Well, sure, but, see, you just named an injury you've suffered that's specifically a consequence of this particular law. You were deprived of personal ads by the chilling effect of this nonsense.
'Course, the US courts still wouldn't recognize your injury, but you are indeed injured. So you (ought to) have a different kind of standing, more like the kind the US Government is actually talking about.
A US citizen (ought to) have standing to challenge any unconstutional act of the US government purely because the lawlessness it promotes is injurious, regardless of what specific actions it causes anybody to take. That's different.
... although I suppose you could argue that you're also injured just by the dangerous effects of living next to a giant lawless mess, so maybe you should indeed have similar standing.
If I grow corn on my farm and feed it to hogs on my farm, it affects the "stream of [interstate] commerce" and subjects me to Federal interstate commerce jurisdiction.
If that kind of tenuous pseudo-connection BS works one way, it should work the other. If the Federal government does something to violate the Constitution, then every American's interest in living in a lawful constitutional republic is injured, and that means every single one of them has standing to sue for it.
I do agree that the courts are way too supine to apply such a rule, then.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think back doors LOOK LIKE?
And sometimes a giant throbbing veiny cock is a giant throbbing veiny cock.
The point here is that observing an undisclosed Telnet server is consistent with either incompetence or a deliberate back door. The whole premise of this article is that a left-in debugging feature can't be intentional. That's a stupid positon to take.
We have almost no good examples of backdoors that were hidden so well we don't know if they are real of accidental,
Sure we do. We find "accidents" all the time. Some unknown percentage of the "accidents" that we find are back doors. Those are examples. We just don't know which ones they are. That is not evidence that none of them are, or even that few of them are.
If you can say we have no examples of "accidents" that are actually intentionally back doors, I can respond that we have no examples that are actually accidents. If you don't know for sure, you can't assume that they're all accidents any more than you can assume that they're all intentional back doors.
your asking people to ascribe a very high degree of competence in this one specific area to a company that has not shown a high degree of competence in other technical areas.
Actually I'm asking people to ascribe a very basic level of competence to some individual or small group. Because another thing about competently inserting back doors is that you don't involve everybody in a whole company if you don't have to.
Nobody is stupid enough to put in an obvious back door. A back door always looks like a debug feature that somebody forgot to disable, or even like a bug.
It may indeed be a screwup, because those are extremely common. But the fact that it's a Telnet server does not mean that it's not a back door or that it's not intentional.
Oh my god, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
200 years? The whole US industrial base was built in the 19th century by systematically ignoring European patents... which anybody remotely qualified to have an opinion would know.
The big reason business is done in the US is that the US was relatively undamaged in the two world wars of the 20th century, and parlayed that into economic centrality and imperial status. As anybody remotely qualified to have an opinion would know.
During the consolidation of that dominant position, US patent law enforced a far more rigorous standard of novelty and non-obviousness than it presently does. Most of the US' dominance came during a period in which the standard for a patent was literally articulated as "flash of genius" rather than "not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art". Patents were much harder to get. As anybody remotely qualified to have an opinion.
Unfortunatly, stupid and uninformed people don't know those things and still feel free to act superior.
You are of course correct that the present regime forces businesses to cling to both patents and trade secrets. If your competitor gets an artificial advantage and you don't take that advantage yourself, then obviously you're much more likely to fail. That doesn't imply that it's a problem to remove the artificial advantage from everybody.
Hmm. I know somebody is going to miss the point of that, so just to clarify, the point of publishing is to get it out there before they can get an order like this, not to defy an order.
... if you happen to get your hands on a government document that's of any public interest, and that document even might be slightly embarrassing to anybody in the government or anybody who might have the ear of anybody in the government, you publish it instantly, widely, and in its entirety.
If that's inconvenient for government agencies, well, they've brought that on themselves with this kind of behavior.
... and I think you're being deliberately obtuse and hiding in legalisms.
The obvious point of grandparent's saying that the FA applies "in spirit" is that the FA is an expression of a supposedly widely held American value that says people should be able to express themselves freely. If you ACTUALLY believe in that value, then you're going to be really, really reluctant to shut anybody down on a "platform" you control, regardless of what's written on a piece of parchment.
Maybe you'll do it if you think that their speech will be mistaken for your own opinion. Maybe you'll do it if you find the speech utterly abhorrent. But you won't do it lightly, and you won't do it just because it gets a few people's undies in a bunch.
... that is, if you believe in values that are at least supposed to be universal American values.
On the other hand, if all you give a shit about is making a buck, then you'll do it at the drop of a hat. Which is your right, but other people equally have the right to call you a piece of shit for doing it.
Hell, for that matter, you could argue that a "platform" does NOT have a free-speech right to control what's said UNLESS it might be taken as the platform's own speech. Which would never happen if it were well known that all platforms were required to carry everything. Compelled speech is definitely not OK, but being compelled to provide a neutral communication service is different.
So in fact it seems likely constitutional to compel "platforms" to carry everything, regardless of how much they disagree with it, so long as it's not represented as their own opinion. That'd just be a regulation on the business of "platforming", with no actual effect on any defensible idea of "speech".
If we're going to get all legalistic about it, I mean.
There are nifty handheld XRF guns you can use to detect arsenic in your ice cream, too. Seems like an appropriate amount of due diligence before you put something in your mouth.
Trying to sell a "license" to something involves an implicit representation that you have some right to limit its use. In this case, Getty explicitly made such a representation.
It's 1000 percent certain that the only reason that anybody who pays Getty to use these images is that they think they can't legally use them without Getty's permission, and it's also 1000 percent certain that Getty is intentionally trying to create that impression.
It's fucking idiotic to expect somebody to do "research" to validate a direct claim from a supposedly credible institution that it controls the rights to something it's selling. That's an insane amount of burden shifting. Saying that "that seems to be on CixxFive. If it didn't do the research..." is exactly as compelling as saying that if sell you a poisoned ice cream cone, and yhou eat it based on my claim that it's yummy, it's on you that you didn't do the research to notice that it was full of arsenic.
Now, IANAL, but I believe that when you intentionally misrepresent facts to induce somebody to pay you, that's called fraud. I don't know what it's called when you do it negligently, but it's definitely the case that your negligence has caused somebody harm, whatever you call it.
Who actually believes that they haven't shredded or "lost" anything vaguely incriminating by now anyway? They've had a long time to "clean up" at this point...
One more thing: invalidate any ToS that requires the user to use any particular client, not to interact with a service in an automated way, etc. Make aggregators and gateways clearly legal as a matter of public policy.
That lets the existing systems deflate instead of continuing to run on the momentum of their network effects.
On the post: Game Devs Trolling Pirates Goes All The Way Back To At Least The Playstation Days With Spyro 2
Playstation? That idiocy goes back to the Apple ][.
Historical perspective, much?
On the post: Twenty-one States Inadvertently Tell The DC Circuit That The Plaintiffs Challenging FOSTA Have A Case
Re: Why just "every American's interest"
Well, sure, but, see, you just named an injury you've suffered that's specifically a consequence of this particular law. You were deprived of personal ads by the chilling effect of this nonsense.
'Course, the US courts still wouldn't recognize your injury, but you are indeed injured. So you (ought to) have a different kind of standing, more like the kind the US Government is actually talking about.
A US citizen (ought to) have standing to challenge any unconstutional act of the US government purely because the lawlessness it promotes is injurious, regardless of what specific actions it causes anybody to take. That's different.
... although I suppose you could argue that you're also injured just by the dangerous effects of living next to a giant lawless mess, so maybe you should indeed have similar standing.
On the post: Twenty-one States Inadvertently Tell The DC Circuit That The Plaintiffs Challenging FOSTA Have A Case
Re:
If I grow corn on my farm and feed it to hogs on my farm, it affects the "stream of [interstate] commerce" and subjects me to Federal interstate commerce jurisdiction.
If that kind of tenuous pseudo-connection BS works one way, it should work the other. If the Federal government does something to violate the Constitution, then every American's interest in living in a lawful constitutional republic is injured, and that means every single one of them has standing to sue for it.
I do agree that the courts are way too supine to apply such a rule, then.
On the post: Bloomberg Appears To Flub Another China Story, Insists Telnet Is A Nefarious Huawei Backdoor
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think back doors LOOK LIKE?
And sometimes a giant throbbing veiny cock is a giant throbbing veiny cock.
The point here is that observing an undisclosed Telnet server is consistent with either incompetence or a deliberate back door. The whole premise of this article is that a left-in debugging feature can't be intentional. That's a stupid positon to take.
There's no basis to draw either conclusion.
On the post: Bloomberg Appears To Flub Another China Story, Insists Telnet Is A Nefarious Huawei Backdoor
Re: Re: What do you think back doors LOOK LIKE?
Sure we do. We find "accidents" all the time. Some unknown percentage of the "accidents" that we find are back doors. Those are examples. We just don't know which ones they are. That is not evidence that none of them are, or even that few of them are.
If you can say we have no examples of "accidents" that are actually intentionally back doors, I can respond that we have no examples that are actually accidents. If you don't know for sure, you can't assume that they're all accidents any more than you can assume that they're all intentional back doors.
Actually I'm asking people to ascribe a very basic level of competence to some individual or small group. Because another thing about competently inserting back doors is that you don't involve everybody in a whole company if you don't have to.
On the post: Bloomberg Appears To Flub Another China Story, Insists Telnet Is A Nefarious Huawei Backdoor
What do you think back doors LOOK LIKE?
Nobody is stupid enough to put in an obvious back door. A back door always looks like a debug feature that somebody forgot to disable, or even like a bug.
It may indeed be a screwup, because those are extremely common. But the fact that it's a Telnet server does not mean that it's not a back door or that it's not intentional.
On the post: Tired: Insane Patent Verdicts; Wired: Insane Trade Secret Verdicts
Re: Re:
Oh my god, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
200 years? The whole US industrial base was built in the 19th century by systematically ignoring European patents... which anybody remotely qualified to have an opinion would know.
The big reason business is done in the US is that the US was relatively undamaged in the two world wars of the 20th century, and parlayed that into economic centrality and imperial status. As anybody remotely qualified to have an opinion would know.
During the consolidation of that dominant position, US patent law enforced a far more rigorous standard of novelty and non-obviousness than it presently does. Most of the US' dominance came during a period in which the standard for a patent was literally articulated as "flash of genius" rather than "not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art". Patents were much harder to get. As anybody remotely qualified to have an opinion.
Unfortunatly, stupid and uninformed people don't know those things and still feel free to act superior.
You are of course correct that the present regime forces businesses to cling to both patents and trade secrets. If your competitor gets an artificial advantage and you don't take that advantage yourself, then obviously you're much more likely to fail. That doesn't imply that it's a problem to remove the artificial advantage from everybody.
On the post: Judge Tells Research Center To Give Back Facial Recognition Documents The NYPD Forgot To Redact
Re: ... and this is why...
Hmm. I know somebody is going to miss the point of that, so just to clarify, the point of publishing is to get it out there before they can get an order like this, not to defy an order.
On the post: Judge Tells Research Center To Give Back Facial Recognition Documents The NYPD Forgot To Redact
... and this is why...
... if you happen to get your hands on a government document that's of any public interest, and that document even might be slightly embarrassing to anybody in the government or anybody who might have the ear of anybody in the government, you publish it instantly, widely, and in its entirety.
If that's inconvenient for government agencies, well, they've brought that on themselves with this kind of behavior.
On the post: State Investigator Granted Immunity For Hours-Long Detention Of Doctor At Gunpoint During A Search For Medical Records
Re:
I see somebody watches a lot of TV.
... and, as others have pointed out, doesn't read a lot of actual case material before spewing authoritarian bullshit...
On the post: State Investigator Granted Immunity For Hours-Long Detention Of Doctor At Gunpoint During A Search For Medical Records
Apparently Andy wasn't along on the raid...
... to have a talk with Barney Fife...
On the post: Complete Overreaction: Professor Calls For Shutting Down Facebook Live, Post-Christchurch
So how come you're amplifying random loony cranks?
On the post: Welcome To The Prude Internet: No More Sex Talk Allowed
Re: Re: Re: Is this censorship
... and I think you're being deliberately obtuse and hiding in legalisms.
The obvious point of grandparent's saying that the FA applies "in spirit" is that the FA is an expression of a supposedly widely held American value that says people should be able to express themselves freely. If you ACTUALLY believe in that value, then you're going to be really, really reluctant to shut anybody down on a "platform" you control, regardless of what's written on a piece of parchment.
Maybe you'll do it if you think that their speech will be mistaken for your own opinion. Maybe you'll do it if you find the speech utterly abhorrent. But you won't do it lightly, and you won't do it just because it gets a few people's undies in a bunch.
... that is, if you believe in values that are at least supposed to be universal American values.
On the other hand, if all you give a shit about is making a buck, then you'll do it at the drop of a hat. Which is your right, but other people equally have the right to call you a piece of shit for doing it.
Hell, for that matter, you could argue that a "platform" does NOT have a free-speech right to control what's said UNLESS it might be taken as the platform's own speech. Which would never happen if it were well known that all platforms were required to carry everything. Compelled speech is definitely not OK, but being compelled to provide a neutral communication service is different.
So in fact it seems likely constitutional to compel "platforms" to carry everything, regardless of how much they disagree with it, so long as it's not represented as their own opinion. That'd just be a regulation on the business of "platforming", with no actual effect on any defensible idea of "speech".
If we're going to get all legalistic about it, I mean.
On the post: Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images
Re: Re: Oh, come the fuck on
There are nifty handheld XRF guns you can use to detect arsenic in your ice cream, too. Seems like an appropriate amount of due diligence before you put something in your mouth.
On the post: Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images
Oh, come the fuck on
Trying to sell a "license" to something involves an implicit representation that you have some right to limit its use. In this case, Getty explicitly made such a representation.
It's 1000 percent certain that the only reason that anybody who pays Getty to use these images is that they think they can't legally use them without Getty's permission, and it's also 1000 percent certain that Getty is intentionally trying to create that impression.
It's fucking idiotic to expect somebody to do "research" to validate a direct claim from a supposedly credible institution that it controls the rights to something it's selling. That's an insane amount of burden shifting. Saying that "that seems to be on CixxFive. If it didn't do the research..." is exactly as compelling as saying that if sell you a poisoned ice cream cone, and yhou eat it based on my claim that it's yummy, it's on you that you didn't do the research to notice that it was full of arsenic.
Now, IANAL, but I believe that when you intentionally misrepresent facts to induce somebody to pay you, that's called fraud. I don't know what it's called when you do it negligently, but it's definitely the case that your negligence has caused somebody harm, whatever you call it.
On the post: Second California Appeals Court Refuses To Review Police Unions' Challenge Of State Public Records Law
Who actually believes that they haven't shredded or "lost" anything vaguely incriminating by now anyway? They've had a long time to "clean up" at this point...
On the post: ICE Officers Forging Signatures, Deploying Pre-Signed Warrants To Detain Immigrants
"Supervisors"???
Wait a minute.
So what amounts to a fucking police sergeant is AUTHORIZED to sign (what amounts to) an arrest warrant?
And they can't even fucking handle that?
On the post: How To Actually Break Up Big Tech
One more thing: invalidate any ToS that requires the user to use any particular client, not to interact with a service in an automated way, etc. Make aggregators and gateways clearly legal as a matter of public policy.
That lets the existing systems deflate instead of continuing to run on the momentum of their network effects.
On the post: United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I intended to reply to this but ended up posting the reply as a separate top-level comment. Sorry about that.
On the post: United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
Re: Re:
If you have 33 active emergencies, that's proof that the checks you have in place don't work.
It doesn't matter WHY they don't work. The point is that they don't work and you need to change the system.
It's not like "partisan politics" are some unusual phenomenon that you shouldn't take into account when you design the process.
Next >>