People running smaller websites (like, say, me) can't.
When the international commerce and free expression of Americans is chilled by claims of extraterritorial authority by other countries, this old mugwump thinks it's appropriate for the US government to act.
Canada is within its rights to demand removal from servers within Canada. And they can build a Great Firewall of Canada, if they really want to.
But they can't tell people in other countries what they do within their own country.
(The US is far from innocent when it comes to extraterritorial claims, but that goes to the hypocrisy of what I'm proposing. Not its appropriateness.)
"Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic..."
Sooner or later Country A will demand that Google remove something worldwide, while Country B demands they make the same thing accessible.
The Canadian court has already said they'd reconsider if Google shows an actual conflicting law somewhere.
So - the US Congress should pass a law making it illegal for a US person to remove something from the US-accessible Internet solely based on a foreign court order or law.
The effect would be limited to the US, but it would intentionally setup a conflict with the laws of other countries (in this case, Canada).
This will indeed be laughed out of court - this is my prediction; let's wait and see if I'm correct.
The courts are the least corrupt and most rational part of our system of government. All my (limited) hope for the future of the United States rests on them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I just find it an incredible argument to go to your adversary (the government) to define the encryption scheme (AES) to protect yourself from that same government.
A pretty classic crypto mistake is to invent one's own algorithm, thinking that by using a secret algorithm instead of a published one, you're more secure.
Unless you're a world-class crypto expert (and maybe even then), you can't possibly come up with a scheme that's more secure than one that has been vetted by dozens of true crypto experts (many of whom do *not* work for your adversary).
There are lots of techniques for cracking crypto, which, unless you're an expert, you've never heard of.
People living in civilized society are expected to follow cultural norms so they can rub along together with minimal friction and upset.
Online anonymity (or pseudonymity) allows people to get away with all sorts of rude, boorish, insulting behavior that most of them would never consider if their real name, and personal reputation, were involved.
In offline life, people talk one way within an intimate circle of friends, and another much more polite way in public.
Online comments are more like graffiti than civil conversation. It's an extremely widespread problem that nobody really knows how to deal with.
This is part of the general flailing in response to trolling. I don't think it's a good idea, or will work, but it's to be expected that random weird ideas will get tried until somebody comes up with a good solution.
Net neutrality (NN) is necessary because of ISP monopolies.
It's a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease (monopoly).
Given that NN is a dead letter in the Trump administration, it's time to change focus to the state and municipal level regulations that enable ISP monopolies - that keep out real competition.
Maybe that's what we should have been doing in the first place - fixing the disease instead of treating the symptoms.
Call your state legislators, your city council members, and start screaming.
If we'd all put the same effort into opening up the ISP market that we've been putting into NN, we wouldn't have to worry about NN in the first place.
Well, then /r/legaladvice is the wrong venue for solving this guy's problem.
From a practical viewpoint, a little public shaming of how badly the developer is treating this owner is the quickest way to get this guy's problem solved.
(I know - it's the principle of the thing that's interesting to Techdirt. But if the guy just wants his house rebuilt with minimum hassle, that's the way to make it happen. I hope he's reading this...probably not.)
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says It's Fine To Censor The Global Internet; Authoritarians & Hollywood Cheer...
Re: Re: We need a law
People running smaller websites (like, say, me) can't.
When the international commerce and free expression of Americans is chilled by claims of extraterritorial authority by other countries, this old mugwump thinks it's appropriate for the US government to act.
Canada is within its rights to demand removal from servers within Canada. And they can build a Great Firewall of Canada, if they really want to.
But they can't tell people in other countries what they do within their own country.
(The US is far from innocent when it comes to extraterritorial claims, but that goes to the hypocrisy of what I'm proposing. Not its appropriateness.)
On the post: Court Says Gov't Has To Give Back $167,000 It Seized During A String Of 4th Amendment Violations
Re: Re: Too slow in left lane
Uniform Vehicle Code
See http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
On the post: Zillow Still Doesn't Get It: Second Letter About McMansion Hell Is Still Just Wrong
Re: Fair use doesn't mean that
On the post: Zillow Still Doesn't Get It: Second Letter About McMansion Hell Is Still Just Wrong
Re: possible that the rightsholders have authorized Zillow
But that doesn't give them any power, or obligation, to claim rights that don't exist in the first place.
On the post: Zillow Still Doesn't Get It: Second Letter About McMansion Hell Is Still Just Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Fair Use Proposal
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says It's Fine To Censor The Global Internet; Authoritarians & Hollywood Cheer...
We need a law
The Canadian court has already said they'd reconsider if Google shows an actual conflicting law somewhere.
So - the US Congress should pass a law making it illegal for a US person to remove something from the US-accessible Internet solely based on a foreign court order or law.
The effect would be limited to the US, but it would intentionally setup a conflict with the laws of other countries (in this case, Canada).
On the post: Court Orders Man Who Sued News Orgs For Clipping His Facebook Video To Pay Everyone's Attorney's Fees
Fair is fair
Big or little.
This is a good ruling.
On the post: Court Says Gov't Has To Give Back $167,000 It Seized During A String Of 4th Amendment Violations
Too slow in left lane
"Keep right except to pass".
On the post: Former University Official Files Libel Lawsuit Against His Replacement For Things A Journalist Said
It *will* be laughed out of court
This will indeed be laughed out of court - this is my prediction; let's wait and see if I'm correct.
The courts are the least corrupt and most rational part of our system of government. All my (limited) hope for the future of the United States rests on them.
On the post: German Court Bans Google From Linking To Lumen Database Showing Takedown Notices
Talk about Streisand Effect!
Now I know. Thanks, Germany!
Google should just link to a Wikipedia page explaining all this. Including how to search Lumina for those links...
On the post: Senate Given The Go-Ahead To Use Encrypted Messaging App Signal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do people believe that AES is secure?
Everyone knew it was too short from the beginning, including IBM (which invented the scheme and proposed a 128 bit key length).
On the post: Senate Given The Go-Ahead To Use Encrypted Messaging App Signal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I just find it an incredible argument to go to your adversary (the government) to define the encryption scheme (AES) to protect yourself from that same government.
Unless you're a world-class crypto expert (and maybe even then), you can't possibly come up with a scheme that's more secure than one that has been vetted by dozens of true crypto experts (many of whom do *not* work for your adversary).
There are lots of techniques for cracking crypto, which, unless you're an expert, you've never heard of.
On the post: BBC Says It May Contact Your Boss If You Post Comments It Finds Problematic
Re: it just takes a bit of subtlety
Or trolling.
On the post: BBC Says It May Contact Your Boss If You Post Comments It Finds Problematic
Re: It's the only way to be.
People living in civilized society are expected to follow cultural norms so they can rub along together with minimal friction and upset.
Online anonymity (or pseudonymity) allows people to get away with all sorts of rude, boorish, insulting behavior that most of them would never consider if their real name, and personal reputation, were involved.
In offline life, people talk one way within an intimate circle of friends, and another much more polite way in public.
Online comments are more like graffiti than civil conversation. It's an extremely widespread problem that nobody really knows how to deal with.
This is part of the general flailing in response to trolling. I don't think it's a good idea, or will work, but it's to be expected that random weird ideas will get tried until somebody comes up with a good solution.
On the post: Cisco And Oracle Applaud The Looming Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Silver lining?
Every time. That's the nature of the beast.
On the post: Cisco And Oracle Applaud The Looming Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Silver lining?
Yes, regulation created the monopolies.
But almost all of that regulation, in this case, is at the state and local level.
On the post: Cisco And Oracle Applaud The Looming Death Of Net Neutrality
Silver lining?
Net neutrality (NN) is necessary because of ISP monopolies.
It's a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease (monopoly).
Given that NN is a dead letter in the Trump administration, it's time to change focus to the state and municipal level regulations that enable ISP monopolies - that keep out real competition.
Maybe that's what we should have been doing in the first place - fixing the disease instead of treating the symptoms.
Call your state legislators, your city council members, and start screaming.
If we'd all put the same effort into opening up the ISP market that we've been putting into NN, we wouldn't have to worry about NN in the first place.
On the post: This Makes No Sense: US To Ban Laptops On All Flights From Europe
Why don't they just ban terrorists?
Shoes, liquids, pliers, now laptops. It's an endless treadmill.
Why not just ban terrorists from getting on flights, and be done with it?
On the post: China's New Online Encyclopedia Aims To Surpass Wikipedia, And To 'Guide And Lead' The Public
I wonder if they'll copyright it
Thanks, Chinese taxpayers!
On the post: Homeowner's House Burns Down, He Tries To Rebuild... But Facing Copyright Threats From Original Builder
Re: Re: Clean-room reverse engineering?
Well, then /r/legaladvice is the wrong venue for solving this guy's problem.
From a practical viewpoint, a little public shaming of how badly the developer is treating this owner is the quickest way to get this guy's problem solved.
(I know - it's the principle of the thing that's interesting to Techdirt. But if the guy just wants his house rebuilt with minimum hassle, that's the way to make it happen. I hope he's reading this...probably not.)
Next >>