Even if you are your own registrar, nothing prevents someone acting in bad faith from forging pointers to take you down -- that's one of the main weaknesses of the DNS system.
Given how hard it is to prove a 512(f) DMCA violation, you'd think someone might weaponize this against the movie studios -- and see how much they like it then!
I once sent an email in response to a Usenet post that very likely has me on a BATFE watchlist to this day. In hindsight, it was pretty obviously an undercover attempt to link a fireworks hobbyist newsgroup to terrorism, but being young and stupid I replied to it.
But I think I amused the investigator, because aside from a single interview with a federal agent, I didn't get any trouble out of it -- the 'recipe' I sent to the poster looked legit and proper, but was carefully written to cause ascending levels of injury to the person trying to follow it, starting with a very intense jump scare and ending with their death if they ignored the scares and injuries from following previous steps.
What was the post I replied to about, you wonder? Someone wanted instructions on how to make an explosive, conceal it inside a children's toy, and set it to detonate when the toy was picked up. There is no good or legitimate use for such a thing. This was around 25 years ago.
So yeah, undercover cops on the internet is nothing new.
“they fear getting in trouble for stops later deemed to be illegal and the new [required forms] take too much time to complete.”
That's how the system is supposed to work. Fear of the punishment for a crime deters people from committing that crime. That has been a bedrock principle of policing since Robert Peel invented the modern police force in 1829.
It really says something about US cops that they consider it a bug in the system that their illegal actions might have criminal consequences.
I'm waiting for someone to try to use GDPR to disappear an actual government website. There's a technical diplomatic term for one government trying to extend its laws into another government's territory that way: casus belli.
I've often commented on various sites that the working definition of 'resisting arrest' and 'obstructing police' that US police departments seem to be operating under is 'failed to teleport self into jail and book themselves the instant a cop glanced in their direction'.
This seems to be more of the same -- answering every question he asked but 'failing' to instantly and spontaneously confess to every unsolved crime in the city was somehow being 'unresponsive'.
People make a big deal about Clinton keeping a private email server as Secretary of State, but what a lot of people seem to forget about that -- or never knew -- is that she did so because her predecessor told her she should do it as part of the briefings when she was preparing to take over the job.
Her predecessor kept a private server. So did his predecessor. So do lots of officials in the executive branch. It's illegal for every single one of them, but they all do it.
When the boss sets an example, the underlings follow it.
Do couple and several mean something different in Swedish?
"from a couple of thousand Swedish Kronors up to several thousand"
That's a weird turn of phrase in English, since a couple is generally two-ish and several is generally three-ish. You could say 2000-3000 much more easily.
So like the subject line says, do the words 'couple' and 'several' have wildly different meanings in Swedish than they do in English?
Re: 'They're drug dealers! ... probably... okay maybe.'
Well, people who are drug dealers often are in possession of money, so obviously anyone who possesses money is a drug dealer!
Of course, the police also possess wallets that contain money, but they can't be drug dealers because they have badges (even though cops get caught and prosecuted for dealing drugs pretty regularly).
That if the government did somehow get some sort of regulation against political bias in media producing or publishing corporations through all the checks and balances, it could seriously backfire.
By definition, any PAC or political party -- the Republican and Democrat parties, for example -- are politically biased media-producing corporations. So are both MSNBC and Fox News, though to a lesser extent.
I agree with Mike, this is hilariously unlikely to survive even the flimsiest constitutional challenge, but if it did, the backlash onto their own interests would be EPIC!
Because if anyone but a corporation did this, they'd get a visit from the police, a trial in front of a judge and a prison cell?
Suppose I sell you a car. I call it a purchase, I report it as such for tax purposes. I transfer the title to you. But buried deep in the title transfer paperwork is a clause that says you are only renting the car and I can take it back whenever I feel like for no reason at all.
Months pass. I have paid taxes to the government based on having your money but not having the car anymore. You have paid taxes based on not having that money anymore but now owning a car. You bought car insurance. You've paid to have upkeep and modifications done to the car.
And then one day you get up, get ready for work, go out to the driveway and your car is missing. In its place is a note from me, saying "So sorry, the manufacturer has stopped selling their cars through me, so I've had to return all my unsold stock to them, and my contract with them also requires me to take back any cars I've sold to anyone. I'll be keeping your money though, no refunds."
You'd call the police and have me arrested! But because a corporation did it, nobody in authority cares.
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
I wonder -- is sales/use tax or income tax (or VAT for those countries that have it) affected by whether something is a purchase or a license? I mean, one is a wholly owned asset and the other might not be.
If the tax rates are different, and iTunes is collecting the wrong tax, wouldn't that cause trouble for them along the lines of tax evasion if the rate they aren't collecting is higher?
That's true -- if you sold someone something and then 'revoked' the sale but kept the money, depending on how you did it, you'd be liable for charges of theft and/or fraud.
But not if you're a corporation.
The moral of the story is to incorporate as a very small (1 or 2 people) corporation, so that you have rights. If you incorporate in a country that isn't your own but has an ISDS treaty with your country, you might even be able to sue to be exempted from local laws entirely!
On the post: Registrar Killing Zoho Over A Few Phishing Claims Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Having Registrars Police The Internet
Re:
On the post: Registrar Killing Zoho Over A Few Phishing Claims Demonstrates The Ridiculousness Of Having Registrars Police The Internet
Re: Mass
On the post: Facebook Tells Cops Its 'Real Name' Policy Applies To Law Enforcement Too
Re: Nothing new...
But I think I amused the investigator, because aside from a single interview with a federal agent, I didn't get any trouble out of it -- the 'recipe' I sent to the poster looked legit and proper, but was carefully written to cause ascending levels of injury to the person trying to follow it, starting with a very intense jump scare and ending with their death if they ignored the scares and injuries from following previous steps.
What was the post I replied to about, you wonder? Someone wanted instructions on how to make an explosive, conceal it inside a children's toy, and set it to detonate when the toy was picked up. There is no good or legitimate use for such a thing. This was around 25 years ago.
So yeah, undercover cops on the internet is nothing new.
On the post: Jeff Sessions Says If You Want More Shootings And Death, Listen To The ACLU And Black Lives Matter
It's called deterring crime
That's how the system is supposed to work. Fear of the punishment for a crime deters people from committing that crime. That has been a bedrock principle of policing since Robert Peel invented the modern police force in 1829.
It really says something about US cops that they consider it a bug in the system that their illegal actions might have criminal consequences.
On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket
GDPR and National Sovereignty
On the post: Ninth Circuit Says No, You Fucking May Not Arrest A Bunch Of Middle School Students To 'Prove A Point'
Re: Re: Perfect time for a Judge Dredd Quote
On the post: Ninth Circuit Says No, You Fucking May Not Arrest A Bunch Of Middle School Students To 'Prove A Point'
Re: Re:
This seems to be more of the same -- answering every question he asked but 'failing' to instantly and spontaneously confess to every unsolved crime in the city was somehow being 'unresponsive'.
On the post: State Department Still Sucks At Basic Cybersecurity And Senators Want To Know Why
It's probably cultural
Her predecessor kept a private server. So did his predecessor. So do lots of officials in the executive branch. It's illegal for every single one of them, but they all do it.
When the boss sets an example, the underlings follow it.
On the post: Thanks To ISP Bahnhof, We Know Just How Crazy Copyright Trolling In Sweden Is Getting
Do couple and several mean something different in Swedish?
That's a weird turn of phrase in English, since a couple is generally two-ish and several is generally three-ish. You could say 2000-3000 much more easily.
So like the subject line says, do the words 'couple' and 'several' have wildly different meanings in Swedish than they do in English?
On the post: Qualified Immunity Contradicts Congressional Intent. It's Time To Kill It Off.
Three Branch System
Congress made its intent clear, and enacted a law. The court comes in and insists Congress didn't really mean what the law says, so they ignore it.
On the post: White House Potentially Exploring Executive Order On 'Social Media Bias'
Re:
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right to Forget
On the post: Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet
Re: Re: Re: Right to Forget
On the post: California Eyes Questionable Legislation In Bid To Fix The Internet Of Broken Things
Re: Re: Re: This is going to be stupid hard to legislate.
On the post: Couple Get Back $10,000 Seized By State Trooper After Local Media Starts Asking Questions
Re: 'They're drug dealers! ... probably... okay maybe.'
Of course, the police also possess wallets that contain money, but they can't be drug dealers because they have badges (even though cops get caught and prosecuted for dealing drugs pretty regularly).
On the post: White House Potentially Exploring Executive Order On 'Social Media Bias'
It occurs to me
By definition, any PAC or political party -- the Republican and Democrat parties, for example -- are politically biased media-producing corporations. So are both MSNBC and Fox News, though to a lesser extent.
I agree with Mike, this is hilariously unlikely to survive even the flimsiest constitutional challenge, but if it did, the backlash onto their own interests would be EPIC!
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: having trouble blaming Apple
Suppose I sell you a car. I call it a purchase, I report it as such for tax purposes. I transfer the title to you. But buried deep in the title transfer paperwork is a clause that says you are only renting the car and I can take it back whenever I feel like for no reason at all.
Months pass. I have paid taxes to the government based on having your money but not having the car anymore. You have paid taxes based on not having that money anymore but now owning a car. You bought car insurance. You've paid to have upkeep and modifications done to the car.
And then one day you get up, get ready for work, go out to the driveway and your car is missing. In its place is a note from me, saying "So sorry, the manufacturer has stopped selling their cars through me, so I've had to return all my unsold stock to them, and my contract with them also requires me to take back any cars I've sold to anyone. I'll be keeping your money though, no refunds."
You'd call the police and have me arrested! But because a corporation did it, nobody in authority cares.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: You HAVE NOT "bought" the content, only a LICENSE to enjoy.
If the tax rates are different, and iTunes is collecting the wrong tax, wouldn't that cause trouble for them along the lines of tax evasion if the rate they aren't collecting is higher?
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Re: Re: Re:
But not if you're a corporation.
The moral of the story is to incorporate as a very small (1 or 2 people) corporation, so that you have rights. If you incorporate in a country that isn't your own but has an ISDS treaty with your country, you might even be able to sue to be exempted from local laws entirely!
Next >>