I was figuring someone needs to submit a picture of someone else using the app to take a picture of something suspicious...
Me too, but it was at the back of a line of people all taking pictures of the person in line in front of them, stretching all the way down 5th Avenue to the vanishing point.
In order to keep the app focused on safety, users should report only suspicious behavior and situations (e.g., an unattended backpack or briefcase in a public place) ...
1. Go for a walk:
i) Stuff backpack. ii) Walk to City Hall, Central PD station, Dept. of Sanitation Office, ... iii) Lean backpack against something and take pic with "ii" in background. iv) Send pic to governor. v) Pick up backpack and continue to next location. vi) Alternatively, take pic of any backpack you can that you can take without owner in resulting pic.
And this looked like a good idea to someone, why exactly?
Re: "I am not a crook... and you don't have the power or authority to say otherwise."
Kircher argued that the STOCK Act did not explicitly authorize the SEC to issue subpoenas to Congress, even to investigate insider trading.
Can we use that too? Nobody asks us whether we allow them to prosecute us for insider trading. They'd rightfully laugh at us if we insisted they need our permission to enforce the law.
The state should be allowed to bring a claim, not just a counter-claim.
Why get so technical over such a simple thing? A country's gov't defines the law of the land. If a company doesn't like how the country's laws say things will happen, they can fight and/or leave. If Pakistan wants to deprive its citizens of Blackberry's services, that's between Pakistan's gov't and its citizens. Blackberry can take the financial hit and leave, or compromise/fold, and Pakistan can try to explain to its citizens why Blackberry's leaving or why Pakistan's right.
more Conservative or Conservative leaning governments are in power now than ever before and are they making the most of it!
I think that's irrelevant. Politicians all are selling out to the moochers. Politicians sell their access to governmental power (legislative authority) for campaign "donations." No-one in a position of power sees anything wrong with this. It was done this way in Rome, it'll be done until we force it to stop. That last bit is the tricky bit. How's that going to happen?
If all a service provider does is provide connectivity, that means it lacks the ability to remove specific content and therefore the authority to deal with DMCA requests.
True, but this isn't about DMCA takedown requests. This's allowing accused infingers to be repeat offenders with impunity. I happen to think the law is so badly written, Cox is perfectly in the clear here. Upon a sixth strike detected they cut off the infringer, give him a stern talking to, then reconnect them after they receive a reconnection request/acknowledgement. Job done. Oh, you don't like it done that way? Who the hell are you, and what's the law say ought to be done?
The Hosting company has the ability and the legal obligation to disconnect your service if they receive DMCA notices and you do not remove the content and respect the notices.
There's theory, and then there's practice, and remember we're talking computers here. Users don't ordinarily know how things get done on a computer, or network. If they're just using a torrenting client to download a tune, they don't necessarily know that that thing is serving bits to others at the same time it's getting them. The original networking paradigm I grew up with was every box is a server or client. With X Window, I can tell a remote machine to execute a process and display it's interface on my local box. Users don't (or shouldn't) need to care about how it's done, as long as it gets done.
Hollywood has its own flawed interpretation of what networking is, and they're trying to fit their round peg in a square hole, to everyone's (except certain lawyers' and "rights protector" middlemen (ie. Rightscorp)) detriment.
The moment an ISP terminates a user by continuing to download infringing content, the ISP simply cannot claim protection under the DMCA nor under Section 230 because they allowed their customers to simply sign up for a new account allowing those customers to start infringing all over again.
If that was the intention, perhaps the law ought to actually say that. Oh, and where's the bit about being convicted for copyright infringement? All I see are accusations. If I accuse you of being a child molester, are you then a child molester?
You are responsible for who you let use your network. Just like if you let someone borrow your car and they commit a crime with it, you have liability.
IANAL, but I don't think so. Is the city liable for making a road that bank robbers used to get to your vault? Lots of people don't lock down their routers. They like to share bandwidth. I think that's foolish (spammers, malicious hackers, &c), but that's their business.
BTW, please lose the "you pirates" BS. I'm not a pirate, I'm a boycotter. I just hate stupid laws, and this is stupid law.
The DMCA empowers rightsholders to decide if a work is infringing.
It empowers them to claim a work is infringing, and if that's mistaken the accused merely says so and it's up to the claimant to take it to court. I've seen thousands of reports of them claiming erroneously (127.0.0.1). See Wordpress, for example, for their rogue's gallery of bad DMCA attempts.
You're being overpaid if this's the sort of result you're capable of.
Seems to me the person who wrote this email needs to look up the definition of "unwritten".
Unwritten as in "Shhh" and not to be found in the AUP, else the cash cow infringers might find somewhere else to send their money.
This debacle shows Cox was pretty stupid all around, to the point of actually making Rightscorp look like they had a moral leg to stand on. Lying to customers, lying to rightsholders, lying to the public, lying to the authorities, and (at least temporarily) cutting off infringers when it was unnecessary to do so. Smart. :-P
I've got to imagine this was in direct response to the Marathon bombings.
Perhaps, but my money's still on the War On Drugs And Minorities, Especially Blacks And Chicanos.
Would we have SWAT teams with MRAPs in one horse towns without the War On Drugs? Not to mention full prisons, civil forfeiture, prosecutorial overreach, and every cop in existence apparently terrified of cell-phones? I doubt it.
One example they gave to "educate the public" was that of teenage girls who have sex with their boyfriends as a result of peer pressure from other teenage girls.
Gee, just like the same pressure teenage boys are under from their peers to "get laid." Just sayin'.
How about we give them both a little education, explain what their hormones are doing to them at that age and what they can do about that, supply them with contraceptives, then butt out?
Generally speaking, neither do I. On the other hand, it does have the single virtue of being the only thing that certain sorts of predators understand, and we'd be foolish (or lunch) if we didn't at least have it in the toolbox and are willing to use it when necessary. On the third hand, pointing a weapon at a predator is not the same as assaulting that predator. Warnings or threats can often eliminate the need to actually carry through.
When the wolves become convinced that the only thing protecting the sheep is a shepherd with a stick, it's time to show them what that stick (or rifle) can do. I'm growing very tired of this always being on the lookout for these predators. Perhaps they need to be culled. If not now, the way they're going that time will eventually arrive.
Remember SOPA? ACTA? They keep trying to bring them back because we clobber them each time they do.
So, we need to demand of our representatives that we need a law that would stop them from coming back. The law's broken (and worthless) if all it takes to defeat it is perseverence.
They're acting like four year olds trying to get out of getting busted for cookie theft. The lawyer and gov't says it's all perfectly legal. Okay, tell us why. No!!! We can't tell you! NatSec!!!
What bullshit. We have to be thinking, if you have something to hide, you must have something to fear. Is it that Constitution thingamahooey? It sure appears to be that looking in. If so, this should be cleared up ASAP, or somebody ought to be on their way to jail just for trying to hide that.
My guess is, this's the smoking gun that'd convict Bush and Cheney of War Crimes, and Obama's administration's just as complicit since taking over from them.
Release the memos and prove me wrong. Every day they don't it'll only get worse. Soon, we'll be accusing Obama of assassinating the Kennedys.
Are they investigating the implementers too, I hope?
The investigation continues as we look at additional ways to strengthen the security of all on-line services provided by VTech.
Additional to the current absolute lack of security, as apparently there was none. How can people write shit like this with a straight face? Have we managed to completely de-select away that gene that once allowed us to admit, "We fucked up, sorry. We'll do our best to fix this, and put in the necessary effort to ensure nothing like it ever happens again. We feel really stupid right now, and the idiot whose job it was to handle this is being flogged to death as we write."
Looking at the redactions in this case, I have to wonder if whoever was doing the job purposefully botched it in order to intentionally weaken the governments arguments in court.
I have to wonder if they're just tying up or filling the queue with as much crap as they can find to slow the process down to the speed of molasses in Antarctica. With shit like this tying up the courts, we can just give up on this vector. It's a pointless exercise in time and resource wasting.
No, that would depend entirely on whether the lawyer had enough degrees.
How much more circular is this argument going to get? I believe we've defined its circumference now, unless there's a spherical dimension yet to be revealed.
On the post: NY Governor Announces App Version Of State's 'See Something, Say Something' Program
Re: Re:
Me too, but it was at the back of a line of people all taking pictures of the person in line in front of them, stretching all the way down 5th Avenue to the vanishing point.
On the post: NY Governor Announces App Version Of State's 'See Something, Say Something' Program
Things to do today ...
1. Go for a walk:
i) Stuff backpack.
ii) Walk to City Hall, Central PD station, Dept. of Sanitation Office, ...
iii) Lean backpack against something and take pic with "ii" in background.
iv) Send pic to governor.
v) Pick up backpack and continue to next location.
vi) Alternatively, take pic of any backpack you can that you can take without owner in resulting pic.
And this looked like a good idea to someone, why exactly?
On the post: Turkish Court Establishes A Special 'Expert Panel' To Determine If Comparing Prime Minister To Gollum Is An Insult
Re:
He's got it already.
On the post: Congress Still Fighting SEC's Investigation Of Alleged Insider Trading By Its Members
Re: "I am not a crook... and you don't have the power or authority to say otherwise."
Can we use that too? Nobody asks us whether we allow them to prosecute us for insider trading. They'd rightfully laugh at us if we insisted they need our permission to enforce the law.
On the post: Six Key Flaws In The EU's Proposed 'New' Corporate Sovereignty Court
Re: about that "same process" bit
Why get so technical over such a simple thing? A country's gov't defines the law of the land. If a company doesn't like how the country's laws say things will happen, they can fight and/or leave. If Pakistan wants to deprive its citizens of Blackberry's services, that's between Pakistan's gov't and its citizens. Blackberry can take the financial hit and leave, or compromise/fold, and Pakistan can try to explain to its citizens why Blackberry's leaving or why Pakistan's right.
On the post: Six Key Flaws In The EU's Proposed 'New' Corporate Sovereignty Court
Re:
I think that's irrelevant. Politicians all are selling out to the moochers. Politicians sell their access to governmental power (legislative authority) for campaign "donations." No-one in a position of power sees anything wrong with this. It was done this way in Rome, it'll be done until we force it to stop. That last bit is the tricky bit. How's that going to happen?
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but this isn't about DMCA takedown requests. This's allowing accused infingers to be repeat offenders with impunity. I happen to think the law is so badly written, Cox is perfectly in the clear here. Upon a sixth strike detected they cut off the infringer, give him a stern talking to, then reconnect them after they receive a reconnection request/acknowledgement. Job done. Oh, you don't like it done that way? Who the hell are you, and what's the law say ought to be done?
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re:
There's theory, and then there's practice, and remember we're talking computers here. Users don't ordinarily know how things get done on a computer, or network. If they're just using a torrenting client to download a tune, they don't necessarily know that that thing is serving bits to others at the same time it's getting them. The original networking paradigm I grew up with was every box is a server or client. With X Window, I can tell a remote machine to execute a process and display it's interface on my local box. Users don't (or shouldn't) need to care about how it's done, as long as it gets done.
Hollywood has its own flawed interpretation of what networking is, and they're trying to fit their round peg in a square hole, to everyone's (except certain lawyers' and "rights protector" middlemen (ie. Rightscorp)) detriment.
On the post: Judge In FBI Case Was Forced To Redact His Mocking Of FBI's Ridiculous Arguments
Re: Re: A Redactor with a conscience?
We've had this lesson, but people are naturally lazy, unfortunately. That can change.
People who don't remember history, blah, blah, blah.
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Child molester!
If that was the intention, perhaps the law ought to actually say that. Oh, and where's the bit about being convicted for copyright infringement? All I see are accusations. If I accuse you of being a child molester, are you then a child molester?
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re: Re:
IANAL, but I don't think so. Is the city liable for making a road that bank robbers used to get to your vault? Lots of people don't lock down their routers. They like to share bandwidth. I think that's foolish (spammers, malicious hackers, &c), but that's their business.
BTW, please lose the "you pirates" BS. I'm not a pirate, I'm a boycotter. I just hate stupid laws, and this is stupid law.
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: Re:
It empowers them to claim a work is infringing, and if that's mistaken the accused merely says so and it's up to the claimant to take it to court. I've seen thousands of reports of them claiming erroneously (127.0.0.1). See Wordpress, for example, for their rogue's gallery of bad DMCA attempts.
You're being overpaid if this's the sort of result you're capable of.
On the post: The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law
Re: You keep using that word...
Unwritten as in "Shhh" and not to be found in the AUP, else the cash cow infringers might find somewhere else to send their money.
This debacle shows Cox was pretty stupid all around, to the point of actually making Rightscorp look like they had a moral leg to stand on. Lying to customers, lying to rightsholders, lying to the public, lying to the authorities, and (at least temporarily) cutting off infringers when it was unnecessary to do so. Smart. :-P
On the post: Boston PD Finally Confirms It Has A Stingray Device In Its Possession
Re:
Perhaps, but my money's still on the War On Drugs And Minorities, Especially Blacks And Chicanos.
Would we have SWAT teams with MRAPs in one horse towns without the War On Drugs? Not to mention full prisons, civil forfeiture, prosecutorial overreach, and every cop in existence apparently terrified of cell-phones? I doubt it.
The WOD is where the money is.
On the post: L.A. Politician Proposes Bold Plan To Wreck Homes, Destroy Lives And Abuse License Plate Reader Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gee, just like the same pressure teenage boys are under from their peers to "get laid." Just sayin'.
How about we give them both a little education, explain what their hormones are doing to them at that age and what they can do about that, supply them with contraceptives, then butt out?
On the post: UK's Snooper's Charter Hands Over Access To User Data To Several Non-Law Enforcement Agencies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Generally speaking, neither do I. On the other hand, it does have the single virtue of being the only thing that certain sorts of predators understand, and we'd be foolish (or lunch) if we didn't at least have it in the toolbox and are willing to use it when necessary. On the third hand, pointing a weapon at a predator is not the same as assaulting that predator. Warnings or threats can often eliminate the need to actually carry through.
When the wolves become convinced that the only thing protecting the sheep is a shepherd with a stick, it's time to show them what that stick (or rifle) can do. I'm growing very tired of this always being on the lookout for these predators. Perhaps they need to be culled. If not now, the way they're going that time will eventually arrive.
So, we need to demand of our representatives that we need a law that would stop them from coming back. The law's broken (and worthless) if all it takes to defeat it is perseverence.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Secret Drone Memos Can Stay Secret
What an astonishing level of BS.
What bullshit. We have to be thinking, if you have something to hide, you must have something to fear. Is it that Constitution thingamahooey? It sure appears to be that looking in. If so, this should be cleared up ASAP, or somebody ought to be on their way to jail just for trying to hide that.
My guess is, this's the smoking gun that'd convict Bush and Cheney of War Crimes, and Obama's administration's just as complicit since taking over from them.
Release the memos and prove me wrong. Every day they don't it'll only get worse. Soon, we'll be accusing Obama of assassinating the Kennedys.
On the post: Toy Maker Vtech Hacked, Revealing Kids' Selfies, Chat Logs, & Even Voice Recordings
Are they investigating the implementers too, I hope?
Additional to the current absolute lack of security, as apparently there was none. How can people write shit like this with a straight face? Have we managed to completely de-select away that gene that once allowed us to admit, "We fucked up, sorry. We'll do our best to fix this, and put in the necessary effort to ensure nothing like it ever happens again. We feel really stupid right now, and the idiot whose job it was to handle this is being flogged to death as we write."
On the post: Judge In FBI Case Was Forced To Redact His Mocking Of FBI's Ridiculous Arguments
Re: A Redactor with a conscience?
I have to wonder if they're just tying up or filling the queue with as much crap as they can find to slow the process down to the speed of molasses in Antarctica. With shit like this tying up the courts, we can just give up on this vector. It's a pointless exercise in time and resource wasting.
On the post: Judge In FBI Case Was Forced To Redact His Mocking Of FBI's Ridiculous Arguments
Re: Re: Re: Re: RADIUS
How much more circular is this argument going to get? I believe we've defined its circumference now, unless there's a spherical dimension yet to be revealed.
Next >>