What happens when someone puts an illicit copy of something or an illegal something -- child porn, a human 'trafficking' sex ad, whatever -- on the front steps of a courthouse?
If the mere possibility of the emplacement is all the matters, despite having rules (laws) against it makes the host liable, then the court would be liable.
Suddenly illegal graffiti could become an attack vector at almost any organization or institution!
Ah, but unless they have receipts for those implements and can prove they didn't buy them with proceeds from a crime, the government will just confiscate them.
Came here to comment about this. You could indeed block just about any content a government site or individual members of that government post, as the law seems to be written.
But I bet they'll make themselves exempt from their law -- corrupt politicians always do.
It could just as easily be a political statement. Imagine a judge getting annoyed with, say, Colin Kaepernick getting a jaywalking ticket and ordering him to repudiate the kneeling thing and never kneel again during the anthem? What if George Takei got a traffic ticket and was ordered to henceforth be anti-gay rights?
There is GREATER precedent and authority for a judge to order the above things than there is for a judge to order what this judge did.
If what Google is doing was in fact illegal under anti-competition laws, then a car company would break the same law every time they made a car that was faster or got better mileage or even had more comfortable seats than their competitors, and thereby got a larger market share.
You'd get shot by the SWAT team. Just standing in plain view on a public sidewalk outside a police station with a video camera can get an armed response.
If you stand outside a police department, on a completely public sidewalk while holding a video camera, police will come outside and harass you or even arrest you in much of the country.
These same police are usually the ones who insist that they should be able to surveil anyone they want whenever they want, without a warrant. The surveillance they carry out is nearly always more invasive than a guy with a camera on a sidewalk, and nearly always aimed at private property rather than public buildings.
Yet they react as if they had found an in-progress terrorist attack when they see the guy with the camera.
I personally wonder if the law is written neutrally, or if only the Singapore government can declare a post 'fake'? If any 'fake' can be labeled as such in Singapore, it would be hilarious if the government's posts got labeled that way when shared...
The authoritarians always forget that that sort of approach would also work for ending police brutality and government corruption. It’s known as Thomas Jefferson’s reset button.
"The only "infringement" would, then, have been the result of your client's own inspection of the page."
If the client owns the copyright but only saw the image because that client or their agent requested a copy from the website the image resides on, then that request creates a license to make one copy. And the image the client saw was actually a licensed, authorized image!
This is why it's all but impossible to judge whether any given image found online is authorized. Take a picture of something with a digital camera. Leave the memory card from the camera lying on a table. Someone who isn't the photographer picks up the card and uses it without the photographer's permission to post the image to Facebook then puts it back on the table. Then the photographer comes back and uses the card to post the image to Facebook as well.
The two images on Facebook are identical in every way except the time stamp of the Facebook post. But one is legal and the other is copyright infringement. If Facebook were to keep the one with the earlier time stamp and ban the poster of the second one for copyright violation, that would be supporting the copyright violator over the actual owner. But there is no other way to do copyright moderation without either doing none at all or forbidding all content from being posted at all!
Or better still, if the host of a second- or third-party message is liable, perhaps someone should paint an illegal message on the steps of the NSW supreme court's courthouse?
Even if the host's rules/laws say you can't post it, the fact you were able to post it would make the host liable.
For some reason, while courts will come down with both boots on someone being sent to prison for an excessive time for a minor crime, they usually have no problems with a judge sending someone to prison for life for exercising a constitutional right the judge disagrees with.
This is one reason I don't use facial recognition or a fingerprint to unlock my devices. Providing a biometric key is a physical act. Remembering a password is a product of the mind, and speaking or writing it is testimonial.
I don't intentionally break laws, but there are so many covering so many things that even federal judges can't definitively tell whether any given act is lawful or not, nor can they tell anyone how many federal laws there are. And then you have state, county and city laws as well, plus the odd contractual requirement you may have misread or just plain missed in a contract somewhere.
On the post: Why Intermediary Liability Protections Matter: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt May Be Collateral Damage To A Bad Court Ruling
Forget Kinko's
What happens when someone puts an illicit copy of something or an illegal something -- child porn, a human 'trafficking' sex ad, whatever -- on the front steps of a courthouse?
If the mere possibility of the emplacement is all the matters, despite having rules (laws) against it makes the host liable, then the court would be liable.
Suddenly illegal graffiti could become an attack vector at almost any organization or institution!
On the post: Trinidad And Tobago's 'You Can't Afford That' Forfeiture Law Claims Its First Victims
Re: Re: Ah the authoritarian/voyeur classics...
Ah, but unless they have receipts for those implements and can prove they didn't buy them with proceeds from a crime, the government will just confiscate them.
On the post: Trolling The Trademark Troll: Lemonade CEO Releases Chrome Extension To Remove Magenta From Websites
Re:
Not anymore.
On the post: France, As Promised, Is First Out Of The Gate With Its Awful Copyright Directive Law: Ignores Requirements For User Protections
Re:
Came here to comment about this. You could indeed block just about any content a government site or individual members of that government post, as the law seems to be written.
But I bet they'll make themselves exempt from their law -- corrupt politicians always do.
On the post: France, As Promised, Is First Out Of The Gate With Its Awful Copyright Directive Law: Ignores Requirements For User Protections
Re: Don't Blame France
At least they have plenty of cheese to eat.
On the post: Judge Orders Man Who Violated Recording Ban To Publish An Essay About Respecting The Court AND To Delete All Negative Comments From Readers
US Code Title 18, Sections 241 & 242
How, precisely, can a judge issue an order that the government is prohibited by statute from issuing, and not commit a felony by doing so?
Remember, judges are not exempt from arrest, they only have absolute immunity to CIVIL lawsuits for their actions on the bench!
https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section
On the post: Judge Orders Man Who Violated Recording Ban To Publish An Essay About Respecting The Court AND To Delete All Negative Comments From Readers
Re: compelled speech?
It could just as easily be a political statement. Imagine a judge getting annoyed with, say, Colin Kaepernick getting a jaywalking ticket and ordering him to repudiate the kneeling thing and never kneel again during the anthem? What if George Takei got a traffic ticket and was ordered to henceforth be anti-gay rights?
There is GREATER precedent and authority for a judge to order the above things than there is for a judge to order what this judge did.
On the post: It Doesn't Take A Genius To Recognize How Dumb Genius' Lawsuit Against Google Is Over 'Stolen' Lyrics
Re: Re:
If what Google is doing was in fact illegal under anti-competition laws, then a car company would break the same law every time they made a car that was faster or got better mileage or even had more comfortable seats than their competitors, and thereby got a larger market share.
On the post: Colorado Appeals Court: Three Months Of Surveillance Via Pole-Mounted Camera Is Unconstitutional
Re:
You'd get shot by the SWAT team. Just standing in plain view on a public sidewalk outside a police station with a video camera can get an armed response.
On the post: Colorado Appeals Court: Three Months Of Surveillance Via Pole-Mounted Camera Is Unconstitutional
Re: Not a difficult concept to grasp, you'd think
If you stand outside a police department, on a completely public sidewalk while holding a video camera, police will come outside and harass you or even arrest you in much of the country.
These same police are usually the ones who insist that they should be able to surveil anyone they want whenever they want, without a warrant. The surveillance they carry out is nearly always more invasive than a guy with a camera on a sidewalk, and nearly always aimed at private property rather than public buildings.
Yet they react as if they had found an in-progress terrorist attack when they see the guy with the camera.
On the post: Facebook Now Altering Users' Posts To Add Singapore Government's 'Fake News' Warnings
Re:
I personally wonder if the law is written neutrally, or if only the Singapore government can declare a post 'fake'? If any 'fake' can be labeled as such in Singapore, it would be hilarious if the government's posts got labeled that way when shared...
On the post: As Devin Nunes Threatens More SLAPP Suits, He May Have To Explain Why Cows Can Type In His First SLAPP Suit
Obviously they use voice-to-text software!
"Moo. Moooo, moomoo moo moo, moo!? Moo!"
On the post: Copyright Troll Threatens Criminal Charges In Germany Against Domain Registrar
Re: Re:
By the ‘logic’ displayed in that ruling, you could sue the German government for copyright violation because a German citizen didn’t have a license.
On the post: EU Tells US: Ban Strong Encryption, And Privacy Shield Data Sharing Agreement Could Be At Risk
Re:
Every government and political party is usually oddly okay with doing things they consider heinous crimes if anyone else does them.
On the post: EU Tells US: Ban Strong Encryption, And Privacy Shield Data Sharing Agreement Could Be At Risk
Re: Re: Re: Nerding Harder
The authoritarians always forget that that sort of approach would also work for ending police brutality and government corruption. It’s known as Thomas Jefferson’s reset button.
On the post: EU Tells US: Ban Strong Encryption, And Privacy Shield Data Sharing Agreement Could Be At Risk
Re: Re: Nerding Harder
FBI is a subdivision of DOJ.
On the post: Copyright Troll Mathew Higbee Demands ~$1,000 For Image Only His Team Viewed
Oh dear...
"The only "infringement" would, then, have been the result of your client's own inspection of the page."
If the client owns the copyright but only saw the image because that client or their agent requested a copy from the website the image resides on, then that request creates a license to make one copy. And the image the client saw was actually a licensed, authorized image!
This is why it's all but impossible to judge whether any given image found online is authorized. Take a picture of something with a digital camera. Leave the memory card from the camera lying on a table. Someone who isn't the photographer picks up the card and uses it without the photographer's permission to post the image to Facebook then puts it back on the table. Then the photographer comes back and uses the card to post the image to Facebook as well.
The two images on Facebook are identical in every way except the time stamp of the Facebook post. But one is legal and the other is copyright infringement. If Facebook were to keep the one with the earlier time stamp and ban the poster of the second one for copyright violation, that would be supporting the copyright violator over the actual owner. But there is no other way to do copyright moderation without either doing none at all or forbidding all content from being posted at all!
On the post: Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse
Re: I guess this means that…
Or better still, if the host of a second- or third-party message is liable, perhaps someone should paint an illegal message on the steps of the NSW supreme court's courthouse?
Even if the host's rules/laws say you can't post it, the fact you were able to post it would make the host liable.
On the post: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says Compelled Password Production Violates The Fifth Amendment
Re: Compelling
For some reason, while courts will come down with both boots on someone being sent to prison for an excessive time for a minor crime, they usually have no problems with a judge sending someone to prison for life for exercising a constitutional right the judge disagrees with.
On the post: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says Compelled Password Production Violates The Fifth Amendment
Physical keys versus mental keys
This is one reason I don't use facial recognition or a fingerprint to unlock my devices. Providing a biometric key is a physical act. Remembering a password is a product of the mind, and speaking or writing it is testimonial.
I don't intentionally break laws, but there are so many covering so many things that even federal judges can't definitively tell whether any given act is lawful or not, nor can they tell anyone how many federal laws there are. And then you have state, county and city laws as well, plus the odd contractual requirement you may have misread or just plain missed in a contract somewhere.
It's safer to keep your keys in your mind alone.
Next >>