"Google throws Android manufacturers under the bus"....
In breaking news, Google has thrown all Android manufactures under the bus by ONLY defending its "Google Play Music" product in a slam dunk patent lawsuit filed by the creator of computer audio Creative Labs against all Android manufactures.
Google could have chosen to defend all of its manufactures by naming each of the manufacturers products, but instead chose to only defend its own product.
This will have a huge impact on the Android market as now all manufacturers will have to re-think their selection of Android as opposed to other offerings like Windows Phone.
Rumor has it that this huge misstep by Google has led Apple to consider licensing it's product line to offer manufacturers a totally stable, well rounded, inexpensive and patent impervious operating system option.
I'm pretty sure that drug trafficking is illegal and as such it's the Sheriff's job to arrest all drug dealers. Assuming there's at least one drug dealer in his county, he is isn't doing what he has been legally ordered to do. So he needs to arrest himself, right?
though I specifically pointed them to where the URL used to be and what was on it. So I'm not entirely sure what other information to provide in response
You didn't specifically tell them the from, to, date and time of the e-mail requesting the removal. How could they possibly find it without this critical information.
"Even getting to 11 may be tricky without some serious compromises. If you assume (which is already unlikely) that the non-law enforcement/intelligence guys would all agree on something, you're still left with the 6 law enforcement and intelligence commissioners. One of them would have to be convinced to go along with the report."
I think this is incredibly optimistic. What we have is a committee comprised of 16 individuals - we can be pretty darned sure the 6 LEO folks are going to be anti-encryption, but what worries me is that the other 10 are hand picked to also be anti-encryption.
Somehow, I really don't see that it's going to be hard to get 11 votes, but almost impossible to get 11 pro encryption votes.
This is a gripping story that penetrates the veil of copyright and trademark law and brings satisfaction to people lusting for more information. A story that inflates the pulsing underbelly of international intrigue and enlarges the knowledge base of all of your breathless readers. A story whose breath and girth can only increase as your opponent tries harder and harder to control your gushing flow of commentary.
I have to wonder if the Feds already know what's on this phone but don't want to admit how they found out. I mean, I know that would be dishonest and the Feds would NEVER do anything like that (cought.. parallel construction.. cough), but....
Curiously enough, when you do a google search on that url, it shows up on a few pages - including the "Idaho State Police Forensic Services" home page. Hmmmm, maybe that's how Google found it.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how there is any difference at ALL. Both ways, when the viewer clicks on the link (be it text or image) they are forwarded to the page in question.
My guess? This dude made a police report to the Fort Lauderdale Police Department (based on the "FLPD" at the end) saying that you "harass, stalk, libel, and cyber bully" him online.
Can you FOI a police report? It might be worth a laugh. :)
First, the customer of a search engine is the person SEARCHING, not the person whose name is searched for. When Google says it protects its customers information, it is talking about people who sign up with Google for Google services. It's not talking about names it has listed in search results.
Second, Google is only indexing what is SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!!! If you think you have the "right to be forgotten", you need to contact the company / site that has the information and have THEM remove the info from the internet then it will quit being indexed by Google.
Blaming Google for doing exactly what it is there to do seems disingenuous at best.
On the post: Self-Proclaimed 'Badass Lawyer' Loses Defamation Suit Against Parody Twitter Account
Missing comma?
On the post: Google Goes On The Offensive Against Troll Armed With Old Mp3 Player Patent
I feel a Verge article coming on
"Google throws Android manufacturers under the bus"....
In breaking news, Google has thrown all Android manufactures under the bus by ONLY defending its "Google Play Music" product in a slam dunk patent lawsuit filed by the creator of computer audio Creative Labs against all Android manufactures.
Google could have chosen to defend all of its manufactures by naming each of the manufacturers products, but instead chose to only defend its own product.
This will have a huge impact on the Android market as now all manufacturers will have to re-think their selection of Android as opposed to other offerings like Windows Phone.
Rumor has it that this huge misstep by Google has led Apple to consider licensing it's product line to offer manufacturers a totally stable, well rounded, inexpensive and patent impervious operating system option.
On the post: Earnhardt Family Fighting Over Whether One Earnhardt Son Can Use His Own Last Name
Are you sure?
Are you sure? These are NASCAR fans you are talking about. ;)
On the post: Publicity Seeking Florida Sheriff Promises To Put Tim Cook In Jail For Refusing To Decrypt iPhones
When will Judd arrest himself?
On the post: FBI Claims It Has No Record Of Why It Deleted Its Recommendation To Encrypt Phones
Not Specific Enough
You didn't specifically tell them the from, to, date and time of the e-mail requesting the removal. How could they possibly find it without this critical information.
On the post: Leaked! Details Of The New Congressional Commission To Take On The Encryption Issue
Balanced only goes so far...
I think this is incredibly optimistic. What we have is a committee comprised of 16 individuals - we can be pretty darned sure the 6 LEO folks are going to be anti-encryption, but what worries me is that the other 10 are hand picked to also be anti-encryption.
Somehow, I really don't see that it's going to be hard to get 11 votes, but almost impossible to get 11 pro encryption votes.
On the post: Penis Pump Company Threatens To Report Techdirt To Interpol Because We Wrote About Its Bogus DMCA Demands
Virgin territory...
On the post: Dissecting And Dismantling The Myths Of The DOJ's Motion To Compel Apple To Build A Backdoor
Parallel Construction?
On the post: Police To Google: Make Our Site More Secure By Delisting It
Let me google that for you....
http://bfy.tw/4JUe
At this point, about all they can do is change the url and make sure that the robots.txt is correct before they publish the new url. ;)
On the post: Our Response To Yet Another Bogus Legal Threat From Australia: Go Learn Some Law
Re: Stuart Gibson, partner
:s/s of//
;)
On the post: The Cable Industry Is Absolutely Terrified Of Set Top Box Competition
"contractual freedoms"
On the post: French Politicians Pushing To Ban Linking To Any Website Without Permission
Re: Not all linking is equal
How do you see these as different?
On the post: French Politicians Pushing To Ban Linking To Any Website Without Permission
Easy solution....
The advantage to this is that you will have extra time to enhance your site without the bother of all of those pesky customers calling.....
On the post: Patrick Zarrelli Claims He's Filing Criminal Charges Against Us Because He Doesn't Like Our Post About Him
Re: Techdirt rank?
On the post: Patrick Zarrelli Claims He's Filing Criminal Charges Against Us Because He Doesn't Like Our Post About Him
FOI Request
Can you FOI a police report? It might be worth a laugh. :)
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Re: Only 6000 messages?
:)
On the post: VW Accused Of Using Software To Fool Emissions Tests: Welcome To The Internet Of Cheating Things
CFAA Violation
On the post: Cop Invents Device That Sniffs MAC Addresses To Locate Stolen Devices
Hack 5 is a great youtube channel...
https://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1703
On the post: Complaint To FTC Says It’s 'Deceptive' For Google To Not Recognize 'Right To Be Forgotten' In US
Define "customer"
First, the customer of a search engine is the person SEARCHING, not the person whose name is searched for. When Google says it protects its customers information, it is talking about people who sign up with Google for Google services. It's not talking about names it has listed in search results.
Second, Google is only indexing what is SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!!! If you think you have the "right to be forgotten", you need to contact the company / site that has the information and have THEM remove the info from the internet then it will quit being indexed by Google.
Blaming Google for doing exactly what it is there to do seems disingenuous at best.
On the post: Before We Pass CISA As A Response To OPM Hack, Shouldn't We Look At What The Feds' Cybersecurity Practices Were?
Senator Ron Wyden
I have to wonder what he knows about the answers to these questions and what he's foreshadowing.....
Next >>