That is the general plan of the "more government is the answer to everything" crowd. Somebody misuses something, regulate it more. Somebody misuses it again, restrict its purchase. Somebody misuses it again after having bought it illegally, make it illegal to own. Somebody still misuses it, make it illegal to own anything similar.
According to the summary ("the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan") there are already regulations in place that are being ignored. The solution to ignored regulations is not more regulations; it is more enforcement of existing regulations.
The real problem is that "public benefit" and "public good" are extremely subjective terms. I believe Monsanto has done a lot of good and has greatly benefited society by providing jobs, insulation for homes and such and a great many seeds to farmers that help me to eat.
Since corporations make profits by adding value to something and selling that something to someone, they generally only stay around if they have enough someones believing they have added enough value to be worth the price.
Those are the common defense and general welfare things that the federal government and most state governments are mandated by their constitutions to provide.
College degrees and party snacks and such are individual things and the government is not required to provide them by the constitution, only by (sometimes) majority opinion.
Then he would rely on the laws (in the US) that violate our right to assemble with like-minded individuals to punish said boss in this country that is obviously not yet regulated enough.
Yes, we do. The "news" media is always harping about how this congress has passed fewer bills than previous ones. The expectation is that we constantly need more laws. At some point, the only law left to pass will be what color of clothes we all wear on Tuesdays.
Market forces say the price is basically determined by the value people place on something. In other words, price and value while not the same thing are tightly coupled enough to be used interchangeably in some contexts.
The law that says it is illegal for the postman or anyone else that the recipient has not given permission to to do that.
The law is very silent on what happens when permission has been given as, so far, the government has been kind enough to allow us to give that permission. It looks like this is about to change.
I kind of want to send Judge Koh some snail mail and then file a complaint against her interns for reading it, she might then see the error in her logic.
And the user gave the account administrator permission to make that decision so your point is what exactly? If I go far enough down the permission chain, the permission has become so diluted that it is no longer permission?
The recipient is the one who has given Google permission to do the reading and acting, just like the executive gives permission to the secretary to open correspondence, read correspondence and act on correspondence. There is a very strong likelihood that the ruling judge has done the same thing with interns. Kind of shows how clueless she is and how she lacks an ability to think abstract thoughts.
Should be a law to remind consumers not to give their information to companies they don't trust to have their information nor to send their information to a customer of such company when said correspondent has told said company to track all correspondence.
Huge fines should be paid by all idiot consumers who fail to do so.
Nope. It doesn't matter how many people would be happy with their cell provider doing it as we can tell by the numbers that plenty are happy with their email providing doing it.
I doubt the Post Office would be in any legal trouble if they told me they were doing it. Basing a ruling on whether x% of the population reads the fine print is ridiculous.
So, it doesn't matter if Google offers an alternative as long as they are providing what they offer. I think if Google thought they could charge School Districts and Universities more for providing ad free service instead of a service subsidized by add revenue, then Google would do so.
Uh, has Google ever been accused of sending targeted ads back to the sender? I have yet to see that allegation made before you just tried to make it.
To match what Google is doing your analogy must be "and uses it to try and manipulate [the secretary's boss] in to buying some crap he doesn't want..."
Good luck taking someone secretary to court for doing what said secretary's employer has asked her to do.
And as many others have pointed out, the judge's logic is flawed as it would also outlaw the use of secretaries and interns reading mail (electronic or otherwise) for executives, politicians and, most likely, Judge Koh himself. Once you send correspondence to someone then they are free to do what they want with that correspondence including having others scan it for content. Granted, sometimes they are limited by confidentiality but then they wouldn't be soliciting that correspondence to be sent via unencrypted email.
If a gmail user has given permission to Google to scan the user's email for the purpose of giving the gmail user targeted ads is in violation of wiretapping laws, then the judge or his interns and secretaries are also in violation of similar laws regarding the US Mail. Also, email is the modern equivalent of the US Mail*, not the phone system so it shouldn't really be subject to wiretapping laws in the first place. it should be subject to the laws that cover the US Mail*.
*Substitute your local government Postal Authority if not in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the general plan of the "more government is the answer to everything" crowd. Somebody misuses something, regulate it more. Somebody misuses it again, restrict its purchase. Somebody misuses it again after having bought it illegally, make it illegal to own. Somebody still misuses it, make it illegal to own anything similar.
According to the summary ("the FAA forbids the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles over crowded areas such as Manhattan") there are already regulations in place that are being ignored. The solution to ignored regulations is not more regulations; it is more enforcement of existing regulations.
liberals by definition aren't all that smart.
"public servants"... that's rich. They stopped serving us on the west side of the Atlantic long ago.
How does having nowhere to eat force a person into the job market?
The real problem is that "public benefit" and "public good" are extremely subjective terms. I believe Monsanto has done a lot of good and has greatly benefited society by providing jobs, insulation for homes and such and a great many seeds to farmers that help me to eat.
Since corporations make profits by adding value to something and selling that something to someone, they generally only stay around if they have enough someones believing they have added enough value to be worth the price.
That was kind of the point I was trying to make but it got lost somewhere.between "violate" and "not yet regulated enough".
Those are the common defense and general welfare things that the federal government and most state governments are mandated by their constitutions to provide.
College degrees and party snacks and such are individual things and the government is not required to provide them by the constitution, only by (sometimes) majority opinion.
Then he would rely on the laws (in the US) that violate our right to assemble with like-minded individuals to punish said boss in this country that is obviously not yet regulated enough.
Obviously not in the marxist courses that Lord Lemur seems so well versed in.
Yes, we do. The "news" media is always harping about how this congress has passed fewer bills than previous ones. The expectation is that we constantly need more laws. At some point, the only law left to pass will be what color of clothes we all wear on Tuesdays.
No need for most laws but, unfortunately, we tend to "grade" politicians on how many laws they pass instead of on the good they do.
If you remember that she saw what the opposite of capitalism did to her "home" country, you might find that the alternative is worse.
Market forces say the price is basically determined by the value people place on something. In other words, price and value while not the same thing are tightly coupled enough to be used interchangeably in some contexts.
The law that says it is illegal for the postman or anyone else that the recipient has not given permission to to do that.
The law is very silent on what happens when permission has been given as, so far, the government has been kind enough to allow us to give that permission. It looks like this is about to change.
I kind of want to send Judge Koh some snail mail and then file a complaint against her interns for reading it, she might then see the error in her logic.
And Google is not targeting you with ads, are they?
And the user gave the account administrator permission to make that decision so your point is what exactly? If I go far enough down the permission chain, the permission has become so diluted that it is no longer permission?
The recipient is the one who has given Google permission to do the reading and acting, just like the executive gives permission to the secretary to open correspondence, read correspondence and act on correspondence. There is a very strong likelihood that the ruling judge has done the same thing with interns. Kind of shows how clueless she is and how she lacks an ability to think abstract thoughts.
Should be a law to remind consumers not to give their information to companies they don't trust to have their information nor to send their information to a customer of such company when said correspondent has told said company to track all correspondence.
Huge fines should be paid by all idiot consumers who fail to do so.
Well, the NSA is a government agency and, as such, is bound by the US Constitution and is not providing a direct service to users.
Google is a non governmental agency that has been asked by its users to do this.
See the difference yet? No. 1+1=2 and 1+22. See the difference in those equations? No, then you are hopeless.
Nope. It doesn't matter how many people would be happy with their cell provider doing it as we can tell by the numbers that plenty are happy with their email providing doing it.
I doubt the Post Office would be in any legal trouble if they told me they were doing it. Basing a ruling on whether x% of the population reads the fine print is ridiculous.
So, it doesn't matter if Google offers an alternative as long as they are providing what they offer. I think if Google thought they could charge School Districts and Universities more for providing ad free service instead of a service subsidized by add revenue, then Google would do so.
Uh, has Google ever been accused of sending targeted ads back to the sender? I have yet to see that allegation made before you just tried to make it.
To match what Google is doing your analogy must be "and uses it to try and manipulate [the secretary's boss] in to buying some crap he doesn't want..."
Good luck taking someone secretary to court for doing what said secretary's employer has asked her to do.
And as many others have pointed out, the judge's logic is flawed as it would also outlaw the use of secretaries and interns reading mail (electronic or otherwise) for executives, politicians and, most likely, Judge Koh himself. Once you send correspondence to someone then they are free to do what they want with that correspondence including having others scan it for content. Granted, sometimes they are limited by confidentiality but then they wouldn't be soliciting that correspondence to be sent via unencrypted email.
If a gmail user has given permission to Google to scan the user's email for the purpose of giving the gmail user targeted ads is in violation of wiretapping laws, then the judge or his interns and secretaries are also in violation of similar laws regarding the US Mail. Also, email is the modern equivalent of the US Mail*, not the phone system so it shouldn't really be subject to wiretapping laws in the first place. it should be subject to the laws that cover the US Mail*.
*Substitute your local government Postal Authority if not in the US.