IANAL, but as far as I can tell, this is now NEW litigation. They were sued by the networks, appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the networks won.
Now Aero has initiated a new round of litigation, a new and separate 'case'. I don't believe it is a continuation of the previous litigation (from a 'this case' or legal perspective, but it is still part of an 'ongoing litigation strategy'), therefore they are new free to embrace new legal arguments as it's a new case.
Yes, that because the following two situations are identical:
1) Being called to the reported sight of a shooting, and not hearing any gunshots or finding any witnesses at the scene or running from the scene;
and,
2) Turning up to a scene, hearing repeated gunshots, screaming, people fleeing who say they heard gunshots and others who saw gunmen shooting and people being shot and blood and corpses and cats and dogs living together.
Yes, I can see how the 2 situations are absolutely identical and require the same handling.
Those methods were not justified (or perhaps were)
You are a disgusting, rotten piece of trash just for considering that such methods might have been justified or would be justified in any case.
That's a bit strong.
I can see situations where torture would be justified.
e.g. a super-villain type plot: Fusion bomb planted in under Manhattan, all the bridges and roads cut such that it'd take days if not weeks to evacuate. Bomb has 2-hours left on the countdown timer. Person who planted the bomb/knows the secret-code to deactivate it. That person in custody/caught by the James Bond style spy. Need to get the code NOW. Torture-away (if no better options known).
What I'm against is institutionalized torture. Even the concept of legal torture is repulsive to me. In the example outlined above, the torture actions would still be illegal. If they worked and the torturer survives (i.e. torture where the bomb is so if it goes off torturee and torturer goes up with it) then the torturer should still be arrested and charged with torture. If their actions were justified (which in my mind in that sort of situation they would be), then there are many alternatives to 'save' our hero: 1) jury finds our hero innocent; 2) jury finds hero guilty, judge gives suspended sentence (or limits to days served or something) due to extenuating circumstances; 3) jury finds guilty, President pardon's the hero.
I mean, it should remain illegal, and if the ends justify the means, then they'll get pardoned. Therefore torture is still illegal, but in the super-duper rare OMG we need the answer NOW type situation, it could be forgiven afterwards - easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
This way torture would not be routine, as if it's NOT justified in a non-WMD-type situation, then prosecution, sentencing, jail, key throwing-awayness.
Probably an ACM (Ass Covering Move). It's possible that, without a warrant/supoena, that any information provided could be ruled as inadmissible in a criminal trial of the person they found in possession of the gun/telephone. If the information was used to find the weapon, then charges against the possessor may not be possible due to 'fruit of the poison well'.
If they get the warrant, even later, then the evidence would be admissible (probably).
and for that matter enough drivers willing to do it.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
There may be a limited number of people who could fit the required profile for being a driver, which off the top of my head could include the following:
1. Having a suitable car 2. Having a clean driving record (I would imagine they wouldn't hire drivers who have had disqualified licenses) 3. Want to be a driver 4. Don't already have a job that pays better/is less hassle etc.
I imagine that finding someone who'd meet all 4 above criteria wouldn't be that easy. If you have a suitable car already in a city like New York, then I'd lay pretty good odds that you already have a reasonable job.
Don't forget, this isn't like being a taxi driver, where you can get a taxi driving license and then work for a taxi company who already owns vehicles. This (I believe) is an owner/driver model, where you already have to have a car to be signed up. Of course, with taxis, it's not uncommon for there to be a partnership model where 2 or 3 drivers go in together to become a joint owner of a taxi license and vehicle and have the vehicle on the road 24/7 with each owner covering a driving shift.
Re: Oh, the stories I could tell you about backups
I can agree with and expand upon this.
I work for a (non-US) government department.
Part of our IT, unfortunately including backup responsibility, was (not any longer) outsourced to a 3rd party outsourcer, one of the big ones.
I once had occasion to view the contract, specifically that dealt with backup requirements, with said outsourcer. Nowhere, not once, did it include the word "restore" in it. Or any phrases or concepts that could correspond to the term/concept, restore.
Therefore, in theory, they could backup to /dev/null (wow, backups run so fast now, use so little CPU or network bandwidth...), as nowhere was there ever a requirement to be able to restore the backups. Sometimes they could restore data, often they couldn't. When they couldn't, they'd just shrug their shoulders and say it can't be restored, not their problem.
There were some pages that had only 1 line on them, the line entirely redacted, that due to sloppy redaction could be read by removing the black highlighting covering the text, revealing:
You don't have to install the cert on the computers.
The firewall appliance that can be put in-between the student's computer and the internet can still do the man-in-the-middle attack, all it means is the student will get a warning in their browser that the cert isn't properly signed with an option to proceed anyway.
This is what happens on my corporate network when I install a 3rd party browser that doesn't use the windows keystore (i.e. anything not IE) that hasn't had the appliance's cert put in it's keystore.
I can still continue to the site, and the appliance still decrypts the stream, but I get a warning about it.
Often when a business is sold or changes hands, some amount of money is line-itemed/attributed to 'Goodwill'. Could facebook likes be considered in the same light?
So you've got cops with more gear than your standard military person carries, less training in how to use that gear, and less training in how to keep your cool and self-control in stressful situations and who aren't restrained by the Geneva convention and other treaties that limit the rules of war and treatment of civilians.
Remember, the police didn't loot any stores. They didn't burn any buildings down. They didn't rip up road signs and try to use them for weapons. They didn't try to lead people into darker areas to shoot at them (which seems to be the case tonight, with a group of protesters leading police into a side street that turned into a reported shooting.
Nope, the police did none of that. They just murdered an unarmed blackman who was 35-feet away and running away at the time.
And when people had the audacity to complain, to ask that the police officer be treated as any other citizen (arrested, questioned) the police decided to counter the uppity citizens by equipping themselves with assault rifles, armour, APCs, fucking ARTILLERY (I've seen video and pictures of an APC/MRAP with a multi-tube mortar firing 7 or 8 tear-gas canisters - 40mm projectiles). They're nearly as well-armed as an army light infantry company.
Most governments around the world, including 'western democracies' like UK, US, AU, CA as well as less 'free' nations like North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia have laws that require what they call "lawful intercept capability". Most telco's are required to provide this. And one way or another, most internet data passes through a telco.
Once a device such as this is installed inside the telco to provide this lawful intercept capability, then it will get used. Especially if it's a case where the Government Agency (Police, intelligence, SEC, IRS etc) has direct access to the device rather than having to go through the telco each time it wants to gather data.
Agreed, I just had a quick scan of: 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201) and nowhere does it mention discussing or providing instructions.
... (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.— (a)(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— ... (b) Additional Violations.— (b)(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— ... (c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. ... (c)(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products. ...
As far as I can tell, the author of the article isn't offering anything covered: manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
On the post: Huffington Post Finally Responds, Stands By Its Completely Bogus, Totally Debunked 'History Of Email' Series
Re: HUFFINGTON POST
On the post: FCC Issues Largest Ever Fine To Verizon For Hiding Ability To 'Opt-Out' Of Selling Customer Info To Marketers
=$0.62 per person per year.
The fine should be at a minimum, $1 per user per year, plus a multiplier of how many times over the required reporting limit they are, 126days/5days
= 25.2
5 days is pretty tight tho, so give them a grace period of 1 month, so it's (126 days - 30 days) /5
= 19
final fine 1*2000000people*6years*19 = $228million.
On the post: As Expected, Aereo Pleads Its Case For Survival
Re: Re: Re:
Now Aero has initiated a new round of litigation, a new and separate 'case'. I don't believe it is a continuation of the previous litigation (from a 'this case' or legal perspective, but it is still part of an 'ongoing litigation strategy'), therefore they are new free to embrace new legal arguments as it's a new case.
On the post: ALS Association Responds To Public Outcry; Withdraws Trademark Application On Ice Bucket Challenge
"The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge", with it's scope/market limited to raising money for ALS?
On the post: Counter-Strike Player's Twitch Stream Captures His Own SWATting... And Some Questionable Police Behavior
Re: Re:
1) Being called to the reported sight of a shooting, and not hearing any gunshots or finding any witnesses at the scene or running from the scene;
and,
2) Turning up to a scene, hearing repeated gunshots, screaming, people fleeing who say they heard gunshots and others who saw gunmen shooting and people being shot and blood and corpses and cats and dogs living together.
Yes, I can see how the 2 situations are absolutely identical and require the same handling.
On the post: Is It Torture Now? ISIS Apparently A Fan Of CIA's Waterboarding Techniques
Re: Re: Re: Silence and deflection
That's a bit strong.
I can see situations where torture would be justified.
e.g. a super-villain type plot:
Fusion bomb planted in under Manhattan, all the bridges and roads cut such that it'd take days if not weeks to evacuate. Bomb has 2-hours left on the countdown timer. Person who planted the bomb/knows the secret-code to deactivate it. That person in custody/caught by the James Bond style spy. Need to get the code NOW. Torture-away (if no better options known).
What I'm against is institutionalized torture. Even the concept of legal torture is repulsive to me. In the example outlined above, the torture actions would still be illegal. If they worked and the torturer survives (i.e. torture where the bomb is so if it goes off torturee and torturer goes up with it) then the torturer should still be arrested and charged with torture. If their actions were justified (which in my mind in that sort of situation they would be), then there are many alternatives to 'save' our hero:
1) jury finds our hero innocent;
2) jury finds hero guilty, judge gives suspended sentence (or limits to days served or something) due to extenuating circumstances;
3) jury finds guilty, President pardon's the hero.
I mean, it should remain illegal, and if the ends justify the means, then they'll get pardoned. Therefore torture is still illegal, but in the super-duper rare OMG we need the answer NOW type situation, it could be forgiven afterwards - easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
This way torture would not be routine, as if it's NOT justified in a non-WMD-type situation, then prosecution, sentencing, jail, key throwing-awayness.
On the post: Champion Of The People: Verizon Complains Exigent Circumstances Order Inadequate For Info Requested; Hands Over Info Anyway
Re: Denied as moot?
If they get the warrant, even later, then the evidence would be admissible (probably).
On the post: Recruiting From Competitors Isn't Sabotage: Overstating The Uber/Lyft Fight
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't necessarily follow.
There may be a limited number of people who could fit the required profile for being a driver, which off the top of my head could include the following:
1. Having a suitable car
2. Having a clean driving record (I would imagine they wouldn't hire drivers who have had disqualified licenses)
3. Want to be a driver
4. Don't already have a job that pays better/is less hassle etc.
I imagine that finding someone who'd meet all 4 above criteria wouldn't be that easy. If you have a suitable car already in a city like New York, then I'd lay pretty good odds that you already have a reasonable job.
Don't forget, this isn't like being a taxi driver, where you can get a taxi driving license and then work for a taxi company who already owns vehicles. This (I believe) is an owner/driver model, where you already have to have a car to be signed up. Of course, with taxis, it's not uncommon for there to be a partnership model where 2 or 3 drivers go in together to become a joint owner of a taxi license and vehicle and have the vehicle on the road 24/7 with each owner covering a driving shift.
On the post: Justice Dept. Official: We Could Get Lois Lerner's Emails From Backups, But It's Too Hard So Naaaaaah
Re: Oh, the stories I could tell you about backups
I work for a (non-US) government department.
Part of our IT, unfortunately including backup responsibility, was (not any longer) outsourced to a 3rd party outsourcer, one of the big ones.
I once had occasion to view the contract, specifically that dealt with backup requirements, with said outsourcer. Nowhere, not once, did it include the word "restore" in it. Or any phrases or concepts that could correspond to the term/concept, restore.
Therefore, in theory, they could backup to /dev/null (wow, backups run so fast now, use so little CPU or network bandwidth...), as nowhere was there ever a requirement to be able to restore the backups. Sometimes they could restore data, often they couldn't. When they couldn't, they'd just shrug their shoulders and say it can't be restored, not their problem.
On the post: James Clapper's Office Declassifies Another Set Of Fully-Redacted Pages
Re: What do you want?
This page intentionally left blank.
On the post: University Bans Social Media, Political Content and Wikipedia Pages On Dorm WiFi
Re: Re: Re: Re: HTTPS
The firewall appliance that can be put in-between the student's computer and the internet can still do the man-in-the-middle attack, all it means is the student will get a warning in their browser that the cert isn't properly signed with an option to proceed anyway.
This is what happens on my corporate network when I install a 3rd party browser that doesn't use the windows keystore (i.e. anything not IE) that hasn't had the appliance's cert put in it's keystore.
I can still continue to the site, and the appliance still decrypts the stream, but I get a warning about it.
On the post: Judge Says You Don't 'Own' The Facebook 'Likes' On Your Page
Goodwill?
Often when a business is sold or changes hands, some amount of money is line-itemed/attributed to 'Goodwill'. Could facebook likes be considered in the same light?
On the post: Why Do Police In Suburban St. Louis Have More Powerful Weapons Than Marines In Afghanistan?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Police In Suburban St. Louis Have More Powerful Weapons Than Marines In Afghanistan?
Re: What could go wrong?
On the post: Police In Ferguson Sign Court Agreement Promising Not To Interfere With Media... Then Go Threaten And Arrest Media
Re:
And when people had the audacity to complain, to ask that the police officer be treated as any other citizen (arrested, questioned) the police decided to counter the uppity citizens by equipping themselves with assault rifles, armour, APCs, fucking ARTILLERY (I've seen video and pictures of an APC/MRAP with a multi-tube mortar firing 7 or 8 tear-gas canisters - 40mm projectiles). They're nearly as well-armed as an army light infantry company.
On the post: How Various Law Enforcement Agencies Could Hack Your Computer Via YouTube Videos
Re:
Once a device such as this is installed inside the telco to provide this lawful intercept capability, then it will get used. Especially if it's a case where the Government Agency (Police, intelligence, SEC, IRS etc) has direct access to the device rather than having to go through the telco each time it wants to gather data.
On the post: NYPD Officer Chokes Man To Death; Cops Blame Cellphone Recordings And People 'Feeling They Have More Rights'
On the post: NYPD Puts Terrorism On The Run By Ordering Twitter To Turn Over Parody Account User Data 'Linked' To Brooklyn Bridge Flag-Switching
Where's the NSA?
On the post: Kudos To Wikimedia Foundation For Resisting All Government Requests To Censor Content
Re: Re:
On the post: Tektronix Uses DMCA Notice To Try To Stop Oscilloscope Hacking
Re: Re: Re:
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201) and nowhere does it mention discussing or providing instructions.
As far as I can tell, the author of the article isn't offering anything covered: manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
Next >>