An administrator from the CNIL, France's independent data protection organization, will be charged with overseeing the process.
How do you pronounce CNIL? I'm going with
se·nile - ˈsēˌnīl,ˈsenīl adjective 1. (of a person) having or showing the weaknesses or diseases of old age, especially a loss of mental faculties. "she couldn't cope with her senile husband" synonyms: doddering, doddery, decrepit, senescent, declining, infirm, feeble;
Maybe the White House should hire an outside expert?
I hear there's some Keith Alexander guy that's has some new magic security technology that he came up with all on his own.... but he doesn't come cheap.
Put a remote switch on all of their other gear. Pull a pistol, tazer, beating stick, bear mace, handcuffs or anything else from the utility belt and it auto triggers the recording including the 30 seconds of video AND AUDIO.
If the situation requires one of these 'tools' it should be recorded. No off switch while a 'tool' is out of it's holster.
"...terms like this" What's the cutoff line for 'terms like this?' Who gets to decide? Can I get a copy of this list?
"You're wrong. Nothing in any of this involves using trademark law to force anyone to do anything."
I suggest a test. If the Government preforms the action: Denies or removes a trademark. Will the affected party be more likely to change their speech?
Of course we'll need to examine the reason for the government action: Based on speech the government has declared bad.
If we try to look at the root of the discussion and remove the emotion, we come back to.
Someone's speech is more likely to change because of government action. The reason for the action is, use of a word the government has declared to be bad.
Force doesn't have to be overt and final. The smallest pressure is still force. After all, nothing the government did forced the ISPs to enact 6 strikes.... right?
I'm not a writer so I'm probably not going to express myself as good as I'd like to, but I'll give it a try.
To me censorship is the use of force, large or small, to restrict the message of someone else.
I not very interested in this particular topic, but what bothers me is that there have been a couple articles on Techdirt, celebrating the use of trademark law to force someone to change their speech... because reasons....
The mantra here on Techdirt has always seemed to me to be, counter 'bad speech' with 'good speech.' Of course, good and bad is based on personal perspective.
I realize it's not possible to reason with some people. They may honestly believe their words shouldn't offend other people, or they may secretly hope that they do. We may not be able to use 'our good speech' to counter 'their bad speech.' But laws that can be used to censor the 'horrible people' we disagree with, can be turned around and used on the 'good people' we like.
Pointing out that they aren't being forced to change their name, they just cant have the trademark is just a dodge. The people pushing to remove the trademark aren't doing so because they want to use the mark, they are doing it to try and get the team to change the name. Clear law or not, these articles read like "yeaaa, they are going to have to change because the law says so." If it were something like the Red Cross being targeted for Christian vs. Muslim wars, would the tone of the article be different?
Like I said, I have no interest in debating the topic of the article. I just feel a bit disappointed in what I see as happiness over the use of trademark law (right or wrong) to force someone to change their speech.
On the post: Crowdsourcing The Human Telescope
First thought - Wow! That's cool!
On the post: French Government Declares Independence From Free Speech: Broad Internet Take-Down Powers Now In Place
Pronunciation question
How do you pronounce CNIL? I'm going with
se·nile - ˈsēˌnīl,ˈsenīl
adjective
1. (of a person) having or showing the weaknesses or diseases of old age, especially a loss of mental faculties.
"she couldn't cope with her senile husband"
synonyms: doddering, doddery, decrepit, senescent, declining, infirm, feeble;
On the post: FISA Court Rubberstamped NSA's Questionable Legal Theories To Grant It Expanded Surveillance Powers
...Cold Dead...
You ever read something and think to yourself, 'this would be so much better with just a couple more words?'
On the post: LAPD's Body Cams To Be Synced To Taser Deployment
bluetooth connection
Of course then the cops would claim that any phone could be interfering with blah blah blah BANG
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers, On His Way Out Of Congress, Slams Obama For Not Launching Premature Cyberwar Against North Korea
Mike Rogers is an expert on hacks!!!
Takes one to know one.
On the post: Illinois Woman Files For Trademark On Phrase 'I Can't Breathe' Because This Is America Damn It
Maybe she knows exactly what she's doing
Maybe she actually wants to hinder the protests in anyway she can.
It's hard to get a movement like that rolling, a couple little speed bumps here and there and it stumbles and fades away.
On the post: Iowa Dept. Of Transportation Announces Plan To Give Police Officers, Security Personnel Full Access To Your Smartphone
NFC
Now you just have to believe that you're ONLY sending what you think you're sending.
On the post: Former NSA Lawyer Says Reason Blackberry Failed Was 'Too Much Encryption' Warns Google/Apple Not To Make Same Mistake
Simple question for Stewart Baker and anyone arguing against encryption.
Work?
Home?
Family members?
I'd love to see some reporters ask that question live.
On the post: Hackers Breached White House Network... And Some Other Country Told The US About It
Outsourceing
I hear there's some Keith Alexander guy that's has some new magic security technology that he came up with all on his own.... but he doesn't come cheap.
On the post: FUD: Former FBI Guy Lies, Claiming New Mobile Encryption Would Have Resulted In Dead Kidnap Subject
The problem as I see it.
This sure makes it sound like the times it's legally authorized are the exception.
Even if it's not the exception, anytime it's not legally authorized it's a crime.
We are simply getting a little more protection from criminals even when the criminals are working for the government.
On the post: LA School District Reluctantly Gives Up The Grenade Launchers The Pentagon Gave Them
Gun Control Debate Over!!
Everyone go get yours now.
On the post: Putting Body Cameras On Cops Won't Fix Misconduct, But It's A Good Start
Auto Record
If the situation requires one of these 'tools' it should be recorded. No off switch while a 'tool' is out of it's holster.
On the post: Police In Ferguson Sign Court Agreement Promising Not To Interfere With Media... Then Go Threaten And Arrest Media
Not even equal in the police
On the post: After Microsoft Returns All Of No-IP's Seized Domains And Settles Lawsuit, No-IP Is Still Angry
I want in on this process
Where do I go to get the Microsoft.com domain turned over to me so I can fix this problem?
I think I'll put a penguin on it.
On the post: Houston, We Have A Copyright Problem
It's easy
If everything must have a copyright, then the copyright for anything in the public domain is owned by the public.
On the post: City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order
Wouldn't people be outraged?
Just not the 'right' people.
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
Re: Re: Disappointed
What's the cutoff line for 'terms like this?' Who gets to decide? Can I get a copy of this list?
"You're wrong. Nothing in any of this involves using trademark law to force anyone to do anything."
I suggest a test.
If the Government preforms the action: Denies or removes a trademark.
Will the affected party be more likely to change their speech?
Of course we'll need to examine the reason for the government action: Based on speech the government has declared bad.
If we try to look at the root of the discussion and remove the emotion, we come back to.
Someone's speech is more likely to change because of government action. The reason for the action is, use of a word the government has declared to be bad.
Force doesn't have to be overt and final. The smallest pressure is still force. After all, nothing the government did forced the ISPs to enact 6 strikes.... right?
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
Disappointed
To me censorship is the use of force, large or small, to restrict the message of someone else.
I not very interested in this particular topic, but what bothers me is that there have been a couple articles on Techdirt, celebrating the use of trademark law to force someone to change their speech... because reasons....
The mantra here on Techdirt has always seemed to me to be, counter 'bad speech' with 'good speech.' Of course, good and bad is based on personal perspective.
I realize it's not possible to reason with some people. They may honestly believe their words shouldn't offend other people, or they may secretly hope that they do. We may not be able to use 'our good speech' to counter 'their bad speech.' But laws that can be used to censor the 'horrible people' we disagree with, can be turned around and used on the 'good people' we like.
Pointing out that they aren't being forced to change their name, they just cant have the trademark is just a dodge. The people pushing to remove the trademark aren't doing so because they want to use the mark, they are doing it to try and get the team to change the name. Clear law or not, these articles read like "yeaaa, they are going to have to change because the law says so." If it were something like the Red Cross being targeted for Christian vs. Muslim wars, would the tone of the article be different?
Like I said, I have no interest in debating the topic of the article. I just feel a bit disappointed in what I see as happiness over the use of trademark law (right or wrong) to force someone to change their speech.
On the post: Someone Please Tell Congress That 'Free' Is Not Illegal & Not To Lie About Bogus Search Results
Here's an idea
On the post: Student Points Finger Like Gun, Gets Suspended Under Zero Tolerance Rules
Come Get Me
Now I'm pushing the imaginary launch button.
Do I need to have my Dad bring me in for a meeting now?
Next >>