Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Apr 2013 @ 7:06am
Re: Re:
Miranda says that if you don't read them their rights, you can't use the statements that you collect while they're in your custody. Well, what happens if you don't need those statements for a conviction? What happens if the physical and other secondary evidence in your opinion supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you keep them in custody and interrogate them all you want for valuable intelligence.
Do you see how it's a strategic decision? And not a mistake?
Even if you don't need anything gained from the interrogation, why take the chance? Why not have the interrogation as an additional bit of evidence to use if you need it, just in case there is some minor problem with some other piece of evidence? Why give the defense attorney an opening? Even a bad attorney can make a point that if the government is willing to violate a suspect's rights for one thing that same government might be willing to break procedures for other things, such as the handling of the physical evidence the rest of the case is depending on. Why take that chance? Where is the benefit?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 4:32pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ crazy meter at 8 and rising. Code Orange. Imminent danger of full blown comment storm, threats of never coming to the site, then reappearing 2 days later.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 12:20pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
If you bothered to read and understand the article, you would have realized that:
1) At the very least there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, as the article was explicit in stating.
2) Mr. Rogers, as a member of Congress, is a public servant and his job is to work for the public interest. Wether or not there is a law or rule or procedure codified for this exact situation, there is an ethical duty for Mr. Rogers to disclose to the public he serves of the potential of a conflict of interest.
3) He did not disclose it to the public he represents.
Right and wrong are ethical concepts and not directly accounted for in all laws. He may not have done anything illegal, but what he has done is ethically wrong.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:15am
Diet?
Diet Dew? Sorry Tim, but my opinion of you has been greatly dimished. Next you'll say it was the decaffienated version (does this even exist? if so, why?).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:42am
Re: Re: Price discrimination?
nor that he understands how ticketing works.
Why should understanding ticketing be any more complicated than "show me every flight and option for each leg of my trip so I can decide the best options for myself"? Can you give a good answer as to why there are all these bizarre rules you need to understand?
You shouldn't need to understand fare classes. You shouldn't need workarounds and hacks to getting the best prices, or even being able to know what flights are available.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:06am
Re: Re: R&D
Novartis stated that they pulled their plans to establish anything related to innovative technology/new meds in India. Other companies are expected to follow the suit.
Good. Abandon those markets and let new companies come in and fill the void. Just don't come crying when those companies are competing with you.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 8:00am
Re: Ridiculous
DDOS attack are not hacks.
Yes, they are disruptive to the target. Yes, they can be used to hide real hacks. But a DDOS by itself does not allow unauthorized access, just as a traffic jam outside a bank branch doesn't let a bank robber stroll into the vault.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:39pm
Re: Your headline is an outright lie he said no such thing
Partisan? Please note the story said nothing of which party he belongs to. I don't know or care, and knowing would not change my opinion of how much of an asshole it sounds like he is. The only one spouting propaganda is you.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:29am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm horrible. I'll probably get called a communist for saying that. Well, when they're not calling me a teabagger or an anarchist, that is. The copyright apologists are so inept around here that they can't even keep their insults consistent.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:49am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice strawman (and an ad hom). Try harder.
Liability and even piracy are edge conditions over a fundamental disagreement over what government granted monopolies should cover, and how best to promote the progress of science, learning, culture, and innovation.
My personal feelings are that there should be zero government granted monopolies over any type of culture, idea, or information. While it may have worked well before the advent of general purpose computers and global networks, it no longer works in today's world where information can be infinitely copied, transmitted, distrubted, to nearly everyone, for little or no cost.
The issue is far more complex and nuanced than you will ever admit to.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2013 @ 1:29pm
Re: Protection
Hmm.
Lets say I create some content. I then create a digital protection measure that requires it to be connected to by system. If my system is taken offline or blocked, the protection stops working, and people can steal my content.
What happens when I reach my sixth strike and my connection gets cut, thus allowing my content to be stolen? Can I sue my ISP, or the people sending copyright complaints over breach of breaking my awesome DRM system? Or is copyright law thoroughly insane enough that I could come up with a plausible scenario using it against itself?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2013 @ 1:22pm
Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand.
Truth! AJ speaks truth! Someone call a doctor, I'm having a heart attack from the shock!
So AJ, would you like to discuss the examples stated? Or are you once again back to your transparent and predictable "Why won't Mike debate me?" nonsense?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Apr 2013 @ 1:09pm
Re:
Yep, that's it.
IBM has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA. The NSA has required a lot of computing power for making and breaking codes ever since it was formed after WW2. IBM has been a key contractor to provide a lot of it.
This is obviously an issue of money - IBM wants a contract, and their buddies at the NSA want the data. Match made for a law that would let the NSA send a juicy contract to IBM to gather, collate, data mine, and then supply it all back to the NSA. IBM spends a few million lobbying, gets back many millions in government contracts. Military-industrial complex, I think I remember something about that.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 12:04pm
Re: Re:
Which I would be entirely fine with in better economic times, but every time one of these dinosaurs bites the big one, it dumps another few thousand people into a job-market that's already saturated. I'm not mad about the idea of propping up a failing business model either, but the alternative is... Well, we saw it in London not so long ago.
Propping them up is the definition of 'throwing good money after bad.'
Anything spent on propping that business up and keeping those people employed (doing something the market no longer values) would be far better spent on something the market does value. Retrain the workers. More startup loans to small businesses. Anything but dumping it down a hole of the failed business.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 11:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The sort of harm you're referring to wouldn't be actionable unless it violated some law like Sections 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act or something like that.
But once again, we get to the point that those are US laws, and people in other countries are being held to them. Are you okay with that?
If you're not in the U.S., the U.S. would only have jurisdiction if you aimed your conduct at the U.S. and caused harm in the U.S.
Who gets to define "aimed your conduct"? The US or the party who has been harmed? Of course they're going to claim the harm is actionable and aimed at them - just look at the Rojadirecta case. Does using international payment processors count? Having a .com domain name managed by Verisign (even if you bought it from a local registar) count? Does it count if you *don't* geoblock certain country's IP ranges (which is getting harder to cleanly define for all sorts of reasons)?
So you'd be untouchable--so long as you never traveled to that other country!
Dmitry Skylarov. Should doing something that is perfectly legal in one country make it impossible to travel elsewhere?
I've been told that as far as the courts are concerned, once you're there, they don't particularly care how you got there. There's no legal problem (as far as US courts are concerned) with running some kind of police/paramilitary to arrest/kidnap someone and bring them to the jurisdiction. Is that your understanding as well?
Back to the smoking weed in Washington example - suddenly lighting that joint up a week ago has made it impossible to travel to Idaho now, and you have to be worried about a SWAT team coming and dragging you across the border. Do you not see an inherent problem with this?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 7:42am
"This means that once said books go out of print, the authors can't resell them. Can't reprint them. Can't sell any adaptation rights. Can't write any sequels. "
Perhaps not legally. But until those rights issues are resolved (possibly never), who could sue them?
Mike, I know you frown on promoting any law-breaking. But I don't. When the laws no longer makes sense, I urge disobedience. Laws are for the public good - and when the public does not respect a law, it has lost its power.
So, to the authors: Don't accept the deal. Then go write your sequels. Self publish your own book once it goes out of print. Do not go meekly into obscurity, trying to deal with a game thoroughly stacked against you. Your fans will support you if you are honest about what you're doing and why. Copyrights are a crutch - you don't need them to succeed.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re:
Do you see how it's a strategic decision? And not a mistake?
Even if you don't need anything gained from the interrogation, why take the chance? Why not have the interrogation as an additional bit of evidence to use if you need it, just in case there is some minor problem with some other piece of evidence? Why give the defense attorney an opening? Even a bad attorney can make a point that if the government is willing to violate a suspect's rights for one thing that same government might be willing to break procedures for other things, such as the handling of the physical evidence the rest of the case is depending on. Why take that chance? Where is the benefit?
On the post: Attention Game Developers And Console Manufacturers: 'Always On' Is NOT The Same As 'Always Connectable'
Re: Re: Attention 14-year-olds: quit playing games, leave the basement.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
1) At the very least there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, as the article was explicit in stating.
2) Mr. Rogers, as a member of Congress, is a public servant and his job is to work for the public interest. Wether or not there is a law or rule or procedure codified for this exact situation, there is an ethical duty for Mr. Rogers to disclose to the public he serves of the potential of a conflict of interest.
3) He did not disclose it to the public he represents.
Right and wrong are ethical concepts and not directly accounted for in all laws. He may not have done anything illegal, but what he has done is ethically wrong.
On the post: In The Long History Of Specious DMCA Claims, This Is Definitely One Of Them
Diet?
On the post: EA Shuts Down Social Media Games Without Refunding Money
I'm not so sure about that. A few of the text-based online MUDs I played 17 years ago are still alive and running.
On the post: Flight Search Engines And The Multi-City Ripoff
Re: Re: Price discrimination?
Why should understanding ticketing be any more complicated than "show me every flight and option for each leg of my trip so I can decide the best options for myself"? Can you give a good answer as to why there are all these bizarre rules you need to understand?
You shouldn't need to understand fare classes. You shouldn't need workarounds and hacks to getting the best prices, or even being able to know what flights are available.
On the post: Cambodian Activists Explain Why The EU-India FTA Is A Matter Of Life And Death
Re: Re: R&D
Good. Abandon those markets and let new companies come in and fill the void. Just don't come crying when those companies are competing with you.
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Re: Ridiculous
Yes, they are disruptive to the target. Yes, they can be used to hide real hacks. But a DDOS by itself does not allow unauthorized access, just as a traffic jam outside a bank branch doesn't let a bank robber stroll into the vault.
On the post: EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
That's the best you've got? And a pitiful ad hom attack, too. Hilarious.
On the post: Rep. Steve King: Because Boston Bombing May Have Been Done By An Immigrant, We Should Block Immigration Reform
Re: Your headline is an outright lie he said no such thing
On the post: EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Hmm. I don't seem to remember Viacom ever making that argument when they sued Youtube (owned by Google) for 1 billion dollars.
On the post: EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Liability and even piracy are edge conditions over a fundamental disagreement over what government granted monopolies should cover, and how best to promote the progress of science, learning, culture, and innovation.
My personal feelings are that there should be zero government granted monopolies over any type of culture, idea, or information. While it may have worked well before the advent of general purpose computers and global networks, it no longer works in today's world where information can be infinitely copied, transmitted, distrubted, to nearly everyone, for little or no cost.
The issue is far more complex and nuanced than you will ever admit to.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Protection
Lets say I create some content. I then create a digital protection measure that requires it to be connected to by system. If my system is taken offline or blocked, the protection stops working, and people can steal my content.
What happens when I reach my sixth strike and my connection gets cut, thus allowing my content to be stolen? Can I sue my ISP, or the people sending copyright complaints over breach of breaking my awesome DRM system? Or is copyright law thoroughly insane enough that I could come up with a plausible scenario using it against itself?
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re:
Truth! AJ speaks truth! Someone call a doctor, I'm having a heart attack from the shock!
So AJ, would you like to discuss the examples stated? Or are you once again back to your transparent and predictable "Why won't Mike debate me?" nonsense?
On the post: IBM Sends 200 Execs To Capitol Hill To Demand The Right To Send Your Private Info To The NSA
Re:
IBM has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA. The NSA has required a lot of computing power for making and breaking codes ever since it was formed after WW2. IBM has been a key contractor to provide a lot of it.
This is obviously an issue of money - IBM wants a contract, and their buddies at the NSA want the data. Match made for a law that would let the NSA send a juicy contract to IBM to gather, collate, data mine, and then supply it all back to the NSA. IBM spends a few million lobbying, gets back many millions in government contracts. Military-industrial complex, I think I remember something about that.
On the post: French Politician Wants To Limit How Cheaply Companies Can Sell Goods Online Compared to Physical Shop Prices
Re: Re:
Propping them up is the definition of 'throwing good money after bad.'
Anything spent on propping that business up and keeping those people employed (doing something the market no longer values) would be far better spent on something the market does value. Retrain the workers. More startup loans to small businesses. Anything but dumping it down a hole of the failed business.
On the post: Justice Department Looking To Change The Law That Made It Impossible To Serve Megaupload
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But once again, we get to the point that those are US laws, and people in other countries are being held to them. Are you okay with that?
If you're not in the U.S., the U.S. would only have jurisdiction if you aimed your conduct at the U.S. and caused harm in the U.S.
Who gets to define "aimed your conduct"? The US or the party who has been harmed? Of course they're going to claim the harm is actionable and aimed at them - just look at the Rojadirecta case. Does using international payment processors count? Having a .com domain name managed by Verisign (even if you bought it from a local registar) count? Does it count if you *don't* geoblock certain country's IP ranges (which is getting harder to cleanly define for all sorts of reasons)?
So you'd be untouchable--so long as you never traveled to that other country!
Dmitry Skylarov. Should doing something that is perfectly legal in one country make it impossible to travel elsewhere?
I've been told that as far as the courts are concerned, once you're there, they don't particularly care how you got there. There's no legal problem (as far as US courts are concerned) with running some kind of police/paramilitary to arrest/kidnap someone and bring them to the jurisdiction. Is that your understanding as well?
Back to the smoking weed in Washington example - suddenly lighting that joint up a week ago has made it impossible to travel to Idaho now, and you have to be worried about a SWAT team coming and dragging you across the border. Do you not see an inherent problem with this?
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Perhaps not legally. But until those rights issues are resolved (possibly never), who could sue them?
Mike, I know you frown on promoting any law-breaking. But I don't. When the laws no longer makes sense, I urge disobedience. Laws are for the public good - and when the public does not respect a law, it has lost its power.
So, to the authors: Don't accept the deal. Then go write your sequels. Self publish your own book once it goes out of print. Do not go meekly into obscurity, trying to deal with a game thoroughly stacked against you. Your fans will support you if you are honest about what you're doing and why. Copyrights are a crutch - you don't need them to succeed.
Next >>