Whenever I get discouraged by lawyers, lobbyists and politicians, I try to remember three things:
1. There are many, many people around the world who feel the same way I do.
2. By supporting organizations like the FSF, EFF, Wikipedia and Techdirt, I'm contributing to the cause in my own small way.
3. Brooding is a waste of time, it is more effective to trust in these people and organizations to achieve the best possible result for the time being.
-------------
Good things from 2016: - Google beat Oracle in the jury trial - Samsung beat Apple at Supreme Court - release of games like The Witness, Obduction, Tyranny
Expanding on that last point: When all else fails, it can be helpful to focus on recreational pursuits you're looking forward to in 2017:
- Star Wars Episode VIII - new Game of Thrones season 7 (I've given up on ever reading TWOW, so I'm just going to watch the show. It's actually liberating!) - Torment: Tides of Numenara
-----------
A very Happy New Year to everyone in the community from Techdirt and around the world!
To be clear, I fully agree with critics. This idea is dangerous, stupid, and wrong.
I guess I don't take it too seriously due to his lack of a technology background. I would be more concerned if Eric Schmidt or Larry Page said something along these lines.
I've never worked at Google, so take this with a grain of salt. But my guess would be that he's there in more of a "government relations" role.
In other words, acting as an early warning system for government reactions to new technology. And he probably uses his connections with the State department to act as an interlocutor when things get really bad (i.e. encryption).
Personally, I don't see his views being representative of Google, because he clearly doesn't have any background experience with technology -- unlike the vast majority of the people there.
---
From his Wikipedia entry:
"Cohen received a bachelor's degree from Stanford University...majoring in history and political science and minoring in African studies."
and
"He subsequently earned a master's degree in International Relations from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar."
Secondly, as a Canadian, I want to express my complete sympathy to our American neighbours. I can scarcely believe the motley crew of appalling "candidates" that you guys are being presented with, in this 2016 election.
However, even as you despair, remember: it could have been worse. It could have been Biden.
For much of the lead-up to his announcement, I was utterly convinced that the media cabal was going to entice him into the election. At one point, I read about him actually going to Silicon Valley (for once) to raise campaign donations...from Microsoft and Oracle (!!!). Truly, my worst nightmares were coming true.
And then, to my astonished delight, he announced that he would not be running. It really was a wonderful surprise.
I suspect that this is actually a collusion amongst the mainstream media companies. It's all a lead-up to a so-called "notice-and-staydown" regime.
That is, gutting Section 230. If enough sites lose their comments, then they'll feel (wrongly) that they don't need Section 230 anymore.
And, by coincidence I'm sure, a celebrity gameshow champion writes an article calling for the end of Section 230. He claims it's in the name of protecting people from abuse.
But read his Twitter feed, and notice that he spends more time talking about how the DMCA is apparently ineffective. And he links to the Trichordist to justify some points.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects have recently been spreading talking points about the need for "takedown" to mean "staydown". And they've set up a website "takedownstaydown DOT org".
Take a look at who contributed financially (double-daggered on the first page):
To ensure academic freedom and independence, both PCI and IP2, along with all work associated with them, have only been supported by unrestricted gifts. All such work, including this article, reflects the independent views of the authors as academics. Some majore donors have included Microsoft, Pfizer, and Qualcomm.
(emphasis added)
He has co-authored papers that defend Microsoft before:
The fundamental problem with online crowdfunding for politics is that politics is often regional.
That is, unlike open-source projects and non-profit groups, politicians usually have restrictions placed on international *monetary* contributions.
One of the reasons Kickstarter, Wikipedia, etc. are so successful is that *anyone* *anywhere* can contribute some money, no matter how small.
But no matter how much I respect Larry Lessig and desire to contribute, I can't, because I'm a Canadian (not US) citizen.
I'm not saying that those restrictions are wrong -- I don't know anything about campaign finance -- but I think this crucial regional limit on potential supporters needs to be recognized so that political projects are not unfairly held to the standard of other crowdfunding projects without such restrictions (e.g. Kickstarter game pitches) and then found wanting in comparison.
IANAL, but I don't understand how such changes to the legal code can go undocumented.
Imagine how much more restrictive fair use would become if the words "purposes such as" were suddenly removed:
i.e.,
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, [...]"
became
"for criticism, comment, [...]".
I realize that fair use was defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 -- not a ruling from the Supreme Court -- but my point is that even the removal of three words could have a devastating impact on rulings that have come to be relied upon.
(Please note: This is not the actual response, just my prediction.)
Thank you for signing the petition [Pardon Edward Snowden.] We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.
The We the People Terms of Participation explain that "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." The [Justice Department/NSA/CIA] is charged with enforcing the [Espionage Act/etc.] Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific case raised in this petition.
Like most newspapers, it clearly lacks details on the cases it casts judgment on. But what I find so galling is the lack of any sympathy whatsoever for Swartz and his family.
Even Robert Levine called the suicide a "tragedy". The Globe and Mail seems to just stop short of calling the suicide "justice".
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Glenn D. Jones.
Good things in 2016 and 2017
1. There are many, many people around the world who feel the same way I do.
2. By supporting organizations like the FSF, EFF, Wikipedia and Techdirt, I'm contributing to the cause in my own small way.
3. Brooding is a waste of time, it is more effective to trust in these people and organizations to achieve the best possible result for the time being.
-------------
Good things from 2016:
- Google beat Oracle in the jury trial
- Samsung beat Apple at Supreme Court
- release of games like The Witness, Obduction, Tyranny
Expanding on that last point: When all else fails, it can be helpful to focus on recreational pursuits you're looking forward to in 2017:
- Star Wars Episode VIII
- new Game of Thrones season 7 (I've given up on ever reading TWOW, so I'm just going to watch the show. It's actually liberating!)
- Torment: Tides of Numenara
-----------
A very Happy New Year to everyone in the community from Techdirt and around the world!
Re: Jared Cohen is not a technologist
I guess I don't take it too seriously due to his lack of a technology background. I would be more concerned if Eric Schmidt or Larry Page said something along these lines.
Jared Cohen is not a technologist
In other words, acting as an early warning system for government reactions to new technology. And he probably uses his connections with the State department to act as an interlocutor when things get really bad (i.e. encryption).
Personally, I don't see his views being representative of Google, because he clearly doesn't have any background experience with technology -- unlike the vast majority of the people there.
---
From his Wikipedia entry:
"Cohen received a bachelor's degree from Stanford University...majoring in history and political science and minoring in African studies."
and
"He subsequently earned a master's degree in International Relations from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar."
Another positive development -- Biden not running in 2016
Secondly, as a Canadian, I want to express my complete sympathy to our American neighbours. I can scarcely believe the motley crew of appalling "candidates" that you guys are being presented with, in this 2016 election.
However, even as you despair, remember: it could have been worse. It could have been Biden.
For much of the lead-up to his announcement, I was utterly convinced that the media cabal was going to entice him into the election. At one point, I read about him actually going to Silicon Valley (for once) to raise campaign donations...from Microsoft and Oracle (!!!). Truly, my worst nightmares were coming true.
And then, to my astonished delight, he announced that he would not be running. It really was a wonderful surprise.
Possible ulterior motives for ending comment sections -- gutting Section 230
That is, gutting Section 230. If enough sites lose their comments, then they'll feel (wrongly) that they don't need Section 230 anymore.
And, by coincidence I'm sure, a celebrity gameshow champion writes an article calling for the end of Section 230. He claims it's in the name of protecting people from abuse.
But read his Twitter feed, and notice that he spends more time talking about how the DMCA is apparently ineffective. And he links to the Trichordist to justify some points.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects have recently been spreading talking points about the need for "takedown" to mean "staydown". And they've set up a website "takedownstaydown DOT org".
And the TPP is in its final negotiating phase...
Are you starting to see a pattern?
Take a look at who funded some of his papers
http://jcle.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/3/549.full.pdf
Take a look at who contributed financially (double-daggered on the first page):
(emphasis added)
He has co-authored papers that defend Microsoft before:
"EU Antitrust Nonsense": http://www.techpolicy.com/Articles/E/EU-Antitrust-Nonsense.aspx
"Microsoft’s European Experience Troubling for Other U.S. Companies": http://www.techpolicy.com/Articles/M/Microsoft-s-European-Experience-Troubling-for-Othe.aspx
The fundamental problem with online crowdfunding for politics
That is, unlike open-source projects and non-profit groups, politicians usually have restrictions placed on international *monetary* contributions.
One of the reasons Kickstarter, Wikipedia, etc. are so successful is that *anyone* *anywhere* can contribute some money, no matter how small.
But no matter how much I respect Larry Lessig and desire to contribute, I can't, because I'm a Canadian (not US) citizen.
I'm not saying that those restrictions are wrong -- I don't know anything about campaign finance -- but I think this crucial regional limit on potential supporters needs to be recognized so that political projects are not unfairly held to the standard of other crowdfunding projects without such restrictions (e.g. Kickstarter game pitches) and then found wanting in comparison.
What 'anti-competitive shenanigans'?
QUOTE: "Android [...] while certainly no stranger to anti-competitive shenanigans"
The only 'anti-competitive shenanigans' that I know of are used *against* Android by competitors (like Microsoft and Apple).
Android's market share comes from being open-source; which is not, and never will be, anti-competitive.
No-one can (or should) be forced to port open-source code to a platform; I mean, it sounds like what this CEO is asking for is a new law:
"Any Party that develops mobile software shall be required to develop a version of that software for each of the following approved OSes..."
He probably meant to refer to bittorrent -- and I'm not sure he's correct
I suspect he meant to refer to bittorrent -- incorrectly, according to the famous study:
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-the-one-third-of-all-internet-traffic-myth/
AFAIK, the highest figure ever reported was only 70% -- and that was confined to Eastern Europe.
If the legal code is law, then changes must be documented
Imagine how much more restrictive fair use would become if the words "purposes such as" were suddenly removed:
i.e.,
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, [...]"
became
"for criticism, comment, [...]".
I realize that fair use was defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 -- not a ruling from the Supreme Court -- but my point is that even the removal of three words could have a devastating impact on rulings that have come to be relied upon.
The response with be the same as Manning's
Thank you for signing the petition [Pardon Edward Snowden.] We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.
The We the People Terms of Participation explain that "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." The [Justice Department/NSA/CIA] is charged with enforcing the [Espionage Act/etc.] Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific case raised in this petition.
Sorry, wrong URL
Here's the correct URL:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/15283121745/retired-federal-judge-criticizes-carme n-ortizs-handling-aaron-swartz-case.shtml?threaded=true
Send the editorialists Gertner's comments
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/15283121745/retired-federal-judge-criticizes-c armen-ortizs-handling-aaron-swartz-case.shtml?threaded=true#c373
I think Gertner effectively refutes the G&M editorial.
Why isn't the mainstream media citing Gertner?
For example, I was appalled by this editorial in the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/when-did-it-become-wrong-to-punish-hac kers/article7654240/
Like most newspapers, it clearly lacks details on the cases it casts judgment on. But what I find so galling is the lack of any sympathy whatsoever for Swartz and his family.
Even Robert Levine called the suicide a "tragedy". The Globe and Mail seems to just stop short of calling the suicide "justice".
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Glenn D. Jones.
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