Well why would a US judge care, they'd just point towards there Qualified immunity that of course stops them from being indicted, charged, sentenced, sued, etc
Oh wait.. that Immunity only applies within the USA.. hmmm I wonder how many Judges like to travel overseas and wont be able to anymore. So sad
Our own media (well Fairfax at moment) is now spreading FUD about how "social media" users could now be prosecuted and extradited to Victoria if they live in other Australian States.
These are quite normal ESPECIALLY from the State of Victoria where this order was allegedly created.
Interestingly though since the order is ONLY from a Supreme court in one State it has absolutely no bearing on ANY other state's system especially when ALL communications is specifically a Federal jurisdiction.
therefore
"The prohibition on publication in order 1 applies throughout Australia." is basically voidable and untenable. The courts in Victoria have tried this before, the most famous one being an order stopping a TV series from airing Australia Wide. That never worked and only stopped Victorians from watching the series (Underbelly) or purchasing the DVDs within Victoria. Interestingly Victorians found a way around that stupidity by torrents etc. whodathunkit
The violation of a court order is not the same as the case this was about. Property in the criminal case under the definitions in the NZ Crimes Act are specifically now read to not include digital only data.
The Act involved in the Courts order forbidding the NZ police from removing evidence and handing it over to another jurisdiction is an entirely separate matter and has more to do with Evidence than 'property' in it's tangible AND unfungible form. So there is no need to overrule a criminality decision on definitions within the Crimes Act at all.
The 'evidence' was removed and passed on contemptuously and that as kiwibob stated is not something any party really wants to do to any court. Especially the USA in New Zealand since no matter what the political climate at moment might be the NZ courts have a LONG memory and are not beholden in the same way to the government as the US courts/judges are in America.
As for your privacy question. Privacy isn't really to do with the intangible data (or non-property) it is more to do with the identifiable information itself and how that data can be used. It's more a subjective test than objective as the definition of property has now been defined in this matter.
So you wont worry when I get a warrant or even a subpoena (they are a LOT easier to obtain) from Australia for ALL information about you that TD holds including but not limited to IP address's, email logins, etc etc, and under your logic he will HAVE to provide it.
Again there is a MAJOR difference both ethically and legally in contacting an actual legal authority for egregious & illegal behaviour and let the authorities deal with the information then releasing the same information to the world at large.
If the authorities want to release that info to the world, that is their choice. Mike releasing it to the community (and therefore the world) without appropriate control mechanisms (ie: the legal authority) is another matter entirely.
It comes down to the ethical conundrum of duty of care, Mike's major duty in relation to Techdirt is to the community since they are the major stakeholder in his business model. Without the trust that he has built up through sweat, frustrations (and trolls) with the community TD would NOT be the place it is today (and hopefully for a long time to come).
"Outing" someone to the appropriate and legal mechanisms that Govt bodies have (no matter what you may or not think of their controls) is absolutely and entirely different. It's a non-issue, the community (any community) would expect it to happen and be aghast if it didn't (that includes such things as suicide threats or any imminent threats as well) but outing to the wider TD community and the world based on his (or his staff's) whim because HE thinks it might be newsworthy that's an instant violation of trust.
I'm sorry and I can understand your reasonings but you are conflating what is done by outside outing to what you did which as a provider who retains a huge array of information (whether specifically identifying or not) about whom a poster is or isn't then outed that person which means you now have to under equity do this to every other anonymous poster (be they public figures or not) or be absilutely hypocritical.
No matter what though you have destroyed the one thing that is sacrosanct and invaluable with any online platform that you allow a community to form within (be that a blog, forum, whatever). That intangible thing is TRUST.
Without going into whether you had a specific duty under privacy rules you designed, implemented, spoke of or implied (that's a whole other can of legal worms under estoppel etc) you have shown that you will out your community members at YOUR whim (whatever reasoning behind it whether reasonable or not).
Good luck getting that trust back I wish you well. Oh and if you think the community still trusts you either the community will stagnate if it's true or you are deluding yourself
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder how much Mr Preston was paid by Hachette?
If you seriously believe that McMillian are NOT a stakeholder in the Publishing industry that stands to gain from Hachette's stupidity in regards to Amazon you are both a fool and disingenuous.
Also if you follow the money trail you might be surprised at just who controls McMillian and Hachette. Just a hint
WA has always been the 'weird' state in Australia, mainly because it's very young compared to the others.
As for the three 'proposed' offenses you posted they are strangely ALREADY OFFENSES under Federal criminal codes and therefore offenses under State laws as well.
Sometimes I have to wonder about these Joint Standing Committee's and mostly about what the hell are they thinking or smoking when they write this crud.
And you are correct, no parent has or ever will be charged let alone convicted by allowing there children to play, watch, or read a R18+ film, publication, or game.
Like the selling of tobacco products (and knives strangely enough - don't ask long convoluted reactive bullshit law) the 'supply' is targeted for sellers only.
Unless they somehow out themselves, or from knowledge and words a reasonable person can tell who they are, anonymity should be sacrosanct and NEVER outed by the owner/admin of the platform.
Basically by outing them the site owners have stripped all credibility of their platform and any other anonymous persons are absolutely justified in never ever believing that they too won't be outed based on the whim of the administrators.
It's both ethically and under certain conditions (dependent on what was in the EULA/ToS legally (breach of contract) wrong.
On the post: What Makes You Tell Others About Techdirt?
Re:
Very well written Jennifer.
On the post: Peak Internet Dismisses Defamation Suit Against Former Customer Who Complained About Its Lousy Connection Speeds
On the post: Court Says Who Cares If Ireland Is Another Country, Of Course DOJ Can Use A Warrant To Demand Microsoft Cough Up Your Emails
Re: Oh yeah, this'll help restore trust in the US
Oh wait.. that Immunity only applies within the USA.. hmmm I wonder how many Judges like to travel overseas and wont be able to anymore. So sad
On the post: Appeals Court Smacks Down Team Prenda... Again
Re: Oh sweet, sweet schadenfreude...
OMG OMG OMG OMG
and then the laughter starts...
and then I have to start from the beginning again about the holes.. OMG OMG OMG
On the post: Wikileaks Reveals Super Injunction Blocking Reporting On Massive Australian Corruption Case Involving Leaders Of Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam
Re: Re: Re:
"The following dramatisation is based on truth..except for the 99% of it that isn't"
Though you have to admit the nudity was ubiquitous in it ;)
On the post: Wikileaks Reveals Super Injunction Blocking Reporting On Massive Australian Corruption Case Involving Leaders Of Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam
Re:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/social-media-users-could-be-charged-for-sharing-wikileaks-stor y-20140730-zye0b.html
The stupid IT BURNS!!!!
On the post: Wikileaks Reveals Super Injunction Blocking Reporting On Massive Australian Corruption Case Involving Leaders Of Malaysia, Indonesia & Vietnam
Interestingly though since the order is ONLY from a Supreme court in one State it has absolutely no bearing on ANY other state's system especially when ALL communications is specifically a Federal jurisdiction.
therefore
"The prohibition on publication in order 1 applies throughout Australia." is basically voidable and untenable. The courts in Victoria have tried this before, the most famous one being an order stopping a TV series from airing Australia Wide. That never worked and only stopped Victorians from watching the series (Underbelly) or purchasing the DVDs within Victoria. Interestingly Victorians found a way around that stupidity by torrents etc. whodathunkit
On the post: Yet Another Court Rules That Digital Data Is Not Property
Re: Re:
Now to get that sort of wording into the Criminal Code in Australia.. HA!
Oh and gotta love the mens rae wriggle room in 2(a)(ii) *eyeroll*
On the post: Yet Another Court Rules That Digital Data Is Not Property
Re: Re: Re:
The Act involved in the Courts order forbidding the NZ police from removing evidence and handing it over to another jurisdiction is an entirely separate matter and has more to do with Evidence than 'property' in it's tangible AND unfungible form. So there is no need to overrule a criminality decision on definitions within the Crimes Act at all.
The 'evidence' was removed and passed on contemptuously and that as kiwibob stated is not something any party really wants to do to any court. Especially the USA in New Zealand since no matter what the political climate at moment might be the NZ courts have a LONG memory and are not beholden in the same way to the government as the US courts/judges are in America.
As for your privacy question. Privacy isn't really to do with the intangible data (or non-property) it is more to do with the identifiable information itself and how that data can be used. It's more a subjective test than objective as the definition of property has now been defined in this matter.
On the post: Judge's Overly Broad Discovery Order About Online Critics Allows Ubervita To Bully More Authors Of Critical Reviews
Re: Re: ¤¤½
For example since I'm Australian.
Ubervita IS a bunch of misinformed malicious assholes that prey on consumers with false and misleading advertising of their useless product(s).
Simple! ;)
On the post: DOJ Tells Court That Of Course It Can Go On A Fishing Expedition Globally For Emails Microsoft Stores Overseas
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Sued For $10 Million In A Frivolous Lawsuit For Posting An Earlier Frivolous Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Blogger Defends Outing Politician Trolling His Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a question
If the authorities want to release that info to the world, that is their choice. Mike releasing it to the community (and therefore the world) without appropriate control mechanisms (ie: the legal authority) is another matter entirely.
It comes down to the ethical conundrum of duty of care, Mike's major duty in relation to Techdirt is to the community since they are the major stakeholder in his business model. Without the trust that he has built up through sweat, frustrations (and trolls) with the community TD would NOT be the place it is today (and hopefully for a long time to come).
"Outing" someone to the appropriate and legal mechanisms that Govt bodies have (no matter what you may or not think of their controls) is absolutely and entirely different. It's a non-issue, the community (any community) would expect it to happen and be aghast if it didn't (that includes such things as suicide threats or any imminent threats as well) but outing to the wider TD community and the world based on his (or his staff's) whim because HE thinks it might be newsworthy that's an instant violation of trust.
On the post: Blogger Defends Outing Politician Trolling His Comments
No matter what though you have destroyed the one thing that is sacrosanct and invaluable with any online platform that you allow a community to form within (be that a blog, forum, whatever). That intangible thing is TRUST.
Without going into whether you had a specific duty under privacy rules you designed, implemented, spoke of or implied (that's a whole other can of legal worms under estoppel etc) you have shown that you will out your community members at YOUR whim (whatever reasoning behind it whether reasonable or not).
Good luck getting that trust back I wish you well. Oh and if you think the community still trusts you either the community will stagnate if it's true or you are deluding yourself
On the post: One-Percent Authors Want To End Destructive Conflict, Bring Order to the Galaxy
Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder how much Mr Preston was paid by Hachette?
Also if you follow the money trail you might be surprised at just who controls McMillian and Hachette. Just a hint
On the post: One-Percent Authors Want To End Destructive Conflict, Bring Order to the Galaxy
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: One Year After Granting Adulthood To Video Gamers, Committee Suggests Australian Government Reenact Ban On R18+ Games
Re: Current situation in the UK
As for the three 'proposed' offenses you posted they are strangely ALREADY OFFENSES under Federal criminal codes and therefore offenses under State laws as well.
Sometimes I have to wonder about these Joint Standing Committee's and mostly about what the hell are they thinking or smoking when they write this crud.
And you are correct, no parent has or ever will be charged let alone convicted by allowing there children to play, watch, or read a R18+ film, publication, or game.
Like the selling of tobacco products (and knives strangely enough - don't ask long convoluted reactive bullshit law) the 'supply' is targeted for sellers only.
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
Re: Re: Quality
^^^This.. a quadzillion times this!! ;)
On the post: Local Blog Outs Local Politician's Crazy But Anonymous Comments. So...Is That Okay?
Basically by outing them the site owners have stripped all credibility of their platform and any other anonymous persons are absolutely justified in never ever believing that they too won't be outed based on the whim of the administrators.
It's both ethically and under certain conditions (dependent on what was in the EULA/ToS legally (breach of contract) wrong.
On the post: Dangerous Ruling: Judge Lets Microsoft Seize & Redirect No-IP Domains Without Notice
Well that makes a lot of things make more sense
Next >>