Just remember, whenever trying to reduce the power and influence of something harmful that's backed by commercial interests comes up, it'll be an uphill battle every time. Whether it be copyright abuse, pollution, abortion, for-profit prisons, predatory lending, or whatever else, the same principle always bites those of us trying to improve things in the butt: there is no money to be made in not selling a product or service. Which translates directly into a disadvantage in lobbying and advertising, right from the start.
Indeed, it suggests that there may be a judge in the 9th Circuit who believes the important Cetacean case, which was crucial to this ruling, and which says that without it being expressly noted by Congress, animals do not get the right to sue in court.
You seem to be missing the end of this sentence.
It suggests that there may be a judge in the 9th circuit who believes what about the Cetacean case? That it's wrong? That it's been applied improperly in this instance?
Look - if we allow these guys to be prosecuted, we basically allow the state the power to shut down anyone who posts publicly available information.
No. It's not the posting of publicly available information that's objectionable; it's the extorting people into paying them to remove it, and I'm just fine with allowing the state the power to smack down people who do that!
What they're doing is disgusting, but it does seem to be constitutional, which means it should be legal
What do you mean by this? Taking it to its logical conclusion (nothing the Constitution does not forbid should be illegal) would involve a bunch of truly absurd things, considering that the constitution says nothing about murder, robbery, or rape, just for starters. Since that's clearly not what you actually meant, would you mind clarifying?
Taken together, the arrest warrant concludes, the site operators are guilty of extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion. But to prove extortion prosecutors must show that the accused threatened a victim either with violence, the accusation of a crime, or the exposure of a secret, if they didn't pay the accused. Yet the defendants are accused of none of these things. Not only is there no issue of threatened violence, but what the site operators are alleged to have done in no way involves revealing a secret or accusing another of a crime. Instead it is the state that has already accused the site operators' purported "victims" of a crime, and its having done so is no secret. The state's accusation against these people became public when it originally released the mugshots, meaning there is nothing that the site operators could have been threatening to reveal that wasn't already revealed.
You're operating under the implicit assumption that "accusing another of a crime" is a thing that can only be done one time by one entity. I see no good reason why this should be considered the case. Seems to me their business model consists of accusing people of crimes (that the state has also accused them of), in a centralized location that is easier for the public to find than wherever the various states publish them, and then extorting them to get it taken down.
The FBI's count was inflated by bad software and sloppy recordkeeping.
How? How is that even possible? Counting things is literally one of the simplest possible tasks for a computer. When you make a mistake in programming, you'll usually have one too many or too few, (this is common enough that there's a name for it: off-by-one errors,) but off by several thousand?
There's an old saying: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But as a professional programmer, I can't see any good way how this can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence. This has to be someone messing around.
“I’m far from being a fan of the far right, but a lot of them are afraid that their postings are deleted because of their beliefs, not because of what they say,” said Jeorg Heidrich, a German internet lawyer and a longtime opponent of the regulation.
Maybe he's been studying his nation's history. Weimar Germany had some very strong hate speech laws, and they enforced them quite effectively, by the standards of those who believe in such things. One of the people who the law came down the hardest upon was a hate-filled ranter by the name of Adolf Hitler. You'd think this was a good thing... except that the Nazi party exploited it quite effectively, using the government's censorship of Hitler as a rallying cry. The support they got from this turned out to be a significant factor in of their rise to power.
(Not a Godwin, as we're talking about stuff that's actually relevant, and in German politics to boot.)
a district court in Texas determined “domestic assault” as codified by Tennessee law does not fit the federal definition of domestic violence
Way to bury the lede here. Seems to me this is the most significant thing in the entire article: the guy's a scumbag who beat on his family, but apparently didn't beat on them quite enough for it to be officially enough of A Bad Thing to ensure that the next time he tries it, he won't have a gun available.
Yeah, that's the way the Presidency has worked for a long time now. Obama was the anti-Bush. Bush was the anti-Clinton. Clinton was the anti-Bush Sr. And each one has been worse than the last.
Seems to me it will only stop when we elect someone for who they are instead of who they're not.
CBP took the money because Nwaorie, a U.S. citizen since 1994 who lives in Katy, had not declared that she was taking more than $10,000 out of the country — a technical requirement that her lawyers say is not well-publicized or easy to comply with.
Huh? This is an exceptionally clear requirement that's stated quite plainly on the relevant forms. Anyone who's traveled internationally should be familiar with it, because it's stated right there on the customs form in very clear language. Not sure what this lawyer is smoking...
If you're a small business in the US doing no business in the EU, it doesn't apply to you. It's only relevant if you do business in the EU.
And if you put something on the World Wide Web, it becomes accessible world-wide... including in the EU. Then you're "doing business" there whether you meant to or not. That's the nightmare scenario here.
Is it even possible for this to apply in the USA? Last I heard, we had the SPEECH Act that says that foreign libel judgments against US citizens regarding protected speech that doesn't violate US law are unenforceable in the USA. It seems to me it wouldn't take much--particularly in the current political climate--to apply the same principle to the GDPR.
Oh hey, more Arab Spring. Because the last one worked out sooooo well, bringing more freedom, democracy and prosperity to so many Arabs, yanno?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing out the barbarian regime that's been in power in Iran for the last few decades. I just don't see much to suggest, if it does happen, that whatever alternative they come up with will be much better. That would require the country as a whole, or a significant fraction of it at least, admitting they were wrong the last time they changed regimes.
Shah Reza, for all his personal faults, (which were quite real, but not particularly relevant,) was a good ruler. He was improving Iran, making it more civilized, tolerant, and prosperous. My mother lived there as a child, under his regime, and it was the sort of place where an American Christian family, including the women, could live without fear. He was instituting reforms that were turning Iran into a beacon of civilization in a part of the world that's seen precious little of it throughout all of history... and for that, the people turned on him, called him corrupt, threw him out, and plunged their nation into a state of darkness and barbarism from which it's never recovered.
If Iran goes and has its own Arab Spring, (Persian Spring? Keep in mind they're not Arabians there,) though, in the current climate the best-case scenario is likely to be more or less the same thing we saw in Egypt: trading one oppressive, anti-democratic Islamist regime for another, and when the smoke clears they'll have a bunch of people dead, a bunch of property damaged or destroyed, and no additional freedom to show for it.
I'd really like to be wrong about this, but I doubt I am.
The 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act forbade manufacturers from placing repair restrictions on electronic devices costing over $5.
...
Conspicuously missing from this list is Apple, which is perhaps the most overbearing in its insistence that anything not specifically performed by Apple techs voids warranties. Apple has taken steps over the years to prevent owners from attempting their own repairs or seeking assistance from third party repair services. It has aggressively fought "right to repair" legislation and sued people for offering non-Apple approved modifications.
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this law, as described, implies a "right to repair" and makes the passage of such laws unnecessary. Is there any reason why this is not the case?
So you're saying people might think twice about subscribing to a service like this, because they might end up under investigation if they're a close DNA match for a suspect and then immediately be cleared once a better test shows you're not the guy they're looking for afterall?
Yeah, nobody would want something like that to happen! *rolls eyes*
As I understand it, what Google and Amazon were really worried about is malware using domain fronting to disguise its traffic and then they end up getting blamed for it or caught up in it, which, in the age of the Internet Of Broken Things, is a quite reasonable thing to worry about. More benevolent things like Signal getting the shaft is just collateral damage.
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
On the post: Recording Industry Hypocrisy On Full Display In Continuing To Push The CLASSICS Act That Expands Copyright
Just remember, whenever trying to reduce the power and influence of something harmful that's backed by commercial interests comes up, it'll be an uphill battle every time. Whether it be copyright abuse, pollution, abortion, for-profit prisons, predatory lending, or whatever else, the same principle always bites those of us trying to improve things in the butt: there is no money to be made in not selling a product or service. Which translates directly into a disadvantage in lobbying and advertising, right from the start.
On the post: WIPO Didn't Want The Pirate Party To Observe Its Efforts, But Happy To Include A Group Whose Mission Is To Battle Space Lizards
Re: David Icke & reptilian wingnuttery
So you're saying it's a plausible theory that the world is secretly run by Space Jews?
On the post: The Monkey Selfie Lawsuit Will Never, Ever Die: Appeals Court Judge Wants A Do Over
You seem to be missing the end of this sentence.
It suggests that there may be a judge in the 9th circuit who believes what about the Cetacean case? That it's wrong? That it's been applied improperly in this instance?
On the post: Mugshots.com Operators Arrested For Letting Money Influence Editorial Decisions
Re: Re:
No. It's not the posting of publicly available information that's objectionable; it's the extorting people into paying them to remove it, and I'm just fine with allowing the state the power to smack down people who do that!
On the post: Mugshots.com Operators Arrested For Letting Money Influence Editorial Decisions
Re: Re:
What do you mean by this? Taking it to its logical conclusion (nothing the Constitution does not forbid should be illegal) would involve a bunch of truly absurd things, considering that the constitution says nothing about murder, robbery, or rape, just for starters. Since that's clearly not what you actually meant, would you mind clarifying?
On the post: Mugshots.com Operators Arrested For Letting Money Influence Editorial Decisions
You're operating under the implicit assumption that "accusing another of a crime" is a thing that can only be done one time by one entity. I see no good reason why this should be considered the case. Seems to me their business model consists of accusing people of crimes (that the state has also accused them of), in a centralized location that is easier for the public to find than wherever the various states publish them, and then extorting them to get it taken down.
On the post: FBI Admits It's Been Using A Highly-Inflated Number Of Locked Devices To Push Its 'Going Dark' Narrative
How? How is that even possible? Counting things is literally one of the simplest possible tasks for a computer. When you make a mistake in programming, you'll usually have one too many or too few, (this is common enough that there's a name for it: off-by-one errors,) but off by several thousand?
There's an old saying: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But as a professional programmer, I can't see any good way how this can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence. This has to be someone messing around.
On the post: Facebook Moderation Ramps Up In Germany And Everything Keeps Getting Worse For Its Users
Maybe he's been studying his nation's history. Weimar Germany had some very strong hate speech laws, and they enforced them quite effectively, by the standards of those who believe in such things. One of the people who the law came down the hardest upon was a hate-filled ranter by the name of Adolf Hitler. You'd think this was a good thing... except that the Nazi party exploited it quite effectively, using the government's censorship of Hitler as a rallying cry. The support they got from this turned out to be a significant factor in of their rise to power.
(Not a Godwin, as we're talking about stuff that's actually relevant, and in German politics to boot.)
On the post: FBI's Bust Of Black Open Carry Advocate Predicated On An InfoWars Video Ends In Dismissed Indictment
Way to bury the lede here. Seems to me this is the most significant thing in the entire article: the guy's a scumbag who beat on his family, but apparently didn't beat on them quite enough for it to be officially enough of A Bad Thing to ensure that the next time he tries it, he won't have a gun available.
That right there, that's truly sad.
On the post: Senate Will Vote Wednesday To Try And Save Net Neutrality
Re:
Yeah, that's the way the Presidency has worked for a long time now. Obama was the anti-Bush. Bush was the anti-Clinton. Clinton was the anti-Bush Sr. And each one has been worse than the last.
Seems to me it will only stop when we elect someone for who they are instead of who they're not.
On the post: CBP Sued For Seizing $41,000 From Airline Passenger, Then Refusing To Give It Back Unless She Promised Not To Sue
Huh? This is an exceptionally clear requirement that's stated quite plainly on the relevant forms. Anyone who's traveled internationally should be familiar with it, because it's stated right there on the customs form in very clear language. Not sure what this lawyer is smoking...
On the post: Companies Respond To The GDPR By Blocking All EU Users
Re: Re:
And if you put something on the World Wide Web, it becomes accessible world-wide... including in the EU. Then you're "doing business" there whether you meant to or not. That's the nightmare scenario here.
On the post: Companies Respond To The GDPR By Blocking All EU Users
On the post: Mobile Now Makes Up Majority Of Gaming Sales And Nintendo's New President Wants To Get The Company On Board
Wait. 46... the younger generation?
How old was the last president, for that statement to make any sense?!?
On the post: Romance Novelist Secures Trademark For Word 'Cocky,' Begins Beating Other Novelists Over The Head With It
Re:
On the post: As Iran Joins Russia's Block On Telegram, The Echoes Of The Arab Spring Begin To Sound
Oh hey, more Arab Spring. Because the last one worked out sooooo well, bringing more freedom, democracy and prosperity to so many Arabs, yanno?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for throwing out the barbarian regime that's been in power in Iran for the last few decades. I just don't see much to suggest, if it does happen, that whatever alternative they come up with will be much better. That would require the country as a whole, or a significant fraction of it at least, admitting they were wrong the last time they changed regimes.
Shah Reza, for all his personal faults, (which were quite real, but not particularly relevant,) was a good ruler. He was improving Iran, making it more civilized, tolerant, and prosperous. My mother lived there as a child, under his regime, and it was the sort of place where an American Christian family, including the women, could live without fear. He was instituting reforms that were turning Iran into a beacon of civilization in a part of the world that's seen precious little of it throughout all of history... and for that, the people turned on him, called him corrupt, threw him out, and plunged their nation into a state of darkness and barbarism from which it's never recovered.
If Iran goes and has its own Arab Spring, (Persian Spring? Keep in mind they're not Arabians there,) though, in the current climate the best-case scenario is likely to be more or less the same thing we saw in Egypt: trading one oppressive, anti-democratic Islamist regime for another, and when the smoke clears they'll have a bunch of people dead, a bunch of property damaged or destroyed, and no additional freedom to show for it.
I'd really like to be wrong about this, but I doubt I am.
On the post: FTC Calls Out Nintendo, Microsoft, And Sony For Their Illegal 'Warranty Void If Removed' Stickers
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this law, as described, implies a "right to repair" and makes the passage of such laws unnecessary. Is there any reason why this is not the case?
On the post: Cops Aren't Just Submitting DNA Samples To Genealogy Services; They're Also Obtaining Customer Info
So you're saying people might think twice about subscribing to a service like this, because they might end up under investigation if they're a close DNA match for a suspect and then immediately be cleared once a better test shows you're not the guy they're looking for afterall?
Yeah, nobody would want something like that to happen! *rolls eyes*
On the post: Amazon Joins Google In Making Censorship Easy, Threatens Signal For Circumventing Censorship Regimes
It's not quite that simple
As I understand it, what Google and Amazon were really worried about is malware using domain fronting to disguise its traffic and then they end up getting blamed for it or caught up in it, which, in the age of the Internet Of Broken Things, is a quite reasonable thing to worry about. More benevolent things like Signal getting the shaft is just collateral damage.
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
On the post: Some Comcast Customers Won't Get The Latest Broadband Upgrades Without Buying Cable TV
Re: Comcast is faking its viewership to screw advertisers
This is one of those "I don't know which side to root for, because both are horrible" scenarios.
Next >>