The 4th Amendment only applies to government entities; as Fedex is a private company, it could snoop through your packages all it wants to, but this would fall under "a stupid business decision" so they generally don't do that as they want to keep their customers and remain operating. If the NSA called up Fedex and asked them to start searching through packages, deny delivery based on specific criteria, and Fedex (stupidly) agreed, then you'd have grounds for 4th Amendment violation, though sadly I have to agree that it seems pretty gutted these days.
I think the voice phone service blurs the lines a bit as I said below, as there's lots of government money flowing into phone service providers and there's the whole concept of voice phone service being vital infrastructure that should be available to everyone.
Fedex already "censors" their delivery service by keeping a list of restricted items that they do not ship. It's not really an apt comparison though; Fedex does not open and read documents you send through them. That said, if Fedex came up with a magical computer that could scan all the written words on anything inside a package you asked them to deliver, then declined to deliver it based on those words; yeah, they could probably legally do that, assuming they were upfront about what they were doing. Would it keep them in business for very long? No.
However, if the government called them up, and said "hey, look for words on our list here and use your magic computer to block those packages being sent" then you'd have a First Amendment issue on your hands. This is all fantasy anyway as Fedex does not have a magic word-finding computer to scan its packages with.
I'm wondering if you meant USPS, which as a semi-federal agency has legal obligations above and beyond private businesses like Fedex.
I think phone companies are largely in the same scenario as described above they could censor phone calls even if it's a dumb idea business-wise; though as phone service is viewed mostly as vital infrastructure that everyone should have access to and the fact that they receive lots of government subsidies probably shifts it away from the realm of being a simple business decision and more toward illegal censorship.
There's no history that I can find of voice phone service being censored in the US. I imagine that it would take several legal battles to get a final answer on this.
That's nice. What about "information location tools" and ad agencies?
Also payment processors may already have the infrastructure for maintaining a list of "banned" entities; but assuming that there's no extra work & cost involved to setup access for the organizations that are going to handing out accusations of copyright infringement is naive. Unless you're going to cite some insider source at Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/etc that shows otherwise?
Ultimately these sorts of laws will only undermine their own purpose by further alienating the general public from the idea that their type of laws have anything to do with reality and therefore deserve no respect or regard.
So- rock on lobbyist-funded Italian politicians? Way to cut off your own arm in an attempt to thwart the mosquito that's biting the back of your hand? It's not personally my thing but I guess some people enjoy exercises in futility?
Jeffrey Goldberg already got an answer on this: "(I once asked Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, about this. “We actually ultimately do have a vision of trying to move the security checkpoint away from the gate, deeper into the airport itself, but there’s always going to be some place that people congregate. So if you’re asking me, is there any way to protect against a person taking a bomb into a crowded location and blowing it up, the answer is no.”)"
The only real deterrent against terrorists hi-jacking commercial passenger planes for use as a weapon since September 11, 2001 are reinforced, locked cockpit doors and passenger willingness to attack and fight back against terrorists that reveal themselves on the plane.
Your analogy about home alarms doesn't even make sense, as you're comparing criminals who are trying to steal valuable goods with minimal to no hassle to terrorists who are potentially willing to kill themselves if it means accomplishing their objective. It's an asinine comparison.
Any terrorist that is caught by the TSA is a stupid terrorist that would have never succeeded anyway.
So basically we're spending 6-8 billion dollars a year on worthless security theater when we could at least be spending it on investigating and catching smart terrorists who will never be caught by the TSA.
Now if only the government would provide clear objectives and oversight when hiring these sorts of firms; and then firing them very quickly if/when it becomes clear they aren't measuring up to their part of the bargain.
Mica fails to consider that any number of actions may not have occurred because people couldn't walk onto a flight with a bomb or a large knife. It is also impossible to prove the efficacy of the system, because if it deters someone from even trying, there is nothing to detect.
This statement is absurd. It is absolutely possible to prove the efficacy of a security screening system. For example, you can run a test where you deliberately try to bring harmful items through a security checkpoint. Though I'm willing to bet the TSA was able to ace such a test, right? Let's see what the article says about one such test: "In 2006, screeners at Los Angeles and Chicago O'Hare airports failed to find more than 60% of fake explosives during checkpoint security tests." Oh. Oops.
Also, I'm sure that reinforced, locked pilot cabin doors and passengers who are more likely to try and subdue/kill you than submit to your threats has had nothing to do with deterring terrorists. Nope, it was definitely the easy-to-fool security screeners that scared them away.
Reading further into the original article, just about all of the complaints are about things that occurred during the Bush administration. The only mention of the current administration is in this paragraph:
The sometimes rudder-less agency has gone through five administrators in the past decade, and it took longer than a year for President Obama to put his one man in place. Mica’s bill also blocked collective bargaining rights for screeners, but the Obama administration managed to reverse that provision.
Is it a jab at Obama? Sure, it could be. Though when contrasted with the rest of the complaints leveled at the TSA by rep. Mica it's extremely tame.
The way it reads to me the two main take-aways are Mica believes that the TSA
-Should be privatized.
-Should be refocusing on its (supposedly original) mission of tracking terrorists and identifying terrorist threats to transportation infrastructure.
On the first point I'm not confident would do a lot of good. My experience working in both the private and public sector is that the same types of problems (inefficiencies, politics, bureaucracy, etc.) occur in equal amounts in both.
The second point I don't see the benefit either. Is there a reason the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc can't assume this type of work? In other words, we already have an absurd number of intelligence agencies installed in the current government, why can't this work be subsumed into one or all of them?
I'd only consider it a cynical politically motivated statement if he was trying to blame the current administration for the problems with the TSA. Otherwise he's probably just seeing clearly now that he created a monster.
Re: Re: Paramount's just letting the others take point is all
I am, but that particular analogy comes from my Dungeons & Dragons days, where things like this could (and would) actually happen to the parties of adventures wandering the deep forgotten places, seeking riches and artifacts.
Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
Good point.
It would be interesting to see if the DCMA stipulation warning was actually part of the design spec that Hotfile put together and Warner agreed to. I'm not trying to suggest that the absence of it would let Warner off the hook for DCMA takedown violations; rather if it was specifically outlined in the design spec for the tool and that spec was agreed to by Warner it'd be additional proof that Warner was acting maliciously.
Paramount's just letting the others take point is all
Separately, I just noticed that Paramount is missing from the suing studios. There are six major studios, and all of them except Paramount are involved. That's a bit surprising, since Paramount execs have been some of the most vocal execs speaking out against cyberlockers. Anyone know why they chose not to join in on this one?
Mike, don't you know that it's way better to let your friends take the lead when exploring some dark catacomb forgotten by the world? That way, if they spring a trap and are all killed, you can take their stuff. If they don't, then you get your share of the treasure because "hey guys, I was watching for monsters sneaking up from behind!"
Pffft! Using software specially crafted by the party allegedly infringing doesn't mean agreeing to "terms" put on it.
So you would agree that all "shrink-wrap licensing" that nearly all modern software forces you to "agree" to before using the software is unenforceable?
The (possibly multi) million dollar question is: how much money would they saved if they just didn't bother to implement a whole system whose only purpose is to act as a counter measure against secondary market sales?
I wonder if the revenue from secondary market consumers on other consoles buying multiplayer codes will even dent the loss of implementing this whole DRM system on the 360 and having to scrap it after the game was released?
It'd be really interesting to see some numbers on just how much money they're spending on blocking the secondary market vs how much money they receive from "core feature unlock" code purchases.
I hope the final outcome is in LaChapelle's favor. The resulting litigation storm would eventually collapse on itself, with photographers suing photographers. It'd be like a massive live enactment of some fucked up Escher painting: The Eternal Litigious Jackasses
Re: And this is why trusting "the cloud" is insanely stupid
[....]
It's not hard or expensive. I have more data than any of you, [....]
To your first point: excuse me if I balk at that statement. What's "not hard" to you (computer literate) is going to be the ninth circle of hell to an average computer user. Stamping your foot and saying "I can do it! What's your problem? It's not that hard!" is basically refusing to acknowledge reality or just showing a general disrespect for the the fact that not every intelligent human being has a solid knowledge of computing.
Saying it's not expensive is also really dubious without context. What's your income? Do you have others who live with you and share costs? Do you have members of your household you have to support such as children or disabled family members? What's your general cost of living? These things all factor pretty heavily into the question of whether or not something is "expensive". Personally I would agree with the statement that data storage hardware is pretty cheap these days. If I had several kids and made less money than I do now I would not agree with that statement.
As far as "I have more data than any of you" - really? You really got the cojones to make that statement out on the Internet? At least back it up with a number. This only adds your image as an elitist technophile who disregards the value or opinions of anyone with less computer knowledge than themselves.
Feeling sympathy for the guy is not the point. Learning/thinking about/discussing/etc that Google provides no way to contact a human being when there's an issue with your Google account is.
On the post: Is Yahoo Blocking People From Sending Any Email That Mentions OccupyWallSt.org?
Re: Re: Re:
I think the voice phone service blurs the lines a bit as I said below, as there's lots of government money flowing into phone service providers and there's the whole concept of voice phone service being vital infrastructure that should be available to everyone.
On the post: Is Yahoo Blocking People From Sending Any Email That Mentions OccupyWallSt.org?
Re:
However, if the government called them up, and said "hey, look for words on our list here and use your magic computer to block those packages being sent" then you'd have a First Amendment issue on your hands. This is all fantasy anyway as Fedex does not have a magic word-finding computer to scan its packages with.
I'm wondering if you meant USPS, which as a semi-federal agency has legal obligations above and beyond private businesses like Fedex.
I think phone companies are largely in the same scenario as described above they could censor phone calls even if it's a dumb idea business-wise; though as phone service is viewed mostly as vital infrastructure that everyone should have access to and the fact that they receive lots of government subsidies probably shifts it away from the realm of being a simple business decision and more toward illegal censorship.
There's no history that I can find of voice phone service being censored in the US. I imagine that it would take several legal battles to get a final answer on this.
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re:
Also payment processors may already have the infrastructure for maintaining a list of "banned" entities; but assuming that there's no extra work & cost involved to setup access for the organizations that are going to handing out accusations of copyright infringement is naive. Unless you're going to cite some insider source at Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/etc that shows otherwise?
On the post: Italy Proposes Law That Will Ban People From The Internet Based On Single Accusation Of Infringement From Anyone
So- rock on lobbyist-funded Italian politicians? Way to cut off your own arm in an attempt to thwart the mosquito that's biting the back of your hand? It's not personally my thing but I guess some people enjoy exercises in futility?
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re: Re: Re:
The fact is they are completely worthless at stopping an intelligent and determined terrorist.
The only real deterrent against terrorists hi-jacking commercial passenger planes for use as a weapon since September 11, 2001 are reinforced, locked cockpit doors and passenger willingness to attack and fight back against terrorists that reveal themselves on the plane.
Your analogy about home alarms doesn't even make sense, as you're comparing criminals who are trying to steal valuable goods with minimal to no hassle to terrorists who are potentially willing to kill themselves if it means accomplishing their objective. It's an asinine comparison.
Any terrorist that is caught by the TSA is a stupid terrorist that would have never succeeded anyway.
So basically we're spending 6-8 billion dollars a year on worthless security theater when we could at least be spending it on investigating and catching smart terrorists who will never be caught by the TSA.
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re: Re: Re:
Now if only the government would provide clear objectives and oversight when hiring these sorts of firms; and then firing them very quickly if/when it becomes clear they aren't measuring up to their part of the bargain.
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re:
Also, I'm sure that reinforced, locked pilot cabin doors and passengers who are more likely to try and subdue/kill you than submit to your threats has had nothing to do with deterring terrorists. Nope, it was definitely the easy-to-fool security screeners that scared them away.
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
Re:
The way it reads to me the two main take-aways are Mica believes that the TSA
-Should be privatized.
-Should be refocusing on its (supposedly original) mission of tracking terrorists and identifying terrorist threats to transportation infrastructure.
On the first point I'm not confident would do a lot of good. My experience working in both the private and public sector is that the same types of problems (inefficiencies, politics, bureaucracy, etc.) occur in equal amounts in both.
The second point I don't see the benefit either. Is there a reason the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc can't assume this type of work? In other words, we already have an absurd number of intelligence agencies installed in the current government, why can't this work be subsumed into one or all of them?
On the post: Guy Who Created The TSA Says It's Failed, And It's Time To Dismantle It
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: "powerful anti-piracy software tool that Hotfile specially created"
Let's be fair here: you seem obviously biased in Warner's favor, so you'd be cut pretty early in the jury selection process.
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: Paramount's just letting the others take point is all
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
It would be interesting to see if the DCMA stipulation warning was actually part of the design spec that Hotfile put together and Warner agreed to. I'm not trying to suggest that the absence of it would let Warner off the hook for DCMA takedown violations; rather if it was specifically outlined in the design spec for the tool and that spec was agreed to by Warner it'd be additional proof that Warner was acting maliciously.
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Paramount's just letting the others take point is all
Mike, don't you know that it's way better to let your friends take the lead when exploring some dark catacomb forgotten by the world? That way, if they spring a trap and are all killed, you can take their stuff. If they don't, then you get your share of the treasure because "hey guys, I was watching for monsters sneaking up from behind!"
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: Will this contersuit open up discovery again?
So you would agree that all "shrink-wrap licensing" that nearly all modern software forces you to "agree" to before using the software is unenforceable?
On the post: Printing Error Shows Flaw In 'Lock-It-Up' Video Game Business Model
I wonder if the revenue from secondary market consumers on other consoles buying multiplayer codes will even dent the loss of implementing this whole DRM system on the 360 and having to scrap it after the game was released?
It'd be really interesting to see some numbers on just how much money they're spending on blocking the secondary market vs how much money they receive from "core feature unlock" code purchases.
On the post: Canadian Officials Censoring Scientists Whose Results They Don't Like
Re: Privy?
On the post: Idea/Expression Dichotomy Is Dead; Judge Allows Photographer's Lawsuit Against Rihanna To Move Forward
On the post: Can Google Get Past The Big Faceless White Monolith Stage?
Re: And this is why trusting "the cloud" is insanely stupid
To your first point: excuse me if I balk at that statement. What's "not hard" to you (computer literate) is going to be the ninth circle of hell to an average computer user. Stamping your foot and saying "I can do it! What's your problem? It's not that hard!" is basically refusing to acknowledge reality or just showing a general disrespect for the the fact that not every intelligent human being has a solid knowledge of computing.
Saying it's not expensive is also really dubious without context. What's your income? Do you have others who live with you and share costs? Do you have members of your household you have to support such as children or disabled family members? What's your general cost of living? These things all factor pretty heavily into the question of whether or not something is "expensive". Personally I would agree with the statement that data storage hardware is pretty cheap these days. If I had several kids and made less money than I do now I would not agree with that statement.
As far as "I have more data than any of you" - really? You really got the cojones to make that statement out on the Internet? At least back it up with a number. This only adds your image as an elitist technophile who disregards the value or opinions of anyone with less computer knowledge than themselves.
On the post: Can Google Get Past The Big Faceless White Monolith Stage?
Re:
Nope.
Feeling sympathy for the guy is not the point. Learning/thinking about/discussing/etc that Google provides no way to contact a human being when there's an issue with your Google account is.
Next >>