Re: You guys are looking at this from the wrong angle.
*At no point are ANY Geek Squad employees actually under contract or hire by the FBI. Therefore, Geek Squad members have ZERO obligation to protect your 4th amendment rights.*
Wrong. One of the legal determinations the courts use to figure out whether someone is an "agent" or "actor" for the government is whether a reward is offered.
>In determining whether a private party acted as an "instrument or agent" of the government, we consider several factors, including whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct; whether the private party's purpose in conducting the search was to assist law enforcement; **and whether the government requested the action or offered the private actor a reward.** [United States v. Crowley, 285 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2002)](https://casetext.com/case/us-v-crowley-7) Emphasis mine.
Someone finally decided to stand up to Mike's personal attacks and insults
What personal attacks and/or insults are you referring to? I've read the articles concerning Ayyadurai and all I recall seeing is Ayyadurai's claims being rebuffed with the truth.
Funny how not word about it here on Tech Dirt! Cat got your tongue, Mike?
Nothing funny or usual about it at all. If Mike has indeed been served with a lawsuit on this, then I'm sure he will want to have anything written about it be vetted by a lawyer or two and possibly, under the advice of his lawyers, not say anything at all about it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
The comment section here doesn't show it as much because most in tech fall on one side of the spectrum.
Bullshit. The comment section here doesn't show it as much because Techdirt readers tend be more educated and tend to be considered professionals in their respective fields (quantcast.com used to show demographics for Techdirt, but it doesn't work anymore). Like Techdirt itself, the commenters here used to focus on the actual issues, not all of that Red Team/Blue Team bullshit that is primarily used to shift focus from what is really important.
Techdirt has never been for one side over the other and has constantly called out BOTH sides for saying and doing shit that is detrimental to issues they deem important and, on the flipside, have given proper accolades to those who have advanced those issues.
Unlike most sites that disappear old articles, you can go back through 15+ years of posts and see for yourself that it's true.
I have personally refrained from commenting here the last few months because of all the Red Team/Blue Team crap in the comment section and thought once the election was over we could go back to discussing important issues as adults. Apparently not.
Re: Re: Fairness is a social principle worth protecting
...with the people following the German model hardly getting any closer to the front as time passed because of all the people coming in from the sides.
That sounds like most of the traffic lane closures I've encountered in my life while driving.
Apparently the social principle of fairness in America disappears once someone gets behind the wheel of an automobile.
Have you checked out Lowery's Trichordist site lately? I hadn't been there in awhile, so I just took a peek a minute ago.
I think those guys might have finally gone over the edge into crazyland. There's more conspiracy theories floating around there than there is on InfoWars!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
Free market doesn't mean unregulated market.
It doesn't? I thought that was right in the definition you quoted: ...free from any intervention by a government...
I've seen quite a few economists state that being free of intervention from government is the most important part of the definition of "free market".
I've also seen plenty of economists define a free market as one that is free from monopolies. I'm not sure I agree with that. Just because I am the only one providing the supply side of the equation doesn't mean that the market isn't following the laws of supply and demand, does it?
But, IANAE (I am not an economist), so it very possible I am wrong about all of this.
In a truly free market we'd each be able to haggle with vendors for the products and services they offer but the truth is that most of the big players fix the price and that's what you pay unless they're having trouble shifting it off the shelves.
Ahhh, now I remember. You use a different definition of "Free Market" than everyone else.
The existence of price fixing or collusion indicates that a market is a Free Market more so than not. A lot of the regulations in place in our current markets are explicitly designed to curb collusion and price fixing. A true Free Market would have no such regulations.
There is no such thing as a free market. If you ever find one, point me to it. I want to see what that looks like.
We've discussed this before, I believe.
Free markets do exist and have existed ever since humans started trading things with each other. The illegal drug trade is a good modern day example - it exists without any regulation at all due to the fact that it's illegal to begin with.
If {Masnick} can't figure out his own {abdominal surgery} issues, why does he think the {surgeon} should solve all his problems for him?
A couple of problems with this analogy. First off, Mike would actually be paying the surgeon for these services, not just demanding them because surgeons make a lot of money these days.
Secondly, I highly doubt that Mike (or any rational person) would insult, threaten to sue, actually sue and/or use their influence/money to buy favorable laws against their surgeon prior to asking for their services.
Kim has pretty much lost the legal battle. Extradition is pretty much a foregone conclusion here...
Is it? The only offense I see listed in US/NZ extradition treaty that would come close to being applicable is number 16:
Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether such deceit or falsehood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense.
I would be interested in hearing your argument as to why this would the slam dunk you think it's going to be.
The hard numbers they used were to point out that less than 1% of site visitors leave comments.
A more relevant number would be the number of visitors who read the comments.
I would guess that the number of visitors who comment here at Techdirt to be less than 1% also, but the number of visitors who read the comments to be up near 80-90% based on how fast "inside joke" comments get up voted.
You're confused- Masnick isn't interested in facts here.
What facts do you think are missing?
These are the facts that I know:
1) The US government is charging Dotcom/Mega with a convoluted mixture of "criminal conspiracy of civil offenses" that doesn't actually exist in our statutes/caselaw.
2) Dotcom/Mega have not been found guilty of any crimes (civil or criminal) in the US.
3) The US government has now punished Dotcom/Mega without actually gaining a conviction of any sort.
I honestly hope that everyone who is cheering this ruling can experience the joys of asset forfeiture for themselves. All would take is for DEA confidential informant giving the Feds a wrong address and you would have a wonderful, expensive couple of years trying to get your property back.
The solution for fixing the problems with asset forfeiture are easy ones. Simple as tying them to a conviction of a crime. Everything seized gets held in escrow/storage until the outcome of the criminal trail. If the defendant is found not guilty, the government has to return everything. If the defendant is found guilty then anything found to be instrumental or a product of the crimes that were determined by a court of law to have actually occurred gets forfeited.
All I know is that when I hear "Bittersweet Symphony" (1997) the lyrics to "New Girl Now" (1984) go off in my head, but that might not mean anything other than I'm growing old.
Not really. Section 230 explicitly excludes intellectual property:
47 U.S. Code § 230 (e) Effect on other laws (2) No effect on intellectual property law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. Source
On the post: The FBI Is Apparently Paying Geek Squad Members To Dig Around In Computers For Evidence Of Criminal Activity
Re: You guys are looking at this from the wrong angle.
Wrong. One of the legal determinations the courts use to figure out whether someone is an "agent" or "actor" for the government is whether a reward is offered.
>In determining whether a private party acted as an "instrument or agent" of the government, we consider several factors, including whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct; whether the private party's purpose in conducting the search was to assist law enforcement; **and whether the government requested the action or offered the private actor a reward.**
[United States v. Crowley, 285 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2002)](https://casetext.com/case/us-v-crowley-7) Emphasis mine.
On the post: Utterly Tone Deaf To Cord Cutting, Cable Contract Feuds And Blackouts Skyrocket
Re: When will Tech Dirt admit this?
Someone finally decided to stand up to Mike's personal attacks and insults
What personal attacks and/or insults are you referring to? I've read the articles concerning Ayyadurai and all I recall seeing is Ayyadurai's claims being rebuffed with the truth.
Funny how not word about it here on Tech Dirt! Cat got your tongue, Mike?
Nothing funny or usual about it at all. If Mike has indeed been served with a lawsuit on this, then I'm sure he will want to have anything written about it be vetted by a lawyer or two and possibly, under the advice of his lawyers, not say anything at all about it.
On the post: Do You Have Examples Of Constructive Responses To Hateful/Abusive/Trollish Speech Online?
Re:
On the post: How 'Just Metadata' Helped Ruin A Career Diplomat's Life
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
Bullshit. The comment section here doesn't show it as much because Techdirt readers tend be more educated and tend to be considered professionals in their respective fields (quantcast.com used to show demographics for Techdirt, but it doesn't work anymore). Like Techdirt itself, the commenters here used to focus on the actual issues, not all of that Red Team/Blue Team bullshit that is primarily used to shift focus from what is really important.
Techdirt has never been for one side over the other and has constantly called out BOTH sides for saying and doing shit that is detrimental to issues they deem important and, on the flipside, have given proper accolades to those who have advanced those issues.
Unlike most sites that disappear old articles, you can go back through 15+ years of posts and see for yourself that it's true.
I have personally refrained from commenting here the last few months because of all the Red Team/Blue Team crap in the comment section and thought once the election was over we could go back to discussing important issues as adults. Apparently not.
On the post: Donald Trump Happily Repeating Lie About Google Autocomplete Suppressing Negative Hillary News
Re: Re: Re: google news
It's almost like we are getting ready to elect Zaphod Beeblebrox.
On the post: The Weird Psychology Of People Fighting Those Who Resell Their Products
Re: Re: Fairness is a social principle worth protecting
That sounds like most of the traffic lane closures I've encountered in my life while driving.
Apparently the social principle of fairness in America disappears once someone gets behind the wheel of an automobile.
On the post: DOJ Makes Smart Decision On Music Licensing... Music Publishers Completely Lose Their Shit
Re: Judge Stanton rules against the DOJ
I think those guys might have finally gone over the edge into crazyland. There's more conspiracy theories floating around there than there is on InfoWars!
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
It doesn't? I thought that was right in the definition you quoted: ...free from any intervention by a government...
I've seen quite a few economists state that being free of intervention from government is the most important part of the definition of "free market".
I've also seen plenty of economists define a free market as one that is free from monopolies. I'm not sure I agree with that. Just because I am the only one providing the supply side of the equation doesn't mean that the market isn't following the laws of supply and demand, does it?
But, IANAE (I am not an economist), so it very possible I am wrong about all of this.
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
Ahhh, now I remember. You use a different definition of "Free Market" than everyone else.
The existence of price fixing or collusion indicates that a market is a Free Market more so than not. A lot of the regulations in place in our current markets are explicitly designed to curb collusion and price fixing. A true Free Market would have no such regulations.
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
We've discussed this before, I believe.
Free markets do exist and have existed ever since humans started trading things with each other. The illegal drug trade is a good modern day example - it exists without any regulation at all due to the fact that it's illegal to begin with.
On the post: Hollywood Keeps Insisting Tech Is Easy, Yet Can't Secure Its Own Screeners
Re: I think this argument is below you
A couple of problems with this analogy. First off, Mike would actually be paying the surgeon for these services, not just demanding them because surgeons make a lot of money these days.
Secondly, I highly doubt that Mike (or any rational person) would insult, threaten to sue, actually sue and/or use their influence/money to buy favorable laws against their surgeon prior to asking for their services.
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
Re:
Is it? The only offense I see listed in US/NZ extradition treaty that would come close to being applicable is number 16: I would be interested in hearing your argument as to why this would the slam dunk you think it's going to be.
On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'
Re: Re: THE FUTURE OF COMMENT CLOG WINDOWS IN WEBSITES
New L-O-N-G-E-S-T "TD" comment EVER!
On the post: NPR The Latest Website To Prevent You From Commenting Because It Simply Adores 'Relationships' And 'Conversation'
Re: Re: Stats
A more relevant number would be the number of visitors who read the comments.
I would guess that the number of visitors who comment here at Techdirt to be less than 1% also, but the number of visitors who read the comments to be up near 80-90% based on how fast "inside joke" comments get up voted.
On the post: Appeals Court Says It's Perfectly Fine For The DOJ To Steal Kim Dotcom's Money Before Any Trial
Re: Re:
What facts do you think are missing?
These are the facts that I know:
1) The US government is charging Dotcom/Mega with a convoluted mixture of "criminal conspiracy of civil offenses" that doesn't actually exist in our statutes/caselaw.
2) Dotcom/Mega have not been found guilty of any crimes (civil or criminal) in the US.
3) The US government has now punished Dotcom/Mega without actually gaining a conviction of any sort.
I honestly hope that everyone who is cheering this ruling can experience the joys of asset forfeiture for themselves. All would take is for DEA confidential informant giving the Feds a wrong address and you would have a wonderful, expensive couple of years trying to get your property back.
The solution for fixing the problems with asset forfeiture are easy ones. Simple as tying them to a conviction of a crime. Everything seized gets held in escrow/storage until the outcome of the criminal trail. If the defendant is found not guilty, the government has to return everything. If the defendant is found guilty then anything found to be instrumental or a product of the crimes that were determined by a court of law to have actually occurred gets forfeited.
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
Re: Re:
All I know is that when I hear "Bittersweet Symphony" (1997) the lyrics to "New Girl Now" (1984) go off in my head, but that might not mean anything other than I'm growing old.
On the post: Australia's Census Fail Goes Into Overdrive -- A Complete And Utter Debacle
Re: Grow your Business with UserGrow
Flagged as link spam.
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
I don't really hear the similarity on this one.
I've always thought that The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" was a slowed down version of Honeymoon Suite's "New Girl Now" myself.
On the post: Judge On Whether Twitter Is Legally Liable For ISIS Attacks: Hahahahahaha, Nope.
Re:
On the post: Like The Rest Of The Internet Of Things, Most 'Smart' Locks Are Easily Hacked
Re: "dysfunction onion"
Next >>