The example I used was "in the house" for a reason. Many rights that people have with respect to their houses do not apply to outdoors or automobiles (which are portable).
So houses were chosen specifically because the courts do recognize a right for that domain, just as a right is recognized for certain wiretaps.
I won't go so far as to suggest that DEA would deliberately reveal an informant's details, because if they're murdered it makes for a so much meatier trial.
But if such should happen, it doesn't hurt their feelings.
Bizarre as it might seem, the judge's argument is correct.
Let's take it into another arena: houses. Two people, Joe and Sam, each have a house. Joe leaves his house unlocked, in fact, he doesn't even have locks on the door. On the other hand, Sam has purchased and uses expensive high security locks.
So, given that scenario, should the government simply be able to walk into Joe's house and search whatever they want? No?
Are you suggesting that Joe has the same Fourth Amendment right as Sam to be secure in his house from search and seizure? Then it follows that Sam has no greater rights than Joe, despite Sam's expensive locks. Before searching either house, the government should have to meet the same legal standard, obtaining the same warrant.
Any other conclusion is unacceptable, for it leads to the idiotic conclusion that those who do not use Tor, have no rights. The rights belong to the person, not to the person's methods of protection.
They could have revised it to this (borrowed from the copyright warning screens) statement:
"Depending on the type of phone, the operating system may have encryption available. Criminal encryption use including encryption use without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."
I know the $5,000 limit is, like, 0.02% of Bob Iger's paycheck, but it sends just the right message that he gives the maximum. By doing that like any other employee, and by announcing his donation, he sets a shining example for his subordinates to follow.
I don't think it's about copyright or page count. EFF opposes government policy (especially that of the NSA, which is military). I think the publications were blocked because the military considers EFF an extremist (terrorist) organization.
The First Amendment doesn't permit the publications to be banned from the public, but the military can sure ban it inside a military prison.
So when James Eagan Holmes shot up a theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and hurting 70, but was not a Muslim, that it why it was not called a terrorist attack.
All Muslims are terrorists. All terrorists are Muslim. All violent acts committed by Muslims are terror attacks, regardless of victim count. All violent attacks by non-Muslims are ordinary crimes, regardless of victim count.
Our rulers created these rules to properly define the enemy we're supposed to be fighting. Bottom line: The enemy is Muslims and no one else. George Orwell demonstrated this type of thought control in 1984.
This case is a perfect example: it appears to be an ordinary (if any can be called that) workplace attack. But it is positively a terrorist act simply because a Muslim was involved. Just ask our rulers.
Syed Farook's iPhone password was reset by the iPhones owner, which is San Bernardino Health Department.
Say what? When my employer resets my password, they have to communicate the new password to me, or it has to be some dummy default.
1) If they were able to do this then why can't the government just get the eMail that has the new password? It must have been passed by some channel other than the device; you can't sign on to your device if the new password is on the device.
2) If the transmitted password can't be retrieved, then why can't San Bernardino Health Department simply reset it again?
The longer this "episode" runs, the more clear it becomes that this is just an excuse to force Apple to develop a backdoor. Which, of course, the government will keep and use anytime it wishes.
Fortunately for the DHS -- but less fortunately for anyone concerned about expanding domestic surveillance efforts -- this requirement has been altered. A bit. The Attorney General will now examine the DHS's "scrubbing" efforts and determine whether or not they're Constitutionally adequate. Of course, the Attorney General is more likely to side with whatever level of scrubbing provides the maximum flow of data to underling agencies like the FBI, so that's not all that reassuring. On the other hand, it puts the AG in the crosshairs should something backfire.
That's not a recipe for responsibility, it's a recipe for finger pointing. DHS will say, "The Attorney General reviewed this and was satisfied with it." The Attorney General will say, "I was mislead." When we ask for information to settle the dispute, both will yell in unison, "National Security!" Presto! No one in the cross-hairs.
The Grammy's is kind of a specialty show. It's not like a movie or a TV series; it's a unique event that occurs one time per year. It's also not like sports; who would we expect would watch it after the results are announced?
Since the whole point is to make money and since the show is almost wholly unsalable after the event is over, requiring live streaming: why would location services even be involved?
CBS hates making money? Can't be that, we all know better than that.
Big versus Little company...which is it that always wins, again?
The Diné may have trouble with their "Navajo" trademark. I'm not sure about that.
But as for stealing their styles... Well, if I went back and made a imitation of a Macy's purse from perhaps 1902, the government wouldn't see the difference. I would still be guilty of the major crime of creating a knock-off under trademark protection. It isn't relevant how old the style is, only was it trademarked at the time.
But Urban Outfitters is a big company; and since the trademark law was made to help big companies exclude little competitors from the market...well let's just say I don't see this going in favor of the Diné, no matter what the law is.
The cynic in me says it's a waste of time for Wikimedia to try to make a point with a work like Diary of Anne Frank. Given the vicious disfavor accorded "libtard" values these days, commentators are more likely to give huzzahs at the removal of another piece of "liberal trash" from the public eye.
Wikimedia would have had more luck with Mein Kampf.
Re: How does Anne Frank benefit from this postumous copyright extension?
Anne Frank won't. But as the lie goes, this is to protect her heirs, which will thereby continue to profit after her death.
But that is a convenient lie, because the extension has nothing to do with heirs. It is a subterfuge, to allow extension of the time corporations can control the work after her death. That way, it is supposedly "worthwhile" for the corporation to buy her work, which would otherwise be, according to them, "be worthless upon her death."
But that also is a lie, because the corporations generally have no intention of profiting from such works; typically these will sit on a shelf and gather dust. They are removed from the marketplace and therefore do not compete against the works offered by the corporations.
That is what this is really about: these extensions are nothing but the corporations enforcing their monopoly of the marketplace, to prevent past works from competing with the present.
Diary of Anne Frank might be an important work to some. But from the corporate view, it's just another work of the past, stealing from the profitable present. It must be controlled, same as any other competitor.
On the post: Courts, DOJ: Using Tor Doesn't Give You A Greater Expectation Of Privacy
Re: Re: Those who do not use Tor, have no rights
So houses were chosen specifically because the courts do recognize a right for that domain, just as a right is recognized for certain wiretaps.
On the post: Want To Report A Dangerous Drug Dealer? Just Enter Your Personal Info Into The DEA's Unsecured Webform
They wouldn't do that
But if such should happen, it doesn't hurt their feelings.
On the post: Courts, DOJ: Using Tor Doesn't Give You A Greater Expectation Of Privacy
Those who do not use Tor, have no rights
Let's take it into another arena: houses. Two people, Joe and Sam, each have a house. Joe leaves his house unlocked, in fact, he doesn't even have locks on the door. On the other hand, Sam has purchased and uses expensive high security locks.
So, given that scenario, should the government simply be able to walk into Joe's house and search whatever they want? No?
Are you suggesting that Joe has the same Fourth Amendment right as Sam to be secure in his house from search and seizure? Then it follows that Sam has no greater rights than Joe, despite Sam's expensive locks. Before searching either house, the government should have to meet the same legal standard, obtaining the same warrant.
Any other conclusion is unacceptable, for it leads to the idiotic conclusion that those who do not use Tor, have no rights. The rights belong to the person, not to the person's methods of protection.
On the post: FBI Claims It Has No Record Of Why It Deleted Its Recommendation To Encrypt Phones
It could be worse
"Depending on the type of phone, the operating system may have encryption available. Criminal encryption use including encryption use without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."
On the post: Annotating The Letter Disney's CEO Sent To Disney Employees Asking Them To Fund Disney's Sketchy Lobbying Activities
Lead by example
...he did announce that, right?
On the post: Military Prison Blocks Won't Let Chelsea Manning Read EFF Blog... To Protect EFF's Copyright
EFF, terrorist
The First Amendment doesn't permit the publications to be banned from the public, but the military can sure ban it inside a military prison.
On the post: FBI's Own Actions Likely Made Farook's iPhone Data Inaccessible
Re: Re: Re:
So when James Eagan Holmes shot up a theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and hurting 70, but was not a Muslim, that it why it was not called a terrorist attack.
On the post: Footnote Reveals That The San Bernardino Health Dept. Reset Syed Farook's Password, Which Is Why We're Now In This Mess
Re: So...
All terrorists are Muslim.
All violent acts committed by Muslims are terror attacks, regardless of victim count.
All violent attacks by non-Muslims are ordinary crimes, regardless of victim count.
Our rulers created these rules to properly define the enemy we're supposed to be fighting. Bottom line: The enemy is Muslims and no one else. George Orwell demonstrated this type of thought control in 1984.
This case is a perfect example: it appears to be an ordinary (if any can be called that) workplace attack. But it is positively a terrorist act simply because a Muslim was involved. Just ask our rulers.
On the post: Footnote Reveals That The San Bernardino Health Dept. Reset Syed Farook's Password, Which Is Why We're Now In This Mess
Say what again?
Say what? When my employer resets my password, they have to communicate the new password to me, or it has to be some dummy default.
1) If they were able to do this then why can't the government just get the eMail that has the new password? It must have been passed by some channel other than the device; you can't sign on to your device if the new password is on the device.
2) If the transmitted password can't be retrieved, then why can't San Bernardino Health Department simply reset it again?
The longer this "episode" runs, the more clear it becomes that this is just an excuse to force Apple to develop a backdoor. Which, of course, the government will keep and use anytime it wishes.
On the post: Police Department Thinks 'Two Bullet Limit' Will Prevent Questionable Shootings
Boooo!
On the post: 'Trust Us With More Data,' Say Government Agencies Hacked By A 16-Year-Old
Re:
On the post: Judge In Child Porn Case Says FBI Must Turn Over Details On Its Hacking Tool
Judge Clown
Oh, wait, I know: "That's a matter of National Security, Judge Clown."
On the post: The Need For Deep Pockets And Lawyers Means The FOIA Process Benefits Corporations The Most
Make it a performance goal tied to budget
The solution is to make it a performance goal and tie it to the department budget. For example:
"Memo to departments: From now on, 10% of your budget is contingent on responding to 80% of FOIA requests within 10 days."
Those are words departments would understand, and job hours would be allocated accordingly. And if they don't? Less taxes for us: win-win.
On the post: CBS Streaming Service Chokes On The Grammys, But YouTube Takedown Apparatus Works Just Fine
Conclusion on Brain Status
Since the whole point is to make money and since the show is almost wholly unsalable after the event is over, requiring live streaming: why would location services even be involved?
CBS hates making money? Can't be that, we all know better than that.
Oh, wait, I get it: CBS lacks a brain.
On the post: Years Later, White House Sends Two Copyright Treaties To Senate For Ratification: One Good, One Bad
Carrot and stick
Not that it matters: the bad one will pass and the good one won't. Corporate lobbying will ensure that.
On the post: Navajo Nation's Trademark Suit Against Urban Outfitters Proceeds; But Should It?
Big versus Little company...which is it that always wins, again?
But as for stealing their styles... Well, if I went back and made a imitation of a Macy's purse from perhaps 1902, the government wouldn't see the difference. I would still be guilty of the major crime of creating a knock-off under trademark protection. It isn't relevant how old the style is, only was it trademarked at the time.
But Urban Outfitters is a big company; and since the trademark law was made to help big companies exclude little competitors from the market...well let's just say I don't see this going in favor of the Diné, no matter what the law is.
On the post: Wikimedia Takes Down Diary Of Anne Frank, Uses It To Highlight Idiocy Of DMCA Rules, Copyright Terms
Liberal trash
Wikimedia would have had more luck with Mein Kampf.
On the post: Wikimedia Takes Down Diary Of Anne Frank, Uses It To Highlight Idiocy Of DMCA Rules, Copyright Terms
Re: How does Anne Frank benefit from this postumous copyright extension?
But that is a convenient lie, because the extension has nothing to do with heirs. It is a subterfuge, to allow extension of the time corporations can control the work after her death. That way, it is supposedly "worthwhile" for the corporation to buy her work, which would otherwise be, according to them, "be worthless upon her death."
But that also is a lie, because the corporations generally have no intention of profiting from such works; typically these will sit on a shelf and gather dust. They are removed from the marketplace and therefore do not compete against the works offered by the corporations.
That is what this is really about: these extensions are nothing but the corporations enforcing their monopoly of the marketplace, to prevent past works from competing with the present.
Diary of Anne Frank might be an important work to some. But from the corporate view, it's just another work of the past, stealing from the profitable present. It must be controlled, same as any other competitor.
On the post: CIA Director Freaks Out After Senator Wyden Points Out How The CIA Spied On The Senate
Is it time?
On the post: Government Lawyers Think Open Records Reform Proposal Hands Over Too Much Power To The People
Well, how much?
Politician: "NONE, you idiot! We know what's good for you and you have no business questioning that!"
Next >>