Trusting the facts to match your usual anti-relation rant... Funny, but as well as usual.
The government here didn't "give the power" to Verizon to scam their customers. The government here removed himself from preventing that.
So *you* got exactly what you asked for - less regulation - and Verizon magically became honest and ethical... not.
Hence, that's not "with our blessings" since that's the exact opposite of what citizens asked.
You keep pointing at "regulation" being the problem when "systemic corruption" is.
And I'm pretty sure that, should we remind you that monopoly and abuse of monopolistic position are the obvious direction things would take, you'd mention that antitrust laws are all we need, defeating your own argument that we need no regulation at all.
That's funny at times, but a little repetitive overall.
Also note the other change: Redefining anything they obtained from another agency as "not collection". Easy way out of any accusation of "correcting too much data": "we didn't collect it, was graciously handed to us by a friend."
But seriously, how much can they stretch definitions when "homegrown" becomes included in "foreign"?
At this stage, like another commenter stated it above, there might still be rules to private data connection, but you can basically assume there are none from a normal person's point of view.
If companies try to - so obviously - circumvent the IPR process, the PTO has an equivalent - and more obvious - reply available to them: stop granting patents, at least not so easily. If patent granting takes much longer and fails more often, companies might reconsider using such dubious tactics. They can start with more thorough evaluation of patents requests coming from companies that have already demonstrated this kind of behavior (Allergan, SRC) in the hope of just discouraging others. If that doesn't work, then let this be the default behavior.
Of course, all this assumes the PTO is interested in solving the problem.
And yes, it's never RICO, for a good reason, and forfeiture should be subjected to similar standards.
Basically, forfeiture was created to deprive criminals from the proceeds of their activity when you couldn't indict the criminal himself. (Think about contraband shipped through containers. The owner is abroad so you can't get to him.)
In recent days, it's just a lazy way to legally steal money. If the purpose was really proper law enforcement, well, you have your criminal right there since you're literally taking his property from his hands. If you really have strong evidence that he's a criminal, you could arrest him there and then, then build your case and indict him legitimately.
What should have been an exception became the norm, and it will only get better if judges step up and decline to rubber stamp these illegitimate forfeitures. Or if lawmakers decide to explicitly raise the standards LEOs have to meet in forfeiture cases (including attaching a forfeiture to actual charges). Preferably both.
So let's sum this up - two guys *might* have met up, *probably* to discuss drug dealing. - they texted each other about buying food at Costco. - they *might* have met again at Costco. - they did meet again, *probably* starting 15 minutes before the cops saw them, and *probably* exchanging drugs during these 15 minutes the cops didn't witness.
Based on all that evidence they didn't have, and their imagination about what happened, the cops decided to perform a warrantless search, and a majority of judges agree with them.
There already were secret evidence presented to secret courts to uphold secret laws, now we're moving to imaginary evidence and testimony?
What you say would apply just as much to Hitler. How do we remember him without statues everywhere to remind us of the horrors of Nazism? Then again, it seems some people don't, seeing the kind of flags that were on display during the Charlottesville protest. (Unless those swastika flags, salutes and chants of "blood and soil" we're just a friendly historical reminder on their part? Does Poe's law apply IRL? /s)
Regarding you comparison with hiring a hitman, this is a backwards comparison.
In the case of A hiring B to kill C, A actually has the intent to kill a specific target. The intermediary B would do the actual murder, but A provided the intent first.
In the case of A creating a malware that B then buys to infect C's computer, B had the intent, and B is the one to execute the task. A here doesn't have intent, nor does he acts against C's computer. He only created a general tool that might be used for nefarious purposes, or for research, or then again for legal investigation...
Ok, there is no expectation of privacy in your phone calls or location. I don't mind the ruling if the judges prove consistency in their belief and release their phone calls and location history for the past thirteen months.
...
Don't want to? That's your private life? Yes, I thought so.
As I see it, the "good faith" exception should never be used to salvage evidence. Evidence obtained through illegal means should be thrown out, period. Anything else encourages ignorance... and ignorance can't even argued against. (How can you force an agent to admit he knew the warrant was invalid? After all, a judge signed it. Same for the judge: How can you force him to admit he knew the cop lied about the causes and scope of the warrant?)
I can at most accept the "good faith" exception as a defense against charges against the agent for exceeding the scope of a warrant. And even then, the good faith must be proved (the cop must be assumed to know the law he enforces, the opposite would be just crazy and open to abuse). Then, any failure to prove "good faith" should result in charges and trial for abuse of power or anything of that order.
Funny how ignorance of the law is only a defense for those charged with enforcing it. That's an imbalance in power in favor of those who already have (too much?) power on their side.
I can imagine the US version would have an explicit exemption for the president's tweets. If not, all of Trump's tweets would disappear within seconds. :D
1. Make an AI run on a computer to generate all possible works. Image, text, whatever...
2. Shoot a bullet in the computer. (First check that killing an AI doesn't count as murder. You never with those lawmakers.)
3. Wait for 70 years. As the AI owns every copyright, except that of works created before itself, nobody is going to ask for copyright extension on its behalf.
4. Everything is now public domain.
(Note that this is not to be taken seriously. Seems obvious to me, but some people seem to have a seriously broken sarcasm-meter.)
Based on their stupid "algorithm" (ie. "Unprotected" has priority over "protected"), I can't call to murder all white men, but I can incite violence against all white adult men.
The algorithm is not just producing outrageous results, it's downright stupid.
As a basic requirement, asset forfeiture (be it civil or criminal), should never be allowed as a replacement for suing people.
It should only be allowed, and even then with constraints and actual sure process (starting with presumption of innocence), in cases where suing the owner is impossible. (As it was intended at the beginning.)
If the goods were directly taken from their owner, it means the owner was present and could have been arrested on the spot. This kind of case is a clear example of using forfeiture for the sole purpose of bypassing due process. An abuse of a law that severely lacks safeguards.
I can't understand how this was not judge unconstitutional years ago.
It's a government report. Setting aside the US concept that government documents are public domain in regards to copyright (other restrictions might apply though), copyright is supposed to be an incentive to produce *and spread* art and science.
Applying it as a pure tool of control for a document that the German government wants to keep hidden shows the obvious lie that copyright is not a censorship tool.
If the EUCJ wants to restore copyright to what it was supposed to be, it should not state whether journalistic use is "fair use" (or any local equivalent exception) or not, but that this simply is not a copyright question at all. That suing this case under copyright law is as obvious an abuse of the concept as it gets.
Note: I only covered here the basic flaws of the general logic behind the "third-party" loophole.
This case also shows worse abuses of that already bad legal loophole, such as requesting information in real time, meaning it doesn't even exist at the time of the request. Or the uncertainty behind who actually generated the data.
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
virtual? reality?
On the post: Verizon Will Graciously Now Let You Avoid Video Throttling For An Additional $10 Per Month
Re: Re: Hats off... more money for nothing
The government here didn't "give the power" to Verizon to scam their customers. The government here removed himself from preventing that.
So *you* got exactly what you asked for - less regulation - and Verizon magically became honest and ethical... not.
Hence, that's not "with our blessings" since that's the exact opposite of what citizens asked.
You keep pointing at "regulation" being the problem when "systemic corruption" is.
And I'm pretty sure that, should we remind you that monopoly and abuse of monopolistic position are the obvious direction things would take, you'd mention that antitrust laws are all we need, defeating your own argument that we need no regulation at all.
That's funny at times, but a little repetitive overall.
On the post: New Evidence Shows Defense Dep't Abusing Surveillance Procedures To Spy On Americans
whitewashing
Redefining anything they obtained from another agency as "not collection".
Easy way out of any accusation of "correcting too much data": "we didn't collect it, was graciously handed to us by a friend."
But seriously, how much can they stretch definitions when "homegrown" becomes included in "foreign"?
At this stage, like another commenter stated it above, there might still be rules to private data connection, but you can basically assume there are none from a normal person's point of view.
On the post: Court Not Impressed With Sneaky Plan To Sell Patents To Native Americans To Avoid Review... But New Lawsuits Filed
Pre-emptive attack
If patent granting takes much longer and fails more often, companies might reconsider using such dubious tactics.
They can start with more thorough evaluation of patents requests coming from companies that have already demonstrated this kind of behavior (Allergan, SRC) in the hope of just discouraging others.
If that doesn't work, then let this be the default behavior.
Of course, all this assumes the PTO is interested in solving the problem.
On the post: Court Tells DEA To Stop Pushing Burden Of Proof Back On Claimants In Forfeiture Case
Forfeiture should be like RICO.
Basically, forfeiture was created to deprive criminals from the proceeds of their activity when you couldn't indict the criminal himself. (Think about contraband shipped through containers. The owner is abroad so you can't get to him.)
In recent days, it's just a lazy way to legally steal money. If the purpose was really proper law enforcement, well, you have your criminal right there since you're literally taking his property from his hands. If you really have strong evidence that he's a criminal, you could arrest him there and then, then build your case and indict him legitimately.
What should have been an exception became the norm, and it will only get better if judges step up and decline to rubber stamp these illegitimate forfeitures. Or if lawmakers decide to explicitly raise the standards LEOs have to meet in forfeiture cases (including attaching a forfeiture to actual charges). Preferably both.
On the post: Never Enough: EU Demands Social Media Companies Do The Impossible Even Faster
Re: Techdirt often does this in less than 15 minutes on MY comments!
https://xkcd.com/1357/
On the post: Court Says 'Possible' Just As Good As 'Probable;' Lets DEA Keep Evidence From Warrantless Search
Summary...
- two guys *might* have met up, *probably* to discuss drug dealing.
- they texted each other about buying food at Costco.
- they *might* have met again at Costco.
- they did meet again, *probably* starting 15 minutes before the cops saw them, and *probably* exchanging drugs during these 15 minutes the cops didn't witness.
Based on all that evidence they didn't have, and their imagination about what happened, the cops decided to perform a warrantless search, and a majority of judges agree with them.
There already were secret evidence presented to secret courts to uphold secret laws, now we're moving to imaginary evidence and testimony?
On the post: Because Of Course There Are Copyright Implications With Confederacy Monuments
Re: Re: Re:
How do we remember him without statues everywhere to remind us of the horrors of Nazism?
Then again, it seems some people don't, seeing the kind of flags that were on display during the Charlottesville protest.
(Unless those swastika flags, salutes and chants of "blood and soil" we're just a friendly historical reminder on their part? Does Poe's law apply IRL? /s)
On the post: The Indictment Against Malware Researcher Marcus Hutchines Is Really Weird
Re: Ugh...
In the case of A hiring B to kill C, A actually has the intent to kill a specific target. The intermediary B would do the actual murder, but A provided the intent first.
In the case of A creating a malware that B then buys to infect C's computer, B had the intent, and B is the one to execute the task. A here doesn't have intent, nor does he acts against C's computer. He only created a general tool that might be used for nefarious purposes, or for research, or then again for legal investigation...
There is no valid comparison here.
On the post: Canadian Man Somehow Gets Trademark On His Own County's Name, Govt. Says Legal Action Is The Only Remedy
On the post: Another Federal Court Says No Warrants Needed To Obtain Historic Cell Site Location Info
you first, sir.
I don't mind the ruling if the judges prove consistency in their belief and release their phone calls and location history for the past thirteen months.
...
Don't want to? That's your private life? Yes, I thought so.
On the post: First Playpen FBI Spyware Warrant Hits The Appeals Court Level; Is Upheld On 'Good Faith'
Scope
As I see it, the "good faith" exception should never be used to salvage evidence. Evidence obtained through illegal means should be thrown out, period. Anything else encourages ignorance... and ignorance can't even argued against. (How can you force an agent to admit he knew the warrant was invalid? After all, a judge signed it. Same for the judge: How can you force him to admit he knew the cop lied about the causes and scope of the warrant?)
I can at most accept the "good faith" exception as a defense against charges against the agent for exceeding the scope of a warrant. And even then, the good faith must be proved (the cop must be assumed to know the law he enforces, the opposite would be just crazy and open to abuse). Then, any failure to prove "good faith" should result in charges and trial for abuse of power or anything of that order.
Funny how ignorance of the law is only a defense for those charged with enforcing it. That's an imbalance in power in favor of those who already have (too much?) power on their side.
On the post: Here Comes The Big Push For A Really Shitty New Net Neutrality Law
The other myth...
Since when is law settled, regardless of majority change, once voted in Congress?
There are examples of laws being repealed or changed over time.
This talking point is as stupid as the others.
On the post: Russia Does A 'Copy/Paste' Of Germany's New 'Hate Speech' Online Censorship Law
US version?
If not, all of Trump's tweets would disappear within seconds.
:D
On the post: Study: Dutch Piracy Rates In Free Fall Due Mostly To The Availability Of Legal Alternatives
carrot and stick approach, but...
On the post: There Is An Easy Answer To Whether Machines Should Get Copyright Rights And It Comes Down To Copyright's Purpose
the plan to end all copyright
1. Make an AI run on a computer to generate all possible works. Image, text, whatever...
2. Shoot a bullet in the computer. (First check that killing an AI doesn't count as murder. You never with those lawmakers.)
3. Wait for 70 years. As the AI owns every copyright, except that of works created before itself, nobody is going to ask for copyright extension on its behalf.
4. Everything is now public domain.
(Note that this is not to be taken seriously. Seems obvious to me, but some people seem to have a seriously broken sarcasm-meter.)
On the post: Facebook 'Hate Speech' Rules Protect Races And Sexes -- So, Yes, White Men Are Going To Be 'Protected'
The algorithm is not just producing outrageous results, it's downright stupid.
On the post: Supreme Court Sees Criminal Asset Forfeiture Can Be Abused Too; Almost Does Something About It
rule of thumb
It should only be allowed, and even then with constraints and actual sure process (starting with presumption of innocence), in cases where suing the owner is impossible. (As it was intended at the beginning.)
If the goods were directly taken from their owner, it means the owner was present and could have been arrested on the spot. This kind of case is a clear example of using forfeiture for the sole purpose of bypassing due process. An abuse of a law that severely lacks safeguards.
I can't understand how this was not judge unconstitutional years ago.
On the post: Two Big Copyright Cases Sent To Top EU Court: One On Sampling, The Other On Freedom Of The Press
abuse, plain and simple
It's a government report. Setting aside the US concept that government documents are public domain in regards to copyright (other restrictions might apply though), copyright is supposed to be an incentive to produce *and spread* art and science.
Applying it as a pure tool of control for a document that the German government wants to keep hidden shows the obvious lie that copyright is not a censorship tool.
If the EUCJ wants to restore copyright to what it was supposed to be, it should not state whether journalistic use is "fair use" (or any local equivalent exception) or not, but that this simply is not a copyright question at all. That suing this case under copyright law is as obvious an abuse of the concept as it gets.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say Real-Time Cellphone Location Tracking Not A Fourth Amendment Issue
Re: Re: Re: Its all going down as planned.
I only covered here the basic flaws of the general logic behind the "third-party" loophole.
This case also shows worse abuses of that already bad legal loophole, such as requesting information in real time, meaning it doesn't even exist at the time of the request.
Or the uncertainty behind who actually generated the data.
Next >>