In the US, anyway, a valid contract (even something as simple as a purchase of consumables) requires a "meeting of the minds."
Both sides have to agree on the item being purchased and the price. If one side claims the unilateral ability to alter the agreement, it's not a valid contract.
Outlawing the practice is not only entirely reasonable, it's almost certainly already illegal, even if it hasn't been adjudicated.
I had signed up for a Yahoo email address a very (very) long time ago, and kept it around for all this time. Until they sent an updated T&C in late spring/early summer this year. Some highlights:
We’ve added a mutual arbitration clause
We’ve updated how we collect and use data.
Analyzing content and information (including emails, instant messages, posts, photos, attachments, and other communications) when you use our services. This allows us to deliver, personalize and develop relevant features, content, advertising and services
Linking your activity on third-party sites and apps with information we have about you
New information regarding personalization
It had been a backup email for a while, but I was finally pushed to just delete my account.
Let's not forget that Cisco itself was the one targeted by the NSA for installing backdoors into foreign-bound equipment.
Cisco's market position was being eroded precisely because their firewalls were sending information back to a government power, exactly what they are now accusing Huawei of.
In other words, the US government got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar, and is now attempting to right its own mistake by saying everybody else is doing the same thing.
I am but a lowly citizen, not versed in the intricacies of the legal system, but I've always thought: criminal cases involve the state vs a private party; civil cases involve two private parties.
Why are states/cities/whatever even allowed to choose which system is more favorable? If a person has harmed the public at large, it's a criminal case. If they have not, it's up to the damaged party to file a civil case.
Governments being allowed to file civil complaints in the first place seems to be the root of this problem.
Regarding Safe Harbor and its supposedly unique protections for Google/Facebook:
In fact, this merely codified protections for (as you note) many internet companies -- that have long been extended to analog businesses.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act says firearm manufacturers can't be held liable for misuse of their products.
Auto manufacturers can only be held liable for an injury if their product was defective, not just because somebody used it and then crashed.
Section 512 is the same thing. The end user is always the most liable, and the "platform" or "product" or "service" or whatever was used to commit a crime is almost always shielded from litigation.
IOW, Safe Harbor has always been the rule, even before it was the law. Modifying the DMCA to remove such protections makes about as much sense as being able to sue your local grocery store after you've been mugged. Just because they sold food that fueled the robber.
We see no reason why the Fourth Amendment would require suspicion for a forensic search of an electronic device when it imposes no such requirement for a search of other personal property
Ummm...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Either this is extremely poorly written, or these judges have never read the Constitution.
> Politicians like Trump and Governor Bevins are quick to blame things they don't understand or don't participate in. ... It takes no backbone to sacrifice things you don't care about.
I feel like this is one of the main drivers of social and political polarization in general. Nobody is really immune from it, some just do a better job of suppressing their most public thoughts about the parts of a free society we would rather live without.
The government's position - and the entire Third-Party Doctrine - is that the government can't directly subpoena an individual's information, but they can subpoena information collected about a person.
So EVEN IF the individual doesn't have any property rights on that information (questionable, as discussed), why doesn't the company have any property rights that would require a warrant?
Does the company have any rights (per the TPD) to refuse handing over the data; is this all a voluntary system?
But it (Springer Nature) is NOT censoring articles in China, the Chinese government is. The most damning interpretation is that the mere threat of total censorship is driving the publisher to make some regrettable choices, but this is still on the government.
This site talks all the time about the chilling effects of threats (of lawsuits, mostly), and all that anger is rightly directed at the folks doing the threatening, and the legal system that allows it (one and the same, in this case), rather than the victims of the threat.
There is plenty of room for righteous anger over this, but make sure it's directed at the correct party.
On the post: Amazon Dash Buttons Ruled Illegal In Germany For... Making It Too Easy To Buy Stuff
Re: Basically it's "no bait and switch"
Both sides have to agree on the item being purchased and the price. If one side claims the unilateral ability to alter the agreement, it's not a valid contract.
Outlawing the practice is not only entirely reasonable, it's almost certainly already illegal, even if it hasn't been adjudicated.
On the post: And Now Professional Sports Teams Are Cutting The Cable Cord, Too
Re: Despite losses, cable is still BIG.
On the post: And Now Professional Sports Teams Are Cutting The Cable Cord, Too
At least one other MLS team (RSL) airs all their games on a free OTA local channel, and via a mobile app, also free.
On the post: If You're Surprised By Verizon's AOL, Yahoo Face Plant, You Don't Know Verizon
I did my part
I had signed up for a Yahoo email address a very (very) long time ago, and kept it around for all this time. Until they sent an updated T&C in late spring/early summer this year. Some highlights:
It had been a backup email for a while, but I was finally pushed to just delete my account.
On the post: When A 'Trade War' Involves Seizing And Imprisoning Foreign Execs, It's No Longer Just About Trade
Rumors originated from Cisco
Let's not forget that Cisco itself was the one targeted by the NSA for installing backdoors into foreign-bound equipment.
Cisco's market position was being eroded precisely because their firewalls were sending information back to a government power, exactly what they are now accusing Huawei of.
In other words, the US government got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar, and is now attempting to right its own mistake by saying everybody else is doing the same thing.
On the post: Supreme Court Appears Inclined To Apply The Eighth Amendment To Civil Asset Forfeiture
Why are states/cities/whatever even allowed to choose which system is more favorable? If a person has harmed the public at large, it's a criminal case. If they have not, it's up to the damaged party to file a civil case.
Governments being allowed to file civil complaints in the first place seems to be the root of this problem.
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
Thankfully, a giant meteor puts us all out of our collective misery.
On the post: Reddit Ignored A Year's Worth Of User Warnings About Iranian Propaganda
Well of course. The only difference between propaganda and advertising is who's getting paid.
On the post: Flordia AG Somehow Pivots To The Danger Of Video Games After The Latest Florida Shooting
Re: Tune in the news at six to find out...
Piles of cash deal drugs.
Why won't the government protect the children and finally ban inanimate objects?
On the post: Flordia AG Somehow Pivots To The Danger Of Video Games After The Latest Florida Shooting
Re:
On the post: Boston Globe Posts Hilarious Fact-Challenged Interview About Regulating Google, Without Any Acknowledgement Of Errors
Small addition to one of your first points
Regarding Safe Harbor and its supposedly unique protections for Google/Facebook:
In fact, this merely codified protections for (as you note) many internet companies -- that have long been extended to analog businesses.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act says firearm manufacturers can't be held liable for misuse of their products.
Auto manufacturers can only be held liable for an injury if their product was defective, not just because somebody used it and then crashed.
Section 512 is the same thing. The end user is always the most liable, and the "platform" or "product" or "service" or whatever was used to commit a crime is almost always shielded from litigation.
IOW, Safe Harbor has always been the rule, even before it was the law. Modifying the DMCA to remove such protections makes about as much sense as being able to sue your local grocery store after you've been mugged. Just because they sold food that fueled the robber.
On the post: 11th Circuit Says No Reasonable Suspicion Needed For Invasive Device Searches At The Border
Ummm...
Either this is extremely poorly written, or these judges have never read the Constitution.
On the post: High Court Says UK Government Can No Longer Collect Internet Data In Bulk
Re: brexit, anyone?
When the IC gets rebuked, the only response is to double down on stupid.
On the post: Both Facebook And Cambridge Analytica Threatened To Sue Journalists Over Stories On CA's Use Of Facebook Data
Wisdom is knowing Facebook was hacked.
On the post: As Trump Nominates Torture Boss To Head CIA, Congresswoman Suggests It's Sympathizing With Terrorists To Question Her Appointment
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
I feel like this is one of the main drivers of social and political polarization in general. Nobody is really immune from it, some just do a better job of suppressing their most public thoughts about the parts of a free society we would rather live without.
On the post: Sequel To 'Man From Earth' Released On Pirate Sites By Its Creators
Re: "fairly barebones budget" -- And yet, the latest Star Wars went with the out-dated direct pay!
Seems to have worked for every mobile game developer.
On the post: Epic Sues 14 Year Old It Accuses Of Cheating In Videogames After He Counternotices a DMCA On His YouTube Video
This must have been sitting in the queue for too long. They've already settled:
https://torrentfreak.com/epic-games-settles-first-copyright-case-against-fortnite-cheater-1 71201/
On the post: Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Cell Site Location Info Case
The government's position - and the entire Third-Party Doctrine - is that the government can't directly subpoena an individual's information, but they can subpoena information collected about a person.
So EVEN IF the individual doesn't have any property rights on that information (questionable, as discussed), why doesn't the company have any property rights that would require a warrant?
Does the company have any rights (per the TPD) to refuse handing over the data; is this all a voluntary system?
On the post: Top Academic Publisher Kowtows To China: Censors Thousands Of Papers, Denies It Is Censorship
But it (Springer Nature) is NOT censoring articles in China, the Chinese government is. The most damning interpretation is that the mere threat of total censorship is driving the publisher to make some regrettable choices, but this is still on the government.
This site talks all the time about the chilling effects of threats (of lawsuits, mostly), and all that anger is rightly directed at the folks doing the threatening, and the legal system that allows it (one and the same, in this case), rather than the victims of the threat.
There is plenty of room for righteous anger over this, but make sure it's directed at the correct party.
Next >>