This is depressing. Each time something bag happens to them, people want the one answer to all their troubles.
This is OK in some few cases, but politics is definitely not one of those. Politics is a complex world where lots of things factor in.
It's so much easier to go around, grab the first thing that comes to mind (and that isn't yourself, preferably) than checking for the complex social interactions that brought the result.
LabMD is already dead. This lack of security was a large mistake and they deserved a penalty for it. It has to be made clear that personal information, medical one at that, has to be taken seriously.
But this is another matter: it's about adding a possibly large expense to comply with an injunction that's basically irrelevant. The company is bankrupt, business is off, data collection is over. What point is there now to tell them to better protect the data they will not collect?
Funny part is the attempt to remind how Drumpf is the legitimate president elect because half the country voted for him...
That's wrong on so many levels except one: more than half of 500 or so people voted for him. That's all. Nobody got "half the country", not even "half the voters" to vote for him/her. And Clinton got more citizens' votes than the so-called "winner". His legitimacy is real, but only based on a very undemocratic election system.
(Note: the system might have made sense a century or so ago, when a handful of people had to go to the capital to report the choice of their state. Makes zero sense when actual people votes can be reported in real time.)
Guys, your system is broken and you're too arrogant to see it.
Funny part is the attempt to remind how Drumpf is the legitimate president elect because half the country voted for him...
That's wrong on so many levels except one: more than half of 500 or so people voted for him. That's all. Nobody got "half the country", not even "half the voters" to vote for him/her. And Clinton got more citizens' votes than the so-called "winner". His legitimacy is real, but only based on a very undemocratic election system.
Guys, your system is broken and you're too arrogant to see it.
Then again, both you and the previous commenter forgot the other side of the problem. People can still take selfies, then email them to whoever bought their votes. No need to bring public attention to it with social media.
And, of course, as some have noted, those hacking their cars may still run into some legal issues -- such as potentially violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), though that would require quite a strained reading of the law.
... which is absolutely not something big corps and governments alike are known to do.
/s
A French comedian made a joke about this a long time ago, and it's still valid to this day: If voting could change anything, it would have been prohibited a long time ago.
Exactly why you cannot blame consumers of a video service on a web site for the illegality of the video. If the site allows sharing of the product, it is still the fault of the service.
Close but not quite.
It's the fault of the original uploader, not the service.
Aereo was a completely different issue. Aereo was a remote service, not a provider of home device, so there were valid arguments about the rights involved. I still think that the end decision was wrong but that's not the question here.
The FCC set-top box reform was about letting end users use the device of their choice at home. Much like you're allowed to use the TV of your choice, and even add a recording device between your box and your TV, and so on... (This was made clear by the Betamax decision years ago, as written in the article.) This was only making it clear that the box itself should be something the user can change.
What you do with the signal you're allowed to receive and decode in your home is not anyone's business but your own. Not the broadcaster, not the ISP. You, the end user. It only becomes a copyright issue when you make your own public broadcast or representation. (And again, even then it isn't always infringement.)
On the post: Hillary Clinton Looks At Her Campaign's Many Missteps, Decides To Blame James Comey For Her Loss
the one answer
This is OK in some few cases, but politics is definitely not one of those. Politics is a complex world where lots of things factor in.
It's so much easier to go around, grab the first thing that comes to mind (and that isn't yourself, preferably) than checking for the complex social interactions that brought the result.
On the post: Court Stays FTC's LabMD Injunction; No Deterrent In Punishing A Company It Helped Kill
Re: Sorry TD...
LabMD is already dead. This lack of security was a large mistake and they deserved a penalty for it. It has to be made clear that personal information, medical one at that, has to be taken seriously.
But this is another matter: it's about adding a possibly large expense to comply with an injunction that's basically irrelevant. The company is bankrupt, business is off, data collection is over. What point is there now to tell them to better protect the data they will not collect?
On the post: IMDb Sues The State Of California Over New 'Ageism' Law
Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
That's a great idea. Fix a mistake with a legally enforced lie.
On the post: CNN Uses Copyright To Block Viral Clip Of Van Jones' Impassioned Statement
Re: Emotional blather based on lies
Yes, lies don't work anymore. /s
Tell me that again after seeing how Trump works as president in a few months... Or check right now who's left after he "drains the swamp".
Also, fear doesn't work anymore, says you who (apparently) supports a guy who did get elected on messages of fear, hate and division.
On the post: Apparently Trump Draining The Swamp Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists Requires A Lot Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists
Re: Re: Re: Re: So soon?
"I don't know what you take, but it's either too much or not enough."
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
That's wrong on so many levels except one: more than half of 500 or so people voted for him. That's all.
Nobody got "half the country", not even "half the voters" to vote for him/her. And Clinton got more citizens' votes than the so-called "winner". His legitimacy is real, but only based on a very undemocratic election system.
(Note: the system might have made sense a century or so ago, when a handful of people had to go to the capital to report the choice of their state. Makes zero sense when actual people votes can be reported in real time.)
Guys, your system is broken and you're too arrogant to see it.
On the post: Apparently Trump Draining The Swamp Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists Requires A Lot Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists
On the post: Apparently Trump Draining The Swamp Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists Requires A Lot Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists
That's wrong on so many levels except one: more than half of 500 or so people voted for him. That's all.
Nobody got "half the country", not even "half the voters" to vote for him/her. And Clinton got more citizens' votes than the so-called "winner". His legitimacy is real, but only based on a very undemocratic election system.
Guys, your system is broken and you're too arrogant to see it.
On the post: Mark Cuban Pulls Credentials Of Two Human Reporters For Mavs Games To Stave Off Robot Journalist Apocalypse
IMHO, that's more a standard self-fulfilling prophecy.
You think "something" will happen, and you take steps to counter it, but those steps are actually what triggers the "something" you feared.
The Streisand effect is more a multiplier effect to something that is already happening (an information going public), but was originally unnoticed.
On the post: If The FBI Can't Stop All These Leaks About An Investigation, Why Would it Be Able To Keep Encryption Backdoor Secret?
Cue the WaPo editorial you mentioned Friday:
So, are you guys at TechDirt seriously trying to destroy democracy?
Also, a quote from a well-known figure from a long time ago:
On the post: Judge Refuses To Block NY No-Selfie Ballot Law Because It Would 'Create Havoc To Not Enforce It'
Re: Re: Re: More Government Meddling
On the post: DOJ Sues DirecTV, Calling It A 'Ringleader' of Collusion Over Regional Sports Programming
Re: Collusion
On the post: Hey, You Can Hack Your Car Without Violating Copyright Law (For A Little While)
... which is absolutely not something big corps and governments alike are known to do. /s
On the post: Ridiculous: Nick Denton Settles Remaining Charles Harder Lawsuits, Agrees To Delete Perfectly True Stories
To me, that sounds like "I don't trust statistics I didn't falsify myself."
On the post: Sega/Steam Took Down A Bunch Of Legitimate Steam Workshop Mods Over Copyright Concerns
Re: Stakes not as high as prison?
On the post: After North Carolina Law Bans Municipal Broadband, One ISP Gives Gigabit Connections Away
Re:
If voting could change anything, it would have been prohibited a long time ago.
On the post: Huge Casino Threatens Small Blues Club For Using The Word 'Live' In Its Name
We never moved away from "might makes right".
We only redefined "might" as "money".
On the post: FBI Boss Blows Past Policies, Guidelines, His Own Staff To Bring Back Clinton Email Investigation
Sounds fun, so I had to pitch in just an option you left out:
Also, what if there is no God? You seem to reject that idea without even trying to prove it.
Then again, you seem to reject science and logic too, so nothing surprises me.
On the post: Swedish Court: News Site Embedding A YouTube Video Guilty Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Close but not quite. It's the fault of the original uploader, not the service.
On the post: The Reason The Copyright Office Misrepresented Copyright Law To The FCC: Hollywood Told It To
Re:
Wrong comparison.
Aereo was a completely different issue. Aereo was a remote service, not a provider of home device, so there were valid arguments about the rights involved. I still think that the end decision was wrong but that's not the question here.
The FCC set-top box reform was about letting end users use the device of their choice at home. Much like you're allowed to use the TV of your choice, and even add a recording device between your box and your TV, and so on... (This was made clear by the Betamax decision years ago, as written in the article.) This was only making it clear that the box itself should be something the user can change.
What you do with the signal you're allowed to receive and decode in your home is not anyone's business but your own. Not the broadcaster, not the ISP. You, the end user. It only becomes a copyright issue when you make your own public broadcast or representation. (And again, even then it isn't always infringement.)
Next >>