There really isn't a civilian equivalent, because the root of this whole issue is that the government got evidence illegally.
If evidence is acquired illegally, it's inadmissible in court. Even if you use that illegal evidence to find "clean" evidence, all of that's illegal, too, if you can prove that's what happened. Parts of the Playpen investigation were DEFINITELY illegal at the time they were conducted, so the evidence was/is illegal. The whole reason these judgements are a problem is because they are using the fact that it's legal to investigate in that manner now to gloss over the fact that the FBI was breaking the law then. And they knew it.
But... How is Apple supposed to manufacture a product that can differentiate between a distracted driver and a bored passenger?
Make you super double pinkie swear that you're not driving? Have the camera on constantly to monitor you? Forbid all phone interaction in a moving car?
Better yet, why is it Apple's problem that someone is using their device in an unsafe, and (in Texas, at least) illegal manner?
Well, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, ALL members of the government are liable for actions that violate civil rights "under color of state law." The Supreme Court agrees, as in Pullman v. Allen, 1984, they ruled that that judges can be sued for injunctive relief, and be required to pay lawyers fee if they lose. It's not much, but it should prevent this judge from doing it again, and might keep the family from going broke pursuing it.
Like I said before, the kids' families' future track depends on whether they want justice, or just cash.
Re: 'Ridiculous ideas are by definition deserving of ridicule'
It's very funny for the first few hours, then it's less funny for a few hours, then it's tiresome for a few hours, then confusing for a few hours, then horrifying/outraging for a few hours, then you just feel hollow.
Because they've been serious the whole time.
And that's when you get off the internet for a few days, if not longer.
No, more along the lines of "judicial immunity." There are laws that some government officials, when acting within certain boundaries and their official capacity, are not subject to civil suit. There are limits to this, of course, but unlike the Sheriff, who knowingly violated the First and Fourth Amendments, their rubber-stamping is only unethical, not illegal.
Well, that depends on whether the families of the harassed children want justice, or just money. It is possible to sue the Sheriff personally, and it may be possible to press suit against the involved prosecutors and judge.
That second group probably won't go very well, since they could (maybe even reasonably) claim that they were just going on the officer's testimony, in which case they might be immune.
Oh, wait, no. The thousands of Alexa commands were all of the requests made after someone activated their device.
While they can be used to identify someone (obviously, since the guy did it), that's not what I would consider "spying." Not unless you categorize your auto parts dealer having receipts and an order history "spying," too.
Even I would agree that the blame is on Amazon, not GDPR, in this particular instance. However, 24/7 surveillance (or surveillance at all), this is not.
But you can? Search engines didn't even exist for a large portion of the Internet's life. People still knew how to follow links, look at page names, and run queries by hand. Have you never used your computer's search function?
You must be very young, or very tech-illiterate.
I'm not surprised though. You seem to think running a giant digital card catalog is the same as making a bot to distribute infringing files.
You don't know your definitions again. Vicarious or contributory infringement require a third party to directly facilitate the infringement.
That is:
Contributory infringement has to be actively encouraged, have efforts made to induce infringement, or happen in such a way that it wouldn't have occurred but for the actions of the defendant. It's literally called the "But For" test.
Event A would not have occurred But For the activity of Defendant. The internet exists even without Google, or any search engine. Also, since your definition of "enabling" seems to include "having a website that allows user content, at all, ever" I am, once again, so glad that Safe Harbor provisions exist.
Vicarious infringement only applies to employers or people legally responsible for the direct infringer, and only then if the infringing activity benefits the organization. This one is very hard to prove, though. Was a project only possible because the employee infringed, or did they infringe as an easy way out? Like,for example, was their unlicensed copy of Photoshop necessary, or did they just not like GIMP?
You just said today that "no one is owed speculative money." What else are claims of "losses from piracy" but a company feeling owed speculative money?
Dammit, John. I actually thought you were learning.
I love how he says that nobody is owed speculative money, then rants for hours about how piracy is costing industries more money than exists on the planet. Assuming, of course, that this is our regular ol' tryhard.
companies that had access to Facebook messages involved software integrations where those third party apps allowed you to directly access Facebook Messenger from those apps -- in the same way that if you want to use Facebook Messenger on your mobile phone, you have to give that phone access to your messages so that... you can use FB Messenger.
You are technically correct, though. It doesn't say the words "read," "write," or "delete."
...The sharing of information ("clandestine reading") was, indeed, an egregious offense, but I have not seen in any report that Amazon was allowed to write or delete any Facebook messages. I saw a report about them deleting an Amazon review based on their datamining, but that's not Facebook's fault. Not directly, anyways.
Please, it's bad enough with making stuff up. It doesn't matter how valid your complaint is: if you lie to make it sound worse, it makes everyone take your original problem less seriously.
On the post: Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say It's Cool If The FBI Broke The Law During Its Playpen Investigation
Re: Re:
There really isn't a civilian equivalent, because the root of this whole issue is that the government got evidence illegally.
If evidence is acquired illegally, it's inadmissible in court. Even if you use that illegal evidence to find "clean" evidence, all of that's illegal, too, if you can prove that's what happened. Parts of the Playpen investigation were DEFINITELY illegal at the time they were conducted, so the evidence was/is illegal. The whole reason these judgements are a problem is because they are using the fact that it's legal to investigate in that manner now to gloss over the fact that the FBI was breaking the law then. And they knew it.
Good faith isn't even part of the equation here.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Apple Can't Be Held Liable For A Car Crash Caused By Someone Reading Text Messages
Re: Re: Re:
Well, yeah...
I keep waiting for a different answer, though. Preferably, one that stands up to the slightest scrutiny, too.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Apple Can't Be Held Liable For A Car Crash Caused By Someone Reading Text Messages
Re:
But... How is Apple supposed to manufacture a product that can differentiate between a distracted driver and a bored passenger?
Make you super double pinkie swear that you're not driving? Have the camera on constantly to monitor you? Forbid all phone interaction in a moving car?
Better yet, why is it Apple's problem that someone is using their device in an unsafe, and (in Texas, at least) illegal manner?
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sheriff had help
Well, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, ALL members of the government are liable for actions that violate civil rights "under color of state law." The Supreme Court agrees, as in Pullman v. Allen, 1984, they ruled that that judges can be sued for injunctive relief, and be required to pay lawyers fee if they lose. It's not much, but it should prevent this judge from doing it again, and might keep the family from going broke pursuing it.
Like I said before, the kids' families' future track depends on whether they want justice, or just cash.
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re: 'Ridiculous ideas are by definition deserving of ridicule'
It's very funny for the first few hours, then it's less funny for a few hours, then it's tiresome for a few hours, then confusing for a few hours, then horrifying/outraging for a few hours, then you just feel hollow.
Because they've been serious the whole time.
And that's when you get off the internet for a few days, if not longer.
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re: Re: Re: Sheriff had help
No, more along the lines of "judicial immunity." There are laws that some government officials, when acting within certain boundaries and their official capacity, are not subject to civil suit. There are limits to this, of course, but unlike the Sheriff, who knowingly violated the First and Fourth Amendments, their rubber-stamping is only unethical, not illegal.
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re: Sheriff had help
Well, that depends on whether the families of the harassed children want justice, or just money. It is possible to sue the Sheriff personally, and it may be possible to press suit against the involved prosecutors and judge.
That second group probably won't go very well, since they could (maybe even reasonably) claim that they were just going on the officer's testimony, in which case they might be immune.
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re: Huh?
On the post: Once Again, GDPR Is A Potential Privacy Nightmare: Amazon Sends 1,700 Voice Recordings To The Wrong User In GDPR Request
Re:
Oh, man! People were being spied on?!
Oh, wait, no. The thousands of Alexa commands were all of the requests made after someone activated their device.
While they can be used to identify someone (obviously, since the guy did it), that's not what I would consider "spying." Not unless you categorize your auto parts dealer having receipts and an order history "spying," too.
Even I would agree that the blame is on Amazon, not GDPR, in this particular instance. However, 24/7 surveillance (or surveillance at all), this is not.
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re:
But you can? Search engines didn't even exist for a large portion of the Internet's life. People still knew how to follow links, look at page names, and run queries by hand. Have you never used your computer's search function?
You must be very young, or very tech-illiterate.
I'm not surprised though. You seem to think running a giant digital card catalog is the same as making a bot to distribute infringing files.
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't know your definitions again. Vicarious or contributory infringement require a third party to directly facilitate the infringement.
That is:
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just said today that "no one is owed speculative money." What else are claims of "losses from piracy" but a company feeling owed speculative money?
Dammit, John. I actually thought you were learning.
On the post: County Agrees To Pay $390,000 To Students Arrested By A Sheriff 'Just To Prove A Point'
Re: No risk, all possible gain
After all, "It's Only Unconstitutional If A Court Rules Against It!"®
All rights reserved, may contain chemicals known to cause cancer in California.
On the post: New Hampshire Sued Over Criminal Defamation Law Abused To Arrest Law Enforcement Critic
Re:
...You do know there would be, like, five politicians left, right?
Not saying that's a bad thing, just pointing it out.
On the post: Rep. Louie Gohmert Wants To Strip Section 230 Immunity From Social Media Platforms That Aren't 'Neutral'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Both Things Are True: Press Freakouts Over Facebook's Practices Have Been Misleading & Facebook Has A Privacy Problem
Re: Re: Re:
companies that had access to Facebook messages involved software integrations where those third party apps allowed you to directly access Facebook Messenger from those apps -- in the same way that if you want to use Facebook Messenger on your mobile phone, you have to give that phone access to your messages so that... you can use FB Messenger.
You are technically correct, though. It doesn't say the words "read," "write," or "delete."
On the post: Both Things Are True: Press Freakouts Over Facebook's Practices Have Been Misleading & Facebook Has A Privacy Problem
Re: Re:
*bad enough without making stuff up
On the post: Both Things Are True: Press Freakouts Over Facebook's Practices Have Been Misleading & Facebook Has A Privacy Problem
Re:
Please, it's bad enough with making stuff up. It doesn't matter how valid your complaint is: if you lie to make it sound worse, it makes everyone take your original problem less seriously.
On the post: Denuvo-Protected Just Cause 4 Cracked In A Day, Suffering From Shitty Reviews
Re: Copy-Protection Is A Religion
How many pirates can dance on the head of a pin?
Yo ho ho, and a bottle o' rum
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>