For someone who's so concerned with retaining strict control of her information, Buhl certainly doesn't seem to mind throwing around other people's information -- even the contents of a teenage girl's personal journal.
Hey, that teenage girl should have written "nothing in this diary is publishable" on the cover. Problem solved.
Alan Cooper (the caretaker) still has his lawsuit against AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, saying that they used a copy of his signature. So merely dropping a single lawsuit isn't going to help them.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that Alan Cooper the caretaker is wrong, and there is a different Alan Cooper managing the companies. What negative consequences could the caretaker suffer? IANAL, but my understanding is that the caretaker couldn't be sued for defamation or anything like that, since lawsuit filings are privileged. Is that wrong, and he could be sued for [whatever]? Could he be made to pay lawyer's fees for Prenda, John Steele, AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13? Anything else?
he had cooperated with police a few times allowing them to run stings out of his motel and then they held that against him, apparently using the crimes brought in by the stings to say he was facilitating drug crimes.
What?! I mean, holy crap, that gives a whole new meaning to the term "chutzpah".
What if, as the article claims, the corporations are pressured into doing so by the government, with threats that regulatory laws will be passed if the corporations don't regulate themselves.
[copyright-maximalist]Well, the obvious thing to do is to pass a law so that copyright owners can subpoena the identity of pirates without having to file a lawsuit, to prevent the pirates from being defendants while they're still John Does.[/copyright-maximalist]
From another comment by the same anon, I think the implication is that it is an accepted fact, and the judge only threw it out of court because s/he was afraid of the bad PR that would result from ruling correctly.
For those of you who agree with Lesser that that's acceptable collateral damage: let's say that there was some way to completely eliminate piracy from the Internet. In achieving that, what would be an acceptable level of collateral damage? Or, to put it another way, how high would the collateral damage have to be before you'd consider the cure to be worse than the disease?
He could have damaged those charities by doing that. The law is the law, morality is not law.
Charities get money taken off them LEGALLY and have to pay costs too.
Wait, the charities could have been forced to give the money back? Under what law or precedent?
It seems like the obvious solution would be a rule saying that the personally identifying information about private citizens must be redacted before any document is released. That would be completely neutral to the issue of guns, and is something that should have been in place already.
While I don't at all agree with what the government is doing here, the secret interpretations of law is about laws saying what the government can or can't do, so this doesn't involve any secret interpretations of laws that you or I could break. Of course, there could be secret interpretations of laws that you or I could break, but that would be the subject of a different FOIA request.
Finally, this approach seems to overlook the fact that presumed terrorists are unlikely to be best pleased with any person that unwittingly sends them government malware.
To play devil's advocate, you could consider that to be wartime collateral damage.
I'm not quite sure how one "diverts" traffic if the solution being provided is reasonably deemed to be better for the consumer.
I think he probably means something like "if Google's search ranking algorithm ranks one of Google's competitors above itself, then it modifies the algorithm so the Google will come out on top instead". However, there's no way to sum that up in just two words, so he says "diverting traffic" instead.
OOTB: Google sucks. Corporations suck. Except the RIAA, because they jizz on my face.
I think OotB's line is more like:
Large corporations suck. The RIAA exists not to protect the large media corporations, but to protect the artists, just like the patent system protects small companies from large companies.
On the post: Canadian Schools Ban WiFi Based On Bad Science
Re:
On the post: Investigative Journalist Claims Her Public Tweets Aren't 'Publishable;' Threatens To Sue Blogger Who Does Exactly That
On the post: NZ Copyright Tribunal: Accusations Are Presumed Infringement, Despite Denials
Re:
On the post: Truly Stupid Ideas: Adding DRM To HTML5
Use case: sharing with your family
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Tries To Avoid Answering Questions About Alan Cooper By Dismissing Case
Is that really the motive?
On the post: Alan Cooper Sues John Steele, Prenda Law And The Shell Companies He Supposedly 'Runs'
Re: Re: If Cooper is wrong...
On the post: Alan Cooper Sues John Steele, Prenda Law And The Shell Companies He Supposedly 'Runs'
If Cooper is wrong...
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prenda's Latest Trick: Pretend There Are NO Defendants So No One Can Object
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]
Re: Re:
On the post: Six Strikes Administrator: Loss Of Open WiFi Access At Cafes Is Acceptable Collateral Damage
On collateral damage
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]
Re:
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
On the post: Justice Department 'Complies' With FOIA Request For GPS Tracking Memos; Hands ACLU 111 Fully Redacted Pages
On the post: Justice Department 'Complies' With FOIA Request For GPS Tracking Memos; Hands ACLU 111 Fully Redacted Pages
Re: Ignorance
On the post: Australia's Spies Want To Put Members Of The Public At Risk By Using Them To Pass On Malware to Suspected Terrorists
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Defendant can't mention their case?
On the post: Do We Really Want EU Bureaucrats Deciding What Google Search Results 'Should' Look Like?
On the post: Lionsgate Censors Remix Video That The Copyright Office Itself Used As An Example Of Fair Use
Re: Re: Re:
Large corporations suck. The RIAA exists not to protect the large media corporations, but to protect the artists, just like the patent system protects small companies from large companies.
Next >>