The problem for this site is that the posters don't have the right to post the images (for one thing I doubt they have model releases for anyone in the images), and the site operator knows this. In fact he markets the site specifically for the purpose of posting that kind of image. That takes him quite a ways away from what Section 230's intended to protect. I'd refer to the FHA case against Roommates.com which rejected Section 230 immunity where the site selected questions whose answers the FHA prohibited from being used for housing decisions and required users to answer them as part of the process. And that the site then tries to charge non-users a rather high fee to remove images other people had posted of that non-user, images the site had solicited because they could be used to extort that fee, is not going to help their case that they should be allowed to hide behind Section 230.
Thought: bring back the old principle of "No person acting as an agent of the government can act in any way that violates the law. For, to the degree that they are violating the law, they are not acting as an agent of the government and may not claim the protections and immunities thereof.".
My thought is that one clarification is needed: to distinguish between the server(s) that hold the end-user's mailbox itself vs. the intermediate servers that handle getting mail from the sender to the end-user's mailbox. POP3 may have downloaded mail from the final server to the user's own machine, but very few people use POP3 anymore. Most use IMAP or webmail, which don't download to the user's machine. I don't think the ECPA as written intended to treat the user's own mailbox the same as an intermediate SMTP server. Simply add clarifying language: that "server" in the ECPA excludes any system or systems which are the final destination of the user's e-mail.
Wouldn't matter. That e-mail address is entered by the attorney themselves as the address they want notices sent to. It's their responsibility to insure mail sent to that address is handled properly once it's presented to their mail server. It's similar to physical mail: if you give the court the address of your mail-screening service as the address you want notices sent to, it's not the court's problem if they're throwing notices away without giving them to you. You, not the court, were the one who elected to have them handle the mail. You, not the court, are responsible for what happens after the carrier delivers the mail to the service. If the service isn't reliable, you, not the court, have the power to fix the problem by having notices sent to a more reliable address.
The thing is, most of the problem sites can easily be shown to not have Section 230 immunity. They don't just host the content, they actively solicit for exactly the kind of content they should know isn't legal. It's exactly the same as a site that actively solicits pirated material, as opposed to a site that only actively solicits for legal material and might be used for infringing stuff (eg. "Host your warez and pirate rips here." vs. "Host your own personal files here."). You should be able to use the site's own advertisements and promotional material against it.
And no, as far as I know non-consensual disclosure of sexually-explicit material for the purposes of harming the subject isn't legal. It's not a crime, but it's a civil violation that the victim has a right to sue over. Actively soliciting for people to do it is in the same category as actively soliciting people to violate their non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements and provide you with confidential/secret information from their employers.
"data" vs. "information". The problem with these results is that people are being given data (without any meaningful interpretation or analysis done on it) but it's being marketed as information (data that's been analyzed, spurious bits filtered out and the results interpreted so they have some meaning). And this is a case where obscuring the distinction can get people injured, disabled or dead as a result.
Re: Re: Re: What are the Obamacare implications of this database?
You mean "more rationing than private insurers already do", don't you? It's not as if the group plan I have through my employer doesn't already decide whether they're going to cover treatments or not based on whether they think they're going to be cost-effective.
I'm probably old-fashioned, but I don't even begin to worry about an outage until the service has been down for hours and I won't start to alter plans until it's been down for a day or two. Outages and failures happen, that's a fact of life, so I'm prepared to go do other things until they've fixed the problem and brought things back up.
Sure, there's things like my e-mail that I can't afford to do that with. In those cases I run my own services so if things fail I can fix them, or I get the service from someone I can have a contract with that specifies how quickly they'll fix it and how they'll handle problems. And I have backup plans so if something truly goes south irreparably I don't have to panic, I can just fall back to plan B and keep on going. The trick, of course, is to make sure you don't run out of plan Bs before you run out of problems.
Being in a position where you're critically dependent on a service that someone else controls and you have no contractual guarantees of performance/service for? Bad place to be. If you decide to stay there, accept that you're guaranteeing you'll find yourself in a bind on a regular basis. Once you've accepted that it's inevitable, it's much less stressful when it happens.
Generally the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's attorney, as here) can ask to have the case dismissed and pretty much get it automatically up until the point where the defendant files a response of any sort. This is one of those cases where the judge really should exercise their discretion and refuse to dismiss the case until the question of exactly who Hansmeier is representing before the court is settled. But it's up to the judge whether he does or not.
Wally, most often the phrase "get the dirt" on someone refers to digging up details that are not defamatory because they're things that are true and that the subject desperately doesn't want anyone else to know about. Those things may reflect poorly on the subject, they may cause people to conclude the subject isn't the squeaky-clean person he makes himself out to be, but that's not defamation. That's just people finding out who you really are and not liking it.
If you have physical documents, best bet is to store them off-site in a safe-deposit box or with a lawyer you trust. That puts an extra layer between the officials and the documents that'll slow them down and force them to create a paper trail. They'll still get them if they really want them, but they won't be able to do so on the QT.
Better idea is to convert all the documents to digital and invest in some hot-swap drive bays. Set the drives up with full-drive encryption where the passphrase has to be manually entered every time the drive's attached, and pull the drives out of the computer when not in use. They can still get the drives, but cracking the encryption's a technical challenge that you can control by what software and key strength you use and you can force the creation of a paper trail if they want to force you to divulge the passphrase. Again it won't stop them if they're determined, but it'll stop them from doing so surreptitiously.
And as noted above, prepare a cover. To quote from the advice for the Evil Overlord's accountant, have 3 sets of books: one squeaky-clean set to show to the auditors when they come calling, a second set (appropriately untidy, as if you'd been unprepared to have it found) that has some stuff that appears questionable at first glance but upon investigation is perfectly legal even if a bit sleazy to show the auditors in the event they find that the first set isn't true, and a third set showing the actual accounts that you can show the Overlord at need (said set being stored in a locked, armored filing cabinet packed with thermite wired to a self-destruct button should there be a pressing need to be really sure the auditors don't find them).
Not really. If I live in one state but work in another I have to declare all my income in my home state, whether I earned it there or not. My home state'll usually give me a tax credit for any taxes paid to other states, but if my home state's tax rates are higher than where I worked I'll still owe the difference. The tax rates in the other state may not be advantageous either. For instance if I earned $25K in each of 4 states then each of them will tax me at a low rate based on a $25K/year income, but my home state will be taxing me at the rate for a $100K/year income which'll be a lot higher.
Internet sales tax collection is being pushed by the brick-and-mortar merchants. If you want to kill it, turn it around and demand that all merchants collect sales tax under these rules. That is, if Target has stores in Illinois then when someone walks into a Target in California the store has to determine where that person lives and if they live in Illinois must collect the Illinois sales tax at the rate for that person's home address and remit it to Illinois. Force that and hoo boy will you hear the screaming from the people most in favor of this over how much it'll cost them to be able to figure out the correct tax rates.
That or add a requirement that if a state wants retailers to collect sales tax for it, it must provide a method for retailers to submit an address in that state and be told the correct sales tax rate. It must be provided at no direct cost to the retailer (the retailer may have to pay for a phone line or network connection, but any special hardware or such has to be provided by the state). The justification here would be that since it's the state demanding the retailers do this then the state's obligated to give them what's required to comply with the state's demands. And the service must be authoritative. If a retailer gets a rate from the service then the state can't claim the rate's incorrect. If some subdivision of the state claims sales tax they were owed wasn't collected, the retailer's immune to the claim and they'll have to take it up with the state. The justification here would be that if the state that's demanding the tax be collected doesn't know their own sales tax rate, nobody else can be expected to.
On appeal I suspect it will be pointed out that, unlike cases where the ECPA applies, in this case Google isn't a third party intercepting the e-mail but is acting at the request of, and under a contract with, the recipient to handle their e-mail. The parallel would be a secretary reading and sorting your mail, possibly handling some of it herself, collecting some of it and summarizing related items so you don't have to read all of them individually, and handing you the stuff you really need to handle with notes attached to help you. The secretary, like Google, isn't a third party, she's your agent, and the ECPA doesn't say you can't have an agent handle your e-mail for you.
Because she's a news anchor. Part of her job is supposed to be recognizing how her audience is likely to react to a story and it's presentation and making that presentation as attractive to viewers as possible. And she went with this, something that even a few moments' thought should've told her would upset a lot of people. She not only biffed it, she biffed a basic part of her job.
I think here the issue isn't confusion, it's that Hanson's deliberately taking advantage of the Craigslist name to advance his own business. He's deliberately made his name similar enough that anyone seeing it will automatically think of Craigslist, and that recognition's going to carry over to his benefit. That's exacerbated by the fact that his business is deliberately aimed at Craigslist customers who're already primed to make the association by dealing with the name he's trying to imitate. The combination is what makes Craigslist's case here.
The number of applicants isn't a good measure. Anybody can fill out the paperwork and apply. I'd look at the number who got past the point in the screening process where they check your background for links to enemy organizations. And even then, the biggest threats are going to be the ones who had no such connections when they were hired but have acquired them subsequently. Well, the second-biggest threats, the biggest IMO are the employees who aren't connected to any enemies, they've simply decided that the NSA itself is a threat that needs exposed.
It isn't even a matter of being guilty. You don't want your wife or kids to know what you're getting them for birthdays or Christmas before you give them the gift. You don't want your boss knowing just how you described him to your wife after he did something particularly bone-headed and you had to scramble to make it good with the customer he angered. You don't necessarily want that creepy neighbor knowing when you and your wife will be away for the weekend and your teenage kids will have the house to themselves. You don't want your month's shopping receipts printed in the newspaper so everybody can see what you spent money on.
The people who say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." are implying, without saying, that you only have something to hide if you're doing something illegal. That's false. We all have a lot of things that're perfectly legal, completely innocuous, and we still want them hidden from the public because they're nobody's business but ours.
That's because PayPal isn't a bank and isn't regulated like one. And they've vehemently opposed any regulation. Myself, I isolate PayPal from my money. The bank account they're linked to is only used for them, and it only has enough money in it for whatever transfers or payments I have in progress at the moment. If I were receiving large numbers of transactions I'd go one step further and switch PayPal over to a dedicated account at a completely different bank, one I didn't use for any other purpose, and all received funds would be immediately swept into the bank account and then transferred over to my real bank (where there'd be an instruction on file denying PayPal authorization to access my accounts) leaving literally nothing for PayPal to tap into.
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Not as problematic
On the post: USTR Says TPP Must Be Kept Secret, Because The Public Is Too Stupid To Understand It
FTFY, Mr. Froman.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: The IRS And SEC Want To Snoop Through Your Email Without A Warrant; Don't Let Them
On the post: Court Says Team Prenda 'Flat-Out Lied' To Court; Hits Them With $261k More In Attorneys' Fees To Pay Up
Re: Email is not reliable
On the post: Law Prof Writing Revenge Porn Legislation Wants To Upend Safe Harbors On The Internet 'For The Children'
And no, as far as I know non-consensual disclosure of sexually-explicit material for the purposes of harming the subject isn't legal. It's not a crime, but it's a civil violation that the victim has a right to sue over. Actively soliciting for people to do it is in the same category as actively soliciting people to violate their non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements and provide you with confidential/secret information from their employers.
On the post: Stopping 23andMe Will Only Delay The Revolution Medicine Needs
Re: Re: Hello, industry shill
On the post: Stopping 23andMe Will Only Delay The Revolution Medicine Needs
Re: Re: Re: What are the Obamacare implications of this database?
On the post: How Do Web Performance Issues Impact Your Life Online?
Sure, there's things like my e-mail that I can't afford to do that with. In those cases I run my own services so if things fail I can fix them, or I get the service from someone I can have a contract with that specifies how quickly they'll fix it and how they'll handle problems. And I have backup plans so if something truly goes south irreparably I don't have to panic, I can just fall back to plan B and keep on going. The trick, of course, is to make sure you don't run out of plan Bs before you run out of problems.
Being in a position where you're critically dependent on a service that someone else controls and you have no contractual guarantees of performance/service for? Bad place to be. If you decide to stay there, accept that you're guaranteeing you'll find yourself in a bind on a regular basis. Once you've accepted that it's inevitable, it's much less stressful when it happens.
On the post: Paul Hansmeier Dismisses Case That His 'Client' Claims Was Filed Without Her Permission
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court To Explore If A Site With 'Dirt' In The URL Loses All Liability Protections For User Comments
Re:
On the post: Feds Took Reporter's Notes During Unrelated Search, After They Spotted Documents She Had Obtained Via FOIA
Better idea is to convert all the documents to digital and invest in some hot-swap drive bays. Set the drives up with full-drive encryption where the passphrase has to be manually entered every time the drive's attached, and pull the drives out of the computer when not in use. They can still get the drives, but cracking the encryption's a technical challenge that you can control by what software and key strength you use and you can force the creation of a paper trail if they want to force you to divulge the passphrase. Again it won't stop them if they're determined, but it'll stop them from doing so surreptitiously.
And as noted above, prepare a cover. To quote from the advice for the Evil Overlord's accountant, have 3 sets of books: one squeaky-clean set to show to the auditors when they come calling, a second set (appropriately untidy, as if you'd been unprepared to have it found) that has some stuff that appears questionable at first glance but upon investigation is perfectly legal even if a bit sleazy to show the auditors in the event they find that the first set isn't true, and a third set showing the actual accounts that you can show the Overlord at need (said set being stored in a locked, armored filing cabinet packed with thermite wired to a self-destruct button should there be a pressing need to be really sure the auditors don't find them).
On the post: Illinois The First State To Throw Out Laws Making Amazon Collect Sales Tax Based On Affiliates
Re: Re: Re: Make all businesses do this
On the post: Illinois The First State To Throw Out Laws Making Amazon Collect Sales Tax Based On Affiliates
Make all businesses do this
That or add a requirement that if a state wants retailers to collect sales tax for it, it must provide a method for retailers to submit an address in that state and be told the correct sales tax rate. It must be provided at no direct cost to the retailer (the retailer may have to pay for a phone line or network connection, but any special hardware or such has to be provided by the state). The justification here would be that since it's the state demanding the retailers do this then the state's obligated to give them what's required to comply with the state's demands. And the service must be authoritative. If a retailer gets a rate from the service then the state can't claim the rate's incorrect. If some subdivision of the state claims sales tax they were owed wasn't collected, the retailer's immune to the claim and they'll have to take it up with the state. The justification here would be that if the state that's demanding the tax be collected doesn't know their own sales tax rate, nobody else can be expected to.
On the post: How Is Consumer Watchdog 'Helping' When It's Trying To Destroy Services Consumers Find Useful
Parallel with a secretary
On the post: News Anchor Does Twitter Wrong: Teases Homicide Story Referencing Breaking Bad
Re:
On the post: Craigslist Sues Craigstruck, Who Offers To Settle The Lawsuit Over A Football Bet
Not confusion, but taking advantage
On the post: NSA's Latest Euphemism For Security Lapses That Allowed Snowden Leaks: The Leaks Were 'Masked By His Job Duties'
Re: Re: It's a good thing...
On the post: Wouldn't It Be Something If We Had A President Who Believed In Liberty?
The people who say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." are implying, without saying, that you only have something to hide if you're doing something illegal. That's false. We all have a lot of things that're perfectly legal, completely innocuous, and we still want them hidden from the public because they're nobody's business but ours.
On the post: Insanity: PayPal Freezes Mailpile's Account, Demands Excessive Info To Get Access
Re: If a bank...
Next >>