The government got off on the wrong foot by claiming its demand for communications wasn't a search
Wow.
Doesn't the 4th amendment protect your papers and effects from search without a warrant? What are papers? Not the things you roll up to smoke. But the things used for . . . duh . . . Communications! What else are papers used for? (bird cage lining)
Isn't the primary use of paper, since it was invented by smashing plant material by hand, and rolled up on scrolls, wasn't the purpose: Communications?
So how can a demand for communications, NOT be a demand for 21st century Papers? And thus requiring a warrant? Even PDFs are considered papers in the 21st century.
Most communications today are on "Web Pages" for goodness sake. So aren't your papers, eg, communications, protected by the 4th amendment?
As a patriotic American, I'm proud to stand up and support the freedoms we once had.
Getting your call history from your cell phone provider does not have that delightful dehumanizing appeal of forcibly taking it from your physical phone.
Responsible Warrants can do for real world searches and seizures what Responsible Encryption does for the digital world.
A judge grants a "Responsible Warrant" that is very specific in defining the bounds and parameters which limit the scope of the search. Namely, you are allowed to search anything, on anyone, anywhere, at any time without any supervision whatsoever.
Based on watching the last 20 years of history, I will go ahead and predict that Responsible Warrants are comming soon to a regime near you!
Since free communication is what the internet is all about, copyright is directly opposed to the internet.
Conflicts between the two will continue to get worse and worse until something big happens to clarify.
Copyright Infringement should be about direct infringement. Not linking. Not embedding. If you go after the direct infringement, then the links or embeds simply do not matter. And you can't find all the links or embeds anyway. So you would better spend your time chasing down the direct infringer, eg follow the link to its source. Leave third parties alone -- especially if the link or embed came from someone else, like a commenter or poster in an online forum.
Re: Linking surely meets this test: "Rather, liability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."
I don't have a problem going after copyright infringers. But you're pretty seriously stretching the meaning of "encourages or assists". Stretching it waaaaay too far. Careful there.
(snap)
Oooops. It just snapped because you stretched it too far.
BTW, any reproduction of any information contained on your bill, including exact dollar amounts due, is an infringement on our valuable copyrights and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Do not complain. We're the electric company. It could be worse. This letter could be from Comcast.
How about, you run ads and mine cryptocurrency in browsers, and in exchange I'll never visit your site ever again.
Ever.
Never ever.
Even if you change this policy, I won't know about it because I will not ever visit your site again.
This is a fantastic opportunity for you and I think you should take advantage of it. What makes this such a great offer is the fact that the internet offers so many choices of sites that one can visit to obtain information.
On the post: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Microsoft Email Case
Communications and Search
Wow.
Doesn't the 4th amendment protect your papers and effects from search without a warrant? What are papers? Not the things you roll up to smoke. But the things used for . . . duh . . . Communications! What else are papers used for? (bird cage lining)
Isn't the primary use of paper, since it was invented by smashing plant material by hand, and rolled up on scrolls, wasn't the purpose: Communications?
So how can a demand for communications, NOT be a demand for 21st century Papers? And thus requiring a warrant? Even PDFs are considered papers in the 21st century.
Most communications today are on "Web Pages" for goodness sake. So aren't your papers, eg, communications, protected by the 4th amendment?
As a patriotic American, I'm proud to stand up and support the freedoms we once had.
On the post: Israeli Tech Company Says It Can Crack Any Apple Smartphone
It's an arms race
Tomorrow they won't be able to.
The next day, they will be able to once again.
Etc.
Wash, rinse, tail-recursion.
On the post: Israeli Tech Company Says It Can Crack Any Apple Smartphone
Re:
On the post: Israeli Tech Company Says It Can Crack Any Apple Smartphone
Responsible Warrants
A judge grants a "Responsible Warrant" that is very specific in defining the bounds and parameters which limit the scope of the search. Namely, you are allowed to search anything, on anyone, anywhere, at any time without any supervision whatsoever.
Based on watching the last 20 years of history, I will go ahead and predict that Responsible Warrants are comming soon to a regime near you!
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Thinks We Need To Start Fining Social Media Companies For Not Removing Bots Fast Enough
Re: Typical Politicians
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Thinks We Need To Start Fining Social Media Companies For Not Removing Bots Fast Enough
Re: Do your job
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Thinks We Need To Start Fining Social Media Companies For Not Removing Bots Fast Enough
FTFY
Now: First, let's stop giving bad politicians ideas.
On the post: Report On Device Encryption Suggests A Few Ways Forward For Law Enforcement
I'll say it again
1. Secure
2. Insecure
It's a binary choice. Not a sliding scale. Like being pregnant. You are or you are not. There is no try.
If encryption is secure, then hackers cannot break it -- but neither can government.
If encryption is insecure, then government can break it -- but so can hackers.
On the post: Court Sends Cop Back To Prison For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest
People can't be allowed to disrespect cops
On the post: Court Sends Cop Back To Prison For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest
Re:
Can he contribute anything to their country?
On the post: Terrible Copyright Ruling Over An Embedded Tweet Undermines Key Concept Of How The Internet Works
Copyright diametrically opposed to free speech
Conflicts between the two will continue to get worse and worse until something big happens to clarify.
Copyright Infringement should be about direct infringement. Not linking. Not embedding. If you go after the direct infringement, then the links or embeds simply do not matter. And you can't find all the links or embeds anyway. So you would better spend your time chasing down the direct infringer, eg follow the link to its source. Leave third parties alone -- especially if the link or embed came from someone else, like a commenter or poster in an online forum.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Video Masquerades As Anti-Malware Education And Is Filled With Lies
Re: The lesson here is very clear
If you see piracy . . . duck and cover!
On the post: Anti-Piracy Video Masquerades As Anti-Malware Education And Is Filled With Lies
The lesson here is very clear
On the post: Judge Dismisses Playboy's Dumb Copyright Lawsuit Against BoingBoing
Re: Linking surely meets this test: "Rather, liability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."
I don't have a problem going after copyright infringers. But you're pretty seriously stretching the meaning of "encourages or assists". Stretching it waaaaay too far. Careful there.
(snap)
Oooops. It just snapped because you stretched it too far.
On the post: Georgia Senate Thinks It Can Fix Its Election Security Issues By Criminalizing Password Sharing, Security Research
Re:
1. Duplicating keys (eg, password sharing)
2. Research into Lock Mechanisms (eg, Security Research)
End result of item 2 is that we'll never see any locks that are more secure than what we have today.
On the post: Smart Meter Company Landis+Gyr Now Using Copyright To Try To Hide Public Records
Dear Customer
Please pay your bill!
BTW, any reproduction of any information contained on your bill, including exact dollar amounts due, is an infringement on our valuable copyrights and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Do not complain. We're the electric company. It could be worse. This letter could be from Comcast.
On the post: Salon Offers To Remove Ads If Visitors Help Mine Cryptocurrency
I've got an even better offer
I have an even better offer for you!
How about, you run ads and mine cryptocurrency in browsers, and in exchange I'll never visit your site ever again.
Ever.
Never ever.
Even if you change this policy, I won't know about it because I will not ever visit your site again.
This is a fantastic opportunity for you and I think you should take advantage of it. What makes this such a great offer is the fact that the internet offers so many choices of sites that one can visit to obtain information.
Sincerely,
On the post: Techdirt, Volokh Conspiracy Targeted With Bogus Defamation Claim For Publishing A Bunch Of Facts
trump card
Aren't all of Trump's card dubious?
On the post: Canadian Privacy Commissioner Report Says Existing Law Already Gives Canadians A Right To Be Forgotten
If I can't stop laughing . . .
On the post: Public School Board Member Threatens Boss Of Woman Who Spoke Out Against School Book Banning
DON'T BAN BOOKS !!
Historically this has proven to be far more effective.
Next >>