I think the problem you will have here is that location information is just a business record, required by the cell companies to justify their billing. As such, they are required to retain the records for however long the law requires (7 years?). It's not optional information, it's absolutely required for them to do their business, an integral and basic function of a cellular network.
The third party doctrine is pretty clear, and appears to apply very clearly here.
Legally, it's a simple question. If today's information is had without a warrant, and yesterdays as well, and last months, and Monday a year ago, so at what point does the law specific that you must stop? The answer is "it does not", except that you cannot ask for records beyond the record rentention laws (companies won't keep them).
If cell tower / location information was NOT an integral part of offering a cellular network, the ACLU might be right. However, the information is given willingly, as part of the operation of the device. It's part and parcel of a cell phone network. You want a cell phone, the cell company has to keep records of where your phone is (generally) to offer you proper service and to bill you appropriately.
So all they are left with is to argue the third party doctrine, which seems to be holding up well after 50 years. Nobody is forcing a cell phone into anyone's hand. You have to sign a contract to obtain service, which generally includes verbage in regards to location / cell information. There are no surprises here.
Seems like the ACLU is arguing a very difficult point, legally, with pretty much everything pointing against them.
It's not a simple subject, but perhaps it's a little easier if you look at the intended source and the intended target.
The pastor wants the US (country) to go to war with North Korea (hermit kingdom). He is not asking individual Americans to randomly pop off North Koreans they meet in the street or anything like that, it's a state on state concept.
Hate crimes are different. It's group on group - the proverbial "kill all fags" mentality. ISIS and other terror organizations work in this manner, they want to inflict pain on random people without discretion. They have no intention by the actions to win a war, it's all about making the other group's life suck a little more.
Religion falls sort of in the same category. It's one the reasons that Trump's travel bans have had such a hard time in the courts, as they are aimed at a religious group that spans the world and exists in no small part already inside the US. If the pastor said "if you meet a muslim you should kill him" it would be unacceptable (and have some legal implications, I am sure).
It is one of the ways that Israel has managed to stay aloof. Being both a country and a religious group, they often seem to be playing with their standing to gain sympathy. When they fight and attack the Palestinians, they are Strong Israelis protesting their country, and when they are attacked, they scream about killing jews. They have managed to put themselves in a unique position where everything negative against them can be turned in to an attack on the poor jewish people, rather than on the state.
So for me, a pastor (or anyone else) encouraging or discouraging war is expressing an opinion as to how their country should be run. There is no reason to shut it down.
"That's why India banned Facebook from engaging in this behavior"
Facebook merely failed to grease the correct palms and include the correct government officials in the plan. Otherwise it would have gone through like salsa through a goose.
For what it's worth, it seems all of the links in this sort link back to this story. Sort of hard to read a report that isn't linked.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.
I wish I had your certainty. Searching Google find plenty of examples of Time Warner settling lawsuits, and often for insanely huge amounts. While the freedom of speech issue is special and nice, they do run a bottom line business.
Going all the way to judgement risk making case law that goes against you as well. HBO may have been willing to take on the lawsuit to start with, but over time they may find it less enjoyable if the it looks like there is even a small chance of a judgement against them.
While you may feel Oliver's spiel was all protected speech, there are a significant number of points for the jury to grab onto and decide "this was over the line". HBO may not want to be in a position to take that risk.
HBO is part of Time Warner. Time Warner is a public company that has to answer to shareholders and speedy resolution of a legal case is almost always best for executives who work on a quarterly basis.
Actually, Youtube works because it generally avoids paying for content, except for a small percentage of ad revenue. Quite a bit of Youtube is 100% free to them, so they get to keep all the revenue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.
I don't think it's "outspend" as much as willing to make the other side spend more than the settlement would cost. Big corporations tend to shy away from it, especially publicly traded companies such as TWX. There is a point where "tell Oliver to say no more" and giving Bob a couple of million is way cheaper than fighting it out and hoping that a jury likes your arguments and isn't turned off by the british dude.
I have little doubt that Bob Murray will pay to see this one go all the way to the river. HBO may be willing to fold and take the loss to avoid making it worse.
I think the contradiction you have is the same as almost everyone else. We want the benefits of a free market and competition to drive innovation and keep prices low, but at the same time we love regulation that furthers our personal view of the way things should be.
Essentially, your desire to have online competition in video and other high bandwidth areas means that you want the ISPs and such to have their hands tied by regulation. You want to create the level online playing field regardless of cost or effect. I can udnerstand your point of view.
However, NN is fixing things from the wrong end. The real solution would be mandated breaking up of the media conglomerates who have turned themselves into content providing verticals. Getting the neutral ISPs away from the not-so-neutral content providers and distributors would be a big step in the right direction.
Your competition issues are inherent in the current ownership situation. UNtil you change that situation, everything else will be King Canute situation. The tide will find a way around the rules and we will be back at square one.
"Murray has filed over a dozen defamation lawsuits against journalists and newspapers, none of which reached judgment in his favor."
You have to be careful here. Many of the cases never make it to a final judgement, they seem equally split between pre-trial dismissals and out of court settlements. There aren't that many instances where the case ran completely to conclusion on it's merits.
Let's just say both sides have a lot of money and a lot of time on their hands, but don't be shocked if you see some sort of settlement to resolve the issue. Putting it in front of a jury in WV would not be the best thing for HBO at this point, the judge may play impartial but the jury is less predictable.
It appears this case isn't going as forecast by the Techdirt soothsayers. The remand back to state court is a solid win for Murray and a pretty substantial loss for HBO, as they can't fight the case in their preferred setting.
The ACLU thing is also interesting. My guess is that there will be plenty of legal wrangling, but it does appear that there may be some truth to the idea that the ACLU filed the brief in part because of the fund raising the Oliver did for them as a result of this case. Failing to disclose that in the brief seems to be a little more than an oversight.
I still don't think Murray is going to get a big win here, but so far it appears to be 2-0 for Murray.
Every feed box requires to be maintained. The 6000 meter limit means that if there are only 2 or 3 hours on a given run, then you have to consider those costs covered by only 3 potential subscribers.
Also, it would not be very functional to provide copper wire connectivity to everyone in the town back to a single CO, as the distances (when you consider the route the wires must take) might require multiple sections. Modern networking basically says that you run from your CO to a remote point, install a small switching building, and have all of the local connections terminate there. At that point, they are turned into IP traffic, plugged into a router. It's way easier and cheaper to connection router to router with a single fiber optic run, which can generally go the full distance for most local phone companies without needing any boosts.
There is also the question of maintenance. Installing and maintaining all the cable isn't anywhere near as easy as maintaining a fiber to the neighborhood setup.
Fiber optic is generally the same. The biggest advantage is that you can splice and divide the fiber with junctions and you can do this over a much longer distance. So your 6000 meter DSL can become 20 miles or more.
Copper has it's limitations, and the phone companies know that. It's a really big problem in the US where outside of the main centers you have fairly low population density and long distances to cover. DSL has a max effective connection length of less than 6000 meters, or about 3.5 miles. It is also fairly limited in terms of speed and overall capacity, except in very, very short runs.
Fiber optic, on the other hand, can run pretty darn far. More importantly, fiber only solves the biggest issues (distance to the central office or DSLAM) if you have fiber to the house.
Fiber to the neighborhood seems like a good idea, but that requires building remote buildings to terminate the fiber and distribute to customers. It also doesn't really solve the issue of houses being spaced far apart, as the restictions of the remaining copper would still be in the way.
More of these companies appear to be looking towards wireless as a solution. Rewiring their customers to fiber just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
Nice personal attack, hopefully more people will flag your abusive comments.
But to address you point, I am not gleeful. I am not happy or unhappy about any of it.
I am just pointing out how naive concept that content companies would somehow make the same content and charge significantly less while delivering it all on demand.
As streaming (and the delivery) becomes easier for everyone to do, these companies will move to control their own destinies rather than allowing third parties to scoop a chunk of the profits.
Cutting the cord doesn't make the costs go away...
I understand violent protest, it's generally the results of people too unreasonable to accept that others have an opinion, and can only see violence as a way to stop that opinion.
"Roosh V, who has spoken on college campuses before, once advocated for the legalization of rape. "
Actually, what he specifically advocated is to have the standard of consent moved from the moment just before the sex act to "she came home with me and crossed the threshold". While don't agree with him and I do see how it might lead to some unfortunate criminal acts, it's one of those things that sits just inside the line.
He is a distateful human, I think we both agree. Yet, if you truly believe in free speech, you can understand that he has the right to say it, and you have the equal right to disprove him.
" Milo himself got right up on that line during one of his speaking engagements when he outed a trans student, thus opening that student up to possible harassment and violence. "
Is that Milo's fault, or a fault of a society unwilling to accept someone who may be different from them? Again, I think Milo is a classic meglomaniac ass, but at the same time I understand that what he says generally falls into protected free speech.
So you see, you can line them up, from the KKK to Sarah Palin, from Milo to the Westboro church and on through to Alex Jones, and while most of them are disagreeable to a greater or lesser extent, I understand and accept that just about everything they say is protected (but gross speech). I also think that in most cases, exposing these roaches to the light is the easiest way to make the scurry, and makes them easier to swat and kill their demented ideas.
The cure to speech you don't like is more, not less.
If outing someone as gay or trans is a crime, then plenty of magazines and such would be in big trouble. Outing in and of itself does not appear to be illegal. Morally unacceptable, perhaps, but free speech isn't just speech that agrees with your morals.
"Expressing offensive ideas such as “we should legalize rape” or “Black people need to go back to Africa” in public does not deserve protection from consequences"
You are still missing the point. If the speech is legal, why is it being censored before it happens?
The schools generally shut down events because they feel that they cannot provide adequate security. Why? Because people aren't protesting with their voices, they are protesting with physical violence, occupation, and fighting. The schools want to avoid having to pay the price because people resort to violent protest to shout down legal opinions they do not like.
I am also not sure where you get your examples. "advocating rape" is a weird topic, and certainly advocating illegal acts may in fact by unprotected speech. "All blacks back to Africa" is distasteful speech, but it appears to be protected by the first amendment. Are you suggesting that Ann Coulter or Milo whatever was advocating rape or sending blacks back to Africa?
"That is still protected speech, though. And nothing is legally preventing the shouted-down from shouting back or expressing themselves through other avenues of expression."
A shouting contest becomes one of numbers, majority rules. That isn't what free speech is about. Nobody should be forced away from one avenue of speech because someone else disagrees with them.
"In fairness, the opinions that get people punched often resemble the kind of rhetoric that would go over well at a Klan rally. Justified? No. Understandable? Hell yes."
The thing is, if you believe in free speech, and the speech itself is not illegal, then you need to hold your nose and support their right to say it, even if you don't agree with it. If the Klan's speech is hate speech and illegal, then damn them all you like. But if it's legal, a true supporter of free speech needs to recognize it's still valid speech.
That's why I say what happened to Ann Coulter and Milo whathisface is shameful. If what they are saying it not illegal, taking actions that force schools to cancel such events is shameful, no matter how you feel about the content.
"Being denied a platform—or being protested while on that platform—does not necessarily infringe upon the free speech rights of a given person."
A platform not equally offered is in itself a form of censorship. It means that the rights of the few are diminished by the complaints of the many, and that isn't what free speech is all about.
"Inviting speakers who advocate for horrible ideas (e.g., advocating for legalized rape) and threaten the safety of other students (e.g., outing a trans student against their will) is just as wrong."
Again, if the speech is illegal, then it's not free speech and there is no issue. You have to be really careful here, you may not like the speech, but if it's legal speech, then you need to support their right to express it, even if you don't like it.
Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
Free speech does mean that others should not be allowed to decide if my speech is more or less prominent then theirs.
When you click flag (and you know you do), you are saying "my opinion is more valid than this", which is the first step towards tamping down and making less available opinions you don't agree with.
Flagging should be reserved for spam and name calling. That way, we might never see another comment from PaulT again! :)
I think you will find that one (or more) people that Techdirt doesn't like has been posting with very long subject lines. So someone adds a filter for very long subject lines (setting it at about 100 characters) and everything else gets "moderated".
Those comments may appear later on, but the discussion will long be over before anyone notices them!
On the post: ACLU Tells Court Long-Term Cell Site Location Tracking Should Require A Warrant
The third party doctrine is pretty clear, and appears to apply very clearly here.
Legally, it's a simple question. If today's information is had without a warrant, and yesterdays as well, and last months, and Monday a year ago, so at what point does the law specific that you must stop? The answer is "it does not", except that you cannot ask for records beyond the record rentention laws (companies won't keep them).
If cell tower / location information was NOT an integral part of offering a cellular network, the ACLU might be right. However, the information is given willingly, as part of the operation of the device. It's part and parcel of a cell phone network. You want a cell phone, the cell company has to keep records of where your phone is (generally) to offer you proper service and to bill you appropriately.
So all they are left with is to argue the third party doctrine, which seems to be holding up well after 50 years. Nobody is forcing a cell phone into anyone's hand. You have to sign a contract to obtain service, which generally includes verbage in regards to location / cell information. There are no surprises here.
Seems like the ACLU is arguing a very difficult point, legally, with pretty much everything pointing against them.
On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?
Re: State versus non-state actions
Techdirt has turned into a very sad, sad, place.
On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?
State versus non-state actions
The pastor wants the US (country) to go to war with North Korea (hermit kingdom). He is not asking individual Americans to randomly pop off North Koreans they meet in the street or anything like that, it's a state on state concept.
Hate crimes are different. It's group on group - the proverbial "kill all fags" mentality. ISIS and other terror organizations work in this manner, they want to inflict pain on random people without discretion. They have no intention by the actions to win a war, it's all about making the other group's life suck a little more.
Religion falls sort of in the same category. It's one the reasons that Trump's travel bans have had such a hard time in the courts, as they are aimed at a religious group that spans the world and exists in no small part already inside the US. If the pastor said "if you meet a muslim you should kill him" it would be unacceptable (and have some legal implications, I am sure).
It is one of the ways that Israel has managed to stay aloof. Being both a country and a religious group, they often seem to be playing with their standing to gain sympathy. When they fight and attack the Palestinians, they are Strong Israelis protesting their country, and when they are attacked, they scream about killing jews. They have managed to put themselves in a unique position where everything negative against them can be turned in to an attack on the poor jewish people, rather than on the state.
So for me, a pastor (or anyone else) encouraging or discouraging war is expressing an opinion as to how their country should be run. There is no reason to shut it down.
On the post: Mozilla Study: Zero Rating Isn't The Miracle Broadband Duopolies And Facebook Pretend It Is
Facebook merely failed to grease the correct palms and include the correct government officials in the plan. Otherwise it would have gone through like salsa through a goose.
For what it's worth, it seems all of the links in this sort link back to this story. Sort of hard to read a report that isn't linked.
On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.
That's nothing to apologize for.
Now, those who flag my comments because they don't agree, they should apologize. Nothing in my comments is rude or insulting - you just don't agree.
Perhaps it's time for Techdirt to be enlightend and remove the flag comment option. It's being abused in a truly massive way.
On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.
Going all the way to judgement risk making case law that goes against you as well. HBO may have been willing to take on the lawsuit to start with, but over time they may find it less enjoyable if the it looks like there is even a small chance of a judgement against them.
While you may feel Oliver's spiel was all protected speech, there are a significant number of points for the jury to grab onto and decide "this was over the line". HBO may not want to be in a position to take that risk.
HBO is part of Time Warner. Time Warner is a public company that has to answer to shareholders and speedy resolution of a legal case is almost always best for executives who work on a quarterly basis.
On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray
Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.
I have little doubt that Bob Murray will pay to see this one go all the way to the river. HBO may be willing to fold and take the loss to avoid making it worse.
On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks
Re: Re: huh?
Essentially, your desire to have online competition in video and other high bandwidth areas means that you want the ISPs and such to have their hands tied by regulation. You want to create the level online playing field regardless of cost or effect. I can udnerstand your point of view.
However, NN is fixing things from the wrong end. The real solution would be mandated breaking up of the media conglomerates who have turned themselves into content providing verticals. Getting the neutral ISPs away from the not-so-neutral content providers and distributors would be a big step in the right direction.
Your competition issues are inherent in the current ownership situation. UNtil you change that situation, everything else will be King Canute situation. The tide will find a way around the rules and we will be back at square one.
On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray
Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.
You have to be careful here. Many of the cases never make it to a final judgement, they seem equally split between pre-trial dismissals and out of court settlements. There aren't that many instances where the case ran completely to conclusion on it's merits.
Let's just say both sides have a lot of money and a lot of time on their hands, but don't be shocked if you see some sort of settlement to resolve the issue. Putting it in front of a jury in WV would not be the best thing for HBO at this point, the judge may play impartial but the jury is less predictable.
On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray
Oh Snap
The ACLU thing is also interesting. My guess is that there will be plenty of legal wrangling, but it does appear that there may be some truth to the idea that the ACLU filed the brief in part because of the fund raising the Oliver did for them as a result of this case. Failing to disclose that in the brief seems to be a little more than an oversight.
I still don't think Murray is going to get a big win here, but so far it appears to be 2-0 for Murray.
On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks
Re: Re:
Every feed box requires to be maintained. The 6000 meter limit means that if there are only 2 or 3 hours on a given run, then you have to consider those costs covered by only 3 potential subscribers.
Also, it would not be very functional to provide copper wire connectivity to everyone in the town back to a single CO, as the distances (when you consider the route the wires must take) might require multiple sections. Modern networking basically says that you run from your CO to a remote point, install a small switching building, and have all of the local connections terminate there. At that point, they are turned into IP traffic, plugged into a router. It's way easier and cheaper to connection router to router with a single fiber optic run, which can generally go the full distance for most local phone companies without needing any boosts.
There is also the question of maintenance. Installing and maintaining all the cable isn't anywhere near as easy as maintaining a fiber to the neighborhood setup.
Fiber optic is generally the same. The biggest advantage is that you can splice and divide the fiber with junctions and you can do this over a much longer distance. So your 6000 meter DSL can become 20 miles or more.
On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks
Fiber optic, on the other hand, can run pretty darn far. More importantly, fiber only solves the biggest issues (distance to the central office or DSLAM) if you have fiber to the house.
Fiber to the neighborhood seems like a good idea, but that requires building remote buildings to terminate the fiber and distribute to customers. It also doesn't really solve the issue of houses being spaced far apart, as the restictions of the remaining copper would still be in the way.
More of these companies appear to be looking towards wireless as a solution. Rewiring their customers to fiber just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos
Re: Re:
But to address you point, I am not gleeful. I am not happy or unhappy about any of it.
I am just pointing out how naive concept that content companies would somehow make the same content and charge significantly less while delivering it all on demand.
As streaming (and the delivery) becomes easier for everyone to do, these companies will move to control their own destinies rather than allowing third parties to scoop a chunk of the profits.
Cutting the cord doesn't make the costs go away...
On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Roosh V, who has spoken on college campuses before, once advocated for the legalization of rape. "
Actually, what he specifically advocated is to have the standard of consent moved from the moment just before the sex act to "she came home with me and crossed the threshold". While don't agree with him and I do see how it might lead to some unfortunate criminal acts, it's one of those things that sits just inside the line.
He is a distateful human, I think we both agree. Yet, if you truly believe in free speech, you can understand that he has the right to say it, and you have the equal right to disprove him.
" Milo himself got right up on that line during one of his speaking engagements when he outed a trans student, thus opening that student up to possible harassment and violence. "
Is that Milo's fault, or a fault of a society unwilling to accept someone who may be different from them? Again, I think Milo is a classic meglomaniac ass, but at the same time I understand that what he says generally falls into protected free speech.
So you see, you can line them up, from the KKK to Sarah Palin, from Milo to the Westboro church and on through to Alex Jones, and while most of them are disagreeable to a greater or lesser extent, I understand and accept that just about everything they say is protected (but gross speech). I also think that in most cases, exposing these roaches to the light is the easiest way to make the scurry, and makes them easier to swat and kill their demented ideas.
The cure to speech you don't like is more, not less.
On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are still missing the point. If the speech is legal, why is it being censored before it happens?
The schools generally shut down events because they feel that they cannot provide adequate security. Why? Because people aren't protesting with their voices, they are protesting with physical violence, occupation, and fighting. The schools want to avoid having to pay the price because people resort to violent protest to shout down legal opinions they do not like.
I am also not sure where you get your examples. "advocating rape" is a weird topic, and certainly advocating illegal acts may in fact by unprotected speech. "All blacks back to Africa" is distasteful speech, but it appears to be protected by the first amendment. Are you suggesting that Ann Coulter or Milo whatever was advocating rape or sending blacks back to Africa?
On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act
Re: Re:
A shouting contest becomes one of numbers, majority rules. That isn't what free speech is about. Nobody should be forced away from one avenue of speech because someone else disagrees with them.
"In fairness, the opinions that get people punched often resemble the kind of rhetoric that would go over well at a Klan rally. Justified? No. Understandable? Hell yes."
The thing is, if you believe in free speech, and the speech itself is not illegal, then you need to hold your nose and support their right to say it, even if you don't agree with it. If the Klan's speech is hate speech and illegal, then damn them all you like. But if it's legal, a true supporter of free speech needs to recognize it's still valid speech.
That's why I say what happened to Ann Coulter and Milo whathisface is shameful. If what they are saying it not illegal, taking actions that force schools to cancel such events is shameful, no matter how you feel about the content.
"Being denied a platform—or being protested while on that platform—does not necessarily infringe upon the free speech rights of a given person."
A platform not equally offered is in itself a form of censorship. It means that the rights of the few are diminished by the complaints of the many, and that isn't what free speech is all about.
"Inviting speakers who advocate for horrible ideas (e.g., advocating for legalized rape) and threaten the safety of other students (e.g., outing a trans student against their will) is just as wrong."
Again, if the speech is illegal, then it's not free speech and there is no issue. You have to be really careful here, you may not like the speech, but if it's legal speech, then you need to support their right to express it, even if you don't like it.
On the post: Techdirt: Now With More Free Speech Reporting
Re: 'You can say what you want' does not equal 'Everyone has to listen when you say it'
When you click flag (and you know you do), you are saying "my opinion is more valid than this", which is the first step towards tamping down and making less available opinions you don't agree with.
Flagging should be reserved for spam and name calling. That way, we might never see another comment from PaulT again! :)
On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act
Those comments may appear later on, but the discussion will long be over before anyone notices them!
Next >>