"""Your guilt is a matter of fact. If you did something you are guilty of it."""
Bullshit. You aren't guilty 'till you lost the third appeal.
Ok, snark aside, I respectfully disagree with you. "Guilt" in this context is a legal concept. Just "doing something" does not make you guilty. It is the judge and jury that decide whether or not there is "guilt". For instance, willfullness and intent are SUPPOSED to play a large part in the decision of whether a suspected criminal has broken a law (and therefore is "guilty" of breaking a law).
Yes, I'm nit-picking with words because that is all that laws are: words and semantics. It is a mistake to talk about our laws as if they are physical laws. Ever try arguing with gravity?
"""One suggests that they said nothing (we just won't hear the case) and the other suggests they did say something (We won't hear the case because it's a fine ruling)."""
Yeah Mike, that's like me saying I'm standing still and you saying I'm not walking because I have no forward motion, completely different...
No, no I just can't do it. There is no way to improve on that guy's self-parody. Excellent troll AC, 10 out of 10 for style.
"""Even though their contents cannot be inventoried in any meaningful way."""
Not sure why you think this. There are tools available now that can fairly quickly copy a laptop's hard drive, and I believe I've read there are tools that can do this with a smartphone's storage as well. Oh, and by the way, they won't ever dispose of their copy. You know, just in case.
"""I think it's worth noting that people ARE criminals if they've broken the law, whether or not a jury of their peers find them to be so."""
I think it's worth noting that you are 100% wrong. First, innocent until proven guilty. Second, if a jury finds you innocent of breaking the law, then you are BY DEFINITION, not a criminal. You are making the mistake of conflating morality with legality.
"""-- and on top of that, speaking publicly about State Department bullying is not, in any way, interfering with a government investigation."""
Totally disagree with you on this one Mike. The State Department is totally correct in stating that disclosure of their interrogation, both questions and tactics, could interfere with the investigation. If enough people read about this and start making noise (calling their congress-critter, writing the newspaper, getting media coverage), the State Department would almost certainly have to end their investigation.
Ok "aim", now answer to some of his other points. Specifically, I've seen video of cops tasering people because they would not follow specific instructions like "get up from that chair". Absolutely no threat of violence, just disobedience. Is it ok to tase someone in that situation?
The correct answer is "No", but they do it anyway because the taser is considered non-lethal. If everyone saw a similar video of a cop schwacking someone upside the head once with his a police baton for not following instructions, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. But a taser? Meh.
"""Setting aside the insanity of using patents to tell farmers they can't re-use their own seeds...""" Part A
Mike, let's not set aside that particular insanity shall we? Because until you can rectify Insanity #1, any further insanities are moot. If you accept Insanity #1, then even more insanity shouldn't bother you!
You are Facebook. How would you go about making people at then end of hundreds of miles of copper cable and fiber optic lines prove that they are the age that they say they are? Pr0n sites used to make you enter a valid credit card number as "proof", but they don't even do that anymore, just a click through "I am 18 or older." So how will you enforce proof of age?
The point is that Facebook has no feasible way to do this, just as they have no feasible way to "know" whether or not a person is using their real name or a fake one. So blaming or suing Facebook for not doing what they cannot do is kind of stupid, yes?
"""Copyright law would not stop the recording. Even under this very circumstance, nobody would stop Bloomberg from recording the call, it would only stop them from re-broadcasting it or republishing it as a transcript."""
I'm sorry, let me get this straight. You're saying, "Big deal, they can still make the recording, they just can't use it in any way or let anybody listen to it or transcribe and print it. But they can still make the recording."
"""But his search while pretty thorough, was nowhere near as thorough as described in this article."""
John, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a vagina? If not, then it is possible that your anecdotal experience is not a one to one comparison here.
Still, there is a tangential point to be made there: a competent security specialist should never have had such personal sensitive information on a company laptop that he felt the hard drive required being destroyed. If you must have personal data on a company laptop (and frankly, you don't), and it's ultra-sensitive data (the stupid is increasing), then use a TrueCrypt container to store it, and just remove the container from the hard drive and format/killdisk before you turn the laptop back in.
I don't really see the harm in what he did, but that doesn't mean that what he did was right.
"""No matter the phrasing, it still requires the Senate to ratify treaties, does it not?"""
Q: When is a treaty not a treaty?
A: When it is an executive order!
Ok, so lacking in humor maybe, but this is the exact mindset that the Administration is using. So the answer to your question is: no, ratification by the Senate is not necessary for an Executive Order.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not trolling.
"""How do you enforce an international treaty that is not US law (ratified by the senate)?"""
By pointing to our international allies' laws and saying, "We have to strengthen our laws to enforce our international obligations!" The whole ACTA debate is a reverse-engineering scenario... lay down the groundwork in OTHER countries, thus ensuring that we have to "catch up" to their standards.
It's actually a pretty funny situation: everyone sees it for exactly what it is, but all the ACTA supporters smile and lie through their teeth about it, and almost never get called on it, with Mike being one of the single big exceptions.
Ask yourself this: why are the supporters so darn interested in getting it passed in other countries if it will never have any effect on the US? After all, it's not binding...
Re: You REALLY might need to think about terminology
*boggle*
For the sake of argument, let's assume all you said is true. Do you not think that Netflix would have to pay the CDS for its services? Thus, whatever Netflix pays the CDS actually would be Netflix's bandwidth bill.
There, isn't life so much better when you're not trying to dream up loopholes?
"""Critics of this pending legislation need to be honest about the company they keep and why they essentially aid and abet these criminal endeavors."""
IANAL, but seriously, how does this statement not rise to the level of slander? It's just painful when these old "rockers" speak anymore.
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
A friendly warning to the searchers:
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. You aren't guilty 'till you lost the third appeal.
Ok, snark aside, I respectfully disagree with you. "Guilt" in this context is a legal concept. Just "doing something" does not make you guilty. It is the judge and jury that decide whether or not there is "guilt". For instance, willfullness and intent are SUPPOSED to play a large part in the decision of whether a suspected criminal has broken a law (and therefore is "guilty" of breaking a law).
Yes, I'm nit-picking with words because that is all that laws are: words and semantics. It is a mistake to talk about our laws as if they are physical laws. Ever try arguing with gravity?
On the post: Amanda Knox Is Guilty... Of Making Newspapers Jump The Gun On Guilty Headlines
I present, my impression of the Daily mail:
then
"Oh crap..."
On the post: US Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruling That Says Music Downloads Are Not Public Performances
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah Mike, that's like me saying I'm standing still and you saying I'm not walking because I have no forward motion, completely different...
No, no I just can't do it. There is no way to improve on that guy's self-parody. Excellent troll AC, 10 out of 10 for style.
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re:
Not sure why you think this. There are tools available now that can fairly quickly copy a laptop's hard drive, and I believe I've read there are tools that can do this with a smartphone's storage as well. Oh, and by the way, they won't ever dispose of their copy. You know, just in case.
Here is a related story (sorry about registration notices):
http://www.nysun.com/national/customs-agents-copy-travelers-laptop-phone-data/80735/
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's worth noting that you are 100% wrong. First, innocent until proven guilty. Second, if a jury finds you innocent of breaking the law, then you are BY DEFINITION, not a criminal. You are making the mistake of conflating morality with legality.
On the post: State Department Vindictiveness: Using Single Blog Link To Wikileaks To Investigate Employee Who Published Critical Book
Summary is wrong
Totally disagree with you on this one Mike. The State Department is totally correct in stating that disclosure of their interrogation, both questions and tactics, could interfere with the investigation. If enough people read about this and start making noise (calling their congress-critter, writing the newspaper, getting media coverage), the State Department would almost certainly have to end their investigation.
On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
Re: Re: Re: some people get what they deserve
The correct answer is "No", but they do it anyway because the taser is considered non-lethal. If everyone saw a similar video of a cop schwacking someone upside the head once with his a police baton for not following instructions, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. But a taser? Meh.
On the post: Monsanto Wins Patent Dispute Against Farmer Who Bought Legal Seeds
Wait, let's not skip over it
Mike, let's not set aside that particular insanity shall we? Because until you can rectify Insanity #1, any further insanities are moot. If you accept Insanity #1, then even more insanity shouldn't bother you!
On the post: Imagine If Everyone Had To Start From Scratch And Reinvent The Wheel Every Time They Wanted To Build A New Car?
Re: Jesus Diaz
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Facebook: free and always will be"
although I guess that's not a legally binding contract...
No, I'm pretty sure it's just for marketing.
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re:
You are Facebook. How would you go about making people at then end of hundreds of miles of copper cable and fiber optic lines prove that they are the age that they say they are? Pr0n sites used to make you enter a valid credit card number as "proof", but they don't even do that anymore, just a click through "I am 18 or older." So how will you enforce proof of age?
The point is that Facebook has no feasible way to do this, just as they have no feasible way to "know" whether or not a person is using their real name or a fake one. So blaming or suing Facebook for not doing what they cannot do is kind of stupid, yes?
On the post: Forget Wiretapping Laws, Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever
Re:
I'm sorry, let me get this straight. You're saying, "Big deal, they can still make the recording, they just can't use it in any way or let anybody listen to it or transcribe and print it. But they can still make the recording."
Is that about the gist of your post?
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Does almost count?
John, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a vagina? If not, then it is possible that your anecdotal experience is not a one to one comparison here.
On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?
Re: Re: Not very good at his job
I don't really see the harm in what he did, but that doesn't mean that what he did was right.
On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements
Re: Re: Re:
Q: When is a treaty not a treaty?
A: When it is an executive order!
Ok, so lacking in humor maybe, but this is the exact mindset that the Administration is using. So the answer to your question is: no, ratification by the Senate is not necessary for an Executive Order.
On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements
Re:
"""How do you enforce an international treaty that is not US law (ratified by the senate)?"""
By pointing to our international allies' laws and saying, "We have to strengthen our laws to enforce our international obligations!" The whole ACTA debate is a reverse-engineering scenario... lay down the groundwork in OTHER countries, thus ensuring that we have to "catch up" to their standards.
It's actually a pretty funny situation: everyone sees it for exactly what it is, but all the ACTA supporters smile and lie through their teeth about it, and almost never get called on it, with Mike being one of the single big exceptions.
Ask yourself this: why are the supporters so darn interested in getting it passed in other countries if it will never have any effect on the US? After all, it's not binding...
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cognitive dissonance at it's finest. To quote Indiana Jones, "now there's a contradiction in terms."
On the post: Let's Up The Ante: We'll Pay John Sununu & Harold Ford Jr. $1,000 To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill
Re: You REALLY might need to think about terminology
For the sake of argument, let's assume all you said is true. Do you not think that Netflix would have to pay the CDS for its services? Thus, whatever Netflix pays the CDS actually would be Netflix's bandwidth bill.
There, isn't life so much better when you're not trying to dream up loopholes?
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Quoting Henley
IANAL, but seriously, how does this statement not rise to the level of slander? It's just painful when these old "rockers" speak anymore.
Next >>