Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Feb 2018 @ 10:08am
Re: Re: Useful, but useless
The former is oxymoronic, the latter is a dream, one that is in their charter but beyond the ken of the current systems. Wray and Rosenstein believe, in their distorted sense of duty (duty to whom is a very real question) that 'Responsible Encryption' is a means to the execution of 'Responsible Law Enforcement' regardless of the intended/unintended consequences. Those intended, but unstated, consequences are most bothersome.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Feb 2018 @ 9:13am
Useful, but useless
If, which I doubt, that either Wray or Rosenstein actually read this paper, it would go over their heads or their predetermined programs to achieve a higher state of power over the minions.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Feb 2018 @ 7:20am
Re: Re: To be fair....
It could be that autocorrect is doing the drinking and not him. I sometime fight with it as well, and my browser spellcheck often tell me that correct spellings are incorrect, but that is likely because its database is too small.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 2:17pm
Re: Wait a second, isn't this outright illegal?
Possibly. But the case is in India (both the movie and blogger are from there, I don't know about Viacom18, and Facebook certainly has presence), the DMCA doesn't apply there. They may have their own form of the DMCA, but I don't know about the wording or existence.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Feb 2018 @ 9:19am
Trade Secrets = Bad?
Trademarks, patents and copyright have been traditionally used to control IP:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Yet trade secrets have crept into the nomenclature. While the traditional three have some concept of fixedness in their implementations, trade secrets seem to be anything someone wants them to be. While patents (for example) require a particular implementation of a concept, trade secrets do not seem to have the same burden. They seem to cover ideas rather than implementations. Something that should not be a part of such systems, otherwise one would not be able to make something that competes with any patent, no matter how much their implementation differs from the patent holders implementation.
Trade secrets should at least be drastically limited. They should not include knowledge developed by an emplyee who then chooses to work for a different company, even if the result of that knowledge is some patent-able product. The patent would remain with the original company, but the concepts that would allow for a new patent, with a different implementation should be allowed to travel with the individual.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Feb 2018 @ 7:28am
Re:
I think there is some likelihood that there is some fine print on the back of the ticket one uses to gain entrance to the game that takes those rights away. I am not so sure that that creates a binding contract, just like some EULA's and the NFL's whining about any use of 'their' property' don't have any legal foundation.
More importantly, any prohibition on a ticket probably wouldn't have impact on anything more than local law, and certainly not international law. If that fine print exists, it nourishes the IOC's perspective that the own pictures I might take, in violation of my rights (at least in the US). I take a picture in Korea, upload it via a VPN to some platform in the US and the IOC only comes after it only if ads are served on that platform (or the platform is large enough to gain their notice) seems pretty fishy.
Just because the IOC says they own my pictures or videos doesn't mean they do.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Feb 2018 @ 6:28pm
The law, if it means anything, be damned
Who gives a flying fuck about the law when abusing the law gets you what you want? What do you mean this is civil rather than criminal? Does law see a difference, other than in penalties? If the IOC or the USOC, or any other olympic related committee wants to control access to what can be plainly seen (if one attends the games) then let them control that into a state of irrelevance that is just beginning to become a reality. One buys or is given tickets to the games, one takes pictures or videos, then one has to turn over those pictures or videos to the 'committee' so 'they' can monetized them? WTF?
As an aside, if this law is able to be ignored, then what other laws may we ignore? Or, is ignoring laws just a matter of the right influence? If that is the case, then all laws should be ignored and the assumption of the right influence assumed and denial of such be damned. And, BTW, if that is the case, then we should stop funding law enforcement (state, federal, and local), prosecutors offices, attorneys general, and courts. Judges go home (including the USSC), you are no longer relevant. Lawyers, McDonald's might be hiring, but hurry, there are only so many openings, and don't expect to be up front at the cash register, argument is not encouraged there.
In the end, Twitter and Facebook are just looking to avoid the expensive fight that would ensue should they not bow to some 'powerful' organization. Which brings up the question of what 'power' does the IOC or USOC actually have, other than a large pocketbook to initiate expensive (certainly to the accused) litigation? The power to grant rights for certain countries or cities to spend enormous amounts to build infrastructure that will be completely, or significantly, useless after the games for the very short term economic boon from the tourism that the games attract? A proven negative economic model.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Feb 2018 @ 5:02pm
No surprises here
Trust negotiators beholden to big political contributors (blame the politico's who appoint them) to side with those contributors rather than the public they are supposed to serve.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Feb 2018 @ 12:01pm
Algorithms
Any algorithm used by AI that is constructed by, purchased by, or used by any Government entity (without regard to the IP ownership) should be open sourced with the entire source code and structure of all algorithms available to inspection by any entity that wishes to do so. We have enough of a black box in the form of politicians who promise one thing to their constituents yet deliver to their contributors (bribers). We don't need more.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Feb 2018 @ 9:15am
The logical conclusion of the quest for absolute power, absolutely
When all of these agencies have their access to complete scrutiny of everyone else in their respective searches for power, at some point they will realize that agency A is more powerful than agency B, C, D, etc.. Then the struggle will be between the agencies, and each agency will begin to target individuals in other agencies in order to compromise them. Of course there will then be retaliation, and who knows how much additional collateral damage.
This will most certainly be dangerous, but will it also be entertaining? Will there also be opportunities in this struggle to end them all?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Feb 2018 @ 7:58am
Re: Not everyone wants an app
Yeah, this 'solution' has some of the same problems that traditional TV has. The program is available when it is live, and not when one might want to watch it. Offering a streaming 'live' event certainly leaves out anyone not able to watch at that time. Oh, and I did not see any mention of an ability to record that 'live' program so one COULD watch it when they had time. Pro Men's Hopscotch is an important segment of the sports viewing audience. Who wouldn't want to memorialize such events for posterity?
Some profit is better than no profit. While investors might not like that, they will get along with it, eventually, but maybe not with the same enthusiasm as they currently do.
Closed minded and focused only on what they want, not what their customers, or potential customers want. A formula for...the right to be forgotten, whether they want to be forgotten or not.
BTW, does Disney own the rights to Back to the Future? Seems like that is where they will wind up, sometime, down the road, when they realize that when the market speaks, vendors in that market should listen.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Feb 2018 @ 7:29am
Re:
Sing a song of sixpence, A pocket full of wry. Four and twenty blackbirds, Baked in a Pai. When the Pai was opened The birds began to sing; Wasn't that a dainty dish, To set before the king. The king was in his counting house, Counting out his money; The queen was in the parlour, Eating bread and honey. The maid was in the garden, Hanging out the clothes, When down came a blackbird And pecked off her nose.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 7:40pm
Proof before action, and where the parties reside
Accusation does not mean one is guilty. It may be the start of a process, but it is not the end. For a third party to be liable before an adjudication is seriously ridiculous. To continue to display the 'accused' statement(s) until they are adjudicated and determined defamatory seems legitimate. Until a court order to remove a statement the proper thing to do is leave it up. Then, the court must reside in the same location as the party that posted or 'provided' the opportunity for that posting.
Then, some consideration of the location of the court and the location of the parties, and the location of the 'provider' (since the publisher is the writer in many instances) should be undertaken. If some of the parties are in different countries and the 'provider' may be in yet another country other than the court, there may be no reason to follow the courts rulings.
It's a mess. The 'provider' should follow laws and court orders in the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated or licensed, but court orders from without that jurisdiction should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. In addition, the courts in the location of the 'provider' should not bow to the determinations of courts in other locations without adjudicating the issues themselves.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 11:26am
Re:
He could try hilarity rather than dim-wittedness. Then, he doesn't appear to use speech writers, or doesn't listen to them. If he did, he might achieve the former, rather than the latter.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 10:11am
Re: What A Useless Peace Of Softwear
They certainly didn't get many positive reviews. Seems like there is no support, or at least none that respond. I looked because I would be interested in something better than Google Translate, which has laughable translations at times.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2018 @ 9:49am
Not everyone
While I agree with this, mostly, I do fear there are some who are not so much creators, but pose themselves as destructive's. Naysayers for the most part. No matter what a creator says, they say the opposite. Not necessarily out of belief, well possibly so, but more for the disruptive aspect. Seems they get their jollies out of that disruption. Certainly more than any valid points, of which they have few.
There are a couple who hang around here, and unfortunately get fed by some non-destructive types. There is no winning points with these destructive's, their point is disruption and nothing else, no matter how much they cry otherwise.
On the post: More Than 4,000 Government Websites Infected With Covert Cryptocurrency Miner
Proactive action
Would it be out of character for governments to now do something effective about these kinds of intrusions? Yes, yes it would.
On the post: White Paper Points Out Just How Irresponsible 'Responsible Encryption' Is
Re: Re: Useful, but useless
On the post: White Paper Points Out Just How Irresponsible 'Responsible Encryption' Is
Useful, but useless
On the post: Confluence Brewing Sues Confluence On 3rd, An Apartment Complex, For Trademark Infringement
Re: Re: To be fair....
On the post: Facebook Takes Down Post Critical Of Indian Film For Copyright Violation, Even Though It Was An All-Text Post
Re: Wait a second, isn't this outright illegal?
On the post: Waymo And Uber's Settlement Is A Good Thing: Focus On Innovating, Not Litigating
Trade Secrets = Bad?
Trademarks, patents and copyright have been traditionally used to control IP:
Yet trade secrets have crept into the nomenclature. While the traditional three have some concept of fixedness in their implementations, trade secrets seem to be anything someone wants them to be. While patents (for example) require a particular implementation of a concept, trade secrets do not seem to have the same burden. They seem to cover ideas rather than implementations. Something that should not be a part of such systems, otherwise one would not be able to make something that competes with any patent, no matter how much their implementation differs from the patent holders implementation.
Trade secrets should at least be drastically limited. They should not include knowledge developed by an emplyee who then chooses to work for a different company, even if the result of that knowledge is some patent-able product. The patent would remain with the original company, but the concepts that would allow for a new patent, with a different implementation should be allowed to travel with the individual.
On the post: Twitter & Facebook Want You To Follow The Olympics... But Only If The IOC Gives Its Stamp Of Approval
Re:
More importantly, any prohibition on a ticket probably wouldn't have impact on anything more than local law, and certainly not international law. If that fine print exists, it nourishes the IOC's perspective that the own pictures I might take, in violation of my rights (at least in the US). I take a picture in Korea, upload it via a VPN to some platform in the US and the IOC only comes after it only if ads are served on that platform (or the platform is large enough to gain their notice) seems pretty fishy.
Just because the IOC says they own my pictures or videos doesn't mean they do.
On the post: Twitter & Facebook Want You To Follow The Olympics... But Only If The IOC Gives Its Stamp Of Approval
The law, if it means anything, be damned
As an aside, if this law is able to be ignored, then what other laws may we ignore? Or, is ignoring laws just a matter of the right influence? If that is the case, then all laws should be ignored and the assumption of the right influence assumed and denial of such be damned. And, BTW, if that is the case, then we should stop funding law enforcement (state, federal, and local), prosecutors offices, attorneys general, and courts. Judges go home (including the USSC), you are no longer relevant. Lawyers, McDonald's might be hiring, but hurry, there are only so many openings, and don't expect to be up front at the cash register, argument is not encouraged there.
In the end, Twitter and Facebook are just looking to avoid the expensive fight that would ensue should they not bow to some 'powerful' organization. Which brings up the question of what 'power' does the IOC or USOC actually have, other than a large pocketbook to initiate expensive (certainly to the accused) litigation? The power to grant rights for certain countries or cities to spend enormous amounts to build infrastructure that will be completely, or significantly, useless after the games for the very short term economic boon from the tourism that the games attract? A proven negative economic model.
On the post: Hollywood Has Some Wild Ideas For Copyright In NAFTA
No surprises here
On the post: Washington's Growing AI Anxiety
Algorithms
On the post: ICE Wants To Be Yet Another Federal Agency With Access To Unminimized Surveillance
The logical conclusion of the quest for absolute power, absolutely
This will most certainly be dangerous, but will it also be entertaining? Will there also be opportunities in this struggle to end them all?
On the post: Techdirt, Volokh Conspiracy Targeted With Bogus Defamation Claim For Publishing A Bunch Of Facts
Re: Now I can legitimately reuse my Prenda popcorn
On the post: ESPN Still Isn't Quite Getting The Message Cord Cutters Are Sending
Re: Not everyone wants an app
Some profit is better than no profit. While investors might not like that, they will get along with it, eventually, but maybe not with the same enthusiasm as they currently do.
Closed minded and focused only on what they want, not what their customers, or potential customers want. A formula for...the right to be forgotten, whether they want to be forgotten or not.
BTW, does Disney own the rights to Back to the Future? Seems like that is where they will wind up, sometime, down the road, when they realize that when the market speaks, vendors in that market should listen.
On the post: The Nunes Memo Has Effectively Destroyed Intelligence Oversight
Re: oversight, well, there's been an oversight
On the post: FCC Refuses To Release FOIA Documents Pertaining To Its Stupid Verizon 'Collusion' Joke
Re:
A pocket full of wry.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a Pai.
When the Pai was opened
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king.
The king was in his counting house,
Counting out his money;
The queen was in the parlour,
Eating bread and honey.
The maid was in the garden,
Hanging out the clothes,
When down came a blackbird
And pecked off her nose.
On the post: Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn't Come Down Without A Court Order
Proof before action, and where the parties reside
Then, some consideration of the location of the court and the location of the parties, and the location of the 'provider' (since the publisher is the writer in many instances) should be undertaken. If some of the parties are in different countries and the 'provider' may be in yet another country other than the court, there may be no reason to follow the courts rulings.
It's a mess. The 'provider' should follow laws and court orders in the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated or licensed, but court orders from without that jurisdiction should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. In addition, the courts in the location of the 'provider' should not bow to the determinations of courts in other locations without adjudicating the issues themselves.
On the post: Single-Pixel Tracker Leads Paranoid Turkish Authorities To Wrongly Accuse Over 10,000 People Of Treason
Re:
On the post: Daily Deal: WhiteSmoke Premium
Re: What A Useless Peace Of Softwear
On the post: On The Internet, Everyone Is A Creator
Not everyone
There are a couple who hang around here, and unfortunately get fed by some non-destructive types. There is no winning points with these destructive's, their point is disruption and nothing else, no matter how much they cry otherwise.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Infatuation
Justification
Appropriation
Obsession
Resale
Maybe we should get cops to stop watching SciFi?
Next >>