I don't agree with their idea, but I can't say I don't understand either. They've seen what US - both as a government and as private companies - does with the internet (and in real life). Surveillance, hacking, whole-country ban (even if that's sometimes justified). Not saying that Russia is all clean either, but that helps understand why the historical nemesis of US might want to take protective measures against digital actions from a country that has already proven that "freedom" and "human rights" are things it likes to advocate for others but is applying very selectively to itself.
It should be fine for Google to stop answering DMCA requests, because they don't host the content, only links. However, some countries allowed "links" to be considered as infringing as direct "content". All it would take is one similar judgement in US to make Google liable again.
Re: He's bad here, but the 10,000 hours thing, well…
Except that is still wrong.
Depending on what you're talking about, you might not need 10k hours. Or you might need more. The study he based this claim on was about violin. More accurately, the average time violin students in an elite school practiced by the age of 20... not even by the time they "mastered" playing violin. Then, other claims were made based on the same fallacy: looking through lots of numbers for the very few ones that match your point.
The article links to a detailed explanation of all this already. It explains that Gladwell started the fallacy here, handpicking a round number from the study (the average of 10k hours of practice by the age of 20) to show a point, although that doesn't make for a clear landmark of "mastering a skill". (You probably need to double that according to one of the authors of the study.)
Great, more of the "you're wrong but I don't need to prove it" argument. You know, you don't need to quote them all. Just pick a few to make your point or don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
First, wrong debate. This is not "privacy vs security", but "privacy vs convenience". Next...
I get it you don't have a smartphone. Scratch that. I get it you don't have a mobile phone. Nasty little trackers that report your position at all times and broadcast all your conversations...
Probably no credit card either. Wait, rather not have a bank account at all. Some people can just go and check your transaction history.
Seriously, there is a balance to reach. Where the balance lies exactly is up to each of us, but there is no such thing as absolute privacy. Unless you choose to leave as a hermit somewhere far off.
Oh wait, you just commented on the internet. Maybe I should just forget your posturing.
Re: "Here's all the relevant files." "There's nothing there." "Exactly."
I kind of agree with your point, but I think the police expected something else. With an "always on microphone" in the room, they probably wanted to hear a recording of argument or other incriminating evidence, not a request for a way out of a murder conviction. They might simply not realize that the "always on listening" from the device doesn't mean "always on recording" as the article explains.
So, although I think as you do that the would be no relevant recordings (except if someone called "Alexa" during the possible fight), I can understand their expectations.
Let's sum it up: it's obvious, overbroad and has lots of prior art, both in this exact context and others. But it's a valid patent, which means it encourages innovation. By preventing both actual innovation and an obvious use of an old technology (the cart) without any new technology. Which means the only thing actually patented there is a process. An idea. This is literally "use non patented object in a specific way" (not even an innovative one at that).
No, the concept of qualified immunity is good. The problem, as with many good things, is the abuse.
You want judges and attorneys to be free from the risk of counter-suits... most of the times. Otherwise, you open the door to lots of abuse from criminals who managed a win, by lack of evidence or by technicality.
What you want is a limit. A possibility to denounce abuses like this one, where an attorney is free to prosecute someone time and again, harassing and leading to huge costs for the defendant to no risk or expense for the attorney himself/herself.
The funny part with lots of such IOT items is that there is an obvious "opt-in", namely wifi settings. The only problem being that, in most cases, you don't cheeky know what you "opt-in" for when setting up wifi. You are asked wifi network name and password, probably telling the one funny feature or service you'll get out of bringing your item online, but you're rarely told the whole details: poor security and data collection are rarely advertised.
As I see it, the main problem today is the "limited times" section. When copyright lasts for more than a generation, and is extended by 20 years every 20 years, we can't talk about "limited times" anymore.
Copyright should be brought back to proper time. Something like the original 14 years, that you can extend once for another 14 years if you actively request it, that wouldn't be so bad when most studies seem to conclude that 15 years is the best balance.
Also, that would clear up that pre-1972 mess since the limit would be long past.
it would be nearly impossible to hack the elections since they are spread across 50 states
Most stupid statement ever. Given your election system, you only need to "influence" a few select states to change the outcome.
Also, you really think it's that difficult for an organization to find how to hack 50 systems? Not to mention that "50 states" doesn't mean "50 different systems".
So, I don't really think Trump needed a hack to win. The system itself is rigged (electoral college system, voter suppression, gerrymandering), making voter fraud nearly pointless.
Just a couple of reminders to put things in perspective.
- Snowden might have started a larger movement of whistleblowers. He was not the first, but he was the first to go so massively public with so many papers at once. I can believe that, after him, Obama has to deal with more whistleblowers than any president before.
- On the other hand, wet have Patreus. He leaked documents for his own personal benefit (some minor fame, and a woman), not for the benefit of the public... and he got a light sentence, no outcry, no call for his head on a spike... and an interview with the new president-elect for a job in the next government. Because he's a valuable and honorable person.
It seems the message is clear. You can leak national secrets. Just do it for personal profit. That means you're not a threat to the system in place. Questioning the system if the one thing the government will not treat lightly.
They can't plead guilty but they can't be proven innocent either.
And this, right here is where we have a problem.
The normal rule of law is "innocent until proven guilty", not "jailed until proven innocent". This last one should be a rare exception for well defined cases.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: Putin's Adviser Says Russia Must Be Ready To Disconnect Itself From The Global Internet
Not saying that Russia is all clean either, but that helps understand why the historical nemesis of US might want to take protective measures against digital actions from a country that has already proven that "freedom" and "human rights" are things it likes to advocate for others but is applying very selectively to itself.
On the post: Google Apparently No Longer Humoring Court Orders To Delist Defamatory Content
Re: How about doing this also for DMCA notices
However, some countries allowed "links" to be considered as infringing as direct "content". All it would take is one similar judgement in US to make Google liable again.
On the post: RIAA Still Pushing Its Bogus Message Of A 'Value Gap' And 'Fair Compensation'
Re: Reinterpreted
On the post: RIAA Still Pushing Its Bogus Message Of A 'Value Gap' And 'Fair Compensation'
Re:
Close but not quite. They want us to "nerd harder" and to pay them for the privilege.
On the post: Malcolm Gladwell's Ridiculous Attack On Ed Snowden Based On Weird Prejudice About How A Whistleblower Should Look
Re: He's bad here, but the 10,000 hours thing, well…
Depending on what you're talking about, you might not need 10k hours. Or you might need more. The study he based this claim on was about violin. More accurately, the average time violin students in an elite school practiced by the age of 20... not even by the time they "mastered" playing violin.
Then, other claims were made based on the same fallacy: looking through lots of numbers for the very few ones that match your point.
The article links to a detailed explanation of all this already. It explains that Gladwell started the fallacy here, handpicking a round number from the study (the average of 10k hours of practice by the age of 20) to show a point, although that doesn't make for a clear landmark of "mastering a skill". (You probably need to double that according to one of the authors of the study.)
On the post: Aussie Productivity Commission Doubles Down On Fair Use And Serious Copyright & Patent Reform
Re:
You know, you don't need to quote them all. Just pick a few to make your point or don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
On the post: UK Councils Used Massive Surveillance Powers To Spy On... Excessively Barking Dogs & Illegal Pigeon Feeding
RFC 1149
Is Allerdale borough council so concerned that terrorist would follow RFC 1149?
On the post: Amazon Refuses To Comply With Police Request For Amazon Echo Recordings In Murder Case
Re:
I get it you don't have a smartphone.
Scratch that.
I get it you don't have a mobile phone.
Nasty little trackers that report your position at all times and broadcast all your conversations...
Probably no credit card either.
Wait, rather not have a bank account at all. Some people can just go and check your transaction history.
Seriously, there is a balance to reach. Where the balance lies exactly is up to each of us, but there is no such thing as absolute privacy. Unless you choose to leave as a hermit somewhere far off.
Oh wait, you just commented on the internet.
Maybe I should just forget your posturing.
On the post: Amazon Refuses To Comply With Police Request For Amazon Echo Recordings In Murder Case
Re: "Here's all the relevant files." "There's nothing there." "Exactly."
They might simply not realize that the "always on listening" from the device doesn't mean "always on recording" as the article explains.
So, although I think as you do that the would be no relevant recordings (except if someone called "Alexa" during the possible fight), I can understand their expectations.
On the post: DHS Now Asking Visa Applicants For Their Social Media Account Info
Well, not yet.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Carrying Trays On A Cart
But it's a valid patent, which means it encourages innovation. By preventing both actual innovation and an obvious use of an old technology (the cart) without any new technology. Which means the only thing actually patented there is a process. An idea.
This is literally "use non patented object in a specific way" (not even an innovative one at that).
How did that meet any standard of patentability?
On the post: Merry Christmas: Kamala Harris Files Brand New Criminal Charges Against Backpage Execs After Last Ones Were Tossed Out
Re: Re: Can the state bar pull her license?
You want judges and attorneys to be free from the risk of counter-suits... most of the times. Otherwise, you open the door to lots of abuse from criminals who managed a win, by lack of evidence or by technicality.
What you want is a limit. A possibility to denounce abuses like this one, where an attorney is free to prosecute someone time and again, harassing and leading to huge costs for the defendant to no risk or expense for the attorney himself/herself.
On the post: Smart Vibrator Company Settles Lawsuit For Over-Collection Of, Uh, Personal Data
Re: Not the worst thing ever.
You are asked wifi network name and password, probably telling the one funny feature or service you'll get out of bringing your item online, but you're rarely told the whole details: poor security and data collection are rarely advertised.
On the post: The Battle Over Public Performance Rights Of Old Music Heats Up: NY Rejects, Supreme Court Petitioned
Re: Is is a "useful art" anymore?
When copyright lasts for more than a generation, and is extended by 20 years every 20 years, we can't talk about "limited times" anymore.
Copyright should be brought back to proper time. Something like the original 14 years, that you can extend once for another 14 years if you actively request it, that wouldn't be so bad when most studies seem to conclude that 15 years is the best balance.
Also, that would clear up that pre-1972 mess since the limit would be long past.
On the post: Obama Has Saved One Copy Of The Torture Report From Destruction, But What's Going To Happen To The Rest Of Them?
Re:
On the post: Samsung Issues Update To Brick Remaining, Spontaneously Combusting Galaxy Note 7 Phones, Verizon Refuses To Pass It On
Re: Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
On the post: Iran The Latest Country To Use 'Fake News' As An Excuse For Widespread Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of fake news
Most stupid statement ever. Given your election system, you only need to "influence" a few select states to change the outcome. Also, you really think it's that difficult for an organization to find how to hack 50 systems? Not to mention that "50 states" doesn't mean "50 different systems".
So, I don't really think Trump needed a hack to win. The system itself is rigged (electoral college system, voter suppression, gerrymandering), making voter fraud nearly pointless.
On the post: If You're Worried About What President Trump Can Do To The Press, Blame President Obama
- Snowden might have started a larger movement of whistleblowers. He was not the first, but he was the first to go so massively public with so many papers at once. I can believe that, after him, Obama has to deal with more whistleblowers than any president before.
- On the other hand, wet have Patreus. He leaked documents for his own personal benefit (some minor fame, and a woman), not for the benefit of the public... and he got a light sentence, no outcry, no call for his head on a spike... and an interview with the new president-elect for a job in the next government. Because he's a valuable and honorable person.
It seems the message is clear. You can leak national secrets. Just do it for personal profit. That means you're not a threat to the system in place. Questioning the system if the one thing the government will not treat lightly.
On the post: More Prosecutors Refuse To Accept Guilty Pleas Based On Faulty $2 Field Drug Tests
And this, right here is where we have a problem. The normal rule of law is "innocent until proven guilty", not "jailed until proven innocent". This last one should be a rare exception for well defined cases.
Next >>