This may be a somewhat unpopular opinion on TD, but I have to side with the FBI here. The court explicitly notes that getting a warrant without territorial restrictions was not possible for anything that isn't terrorism. Until the law changes, this ruling largely says the FBI would need to obtain a warrant for the data in every single jurisdiction that there is a user/creator of child porn, and they would need to do so simultaneously or under seal to prevent tipping the suspects off.
Some would argue that's a perfectly fine burden, but what happens if you have a major site with several thousand users spread across every state? I don't doubt the court is correct on the letter of the law, but the law should be changed to catch up to reality; until then, I think the FBI acted in good faith to catch people who really need to be caught.
I'm not for unlimited power to the FBI, and often find the "think of the children" argument overused and bland, but here we have an actual case where there are actual children at risk. How many of those caught in the sting were parents who had young children? Of all the cases you could pick to say the FBI is overreaching, I think this was the wrong one.
Because as much as we wished otherwise, Wheeler will have to defend whatever he proposes in court. I imagine he's keeping that in mind when crafting these rules.
Critical infrastructure(electric, water, gas companies that use the internet to manage their systems), schools, etc. Things that are there for the public good.
I have to say, while the lawsuit is questionable, and they certainly do exaggerate their suffering as a result of this, that doesn't mean they don't have a valid point. No one should be flipping through channels and see a picture of their loved ones corpse splashed on a screen so that someone somewhere can make money off of it.
In an age where we can easily make just as 'real' looking pictures using makeup and special effects, there is zero reason to include photos of real dead people despite their families wishes, other than to claim you have to draw attention to your show.
"Anonymous doesn't yet have the capability to run computers without a power source, officials say. But if the group's members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts who spend their time giving stupid quotes for stupid articles."
Well, they could run them on generators, but I think it'd be hard to connect to the internet during a blackout.
Hope everyone has a fun night and a great new year.
"The issue is whether it was subjective bad faith to do so. Considering that fair use is a defense and that the would-be plaintiff has a legitimate, nonfrivolous claim of infringement, I don't see how any would-be plaintiff could ever be in subjective bad faith so long as there's copying."
So you are basically admitting that there is no punishment for using the DMCA to censor people, so long as they use any scrap of material the would-be plaintiff could considering copying.
They did say it was the cause. The exact opposite, in fact. They are saying that the act obviously failed at doing what it was meant to do, according to the RIAAs own numbers.
I "get it" just fine. NZ can't dictate the terms a U.S. hearing, correct, but you seem to be missing the point. The U.S. broke the law when they took the evidence out of NZ to begin with. That's obtaining it illegally, last I checked.
And "good faith", even in legal terms, means that the evidence was believed at the time to be legally obtained. The U.S. knowingly broke NZ law when they took the evidence offshore. And even assuming they did not know, ignorance of the law is just as bad, if not worse.
So, let me get this straight. The FTC is accusing Google of hurting it's rivals, when capitalism is about hurting your rivals.
And even assuming they are correct in their claims, what is the FTC doing about apple, who buys materials from suppliers who's employees are jumping off the roof of their factories because of working conditions.
Where is the FTC action against Telcos and wireless providers who are price gouging customers through agreements to artificially keep prices high because there is no real competition?
And what of the "too big to fail" banks? Where is the FTC there? Oh, wait, that's right. We're propping those guys up. Forgot about that.
Actually, not true. The failings in NZ do change the case in the U.S., since the evidence was gathered illegally by the NZ police. If the evidence is obtained illegally, it's still inadmissible in a U.S. court, which means that the DoJ would have no case.
No one should have to ask a judge if they can have the rights they are fundamentally entitled to, i.e. free speech. No matter how atrocious what she said was, the judge has no right to tell her she can't say it, especially when you stop and see people like the WBC being allowed to spew their vitriol all over the place.
"while ignoring all the horrible things that Dotcom did."
Horrible? Horrible is trafficing 12 year old girls to sell as sex slaves. Horrible is selling methamphetamine to middle schoolers. Horrible is murdering innocent people for kicks.
Running a legitimate business that followed laws it didn't even have to(the DMCA) and giving rights holders direct access to your servers is hardly what I'd call "horrible".
(untitled comment)
Some would argue that's a perfectly fine burden, but what happens if you have a major site with several thousand users spread across every state? I don't doubt the court is correct on the letter of the law, but the law should be changed to catch up to reality; until then, I think the FBI acted in good faith to catch people who really need to be caught.
I'm not for unlimited power to the FBI, and often find the "think of the children" argument overused and bland, but here we have an actual case where there are actual children at risk. How many of those caught in the sting were parents who had young children? Of all the cases you could pick to say the FBI is overreaching, I think this was the wrong one.
Re:
Re:
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: The reason it took so long
Re:
At least, that's what I understood him to mean.
(untitled comment)
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313
I think this sums up how well this is going to go.
(untitled comment)
In an age where we can easily make just as 'real' looking pictures using makeup and special effects, there is zero reason to include photos of real dead people despite their families wishes, other than to claim you have to draw attention to your show.
(untitled comment)
Well, they could run them on generators, but I think it'd be hard to connect to the internet during a blackout.
Hope everyone has a fun night and a great new year.
Re: Re:
Pharma companies set prices high because their business is literally "pay or die", so they can get away with it.
Re: Re: Re:
So you are basically admitting that there is no punishment for using the DMCA to censor people, so long as they use any scrap of material the would-be plaintiff could considering copying.
And yet you wonder why we don't like the DMCA.
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And "good faith", even in legal terms, means that the evidence was believed at the time to be legally obtained. The U.S. knowingly broke NZ law when they took the evidence offshore. And even assuming they did not know, ignorance of the law is just as bad, if not worse.
(untitled comment)
And even assuming they are correct in their claims, what is the FTC doing about apple, who buys materials from suppliers who's employees are jumping off the roof of their factories because of working conditions.
Where is the FTC action against Telcos and wireless providers who are price gouging customers through agreements to artificially keep prices high because there is no real competition?
And what of the "too big to fail" banks? Where is the FTC there? Oh, wait, that's right. We're propping those guys up. Forgot about that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that the U.S. has been ordered to return the evidence, saying that the DoJ is acting in "good faith" is laughable, at best.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Childish
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Horrible? Horrible is trafficing 12 year old girls to sell as sex slaves. Horrible is selling methamphetamine to middle schoolers. Horrible is murdering innocent people for kicks.
Running a legitimate business that followed laws it didn't even have to(the DMCA) and giving rights holders direct access to your servers is hardly what I'd call "horrible".
(untitled comment)
Re: Popcorn time...
Share the popcorn?
More comments from Spencer >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Spencer.
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