I'm not BasilBrush, so there's no "what I said earlier" to speak of. What *I* am saying, however, is that speaking of walking up to someone and yelling "motherfucker" is missing BasilBrush's point, because the word's function in that particular context is that of a whole sentence. Saying what amounts to "you regularly have sex with your own mother!" is what might get you clobbered, not the word itself. Walk up to a person and yell "motherfucker!" while pointing at someone else and the person who was in one case so offended as to break your nose might actually laugh about it with you instead.
And that receiving and carrying it separately for each customer (using a separte tiny antenna and cheap-in-quantity integrated circuit digital radio receiver) was a transparent workaround that attempted to use an interpretation of the letter of the law to violate its intent).
In other words, you're saying they broke the law by complying with the law.
Sue the company who is making the illegal product and force them to take down all sites and advertisements.
As far as I know, the company making the "illegal" product is American. The company's website has not been shut down because it hasn't [yet] been found to have acted illegally by a US court. The BC court therefore wants Google to remove all links to a company that could very well be perfectly legal outside Canada.
Because the right to be forgotten is not designed to destroy the evidence.
Right. It's only designed to destroy any links to that evidence, which, for some reason, you don't think is a bad thing.
Instead it is designed to make it just a little bit harder to destroy someone's life.
In fact, it's designed to make it a lot harder to find the content in question, and do so whether or not doing otherwise would destroy someone's life.
If for example your ex-wife or girlfriend falsely accuses you of being a pedophile...
That's libel, and it's illegal even without the "right to be forgotten". If, on the other hand, the claim is not false, why should you have the right to sweep it under the rug?
Instead of whitewashing history, how about promoting critical thinking, research, and debating skills so people can get the full picture? People will eventually get used to the idea that you can't take everything on the Internet at face value, without hiding any content or throwing any factual information down the memory hole. It may take a few generations, but as the old guard dies and is replaced by the new, people will learn to better handle what they read online.
By being able to get old search results removed if they're outdated, you don't remove your original record - it would still be visible at the bailiff's office (or for a paedophile example in police records - which are the only source you SHOULD use as a definitive reference) - so "B" can't get out of his responsibilities; B can only influence the filter bubble that is in the google search results.
Why shouldn't police records be searchable? Why can't Google allow them to be searched? What you're saying is that, since the records are still available somewhere, it is perfectly acceptable to make them almost impossible to find. That's not good.
I'm sure there are easier ways to kidnap a child than to rewrite the firmware on a particular vehicle. As for systematic trafficking in people through the use of hacked vehicles, I doubt such a practice would be sustainable except in places where human trafficking isn't already commonplace.
If we talk about near future it seems unlikely that an autonomous car will be able to handle all possible situations
You know what else isn't able to handle all possible situations? A human driver.
In fact, human reaction times are pretty lousy compared to computers. If anything, allowing a vehicle's occupants to override an automated system could lead to more accidents rather than fewer ones.
No, it only increases Adobe's control over their own software. This does not give them control over you.
You're being intentionally obtuse. It not only gives Adobe control over their software, but also control over your ability to use the software. That's the only kind of "control over you" Dogtanian was talking about.
The fact that Adobe once offered an unlimited license to their software was their choice at the time. It didn't entitle you to anything regarding their future business.
None of which is in dispute, as I'm sure you know.
Any "right to be forgotten" needs to be accompanied by a "right to remember". Information legitimately published should never have to be removed from the web or pruned from search results. Information disclosed illegally is, of course, a different matter, but legitimate information, once published, should never be suppressed.
Yesterdays decision is a blow to freedom of speech. It allows sweeping factual, legitimately published information under the rug simply because the subject doesn't like the fact that the information is public. It is censorship and nothing less.
"That's actually what the law does - it doesn't allow removal of say, newspaper articles. It does however allow the removal of links to such articles."
The law doesn't allow removal of the newspaper articles; It only allows removal of any and all external references to it. That makes me feel soooo much better.
They are a barely alive gaming platform and they are starting remove features they were built upon...
On the other hand, requiring developers to offer "free to play" versions of their games makes the platform less attractive to them, and a console is nothing without developers.
Netflix wants "sufficient access to [ISP networks] without charge", but that doesn't have to mean peering. Netflix doesn't want ISPs neglecting indirect routes to content in order to push services like Netflix into connecting directly to their networks.
You and AT&T are employing what is known as a "straw man argument". Netflix doesn't want free peering arrangements. Stop intentionally misrepresenting their position.
But instead of buying more bandwidth, or purchasing from additional upstream providers, they yell about other people's networks not having enough andwidth.
Wrong. Netflix is "yelling" about being charged extra for bandwidth that Netflix's own provider has already negotiated with AT&T.
In a typical peering arrangement, both sides of the link pass roughly equal amounts of data to the other side. Netflix, however, gives Cogent so much data that the peering links are lop sided.
That's something for the peers to negotiate between themselves. AT&T can negotiate a better peering arrangement with Cogent, which would then be free to raise prices on Netflix. That's the way to do it without violating neutrality.
If net neutrality is forcing ISPs to accept peering arrangements with anyone, then take me off the list of supporters.
Net neutrality does not force ISPs to accept peering arrangements of any kind, nor is Netflix demanding ISPs be forced to do so. Netflix wants traffic that goes through an in-between ISP to be treated the same as all other such traffic. They don't want to pay a premium to not have their traffic artificially crippled by AT&T once it enters their network.
But, of course, you already knew that. Next time, try your weak arguments on a less educated crowd.
"Something must be wrong with this library (that is used successfully by everyone else)"
There's always a first person to report a bug, and some bugs are only apparent under specific circumstances. Always assume your code is to blame, but don't mistake that to mean that "nothing can be wrong with this library, because others have been using it successfully".
The submission suggests that the corporation is exploiting some security vulnerability, when really it is just using trust in a completely appropriate* way.
The problem is not that there doesn't exist a trust relationship between the client device and the proxy (there does), but that the original trust relationship between the client and the website is being violated by the the proxy's interception and modification of the website's SSL certificate. If a malicious third party somehow struck a deal with a trusted certificate authority and used it to monitor targeted communications (remember, trusted != trustworthy), we wouldn't call it anything other than a Man in the Middle attack.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it wasn't.
I'm not BasilBrush, so there's no "what I said earlier" to speak of. What *I* am saying, however, is that speaking of walking up to someone and yelling "motherfucker" is missing BasilBrush's point, because the word's function in that particular context is that of a whole sentence. Saying what amounts to "you regularly have sex with your own mother!" is what might get you clobbered, not the word itself. Walk up to a person and yell "motherfucker!" while pointing at someone else and the person who was in one case so offended as to break your nose might actually laugh about it with you instead.
I guess there will be no more "Shazam" for the Windows Phone platform, then?
In other words, you're saying they broke the law by complying with the law.
As far as I know, the company making the "illegal" product is American. The company's website has not been shut down because it hasn't [yet] been found to have acted illegally by a US court. The BC court therefore wants Google to remove all links to a company that could very well be perfectly legal outside Canada.
Right. It's only designed to destroy any links to that evidence, which, for some reason, you don't think is a bad thing.
In fact, it's designed to make it a lot harder to find the content in question, and do so whether or not doing otherwise would destroy someone's life.
That's libel, and it's illegal even without the "right to be forgotten". If, on the other hand, the claim is not false, why should you have the right to sweep it under the rug?
Why should it matter? Creditors shouldn't be looking at Google results to make lending decisions anyway. Let's regulate that instead of Google.
You're not suppressing information, you're just making it very difficult to find. How comforting.
Instead of whitewashing history, how about promoting critical thinking, research, and debating skills so people can get the full picture? People will eventually get used to the idea that you can't take everything on the Internet at face value, without hiding any content or throwing any factual information down the memory hole. It may take a few generations, but as the old guard dies and is replaced by the new, people will learn to better handle what they read online.
Why shouldn't police records be searchable? Why can't Google allow them to be searched? What you're saying is that, since the records are still available somewhere, it is perfectly acceptable to make them almost impossible to find. That's not good.
I'm sure there are easier ways to kidnap a child than to rewrite the firmware on a particular vehicle. As for systematic trafficking in people through the use of hacked vehicles, I doubt such a practice would be sustainable except in places where human trafficking isn't already commonplace.
FUD.
You know what else isn't able to handle all possible situations? A human driver.
In fact, human reaction times are pretty lousy compared to computers. If anything, allowing a vehicle's occupants to override an automated system could lead to more accidents rather than fewer ones.
You're being intentionally obtuse. It not only gives Adobe control over their software, but also control over your ability to use the software. That's the only kind of "control over you" Dogtanian was talking about.
None of which is in dispute, as I'm sure you know.
Any "right to be forgotten" needs to be accompanied by a "right to remember". Information legitimately published should never have to be removed from the web or pruned from search results. Information disclosed illegally is, of course, a different matter, but legitimate information, once published, should never be suppressed.
Yesterdays decision is a blow to freedom of speech. It allows sweeping factual, legitimately published information under the rug simply because the subject doesn't like the fact that the information is public. It is censorship and nothing less.
The law doesn't allow removal of the newspaper articles; It only allows removal of any and all external references to it. That makes me feel soooo much better.
On the other hand, requiring developers to offer "free to play" versions of their games makes the platform less attractive to them, and a console is nothing without developers.
Netflix wants "sufficient access to [ISP networks] without charge", but that doesn't have to mean peering. Netflix doesn't want ISPs neglecting indirect routes to content in order to push services like Netflix into connecting directly to their networks.
Nope. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. I ain't buying.
You and AT&T are employing what is known as a "straw man argument". Netflix doesn't want free peering arrangements. Stop intentionally misrepresenting their position.
Wrong. Netflix is "yelling" about being charged extra for bandwidth that Netflix's own provider has already negotiated with AT&T.
That's something for the peers to negotiate between themselves. AT&T can negotiate a better peering arrangement with Cogent, which would then be free to raise prices on Netflix. That's the way to do it without violating neutrality.
Net neutrality does not force ISPs to accept peering arrangements of any kind, nor is Netflix demanding ISPs be forced to do so. Netflix wants traffic that goes through an in-between ISP to be treated the same as all other such traffic. They don't want to pay a premium to not have their traffic artificially crippled by AT&T once it enters their network.
But, of course, you already knew that. Next time, try your weak arguments on a less educated crowd.
There's always a first person to report a bug, and some bugs are only apparent under specific circumstances. Always assume your code is to blame, but don't mistake that to mean that "nothing can be wrong with this library, because others have been using it successfully".
The problem is not that there doesn't exist a trust relationship between the client device and the proxy (there does), but that the original trust relationship between the client and the website is being violated by the the proxy's interception and modification of the website's SSL certificate. If a malicious third party somehow struck a deal with a trusted certificate authority and used it to monitor targeted communications (remember, trusted != trustworthy), we wouldn't call it anything other than a Man in the Middle attack.