Things like whistle-blowing (which, although might really piss off the company, is NOT illegal to do).
Whistleblowing is illegal if the company has a properly crafted NDA. This court ruling makes it harder to protect whistleblowers.
If ThinkSecret had instead run a "leaked" story that MacMini's were produced by indentured 6-year-olds and were made of Soilent Green, they would NOT have been ordered to give up their sources. NDA's do not cover releasing information about violations of the law or dangers to the public. They DO cover releasing information that is a trade secret or other proprietary information that you have signed a contract to NOT give out.
What if a trade secret is that the company engages in activity that is illegal?
And use that throwaway Hotmail account from a cybercafe or a hotel lobby. It's amazing how many supposedly computer knowledgable people think Hotmail is anonymous. Hello? IP address?
Depends on how hard you're trying to hide.
If you've got Feds after you, it'll be much harder to stay under the radar.
There's nothing funny about rape. No matter who the victim is. It's still reality that it happens. By some estimates, more often in prison than outside.
This to me doesnt seem like the huge abuse people are alledging, and I'm not feeling a slippery slope here either.
Because you are a fucktard.
If he broke Australian law, he should be punished by Australia. If he never set foot in the US or sent someone to act on his behalf to the US, the US has no claim on him. I really hope he gets a jury trial, and I really hope that people with a sense of national pride are on his jury.
This creates a precedent for extraditing Americans to other countries that they never set foot in to answer for crimes that they couldn't have possibly committed.
Remember about 10 years ago those guys in the camo BDUs who were talking about a New World Order? This is precisely the kind of thing that they ranted about.
And then the judge *orders* you to keep records in the future if you're going to engage in conduct likely to provide reason for subpoenas, and when you don't, you're hit with a charge of contempt of court/obstruction.
This only fuels the spiral of move and counter move. The next step is to use someone outside of that judge's jurisdiction to manage your comunications. In this case, don't you think that there are some Canadian Mac Addicts who would happily strip and forward incoming emails?
Nice try, though. If your idea worked, don't you think an ISP would have gone ahead and said "We don't keep logs at all! Come warez on our network like crazy!" by now?
I had to sign a confidentiality agreement with a former employer. Namely because we had some rich, famous and influential customers. It was company lore that the President of the company ordered a subordinate to violate a federal law because he was having a Senator over to his house for a visit. I'm being intentionally vague here because I'm still bound by the aforementioned agreement.
The point that I'm making here is that if I was going to give specifics or name names, I'd be smart enough to do it anonymously. If you're going to violate any secrecy agreements that you've signed, be smart enough to get a throw-away email address or use an anonymous remailer.
Meaning, that from now on websites and the like will destroy incoming emails after they have been read and disclaimers will accompany all of their announcements like "An anonymous source claims..." about any upcoming advances.
The outlet itself will be able to avoid direct lawsuits because they have given notice that what they have published is speculation and they haven't claimed it to be factual. When they are subpoena'd for records they can honestly say "Your honor, we don't keep any records about that."
Granted, most people who are ripping off music and movies over the internet aren't doing it to make some kind of statement, but even the freeloaders are helping.
If you follow the GPL, others can re-distribute YOUR program which will limit the price you can charge without being undercut by others. Linux distributions are a good example for this:
Last time I checked, the baby comes out of the mother, not the father.
That has nothing to do with the issue that I was addressing. Mothers alone do not create new life. Parents together do.
And incidentally, it's a baby, not an "offspring."
It's both.
Actually, when you phrase it that way, the moral imperative is clear. Life must always be protected under the law.
If that was truly the case, it would be illegal to disconnect ventillators.
If the end of life is legally judged by the cessation of brain activity, there is no reason why the start of life shouldn't be judged by the beginning of brain activity.
Somewhere between 7 and 12 weeks after conception is when that activity begins. At that point, we're dealing with a complete but small scale human being. There is no justification for killing such a person.
It's a continuum, passing unbroken from mother to baby and so on through generations.
How about 'from parents to offspring', mothers can't do it alone and neither can fathers.
The question of when life begins isn't one for science. It's one for our values.
That's the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "When does life begin?", we should be asking "When can a life be protected under the law?". That question can be answered.
They may be human, but without life they are no more "beings" than corpses.
Aborted babies are dead human beings.
We have no qualms about harvesting organs from dead donors, but seem to have some knee jerk reaction to harvesting a few extremely useful cells from dead, young, human flesh.
We don't mind taking organs from people who have chosen to donate them. There's a huge difference.
You can't even say it's a "respect for human life" thing, because if that were the case those babies wouldn't have been aborted in the first place.
Many of us think that they shouldn't have been. If we have our way, they won't be. That's a part of why I oppose the use of embryonic or fetal stem cells. Instead of people claiming that we want to deprive women of their "rights", we'll be accused of wanting sick old grandmother to die from Parkinson's disease.
The ban on harvesting of fetal stem cells is a huge setback to the progress of science.
What ban? There is no ban. It's perfectly legal.
Stem cells save lives.
Oddly enough, the greatest successes in that arena have come from adult stem cells and placental stem cells. No child had to die to procure those.
What better way to honor those who died to contribute them than to pass on the benefits of their organs?
If you found a dead man in the street, would you be "honoring" him if you took the money and credit cards out of his wallet to pass on the benefits of his wealth?
Slashdot Mirror
Things like whistle-blowing (which, although might really piss off the company, is NOT illegal to do).
Whistleblowing is illegal if the company has a properly crafted NDA. This court ruling makes it harder to protect whistleblowers.
If ThinkSecret had instead run a "leaked" story that MacMini's were produced by indentured 6-year-olds and were made of Soilent Green, they would NOT have been ordered to give up their sources. NDA's do not cover releasing information about violations of the law or dangers to the public. They DO cover releasing information that is a trade secret or other proprietary information that you have signed a contract to NOT give out.
What if a trade secret is that the company engages in activity that is illegal?
LK
And use that throwaway Hotmail account from a cybercafe or a hotel lobby. It's amazing how many supposedly computer knowledgable people think Hotmail is anonymous. Hello? IP address?
Depends on how hard you're trying to hide.
If you've got Feds after you, it'll be much harder to stay under the radar.
LK
There's nothing funny about rape. No matter who the victim is. It's still reality that it happens. By some estimates, more often in prison than outside.
LK
This to me doesnt seem like the huge abuse people are alledging, and I'm not feeling a slippery slope here either.
Because you are a fucktard.
If he broke Australian law, he should be punished by Australia. If he never set foot in the US or sent someone to act on his behalf to the US, the US has no claim on him. I really hope he gets a jury trial, and I really hope that people with a sense of national pride are on his jury.
This creates a precedent for extraditing Americans to other countries that they never set foot in to answer for crimes that they couldn't have possibly committed.
Remember about 10 years ago those guys in the camo BDUs who were talking about a New World Order? This is precisely the kind of thing that they ranted about.
LK
There are pirate gangs now? Arrrr, I best be hiding my booty.
If this guy's headed for Federal Prison, that's a good plan.
LK
ROT 13 and DMCA them if they UN rot it.
LK
And then the judge *orders* you to keep records in the future if you're going to engage in conduct likely to provide reason for subpoenas, and when you don't, you're hit with a charge of contempt of court/obstruction.
This only fuels the spiral of move and counter move. The next step is to use someone outside of that judge's jurisdiction to manage your comunications. In this case, don't you think that there are some Canadian Mac Addicts who would happily strip and forward incoming emails?
Nice try, though. If your idea worked, don't you think an ISP would have gone ahead and said "We don't keep logs at all! Come warez on our network like crazy!" by now?
You mean Like this?
LK
Well, Bush's funding of research with embryonic stem cells has no effect on this. The stem cells were acquired in an ethical manner.
Be glad I have no mod points today. Troll.
LK
To be fair, how many different superpowers can you come up with?
Really Strong Guy
Really Smart Guy who makes gadgets
Guy who can fly
Mix in a few other powers, combinations of powers and female characters and you still have a pretty limited set to work with.
It's only logical that some characters will be similar.
LK
I had to sign a confidentiality agreement with a former employer. Namely because we had some rich, famous and influential customers. It was company lore that the President of the company ordered a subordinate to violate a federal law because he was having a Senator over to his house for a visit. I'm being intentionally vague here because I'm still bound by the aforementioned agreement.
The point that I'm making here is that if I was going to give specifics or name names, I'd be smart enough to do it anonymously. If you're going to violate any secrecy agreements that you've signed, be smart enough to get a throw-away email address or use an anonymous remailer.
LK
The real lesson here is "Cover your ass".
Meaning, that from now on websites and the like will destroy incoming emails after they have been read and disclaimers will accompany all of their announcements like "An anonymous source claims..." about any upcoming advances.
The outlet itself will be able to avoid direct lawsuits because they have given notice that what they have published is speculation and they haven't claimed it to be factual. When they are subpoena'd for records they can honestly say "Your honor, we don't keep any records about that."
LK
If you like GNOME, use it. If you like KDE, use it. If you like WindowMaker, use it. See where I'm going with this?
I'm going to keep my preference to myself, because I don't want to enflame any faction of the WM/DE Jihad.
But no matter what your preference, just go with it. If developers start losing their user base, they'll start to question why.
LK
Civil disobedience is one way to change the law.
Granted, most people who are ripping off music and movies over the internet aren't doing it to make some kind of statement, but even the freeloaders are helping.
LK
Have you ever thought about stunnel?
Sure it's not as widely available as SSH, but you could wrap FTP in a SSL tunnel. I've been using stunnel for my VNC connection.
You then get the ability to trap the user session in a chroot jail.
LK
If you follow the GPL, others can re-distribute YOUR program which will limit the price you can charge without being undercut by others. Linux distributions are a good example for this:
Red hat is still in business.
LK
Last time I checked, the baby comes out of the mother, not the father.
That has nothing to do with the issue that I was addressing. Mothers alone do not create new life. Parents together do.
And incidentally, it's a baby, not an "offspring."
It's both.
Actually, when you phrase it that way, the moral imperative is clear. Life must always be protected under the law.
If that was truly the case, it would be illegal to disconnect ventillators.
If the end of life is legally judged by the cessation of brain activity, there is no reason why the start of life shouldn't be judged by the beginning of brain activity.
Somewhere between 7 and 12 weeks after conception is when that activity begins. At that point, we're dealing with a complete but small scale human being. There is no justification for killing such a person.
LK
It's a continuum, passing unbroken from mother to baby and so on through generations.
How about 'from parents to offspring', mothers can't do it alone and neither can fathers.
The question of when life begins isn't one for science. It's one for our values.
That's the wrong question. We shouldn't be asking "When does life begin?", we should be asking "When can a life be protected under the law?". That question can be answered.
LK
They may be human, but without life they are no more "beings" than corpses.
Aborted babies are dead human beings.
We have no qualms about harvesting organs from dead donors, but seem to have some knee jerk reaction to harvesting a few extremely useful cells from dead, young, human flesh.
We don't mind taking organs from people who have chosen to donate them. There's a huge difference.
You can't even say it's a "respect for human life" thing, because if that were the case those babies wouldn't have been aborted in the first place.
Many of us think that they shouldn't have been. If we have our way, they won't be. That's a part of why I oppose the use of embryonic or fetal stem cells. Instead of people claiming that we want to deprive women of their "rights", we'll be accused of wanting sick old grandmother to die from Parkinson's disease.
The ban on harvesting of fetal stem cells is a huge setback to the progress of science.
What ban? There is no ban. It's perfectly legal.
Stem cells save lives.
Oddly enough, the greatest successes in that arena have come from adult stem cells and placental stem cells. No child had to die to procure those.
What better way to honor those who died to contribute them than to pass on the benefits of their organs?
If you found a dead man in the street, would you be "honoring" him if you took the money and credit cards out of his wallet to pass on the benefits of his wealth?
LK
"A long time ago in a galaxy far far away."
Archaeology is a science.
LK
It didn't include the word jedi.
On the plus side, it does include klingon.
LK
Most likely something like this.
LK
It's simultaneously comforting and terrifying to see that stupid rulings by stupid judges aren't confined to the USA.
At least I'll feel better about it the next time the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals makes an insane decision.
LK
Now anyone who complains about this will be labeled an antisemite.
LK
stop all the downloadin.
Pornography doesn't download itself you know...
LK
Puppy is a linux distro.
Doggies are puppies.
Tell chicks you want some linux-style action and not get slapped.
Fantastic.
LK