Why use Stingray on Immigrants? The Secret of Stingray
Immigrants are unlikely to have the resources to successfully fight back or mount a legal defense that might expose Stingray.
Remember: Stingray is a secret. Everything about it is a secret. The secret is so important that obviously guilty must go free rather than expose the secret. Parallel construction must be used if necessary. But keeping the secret is the most important thing.
So what is the secret? I don't know for sure, but I have a guess: Stingray is based on some weakness(es) fundamental in the cellular network technology and protocols. Like the Windows exploits that the NSA hoards, if the knowledge of the cellular network vulnerabilities were known, they would get fixed, and Stingray would cease to work. Another thought is that Stingray may be, or partly be, based on stolen credentials, keys, certificates, etc. If knowledge of these were disclosed, they would be revoked and/or changed.
These reasons, I think, are why the secrecy of Stingray is more important than anything else, including justice. When justice doesn't matter, then why not use Stingray on immigrants? The thinking would be: only humans have rights under the constitution.
If a patent troll must sue in the jurisdiction where the defendant is incorporated, I predict there will be a mass exodus of major high tech corporations from Eastern Texas wanting to re-incorporate elsewhere.
I understand the technical distinctions of the license. I understand that the license says nothing about profit. And I understand that Red Hat is profitable with open source.
Unlike Red Hat; Hancom, and many companies that violate the GPL would probably not be profitable if their source code were open source. Yet they violate the GPL, and don't license their own code under the GPL.
Since an alternative commercial license IS available, then I think there ARE actual damages here. Hancom could have taken a commercial license and paid for it. The lost licensing revenue IS the actual damages. If you didn't want the GPL, then the commercial license was the alternative.
Re: Re: FCC commissioner is trying to Protect consumers
People have valuable organs.
About 2/3 of the way through the ISP service agreement you signed, on page 223, as you can clearly see, you agreed to let the ISP sneak in the middle of the night and harvest your and your family's vital organs -- assuming your mobile phone company hasn't gotten them first.
If we're going to cash in on the hero factor, then it seems like there are others should be added as a protected class to recognize their heroic efforts.
* Trash collection engineers, or rather Solid Waste collection engineers * Trash truck chauffeurs * Sewage treatment plant operators * Municipal water treatment specialists
After all, we don't want these people to engage in hate crimes. But why stop there?
Setting aside the absurdity that Google is "remember" anything rather than merely linking to it; Google should also "forget" other sensitive information such as the person's gender. After all, the person may want to change their gender. Multiple times. Google may not be able to keep up with the changes and would link to out of date information. The person may not want the public to remember that last week they were the other gender, and the week before that something different.
Planting doubt. Saying it's true and not true. Offering multiple contradictory explanations. Disinformation at its best. I wonder which country's spy apparatus Trump learned such disinformation games from?
Artifex offers Ghostscript under a commercial license. Why didn't Hancom take the commercial license and pay the price? After all, Hancom is using it for commercial purposes?
Instead Hancom chose to use the software without any license -- the very definition of pure naked copyright infringement.
Hancom cannot claim to have used the software under either the GPL or AGPL. Because they didn't comply with the license. The the license expressly states that if you don't comply with the terms, you have no license at all.
Distributing copyrighted works without a license is pure copyright infringement. Wouldn't you agree Mr. Troll? Consider a Microsoft product: SQL Server Developer Edition. It is very inexpensive -- in fact, I am informed it is free now. (Because I am requisitioning two copies of it for development servers.) (Free as in beer, not Free as in freedom) But its license absolutely forbids using it for any production use, eg commercial use. By your argument, Mr. Troll, I should just use Microsoft SQL Server Developer Edition on my production servers instead of paying Microsoft several tens of thousands of dollars PER YEAR, PER CPU CORE on EACH SERVER. After all, I can get Developer Edition for free. Why take out the commercial license at all? Seems like a waste of a vast amount of money. In your own words, Microsoft wouldn't suffer any "actual damages".
From a bit of googling, that appears to be the case.
Now for a bit of irony. This will especially confound the troll in this topic. When a business offers a product under either a commercial license or the AGPL license, that seems like the AGPL is being used to further the uptake of their commercial license. The AGPL would limit your possible use of the software in such a way that it is unlikely you could use it for any commercial profit. You could probably use it internally, without distributing it or making it available as a service over a network. But almost any way that you could make money from it would require taking the commercial license.
I pointed out earlier that as a supporter of open source, I am quite happy to cheer on businesses that sue over copyright infringement of closed source software. The use of pirated closed source software is someone that either (1) should have found an alternative, possibly open source, or (2) should have paid for the software they are using. Software doesn't just grow on trees.
Open Source is a hack around copyright by using copyright itself.
Celebrating the enforcability of open source is not celebrating copyright in the more general sense.
If copyright and patent disappeared tomorrow, so would open source licenses -- and that would be just fine.
As for the damages, they are real. If Ghostscript is not valuable, then Hancom should have stopped using it years ago. But they didn't. Because Ghostscript is truly difficult and expensive to develop and performs an important function which is a core part of what Hancom's product actually does. So how can you say there are no damages? Ghostscript could have been selling that product. But the real and greater damage is that Hancom has deprived everyone else of Hancom's code which rightfully should be open source under the GPL. If Hancom doesn't like those terms, it shouldn't have used Ghostscript. If I was stealing Microsoft Office and using it as the basis of my product, wouldn't you be arguing that I should have understood the license terms of Microsoft Office before I made such a decision?
Open Source Copyright Enforcement GOOD because it encourages the widest possible dissemination and freedom of the copyrighted work. Maximum openness. The very purpose of the license. A license deliberately and freely chosen by the work's author(s).
Closed Source Copyright Enforcement is not generally bad. I am in favor of prosecuting piracy of closed source software to the maximum possible extent of the law and then some. If you're going to use or encourage people to use closed source software then you should have to pay and pay and pay and pay to use it. It seems only fair.
Open Source Activists filing and winning lawsuits GOOD because it protects open source.
Closed Source Businesses filing and winning lawsuits is not bad unless it is not really about piracy. A good example would be Oracle vs Google. This isn't about copyright. Google used an independently developed Java that did not come from Oracle / Sun. Sun had blessed Apache Harmony as okay. IBM contributed the vast bulk kof resources to the development of Apache Harmony. Then Oracle tries to claim APIs are copyrightable -- contrary to decades of established industry practice and expectation. Like claiming electrical outlets are copyrighted.
Patents owned by Open Source companies GOOD because they are used defensively to protect open source.
Patents owned by anyone else are BAD when misused -- which is frequently the case. I won't use the loaded term "patent trolls". I'll use PTEs instead (patent trolling entities). PTEs are a drag on innovation. They contribute nothing. They develop nothing. They exist to ride on the back of others who do all the hard work and actual innovation. Patents owned by PTEs are deliberately vague and in some cases unworkable. (I was an insultant on a patent defense in the 90's that never went to trial. The patent was even self contradictory in how it worked.)
Trump's travel ban is, as stated by Trump's own words, repeatedly, is for an improper purpose in violation of the constitution.
Others travel ban is for a constitutional purpose.
I hope that helps. I tried to put it in terms simple enough in the hopes you would be able to understand it.
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
Re: Nobody vote for a single Republican (or Democtrat) candidate next election.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 123: No, The MP3 Isn't Dead
Re:
Everyone isn't going to re-rip all their mp3's overnight. Or acquire updated files in a new format from Amazon. Etc.
Unless Amazon would make previously purchased mp3's available in new formats like FLAC. Wouldn't that be nice.
On the post: ICE Using Stingrays To Track Down Immigrants Because Of Course It Is
Why use Stingray on Immigrants? The Secret of Stingray
Remember: Stingray is a secret. Everything about it is a secret. The secret is so important that obviously guilty must go free rather than expose the secret. Parallel construction must be used if necessary. But keeping the secret is the most important thing.
So what is the secret? I don't know for sure, but I have a guess: Stingray is based on some weakness(es) fundamental in the cellular network technology and protocols. Like the Windows exploits that the NSA hoards, if the knowledge of the cellular network vulnerabilities were known, they would get fixed, and Stingray would cease to work. Another thought is that Stingray may be, or partly be, based on stolen credentials, keys, certificates, etc. If knowledge of these were disclosed, they would be revoked and/or changed.
These reasons, I think, are why the secrecy of Stingray is more important than anything else, including justice. When justice doesn't matter, then why not use Stingray on immigrants? The thinking would be: only humans have rights under the constitution.
On the post: ICE Using Stingrays To Track Down Immigrants Because Of Course It Is
A slippery slope
And NSA spying on the citizens.
And automated license plate readers. And tracking of citizen movements through toll booths.
And facial recognition technology.
Once government gets a taste of these things, it can never let go. Ever.
On the post: Cable Companies Refuse To Put Their Breathless Love Of Net Neutrality Down In Writing
Love is in the air
Microsoft Loves Linux.
People just Love the Dear Leader of North Korea.
The US government Loves the constitution.
Comcast Loves its customers.
On the post: Sorry East Texas: Supreme Court Slams The Door On Patent Jurisdiction Shopping
Prediction
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re: Re:
Unlike Red Hat; Hancom, and many companies that violate the GPL would probably not be profitable if their source code were open source. Yet they violate the GPL, and don't license their own code under the GPL.
Since an alternative commercial license IS available, then I think there ARE actual damages here. Hancom could have taken a commercial license and paid for it. The lost licensing revenue IS the actual damages. If you didn't want the GPL, then the commercial license was the alternative.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Wants To Ban States From Protecting Consumer Broadband Privacy
Re: Re: FCC commissioner is trying to Protect consumers
About 2/3 of the way through the ISP service agreement you signed, on page 223, as you can clearly see, you agreed to let the ISP sneak in the middle of the night and harvest your and your family's vital organs -- assuming your mobile phone company hasn't gotten them first.
On the post: NY Senate Passes Bill That Would Add Cops And Firemen To List Of Protected Classes Under State's Hate Crime Law
Re: Re: Re: Wait, firemen?
On the post: NY Senate Passes Bill That Would Add Cops And Firemen To List Of Protected Classes Under State's Hate Crime Law
Re: Re: Wait, firemen?
* Trash collection engineers, or rather Solid Waste collection engineers
* Trash truck chauffeurs
* Sewage treatment plant operators
* Municipal water treatment specialists
After all, we don't want these people to engage in hate crimes. But why stop there?
* Security guards
* Ambulance drivers, Doctors, Nurses, EMTs
* Electric utility linemen, cable, ISP infrastructure maintenance
* Butchers, Bakers, Candlestick makers, etc.
But what about the overworked, underpaid, thankless jobs, like school teachers?
On the post: New EU Lawsuit Claims Google Failed To Forget 'Sensitive' Information, Such As Their 'Political Affiliation'
Other sensitive information must also be removed
On the post: Trump Allegedly Wants FBI To Look Into Locking Up Journalists Who Publish Leaks
Trump is NOT trying to obstruct justice!
On the post: Trump Allegedly Wants FBI To Look Into Locking Up Journalists Who Publish Leaks
Re:
On the post: FCC Commissioner Wants To Ban States From Protecting Consumer Broadband Privacy
FCC commissioner is trying to Protect consumers
If our information were kept private, nobody would be able to monetize it. This would ultimately lead to the death of capitalism worldwide.
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re:
http://artifex.com/licensing/
Artifex offers Ghostscript under a commercial license. Why didn't Hancom take the commercial license and pay the price? After all, Hancom is using it for commercial purposes?
Instead Hancom chose to use the software without any license -- the very definition of pure naked copyright infringement.
Hancom cannot claim to have used the software under either the GPL or AGPL. Because they didn't comply with the license. The the license expressly states that if you don't comply with the terms, you have no license at all.
Distributing copyrighted works without a license is pure copyright infringement. Wouldn't you agree Mr. Troll? Consider a Microsoft product: SQL Server Developer Edition. It is very inexpensive -- in fact, I am informed it is free now. (Because I am requisitioning two copies of it for development servers.) (Free as in beer, not Free as in freedom) But its license absolutely forbids using it for any production use, eg commercial use. By your argument, Mr. Troll, I should just use Microsoft SQL Server Developer Edition on my production servers instead of paying Microsoft several tens of thousands of dollars PER YEAR, PER CPU CORE on EACH SERVER. After all, I can get Developer Edition for free. Why take out the commercial license at all? Seems like a waste of a vast amount of money. In your own words, Microsoft wouldn't suffer any "actual damages".
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re:
Now for a bit of irony. This will especially confound the troll in this topic. When a business offers a product under either a commercial license or the AGPL license, that seems like the AGPL is being used to further the uptake of their commercial license. The AGPL would limit your possible use of the software in such a way that it is unlikely you could use it for any commercial profit. You could probably use it internally, without distributing it or making it available as a service over a network. But almost any way that you could make money from it would require taking the commercial license.
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re:
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re:
Celebrating the enforcability of open source is not celebrating copyright in the more general sense.
If copyright and patent disappeared tomorrow, so would open source licenses -- and that would be just fine.
As for the damages, they are real. If Ghostscript is not valuable, then Hancom should have stopped using it years ago. But they didn't. Because Ghostscript is truly difficult and expensive to develop and performs an important function which is a core part of what Hancom's product actually does. So how can you say there are no damages? Ghostscript could have been selling that product. But the real and greater damage is that Hancom has deprived everyone else of Hancom's code which rightfully should be open source under the GPL. If Hancom doesn't like those terms, it shouldn't have used Ghostscript. If I was stealing Microsoft Office and using it as the basis of my product, wouldn't you be arguing that I should have understood the license terms of Microsoft Office before I made such a decision?
On the post: US Court Upholds Enforceability Of GNU GPL As Both A License And A Contract
Re:
Closed Source Copyright Enforcement is not generally bad. I am in favor of prosecuting piracy of closed source software to the maximum possible extent of the law and then some. If you're going to use or encourage people to use closed source software then you should have to pay and pay and pay and pay to use it. It seems only fair.
Open Source Activists filing and winning lawsuits GOOD because it protects open source.
Closed Source Businesses filing and winning lawsuits is not bad unless it is not really about piracy. A good example would be Oracle vs Google. This isn't about copyright. Google used an independently developed Java that did not come from Oracle / Sun. Sun had blessed Apache Harmony as okay. IBM contributed the vast bulk kof resources to the development of Apache Harmony. Then Oracle tries to claim APIs are copyrightable -- contrary to decades of established industry practice and expectation. Like claiming electrical outlets are copyrighted.
Patents owned by Open Source companies GOOD because they are used defensively to protect open source.
Patents owned by anyone else are BAD when misused -- which is frequently the case. I won't use the loaded term "patent trolls". I'll use PTEs instead (patent trolling entities). PTEs are a drag on innovation. They contribute nothing. They develop nothing. They exist to ride on the back of others who do all the hard work and actual innovation. Patents owned by PTEs are deliberately vague and in some cases unworkable. (I was an insultant on a patent defense in the 90's that never went to trial. The patent was even self contradictory in how it worked.)
Trump's travel ban is, as stated by Trump's own words, repeatedly, is for an improper purpose in violation of the constitution.
Others travel ban is for a constitutional purpose.
I hope that helps. I tried to put it in terms simple enough in the hopes you would be able to understand it.
Next >>