"JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." I don't know whether that means she's in some kind of probationary period, the other justices are freezing her out, or she just opted out of this case.
These clueless bureaucrats should talk to their own military leaders. Ask them how they would feel about having a back door in the encryption used for battle communications systems. Sure, those systems likely use proprietary encryption, which would never be intentionally crippled, but I think it's a useful perspective.
It's helpful to remember that no matter how badly he screws everyone (except his corporate pals), Pai is guaranteed an extremely lucrative corporate job once he's done at the FCC. With the fox running the henhouse, it's somewhat surprising to see Pai making any kind of effort to justify his actions.
It's easier to understand SESTA from the point of view of legislators and their friends. From their perspective, the main problem with prostitution and sex trafficking is when it's visible: on the streets, in various publications, and on web sites. They apply pressure on law enforcement to push sex workers off the main sreets, and push for laws that prevent sex-related ads from appearing in publications and on web sites that they visit. If they can't see it, it's not a problem.
If they're not willing to talk about the methods they used, and that means the accused go free, what good are those methods? Why bother with them at all if they can never produce results?
The same warning has been plaguing one of my clients, who hosts web sites on his own server. As with most ordinary Internet connections, his is assigned a WAN IP dynamically, and because of that, it's listed in the SORBS DUHL blacklist. When someone tries to post a link to one of his sites on Facebook, they get that warning. He's also unable to post his own site URLs in his profile, but in this case the URL is fully rejected. Using an URL shortener gets around the problem, but it looks weird. I've opened a support ticket with Facebook, suggesting they review this policy.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that cops kill citizens. After all, when they're on the job, they have the means and opportunity to do so at all times. All they need is a motive, which helpful citizens provide by merely being annoying. This has always been the case with armed authorities. But it's only in the past few years that we've come to realize just how common it is, and that's only because of video evidence. Still, for every incident recorded on video, there are probably a hundred that go unnoticed.
If there's any chance at all that some corporation's profits will suffer as a result of a new law or other change, that corporation and all of its stooges in government will fight it to their last breath. From their perspective, there is no other option. Even if it makes absolutely no sense.
Don't forget that a lot of police work is really boring and annoying. Which means that cops look for any chance to do something more fun, including kicking in doors, brandishing weapons, and yelling a lot. Good times.
As long as uninformed people let lawyers talk them into these idiotic lawsuits, it will keep happening. Lawyers are, after all, just trying to find business. Unless we can find a way to punish lawyers for engaging in this kind of behaviour, we can expect it to continue.
Anyone who is a CEO or holds any other senior management post at (almost) any corporation is - first and foremost - someone who can lie with a straight face. Someone who can lie so convincingly that they can make you question your grasp on reality.
Tim obviously didn't want to go there, but I will. I think that the most likely explanation for her unwillingness to provide data is simply that she has none, and the numbers she talked about ($30K, millions) came out of her ass. If those numbers had any basis in reality, she would have provided them. It's not that I don't sympathize, but based on her statements, I have serious doubts.
Assuming they ever pull their collective heads out of their asses and stops wasting money on copy protection, it's going to take EA a long time to regain any customer goodwill lost by years of abuse. People who wouldn't normally download pirated games will do so simply out of spite. Allowing their games to be easier to pirate is still EA's best long-term strategy, but in the short term, they are going to lose more to piracy than your average game publisher, even after they smarten up.
Krug's book, "Don't Make Me Think", was the reason I had to break up long pages in a previous job. I hated needless pagination then, and I still hate it. However, I'm increasingly convinced that it's a personal preference, and there's no 'right' way to do it. In a perfect world, all sites would offer both options and a browser preference would set my default for all sites.
Willingly, true, but at the time there was no other way to achieve 'success'. Yes, the band no doubt benefited: being such a big act, they surely recouped and made some money. But if you compared the amount made by the band with what the label (and their cronies) made from the band, you'd rethink your statement.
As this is one of my favourite films, I've been looking for a high definition version for a while now. Perhaps this explains why my search has come up empty so far.
Re: Re: Re: Pleasant surprise!
Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.
Re: Pleasant surprise!
"JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." I don't know whether that means she's in some kind of probationary period, the other justices are freezing her out, or she just opted out of this case.
Ask their military
These clueless bureaucrats should talk to their own military leaders. Ask them how they would feel about having a back door in the encryption used for battle communications systems. Sure, those systems likely use proprietary encryption, which would never be intentionally crippled, but I think it's a useful perspective.
Pai's motivation
(untitled comment)
I don't get it
Likely explanation
Facebook needs to review their policy on what constitutes 'unsafe'
No surprise
It's simple, really...
The real reason this happens so often
Followup article
http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/why-do-americans-reject-human-rights-when-the-whol e-world-embraces-them/
Not going to change any time soon
The most important requirement for becoming a corporate executive
The simplest explanation
Making matters worse for EA...
Keanu took a pay cut to get Pacino hired
I blame Steve Krug
Re: (AC neglected to enter a subject)
That explains why I haven't been able to find a high def version
More comments from Jeff Rivett >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jeff Rivett.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt