Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Nov 2013 @ 9:36am
Sort of
suggested the party was attempting to bury Cameron's old campaign promises, which revolved around openness and transparency.
I've come to the conclusion that when this clown says "Openness and transparency", he's talking about making everyone's private life open and transparent to the government rather than the other way round.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Nov 2013 @ 1:11am
dissenters have been forbidden to speak out online and ordinary netizens are slowly being disciplined into behaving as passive consumers of online information through the imposition of "community code of practice."
The dream and aim of the **AA and **A parts of western governments too...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Nov 2013 @ 8:44am
Oops, I think I spot a slight gaping hole there...
"intelligence agents do not have the time or inclination to harass random Americans, nor the capability as long as Americans remain in the United States."
Well that part of the statement might almost be true... except for 1 tiny thing that seems to have been overlooked. The NSA has shown itself more than willing to share the information with other law enforcement bodies in the United States (as well as out), and they do have "the time, inclination and the capability to harass random Americans in the United States."
So I'm sorry Mr Posner but, like the man wearing cellophane shorts, I can clearly see you're nuts.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 15 Nov 2013 @ 8:16am
Coming soon to an appropriations committee near you
question the use of behavior observation techniques, that is, human observation unaided by technology, as a means for reliably detecting deception. (Emphasis mine)
TSA: "Clearly we need an extra $3Bn in our budget to get the technology to go with our highly trained observers because, well, terrorists."
Of course it's not about the money, it's for security, right?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:11am
Re: Newspeak
The UK has such a fucking hard-on for 1984.
Yeah, this decade we're trying to beat the US for the "Most fascist country pretending to be a democracy" award. A bold move perhaps, but we got some game it seems...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Nov 2013 @ 10:39am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is OUTDATED...
Without copyright, other people could print their own Harry Potter books and sell them, with the author getting nothing.
Well, firstly the original poster referred to "copyright on an idea", which seems to me to refer to the characters and world concepts etc - i.e. perhaps a separate copyright term for derivative works. Not sure that's a great idea, but that's how I read it and thus people couldn't print a copy of, say, "Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone" and sell it. Secondly, assuming the original poster didn't mean that (in which case the idea of linking copyright term to "re-usage" of the copyright doesn't make much sense, but hey-ho), if not 3 years, what do you think is a fair term to be consistently paid for doing zero extra work? How long is it "fair" to be able to ignore normal market forces of competition to provide a service?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Nov 2013 @ 3:03pm
Re: Re: Copyright is OUTDATED...
You're basically demanding an author churn out a single series like a factory, regardless of what other series they might be working on, or how long they feel is needed to properly develop their story.
I'd agree to some extent that 3 years is too short a term as I don't have a problem with copyright per-se, just the current stupid version of it.
On the other hand, however, you're missing or ignoring the obvious fact that not having a copyright in no way "forces" an author to do anything or stops them from doing anything or selling more books. Quite the contrary in fact. All it would mean is that other people could also write in the same or similar world and frankly some authors could use a bit of encouragement in the way of competition to finish series rather than leave fans hanging.
I'd have happily paid for and read both the Harry Potter books and the subsequent Middle Earth books no matter how many other titles in the same world existed as I like how they're written. I'd also have probably have read other author's work in the same worlds as I enjoy the worlds. A Song of Fire and Ice, however, I gave up on after book 3 because I found it dull despite liking the world and other GRR Martin creations. I'd have been intrigued to see what another author could have done with the backstory. Bottom line, if it's good I'll read it, if not I won't and other similar works wouldn't change that.
Copyright removes choice plain and simple and whatever it's supposed to do or not, it locks up ideas not expression and reduces culture. Is that worth it for a short term? Perhaps. But don't pretend it's anything other than protectionist.
Incidentally, ironically I think some of Martin's best work is in a shared world that several authors write in.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Nov 2013 @ 10:11am
Perhaps not
Once again, though, it seems like yet another case where the popular myth of copyright -- that it's about "ownership" of some "creation" -- leads to this kind misguided attack.
I would guess that the attack is not misguided and that the asshat doesn't actually expect to win.
I think it's more likely he reckons if he shouts loud enough and causes enough trouble, that copyright law is muddy enough that the BBC will chuck a few quid his way as a settlement rather than test it in court and pay lots of lawyers.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 2:10pm
Re: Re: Dictionary
Authorised will mean; it is within the scope of our duties under law (which is very broad).
Add the word "assumed" before "duties" and that's pretty much what I said...
Necessary will mean; if we don't do this we have no other way of getting the information we need to carry out our legal duties.
Reality so far suggests this is true only if by "no other way" you mean "We couldn't be bothered to look for another"
Proportionate will mean; there is no less intrusive thing we could do to achieve this effect.
...assuming the effect you're going for is "we have to know everything about everybody we can whether they are even vaguely suspected of a crime or not", then yes.
Rigorous oversight means:...
That's what I said, isn't it?
But their legal rules and oversight framework could be improved.
In much the same way as rot13 encryption could be more secure, yes.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:22am
True, but,,,
The only thing that seems to offend McCain is (1) that we let "low level" people like Manning and Snowden have access to secrets and (2) that we might offend a few "high level" friends. It's the complaint of an ultimate insider, who only cares about friends in high places and has absolutely no concern whatsoever for the common people he hasn't been in touch with in decades.
Absolutely true and ideally the man shouldn't be anywhere near public office. On the other hand, if his rant led to firing an even bigger knucklehead, would that be so bad? Plus there is at least a tiny sliver of merit in his argument. I think the expectation that "spy" agencies are going to follow all the rules is probably hopeless. I suspect that most agencies have never followed the rules since they were created and the real questions become "How far do they stray from strictly legal and against whom?" and "How is the straying monitored and limited and by whom?". In that context the question of who gets to see the "naughty stuff" is indeed a key one. If access to the kind of information they clearly have were limited to "genuinely critical need to know" instead of "I'd kinda like to know please, coz it might be related to this other unrelated thing I'm working on", I'd still be far from happy but I'd certainly be a lot less unhappy.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:25am
2 questions
So it sounds like they did a man in the middle attack, redirecting very specific visitors from those two sites to sites that planted malware instead.
That begs 2 questions: 1/ How do GCHQ justify hacking a Belgium telecom company? (other than the standard vague "ZOMG TERRORISTS!!!") 2/ Did they really bother to limit redirecting "specific visitors", or would they have considered it a bonus to install malware on several thousand other computers while targeting what they want?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Nov 2013 @ 7:27am
Barely a start
We've strayed very very far from the ideals that this country is supposed to embrace.
In some respects, this is not the worst part of the problem. The "straying" happened long ago, the problem is that it's only now that people are starting to notice how far from civilisation the path has taken them. Worse still is that the noticing is not yet enough to make any realistic effort to head back towards somewhere a little more civilised or even to stop the direction of straying.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 9 Nov 2013 @ 3:04am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disputed meaning, I'd classify those items under gun safety
A semantic argument. As an example, if I were to say you are allowed to own any weapon you want but may only legally load and fire it in approved areas, how would you describe that? It's not a ban on weapons, but neither is it "demonstrating understanding and safe use". Me, I'd call it gun control.
As for the statistics, we are attempting to determine whether the US has a relatively high degree of lawlessness and violence.
Actually the term the original poster used was "hostile", which is a slightly different thing to lawlessness and violence. In that context, saying "The US is much less violent than countries that have little or no rule of law" doesn't get you very far.
I think that the fact that the US significantly tops the so-called "western nations" in homicide is interesting. Are the US people more "hostile" or is it because the stats are scewed by homicides that wouldn't have become that if there weren't so many guns lying around people's houses? I don't know the answer to that and there are undoubtedly other possibilities and other related statistics, but it's a relevant question to gun control.
On the post: UK Conservative Party Decides To Memory Hole Its YouTube Presence As Well
Sort of
On the post: 100,000 Users Of Chinese Microblog Sina Weibo Punished For Violating 'Censorship Guidelines'
On the post: Chicago Law Professor Claims No Privacy In Your Emails, As Long As The Content Isn't Used To Detain Or Harass You
Oops, I think I spot a slight gaping hole there...
The NSA has shown itself more than willing to share the information with other law enforcement bodies in the United States (as well as out), and they do have "the time, inclination and the capability to harass random Americans in the United States."
So I'm sorry Mr Posner but, like the man wearing cellophane shorts, I can clearly see you're nuts.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Intelligence Lawyer Robert Litt Claims Searching For Possible Privacy Violations Will Violate Privacy
I's quantum, innit?
On the post: TSA's $1 Billion 'Behavioral Detection' Program Only Slightly More Accurate Than A Coin Flip
Coming soon to an appropriations committee near you
Of course it's not about the money, it's for security, right?
On the post: UK Political Party Tries To Dump 10 Years Of Speeches Down The Memory Hole
Re: Newspeak
On the post: Son Of Writer Of First Episode Of Doctor Who Now Claiming Copyright On The Tardis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is OUTDATED...
Secondly, assuming the original poster didn't mean that (in which case the idea of linking copyright term to "re-usage" of the copyright doesn't make much sense, but hey-ho), if not 3 years, what do you think is a fair term to be consistently paid for doing zero extra work? How long is it "fair" to be able to ignore normal market forces of competition to provide a service?
On the post: Dianne Feinstein Receives Three Times More Cash From Intelligence Contractors Than Patrick Leahy
Re:
On the post: Dianne Feinstein Receives Three Times More Cash From Intelligence Contractors Than Patrick Leahy
What?
On the post: Son Of Writer Of First Episode Of Doctor Who Now Claiming Copyright On The Tardis
Re: Re: Copyright is OUTDATED...
On the other hand, however, you're missing or ignoring the obvious fact that not having a copyright in no way "forces" an author to do anything or stops them from doing anything or selling more books. Quite the contrary in fact. All it would mean is that other people could also write in the same or similar world and frankly some authors could use a bit of encouragement in the way of competition to finish series rather than leave fans hanging.
I'd have happily paid for and read both the Harry Potter books and the subsequent Middle Earth books no matter how many other titles in the same world existed as I like how they're written. I'd also have probably have read other author's work in the same worlds as I enjoy the worlds. A Song of Fire and Ice, however, I gave up on after book 3 because I found it dull despite liking the world and other GRR Martin creations. I'd have been intrigued to see what another author could have done with the backstory. Bottom line, if it's good I'll read it, if not I won't and other similar works wouldn't change that.
Copyright removes choice plain and simple and whatever it's supposed to do or not, it locks up ideas not expression and reduces culture. Is that worth it for a short term? Perhaps. But don't pretend it's anything other than protectionist.
Incidentally, ironically I think some of Martin's best work is in a shared world that several authors write in.
On the post: Son Of Writer Of First Episode Of Doctor Who Now Claiming Copyright On The Tardis
Perhaps not
I think it's more likely he reckons if he shouts loud enough and causes enough trouble, that copyright law is muddy enough that the BBC will chuck a few quid his way as a settlement rather than test it in court and pay lots of lawyers.
On the post: GCHQ's Response To Hacking Slashdot And LinkedIn: No Comment, But It Was Perfectly Legal
Re: Re: Dictionary
That's what I said, isn't it?
In much the same way as rot13 encryption could be more secure, yes.
On the post: GCHQ's Response To Hacking Slashdot And LinkedIn: No Comment, But It Was Perfectly Legal
Dictionary
On the post: GCHQ Used Fake Slashdot Page To Install Malware To Hack Internet Exchange
Re: Re: 2 questions
"... uh, because that's the threshold for us to have some sort of vague legal justification for doing what we wanted..."
"So you really just made it up then?"
"...uh... no comment?"
"Yeah, thought so."
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: John McCain Says That Keith Alexander Should Be Fired... For All The Wrong Reasons
True, but,,,
Plus there is at least a tiny sliver of merit in his argument. I think the expectation that "spy" agencies are going to follow all the rules is probably hopeless. I suspect that most agencies have never followed the rules since they were created and the real questions become "How far do they stray from strictly legal and against whom?" and "How is the straying monitored and limited and by whom?". In that context the question of who gets to see the "naughty stuff" is indeed a key one.
If access to the kind of information they clearly have were limited to "genuinely critical need to know" instead of "I'd kinda like to know please, coz it might be related to this other unrelated thing I'm working on", I'd still be far from happy but I'd certainly be a lot less unhappy.
On the post: GCHQ Used Fake Slashdot Page To Install Malware To Hack Internet Exchange
2 questions
1/ How do GCHQ justify hacking a Belgium telecom company? (other than the standard vague "ZOMG TERRORISTS!!!")
2/ Did they really bother to limit redirecting "specific visitors", or would they have considered it a bonus to install malware on several thousand other computers while targeting what they want?
On the post: Rep. Alan Grayson Asks Eric Holder If US Citizen Glenn Greenwald Will Actually Be Allowed Back Into The US Without Arrest
Barely a start
On the post: School Threatens Child With Expulsion For Halloween Drawings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that the fact that the US significantly tops the so-called "western nations" in homicide is interesting. Are the US people more "hostile" or is it because the stats are scewed by homicides that wouldn't have become that if there weren't so many guns lying around people's houses? I don't know the answer to that and there are undoubtedly other possibilities and other related statistics, but it's a relevant question to gun control.
Next >>