It applies to restrictions on consumer - end customer - reviews, specifically. An NDA on consumer goods is not a common thing; most NDAs apply to employees. And this bill doesn't address that sort of thing at all. Read literally, however, yeah, it does seem to prohibit an NDA that restricts a consumer's right to talk trash about bad services or products. How it gets enforced is anybody's guess. California courts can get pretty stupid sometimes (and remarkably sensible at others).
I got no problem with it, though. If you can't stay in business if your customers talk about your products and services honestly, then you've got far bigger problems than this law.
Of course there'd be a problem with that. Comcast's users won't pay as much for ad free content as their customers - advertisers - will pay to shove ads down your throat.
Nothing new there, either. Arguments over whether black people were human go back centuries, for instance. Some still argue over it today. You kind of remind me of them.
A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.
Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.
I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to
Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.
exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.
Interpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.
Once again, and I'll use small words this time:
Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.
Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.
If the guy's talking about "memory reading devices," then he's off in fantasy land, as there is no theoretical basis for such technology, nor is there likely to be during the lifetime of anyone alive today.
And if you record it, it's a recording, same as if you videotaped yourself committing a crime. If it's a device, there are clear, well established rules for showing probably cause for a warrant. If it's part of the body, there are clear, well established (for decades) rules for showing probably cause for a warrant, same as for forced collection of biometric evidence, like DNA, fingerprints, blood alcohol levels, and so on.
When there is some theoretical model for building an artificial brain (your question was trivially answerable decades ago), it will matter. In the meantime, yawn.
The same arguments were (and should have been, to get the issues resolved) made about forced blood tests for DUIs, for forced collection of DNA evidence, for forced collection of fingerprints.
In all cases, when a minimum standard of probably cause is met, warrants will be issued and forced collection allowed.
Feel free to explain how this is any different.
Either it's a device, and subject to the same rules as a cell phone, or it's part of the person, and subject to the same rules as biometric evidence. There is no other option. The former has recently been settled by the Supreme Court, in favor of privacy and the fourth amendment. The latter was settled decades ago, same way.
If there's probably cause, a warrant will be issued. If there's not, there's not.
An implanted cell phone is no different, legally, than any other cell phone. The cops can't search your cell phone without permission or a warrant, why could an implanted one be any different? At worst, it'd be the same process to forcibly take a DNA sample, which also requires probably cause.
Does the Brookings Institute require their senior fellows to publish on a regular basis to keep getting a paycheck or something? Cuz I'm having a hard time figuring out any other reason for this.
Most home users are far more likely to forget to renew their domain name and have it snatched up by a domain squatter than to have a problem with GMail or a similar service.
Are there registrars that do not send out reminders to the various contact address in the registration? And why would anyone deal with such a fly by night outfit? Or, to put it another way, it's not so much "forget to renew their domain name" as it is "ignore the reminders" or "put in bogus information in the first place, which is a violation of the terms of service."
I feel zero sympathy for these people. I've run my own mail server since 1995, and have no regrets.
Then provoke them in to committing a felony against you. Most states, that gives you a wide range of responses, especially if you're making a citizen's arrest at the time.
As described, it wasn't assault, as no explicit threats were made. (Generally speaking, most states, assault is the threat, battery is the attack.) But if the guy blocked the exit, you tell him once that you're leaving, and either he gets out of the way, or it's unlawful imprisonment. Which is what I said. Unlikely any arrest will be made, or charges brought if it is, but it gets a police report filed on the guy, and that's a step towards convincing him that other crimes are less hazardous to his well being.
Yes, because that is so much more convenient that just walking out and getting on with your day.
I guess you missed the part about the guy blocking his exit.
If you do call the police it will wind up being your word against his,
And his wife's, and whatever was recorded by the 911 operator.
with no assault or evidence thereof and no weapons or confinement devices anywhere. The case will not be prosecuted and no one will even be arrested,
But a police report will be filed, and the guy identified, and about the third or fourth time that happens, a case will be prosecuted. And perhaps this was the third or fourth time.
so in the end you would be wasting your time for nothing.
Yes, time share salesmen can be super sleazy and un-ethical, however the internet tough guy stance you project is not actually realistic or in anyones benefit.
Unless, of course, you choose to confront criminals when they commit crimes against you. When it's borderline like that, it takes multiple complaints to get the prosecutors to act, but they will, eventually. The personal benefit is that after a couple of these companies get prosecuted (and it will be the entire company, when it finally happens), it will get the rest to lay low for a while. And that assumes you just don't give a damn about other people they might victimize in the meantime, which, obviously, you don't.
Dude even blocked the doorway after we got up and tried to leave. I eventually threatened to call the police, and he finally gave up.
Do not threaten to call the police. Just pull out your phone and call 911. Unlawful imprisonment is a crime everywhere in the civilized world. Look him right in the eye as you dial 911, then tell him (before you talk to the dispatcher) "The police are already on their way, and there's nothing you can do to stop that. If I don't talk to the dispatcher before they get here, they'll be that much more likely to tase somebody. Who do you think that will be? The guy who called them, or the sleazy sales douche they'll probably recognize from previous complaints?"
Or just make a citizen's arrest, then call 911.
(And if he touches you, especially in attempt to stop you from talking to the police, it's a felony.)
If someone is with you, with their own smart phone, have them video the entire confrontation. Prosecutors love videos of crimes being committed.
The only legitimate complaint is that Windows requires beefier hardware to do the same job. Other than that, it's a matter of preference, and advantages for specific tasks.
Roman concrete is still around. Not as many thousands of years, but modern concrete is not made to last as long as possible. Some ancient concrete was.
These vehicles will of course have a full set of controls in addition to the AI.
Yes, they will. But that's not what Google wants, or has shown as demos.. The only reason that's what will happen is that the California DMV is smarter than Google.
And dude, when CA DMV is smarter than you, you are stupid.
Signing a contract with the specific intention of violating it can be. It can also be a felony, depending on the amount of money involved. If Uber is involved in coordinating this, in theory, they could end up facing RICO charges as a criminal syndicate.
The kind of thinking that leads to this kind of dishonesty is why the taxi industry has been so tightly regulated for so long.
If they're willing to do this to each other, to cost each other money, imagine what they're willing to do to you, the fare, who have money for them to take.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Those are already inadequately covered by existing law.
It applies to restrictions on consumer - end customer - reviews, specifically. An NDA on consumer goods is not a common thing; most NDAs apply to employees. And this bill doesn't address that sort of thing at all. Read literally, however, yeah, it does seem to prohibit an NDA that restricts a consumer's right to talk trash about bad services or products. How it gets enforced is anybody's guess. California courts can get pretty stupid sometimes (and remarkably sensible at others).
I got no problem with it, though. If you can't stay in business if your customers talk about your products and services honestly, then you've got far bigger problems than this law.
What a crushing rejoined. I'm going to go commit suicide now out of shame.
Of course there'd be a problem with that. Comcast's users won't pay as much for ad free content as their customers - advertisers - will pay to shove ads down your throat.
And doing so for a commercial purpose. Which, in theory, could make it criminal.
Nothing new there, either. Arguments over whether black people were human go back centuries, for instance. Some still argue over it today. You kind of remind me of them.
A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.
Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.
I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to
Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.
exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.
Interpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.
Once again, and I'll use small words this time:
Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.
Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.
There's no difference, legally.
If the guy's talking about "memory reading devices," then he's off in fantasy land, as there is no theoretical basis for such technology, nor is there likely to be during the lifetime of anyone alive today.
And if you record it, it's a recording, same as if you videotaped yourself committing a crime. If it's a device, there are clear, well established rules for showing probably cause for a warrant. If it's part of the body, there are clear, well established (for decades) rules for showing probably cause for a warrant, same as for forced collection of biometric evidence, like DNA, fingerprints, blood alcohol levels, and so on.
There are no new issues here, and no gray areas.
When there is some theoretical model for building an artificial brain (your question was trivially answerable decades ago), it will matter. In the meantime, yawn.
Since that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand, and there is no theoretical much less actual, way for this to happen, who cares?
The same arguments were (and should have been, to get the issues resolved) made about forced blood tests for DUIs, for forced collection of DNA evidence, for forced collection of fingerprints.
In all cases, when a minimum standard of probably cause is met, warrants will be issued and forced collection allowed.
Feel free to explain how this is any different.
Either it's a device, and subject to the same rules as a cell phone, or it's part of the person, and subject to the same rules as biometric evidence. There is no other option. The former has recently been settled by the Supreme Court, in favor of privacy and the fourth amendment. The latter was settled decades ago, same way.
If there's probably cause, a warrant will be issued. If there's not, there's not.
There is nothing new here.
An implanted cell phone is no different, legally, than any other cell phone. The cops can't search your cell phone without permission or a warrant, why could an implanted one be any different? At worst, it'd be the same process to forcibly take a DNA sample, which also requires probably cause.
Does the Brookings Institute require their senior fellows to publish on a regular basis to keep getting a paycheck or something? Cuz I'm having a hard time figuring out any other reason for this.
Two moves back, I chose where to move based on who had better DSL. Last move, I stayed in the same city.
Most home users are far more likely to forget to renew their domain name and have it snatched up by a domain squatter than to have a problem with GMail or a similar service.
Are there registrars that do not send out reminders to the various contact address in the registration? And why would anyone deal with such a fly by night outfit? Or, to put it another way, it's not so much "forget to renew their domain name" as it is "ignore the reminders" or "put in bogus information in the first place, which is a violation of the terms of service."
I feel zero sympathy for these people. I've run my own mail server since 1995, and have no regrets.
That is the price of having made a bad decision early on. The longer she waits, the more severe the pain will be when she finally does switch.
Then provoke them in to committing a felony against you. Most states, that gives you a wide range of responses, especially if you're making a citizen's arrest at the time.
As described, it wasn't assault, as no explicit threats were made. (Generally speaking, most states, assault is the threat, battery is the attack.) But if the guy blocked the exit, you tell him once that you're leaving, and either he gets out of the way, or it's unlawful imprisonment. Which is what I said. Unlikely any arrest will be made, or charges brought if it is, but it gets a police report filed on the guy, and that's a step towards convincing him that other crimes are less hazardous to his well being.
Yes, because that is so much more convenient that just walking out and getting on with your day.
I guess you missed the part about the guy blocking his exit.
If you do call the police it will wind up being your word against his,
And his wife's, and whatever was recorded by the 911 operator.
with no assault or evidence thereof and no weapons or confinement devices anywhere. The case will not be prosecuted and no one will even be arrested,
But a police report will be filed, and the guy identified, and about the third or fourth time that happens, a case will be prosecuted. And perhaps this was the third or fourth time.
so in the end you would be wasting your time for nothing.
Yes, time share salesmen can be super sleazy and un-ethical, however the internet tough guy stance you project is not actually realistic or in anyones benefit.
Unless, of course, you choose to confront criminals when they commit crimes against you. When it's borderline like that, it takes multiple complaints to get the prosecutors to act, but they will, eventually. The personal benefit is that after a couple of these companies get prosecuted (and it will be the entire company, when it finally happens), it will get the rest to lay low for a while. And that assumes you just don't give a damn about other people they might victimize in the meantime, which, obviously, you don't.
Dude even blocked the doorway after we got up and tried to leave. I eventually threatened to call the police, and he finally gave up.
Do not threaten to call the police. Just pull out your phone and call 911. Unlawful imprisonment is a crime everywhere in the civilized world. Look him right in the eye as you dial 911, then tell him (before you talk to the dispatcher) "The police are already on their way, and there's nothing you can do to stop that. If I don't talk to the dispatcher before they get here, they'll be that much more likely to tase somebody. Who do you think that will be? The guy who called them, or the sleazy sales douche they'll probably recognize from previous complaints?"
Or just make a citizen's arrest, then call 911.
(And if he touches you, especially in attempt to stop you from talking to the police, it's a felony.)
If someone is with you, with their own smart phone, have them video the entire confrontation. Prosecutors love videos of crimes being committed.
The only legitimate complaint is that Windows requires beefier hardware to do the same job. Other than that, it's a matter of preference, and advantages for specific tasks.
Roman concrete is still around. Not as many thousands of years, but modern concrete is not made to last as long as possible. Some ancient concrete was.
Slashdot should have an IQ test to post comments.
(But not articles, since then, there wouldn't ever be any.)
These vehicles will of course have a full set of controls in addition to the AI.
Yes, they will. But that's not what Google wants, or has shown as demos.. The only reason that's what will happen is that the California DMV is smarter than Google.
And dude, when CA DMV is smarter than you, you are stupid.
I agree. But that's not Google's plan, if they can get away with it. They're arrogant enough to think that their toys are ready for public roads.
Signing a contract with the specific intention of violating it can be. It can also be a felony, depending on the amount of money involved. If Uber is involved in coordinating this, in theory, they could end up facing RICO charges as a criminal syndicate.
The kind of thinking that leads to this kind of dishonesty is why the taxi industry has been so tightly regulated for so long.
If they're willing to do this to each other, to cost each other money, imagine what they're willing to do to you, the fare, who have money for them to take.