyone is true, even if they are lawyers. I think, however, it is important to note that the search warrant for Michael Cohen's records was likely issued due to the Crime/Fraud Exception where:
So one takeaway is to hire honest lawyers. Stop laughing, I think they do exist, the issue is how to go about finding one. Another is that Trump appears to have hired a not so honest lawyer, and one wonders if he did that on purpose.
Some more information about the Cohen case from Ken White can be found here and here.
On the post: A Casino Was Hacked Thanks To The Internet Of Broken Things & A Fish Tank Thermometer
Amazing
But seriously. How hard is it to have multiple networks? One for the internet, one for security, one for business, etc.. Only one of those would be connected to the internet (guess which one) and none of them connected to each other.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: It Actually Does Help To Vote, Though
Much of the magnification of small population states is muted when they are not even considered important enough to campaign in.
On the post: Singaporean Government Creates Fake News To Push Fake News Legislation
This article will be declared 'Fake News' by someone.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: It Actually Does Help To Vote, Though
I think I am going to have to disagree with that, at least partially.
There is a difference between responsibility and requirement. While voting is a responsibility enumerated along with others when some discussions about being a good citizen come along, it is not a requirement. The problem with your use of 'all' is the electoral college. Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the election because he fared better in states with more electoral college votes than Clinton did. Therefore, non voters in low electoral college states were not necessarily votes for Trump.
The biggest problem I see with the whole system of electoral college (besides the reasons for its creation no longer being valid) is that it marginalizes the population in states that have a low number of electoral college votes.
On the post: We Interrupt Today's News With An Update From The Monkey Selfie Case
The monkey wrench in the thought pattern.
On the post: Netflix Bows Out Of Cannes After Festival Tells Streaming Services To Get Off Its Lawn
First Steps
Next >>