There are pretty obvious holes in this logic though.
Let's begin with the first-party not exactly choosing to disclose some of the information. That's a debatable point, but it makes the disclosure less a voluntary disclosure and more a necessary process that's been reluctantly agreed on.
Next, the fact that this data was shared on the assumption that it wouldn't be disclosed to other parties. The reason I don't turn off my phone most of the time is that I expect my position to only be known to the communication carrier as a requirement to access the carrier's network. I don't expect even employees of the company to go dig through my location data.
Third, there are other kind of data that are secure as a normal part of doing business and can hardly be accessed (at least not without a warrant, and sometimes even not then). Medical files, financial records, exchanges with your lawyers, journalistic sources and I probably miss others. Those are all information that you share with a third-party, but are adding to still be confidential.
The third-party doctrine is a pure invention made up by lazy LEOs who don't want to bother with the time and minimum justification required to get a warrant. It's not based on logic but on an argument of authority, which is bad sophistry.
You're right, but someone made a very ugly point with "money is speech".
Talking to an elected official shouldn't be forbidden. And it isn't.
Bribing him (with money, jobs or other gifts) should be. But it isn't. US legalized a certain level of corruption as long as it's transparent. This is the problem, not the basic lobbying.
Do you really think that those corporations would have so much attention from politicians without bribing them? Do you really think so many laws blatantly favoring a donator would pass if not for the money?
Wait, why are you not ranting and raving at Zillow if they're bad? Why don't you call for "someone" to do "something" about it? How dare you have a moderate and reasonable approach to the matter at hand?
(For those who don't see it, I'm sarcastic there. More seriously, thanks for your detailed feedback on that company.)
1. "Fortunately we live in a time where people have discovered it doesn't matter what's true," And that's exactly why he can say whatever he wants. Or how Trump got president and Ajit Pai got the FCC.
2. His analogy would be slightly more accurate saying you'there renting your home and your landlord decides to charge UPS $100 to deliver something for you, and not FedEx. Or charge you $100 a month for unlimited FedEx deliveries, while only allowing 3 UPS deliveries a month.
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2017 @ 7:21pm
That's not the only problem. The cost is indeed a huge problem. The uncertainty also is a big issue though.
Even if you assume the trial itself is free, would you choose to defend your rights when you're offered a $5,000 settlement over a 50/50 chance to lose millions? What I'd the chances are closer to 80/20?
“It’s an assertive invitation for you to come and talk to us”
Let's see... Can we apply this defense more globally? Theft => assertive fundraising. Rape => assertive seduction. Kidnapping => assertive invitation. Torture => ah, they actually used that one before: enhanced interrogation.
He's clearly an "ends justify the means" type of guy. That's sickening.
The most astonishing part of this prophecy is how he didn't even know how Internet - more than a century later - would change the scope of copyright long after its duration became a joke.
He spoke while still under the assumption that copyright was a matter of "authors" and "booksellers", not knowing how the means to create, copy and broadcast culture at a worldwide scale would be placed in the hands of just about everybody.
Another important point: pre-internet, copyright covered only a few uses of copying to publish/broadcast content and it involved only the few people who had the means to mass-copy something.
Now it covers a lot more and involves everyone. (Not even mentioning how the copyright holders try to make it cover even more, such as hyperlinking.)
So a law made to apply to a few commercial actors became an everyday concern to everyone. And it's so convoluted that you can infringe someone's rights without realizing it. In some places (USA), you can become liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars without any proof that you actually "damaged" anyone's commercial opportunity.
DMCA helped a little, but it was built so full of flaws that what it helped with (making service providers less liable) also came with a lot that made the situation worse (forcing near-automatic removal of content, where only big players can afford to try and filter requests).
Copyright has become a crazy thing that can ruin anyone's life... probably because both copyright industry and politicians hate the internet. (Remember how the radio, tv, audio tapes, video tapes and cd were banned? Me neither. Copyright Industry asked for it but were denied. Why did they get it when it came to some internet technologies?)
Re: I'd be careful saying that duly processed court orders are
I see plenty of objections there. 1. You're getting a stipulation that the aggregations are false. Do you have proof it's the same guy the article based his article on? 2. There could be other sources of information or other information completely. Delisting the whole article through a third party instead of notifying the author of the article means you're "killing" the whole article instead of leaving a chance to fix it. 3. Something false is not necessarily libel. Not every falsehood is actionable. 4. Why go to such length to avoid serving the people actually involved? How come judges can order anyone to do anything without hearing them first? Or order something involving someone else?
Funny, that's exactly what Congress just voted down, and that was not about optional connected toys but your mandatory ISP. (Well, mandatory as long as you want internet.)
So I'd find it a little hypocritical to pretend that toy-makers have to abide to some privacy and security standards.
Great argument... not. This is a standard fallacy. And this has been replied to numerous times here and elsewhere.
You start pretending that no rule is good, then backtrack to some rules are necessary but only the good ones.
That and nobody ever said that all rules are good, but you keep pretending that's our stance.
You fail to address what everyone has actually been saying here: the problem are not the rules, but the corruption that's widespread across the political landscape.
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2017 @ 11:08am
Ah, the dreaded "they copied my style" argument. Your point is not weak, it's non-existent.
Copyright protects copying ab exact expression. Not an idea, but a style. An expression.
The Fearless Girl doesn't copy anything and doesn't alter the Charging But. It's a new piece of art, in the same style, that is placed next to the Bull. It's providing new context, new meaning, but doesn't change the original Bull.
No point for the artist, even less so when he just dumped the Bull in a public place without authorization even less a contract to keep its context "intact".
On the post: Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say Real-Time Cellphone Location Tracking Not A Fourth Amendment Issue
Re: Re: Its all going down as planned.
Let's begin with the first-party not exactly choosing to disclose some of the information. That's a debatable point, but it makes the disclosure less a voluntary disclosure and more a necessary process that's been reluctantly agreed on.
Next, the fact that this data was shared on the assumption that it wouldn't be disclosed to other parties. The reason I don't turn off my phone most of the time is that I expect my position to only be known to the communication carrier as a requirement to access the carrier's network. I don't expect even employees of the company to go dig through my location data.
Third, there are other kind of data that are secure as a normal part of doing business and can hardly be accessed (at least not without a warrant, and sometimes even not then). Medical files, financial records, exchanges with your lawyers, journalistic sources and I probably miss others. Those are all information that you share with a third-party, but are adding to still be confidential.
The third-party doctrine is a pure invention made up by lazy LEOs who don't want to bother with the time and minimum justification required to get a warrant. It's not based on logic but on an argument of authority, which is bad sophistry.
On the post: PayPal Sues Pandora Over Yawn-Inducing Logos And Tweets About People Opening The Wrong App
Re: Blue P's Matter!
(FTFY)
On the post: Congressional Rep Pushes His 'Hack Back' Bill By Claiming It Would Have Prevented The WannaCry Ransomware Attack
On the post: Judge Refuses To Fix His Rubber-Stamping Of A Fraudulently-Requested Court Order
Re: Re: Tim Cushing is an idiot who doesn't like free speech
Then again, some humans sound like they would fail the Turing test.
On the post: Maine The Latest State To Try And Let Giant Broadband Providers Write Shitty, Protectionist State Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 wishes
Talking to an elected official shouldn't be forbidden. And it isn't.
Bribing him (with money, jobs or other gifts) should be. But it isn't. US legalized a certain level of corruption as long as it's transparent. This is the problem, not the basic lobbying.
Do you really think that those corporations would have so much attention from politicians without bribing them? Do you really think so many laws blatantly favoring a donator would pass if not for the money?
On the post: Zillow Sued By Homeowner Because Its Estimate Is Lower Than The Seller Wants To Sell The House For
Re: Zillow = bad
How dare you have a moderate and reasonable approach to the matter at hand?
(For those who don't see it, I'm sarcastic there. More seriously, thanks for your detailed feedback on that company.)
On the post: New Verizon Video Blatantly Lies About What's Happening To Net Neutrality
two points
And that's exactly why he can say whatever he wants. Or how Trump got president and Ajit Pai got the FCC.
2. His analogy would be slightly more accurate saying you'there renting your home and your landlord decides to charge UPS $100 to deliver something for you, and not FedEx. Or charge you $100 a month for unlimited FedEx deliveries, while only allowing 3 UPS deliveries a month.
On the post: Stupid Patents Of The Month: Taxi Dispatch Tech
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2017 @ 7:21pm
The cost is indeed a huge problem. The uncertainty also is a big issue though.
Even if you assume the trial itself is free, would you choose to defend your rights when you're offered a $5,000 settlement over a 50/50 chance to lose millions?
What I'd the chances are closer to 80/20?
On the post: Louisiana DA's Office Used Fake Subpoenas For Decades To Trick People Into Talking To Prosecutors
assertiveness?
Let's see... Can we apply this defense more globally?
Theft => assertive fundraising.
Rape => assertive seduction.
Kidnapping => assertive invitation.
Torture => ah, they actually used that one before: enhanced interrogation.
He's clearly an "ends justify the means" type of guy. That's sickening.
On the post: House Votes Overwhelmingly To Make The Copyright Office More Political & To Delay Modernization
Re: Re: Wrong headline then.....
And you, sir, are completely off.
Google might be spending lots of money on lobbying, but not on this very subject.
So, you are right: Congress is not cornholing anything for a few tech billionaires. They are trying to help copyright billionaires.
You didn't follow the money. You only followed your troll instincts.
On the post: For World 'Intellectual Property' Day, A Reading From Thomas Macaulay
Re: Prophet
The most astonishing part of this prophecy is how he didn't even know how Internet - more than a century later - would change the scope of copyright long after its duration became a joke.
He spoke while still under the assumption that copyright was a matter of "authors" and "booksellers", not knowing how the means to create, copy and broadcast culture at a worldwide scale would be placed in the hands of just about everybody.
On the post: Singapore Court Tosses Copyright Troll Cases Because IP Addresses Aren't Good Enough Evidence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now it covers a lot more and involves everyone. (Not even mentioning how the copyright holders try to make it cover even more, such as hyperlinking.)
So a law made to apply to a few commercial actors became an everyday concern to everyone. And it's so convoluted that you can infringe someone's rights without realizing it. In some places (USA), you can become liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars without any proof that you actually "damaged" anyone's commercial opportunity.
DMCA helped a little, but it was built so full of flaws that what it helped with (making service providers less liable) also came with a lot that made the situation worse (forcing near-automatic removal of content, where only big players can afford to try and filter requests).
Copyright has become a crazy thing that can ruin anyone's life... probably because both copyright industry and politicians hate the internet. (Remember how the radio, tv, audio tapes, video tapes and cd were banned? Me neither. Copyright Industry asked for it but were denied. Why did they get it when it came to some internet technologies?)
On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Used To Bully Ukraine, Colombia And Italy For Protecting Public Health And The Environment
Re: Re: Stupid headline.
... which is exactly why you're not commenting. Right?
On the post: More Shady Libel Lawsuits Resulting In Dubious Delisting Court Orders Uncovered
Re: I'd be careful saying that duly processed court orders are
1. You're getting a stipulation that the aggregations are false. Do you have proof it's the same guy the article based his article on?
2. There could be other sources of information or other information completely. Delisting the whole article through a third party instead of notifying the author of the article means you're "killing" the whole article instead of leaving a chance to fix it.
3. Something false is not necessarily libel. Not every falsehood is actionable.
4. Why go to such length to avoid serving the people actually involved? How come judges can order anyone to do anything without hearing them first? Or order something involving someone else?
On the post: The Teddy Bear And Toaster Act Is Device Regulation Done Wrong
Response to: Ninja on Apr 19th, 2017 @ 12:16pm
So I'd find it a little hypocritical to pretend that toy-makers have to abide to some privacy and security standards.
On the post: Comcast Belatedly 'Introduces' Faster Broadband To City It Sued To Keep From Doing The Same Thing Years Ago. It Didn't Go Well
Response to: Wyrm on Apr 19th, 2017 @ 9:32am
On the post: Comcast Belatedly 'Introduces' Faster Broadband To City It Sued To Keep From Doing The Same Thing Years Ago. It Didn't Go Well
This is a standard fallacy. And this has been replied to numerous times here and elsewhere.
You start pretending that no rule is good, then backtrack to some rules are necessary but only the good ones.
That and nobody ever said that all rules are good, but you keep pretending that's our stance.
You fail to address what everyone has actually been saying here: the problem are not the rules, but the corruption that's widespread across the political landscape.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2017 @ 11:08am
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2017 @ 11:08am
Copyright protects copying ab exact expression. Not an idea, but a style. An expression.
The Fearless Girl doesn't copy anything and doesn't alter the Charging But. It's a new piece of art, in the same style, that is placed next to the Bull. It's providing new context, new meaning, but doesn't change the original Bull.
No point for the artist, even less so when he just dumped the Bull in a public place without authorization even less a contract to keep its context "intact".
On the post: Microsoft Latest Service Provider To Pry A National Security Letter Free From Its Gag Order
Response to: Ninja on Apr 18th, 2017 @ 6:08am
Next >>