The quite you highlighted actually doesn't forbid the carrier to encrypt communications. It only states that if he doesn't, or if he can decrypt them, only them is he forced to provide them decrypted in answer to a warrant.
This is the exact same "computer security" that copyright lobbies have asked for a long time.
- Security should be: when a third-party tries to access a resource, it needs authorization as configured by the user. - "Security" as seen by all those: when a user tries to access a resource, it needs authorization as configured by a third-party. (Government, copyright group, etc.)
That's a fundamental issue: they're basically asking for computers (including smartphones and other mobile devices) to distrust its owner because of their own paranoia.
The same people who don't like us "whining" about encryption and privacy... with arguments like "encryption is used by terrorists" and "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"... are now victims of a failure of security and encryption.
You would think they could reconsider their positions... But that would not account for their higher-class mentality: they have rights that you don't. They have the right to privacy, protection by encryption, presumption of innocence... You have the right to give them whatever they want, be it data, money, votes...
A "democracy" in name only. A pretense of "equal rights". But at least you have bread and games. :)
"Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naïve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web."
Yes, let's save poor "Amin" from Isis Internet propaganda by criminalizing him. I'm sure he won't resent the US and be an easy target for actual physical Isis recruiters in jail.
Seriously, can't those politicians PLEASE stop using the hypocrite argument of "saving people from themselves by criminalizing them" and simply admit they want more power to themselves and less rights for the common people? It's not like it would change much of anything at this stage.
Funny how both the majority and dissent both conclude the same -that it's up to the Congress to change an ambiguous law - but disagree sternly on what to do while the ambiguous law is active. - the judge can consider the rule of leniency, concluding that doubt favors the accused. - or the judge can consider to read it however he wants because... here the one in charge, period.
Obviously (I hope), I favor the first option. First because bad laws should not be legal traps, turning everyone into a criminal just waiting for his turn to attract the wrong kind of attention. Second because that is the only way to give Congress an incentive to actually fix anything. And let's not forget the third point: that we already have to many examples of bad laws being repeatedly used and abused. (DMCA, asset forfeiture, CFAA, to name just a few)
This just shows she knows as much about mythology as she does about computers and encryption. Also I understand those claims about how all the smart people are in silicon valley: they see so few of them in their own ranks...
I vote to deny plaintiffs’ emergency petition for rehearing en banc. I do so because, in my view, the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Translation: "I have expressed my opinion on this matter, hence there is no need to ask others what they think." Translated again: "I am the law." Oh wait... Wrong judge.
"The government has already argued that the warrantless recordings were legal as they were used to compile evidence of fraudulent behavior." Just no. There are procedures and warrants in place to make sure the LEO and agencies are acting within reason. If they can do anything and justify it afterwards, then there is actually no limit to their actions. The judge has to draw the line and strongly make it a point that the ends do not justify the means.
Like those guys care about what the written texts say. In their opinion, the law is whatever they say it is. And that opinion will persist as long as politicians in particular listen to their lies.
Like those guys about what the written texts say. In their opinion, the law is whatever they say it is. And that opinion will persist as long as politicians in particular listen to their lies.
Well, it doesn't sound all that much different than the copyright lobbyists asking for $125,000 for a single $1 music or $10 video file. He is definitely not quite sane, buy he's not that different from multi-billion companies either.
"At best, circumvention should be considered legal as the default, and the problem should only come in if the circumvention was done for the purpose of actual infringement." No, not even that. In that case, you sue for infringement, not "circumvention of protection in the purpose of infringement", and definitely not "circumvention of protection - period".
This has been the worst case of law-writing by far in the domain of copyright, with side-effects in domains normally unrelated to copyright.
You do not charge someone with specifically "breaking a lock" when you already charge him with "breaking and entering". You do not charge someone with "using a gun to kill someone" when you charge him with "murder". In general, you don't sue someone for "committing a crime" and "use a specific method to commit said crime".
It's amusing to see how EU rules that "US mass-surveillance is bad" and thus ends "safe harbor" provision... and some EU countries (eg. France) actually move towards more surveillance (including mass-surveillance), with significantly little protection and close to none when foreigners are involved.
Some people are trying to bring this to the EUCJ, so let's see if they manage some consistency or if it all comes crashing down in a hypocritical "do as I say, not as I do".
Comey: We decided to address to "police killings" issue that everyone is talking about. People: Great. What are you going to do? Comey: Gather irrelevant data on "justified killings" from LEO on a purely voluntary basis. Well, we already do, but we'll ask again. People: And then? Comey: That's it, really. Well, we'll also write a report to fix "miscommunications". The police can't be wrong, so the problem is obviously with the public misunderstanding them.
... it's actually not so much "the definition of an integer" that is in discussion, but the discussion of a variable "n" that is only defined as "an integer" while the context implies that n is actually "an integer greater (and not equal) to 1".
I really don't know how this is all relevant to the lawsuit, nor how much an "implied meaning" is worth in a trial, but the basic idea is that they don't seem to say "an integer is a whole number greater than 1", but "this specific value is an integer strictly greater than 1".
It might be poorly worded in the patent application, but it's not exactly wrong here. I really hope the whole suit doesn't hang on this "definition", otherwise I'd be pretty much siding with the troll, as much as I don't like it.
On the post: Senator Tom Cotton Slams Apple CEO Tim Cook For Protecting User Privacy; Demonstrates Pure Ignorance Of The Law
Nope
On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption... But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense
"Trusted computing", does that ring a bell?
- Security should be: when a third-party tries to access a resource, it needs authorization as configured by the user.
- "Security" as seen by all those: when a user tries to access a resource, it needs authorization as configured by a third-party. (Government, copyright group, etc.)
That's a fundamental issue: they're basically asking for computers (including smartphones and other mobile devices) to distrust its owner because of their own paranoia.
On the post: Democratic National Committee Punishes Bernie Sanders For Their Own Technical Mistake; Sanders
Threatens ToSuesThe same people who don't like us "whining" about encryption and privacy... with arguments like "encryption is used by terrorists" and "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"... are now victims of a failure of security and encryption.
You would think they could reconsider their positions...
But that would not account for their higher-class mentality: they have rights that you don't. They have the right to privacy, protection by encryption, presumption of innocence...
You have the right to give them whatever they want, be it data, money, votes...
A "democracy" in name only. A pretense of "equal rights". But at least you have bread and games. :)
On the post: Law Professor: ISIS Is, Like, Totally Scary, So Let's Do Away With The First Amendment
Yes, let's save poor "Amin" from Isis Internet propaganda by criminalizing him. I'm sure he won't resent the US and be an easy target for actual physical Isis recruiters in jail.
Seriously, can't those politicians PLEASE stop using the hypocrite argument of "saving people from themselves by criminalizing them" and simply admit they want more power to themselves and less rights for the common people? It's not like it would change much of anything at this stage.
On the post: Cannibal Cop Not Guilty Of 'Thought Crime'... And Didn't Violate The CFAA
- the judge can consider the rule of leniency, concluding that doubt favors the accused.
- or the judge can consider to read it however he wants because... here the one in charge, period.
Obviously (I hope), I favor the first option.
First because bad laws should not be legal traps, turning everyone into a criminal just waiting for his turn to attract the wrong kind of attention.
Second because that is the only way to give Congress an incentive to actually fix anything.
And let's not forget the third point: that we already have to many examples of bad laws being repeatedly used and abused. (DMCA, asset forfeiture, CFAA, to name just a few)
On the post: Rep. Michael McCaul Proposes 'Commission' To 'Force' Silicon Valley To Undermine Encryption
Blind man complaining that the light is off...
True enough, particularly when you already can't stop what you can see.
On the post: Sorry Billy Mitchell, Cartoon Network Has A First Amendment Right To Parody You
Aw, too bad.
On the post: A Month Ago, Dianne Feinstein Said Cybersecurity Was Super Important... Now She Says We Should Undermine Encryption
Re: Achille's Heel
Also I understand those claims about how all the smart people are in silicon valley: they see so few of them in their own ranks...
On the post: Judge Kavanaugh, Dragnet Fan From Way Back, Shoots Down Section 215 Rehearing With Extraneous Surveillance Boosterism
Translation: "I have expressed my opinion on this matter, hence there is no need to ask others what they think."
Translated again: "I am the law."
Oh wait... Wrong judge.
On the post: Defense Lawyers Claim FBI Illegally Bugged Outside Steps Of County Courthouse
Ends justify the means?
Just no. There are procedures and warrants in place to make sure the LEO and agencies are acting within reason. If they can do anything and justify it afterwards, then there is actually no limit to their actions. The judge has to draw the line and strongly make it a point that the ends do not justify the means.
On the post: Is There Any Evidence In The World That Would Convince Intelligence Community That More Surveillance Isn't The Answer?
On the post: Judge Recused In University Of Kentucky V. Kentucky Mist Moonshine Case Because He's A Kentucky Grad
Re: Too bad he needed to be told
He did the OK thing. The right thing would have been to laugh this case out of court the minute it landed on his desk.
On the post: Germany Wants To Define A Snippet As Seven Words Or Less; Doing So Is Likely To Breach Berne Convention
In their opinion, the law is whatever they say it is.
And that opinion will persist as long as politicians in particular listen to their lies.
On the post: Germany Wants To Define A Snippet As Seven Words Or Less; Doing So Is Likely To Breach Berne Convention
In their opinion, the law is whatever they say it is.
And that opinion will persist as long as politicians in particular listen to their lies.
On the post: Musician Demands Google, Major Labels Pay Him $325 Million For Removing Videos He Paid $30 To Upload To Vevo
Re: Entitlement or greed
He is definitely not quite sane, buy he's not that different from multi-billion companies either.
On the post: Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube
The irony...
On the post: TPP Also Locks In Broken Anti-Circumvention Rules That Destroy Your Freedoms
Just no...
No, not even that.
In that case, you sue for infringement, not "circumvention of protection in the purpose of infringement", and definitely not "circumvention of protection - period".
This has been the worst case of law-writing by far in the domain of copyright, with side-effects in domains normally unrelated to copyright.
You do not charge someone with specifically "breaking a lock" when you already charge him with "breaking and entering". You do not charge someone with "using a gun to kill someone" when you charge him with "murder". In general, you don't sue someone for "committing a crime" and "use a specific method to commit said crime".
On the post: NSA Screws Up Another Thing: EU Court Of Justice Throws The Internet For A Loop In Ending Safe Harbor
Paradox
Some people are trying to bring this to the EUCJ, so let's see if they manage some consistency or if it all comes crashing down in a hypocritical "do as I say, not as I do".
On the post: FBI Director Says Agency Will Track Police-Involved Killings Better By Not Changing Any Of Its Current Methods
Comey: We decided to address to "police killings" issue that everyone is talking about.
People: Great. What are you going to do?
Comey: Gather irrelevant data on "justified killings" from LEO on a purely voluntary basis. Well, we already do, but we'll ask again.
People: And then?
Comey: That's it, really. Well, we'll also write a report to fix "miscommunications". The police can't be wrong, so the problem is obviously with the public misunderstanding them.
On the post: Patent Owner Insists 'Integers' Do Not Include The Number One
Reading the argument...
I really don't know how this is all relevant to the lawsuit, nor how much an "implied meaning" is worth in a trial, but the basic idea is that they don't seem to say "an integer is a whole number greater than 1", but "this specific value is an integer strictly greater than 1".
It might be poorly worded in the patent application, but it's not exactly wrong here. I really hope the whole suit doesn't hang on this "definition", otherwise I'd be pretty much siding with the troll, as much as I don't like it.
Next >>