This is a good site for documentation of the trampling of said First Amendment Rights. While it doesn't show illegal, it does show "getting arrested for."
As for illegal. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland wiretapping and eavesdropping laws have been leveraged to prosecute people for video tapping. While these were over turned by the Supreme courts many time these laws are still used for the arrest or punishment of a citizen and only 38 states have laws that officially declare that it IS legal to record a police officer in the course of duty. I'd link to it, but you obviously don't understand how to use Google to do any research anyhow.
My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.
Actually in some states it is actually illegal to record an image of law enforcement. Laws like that could pose serious problems to people with wearable computers.
its just been badly executed. Many people I've talked to about this very idea have had the same reaction. We don't want a watch that replaces our smartphone, or has massive computing power (in today's view), but certainly wouldn't mind a watch that, say, could ping a satellite for your location every hour or so and adjust itself to your timezone or download your agenda every night and keep track of your schedule. It certainly beats having to pull out my phone and check my calendar just to see when exactly that appointment was.
There are great reasons to do this, unfortunately, most manufacturers will forget to Keep It Simple.
Free speech is good and well unless you don't agree with it or the reactions to it, right? Right-o.
And you don't see the irony? She obviously agrees with you. She thinks she has the right to post their pictures and quote a private conversation in public, but they're wrong for making a dirty joke (which wasn't directed or told to her) in private conversation?
People have no right to not be offended. They need to get over it and learn some tolerance.
I think that was his actual point. It's free speech to her if she says it, but not if she has to hear it. Just as it's ironic that free-speech evangelists are for crucifying her for her speech just as she did them. It's like a 7-layer hypocrisy dip.
It is not a crime to rip your CD if there is not DRM or other protection. It is a crime to store the ripped files in a way that they are distributed, such as in a shared folder or over the internet (there are other ways to share them over the internet than P2P) with anyone else. This is the hole in the argument @Jason Levine brings. By sharing his media he is then distributing a copy of those works. So you are correct that format shifting is not the issue here, but rather what happens afterwards, unless the cd contains any type of copy protection.
Do keep in mind though that the RIAA has gone after people for format shifting, (Atlantic v. Howell), and though they have not so far succeeded, all it takes it one.
It's not you're own phone if it's on contract. If you bought it out right then its already unlocked. Unlocking is not jail-breaking or rooting, which modifies the phone's code. Jailbreaking was found to be legal in the case of phones, though not tablets, consoles or other such systems.
Exactly, digitizing your library, either audio or video is, in fact, considered illegal by both groups. The fact that you haven't been sued for it doesn't mean it's not illegal or that they couldn't drop the hammer, it just means that they haven't. The RIAA copyright FAQs make it fairly clear that they have the power to frown upon anything that you don't have exclusive control over. Ownership and possession are not the same thing.
On that note, I feel it should be said that I do not agree with the RIAA, MPAA or any other organization that helps to continue the abusive actions imposed on legal possessors of media, in the forms of DRM or any thing else.
I think first, you're gonna have to define the use of the term property. I grant you that your property is in fact your property, unless it's their property and they are simply lending/leasing it to you for the term of your contract.
That's where the fine print comes into play. It's NOT illegal to unlock your phone. It's simply illegal to unlock your phone without your carrier's blessing, since they own the rights utilize the license for the software on it. Your carrier can unlock your phone for you, and many will at the end of your contract. It's illegal to unlock your phone yourself or use a third party to do it. In this sense, you do not own your phone and have no property rights. You in fact do not own the phone until the completion of your contract since you pay for your phone and your service on a monthly basis through your contract.
Should you wish to truly make this argument, they would have to ban unlocked phones.
All this said, I don't think the decision is just, but I also don't think people are arguing this correctly.
Well that's just dumb. Everyone knows that after the first 2 ladders you just pull the one off the bottom and put it on top! Yet another example of government overspending!
You don't see what with "other distibutions?" The Mint UI? Mint is both it's own distro and an UI. We aren't eager to "preach." It's more of a suggestion for something else. Also, there's an Ubuntu derivative of Mint that allows those with Ubuntu backgrounds to utilize Mint without having to learn how to use something else, and all with out having to deal with the new privacy concerns Ubuntu is raising.
On a personal note, how is me sharing my experience "preaching?" I didn't even say it was better or that people should move to it. I simply stated that I didn't miss Ubuntu when I moved.
So stop using Google Products. Seriously, if you don't like it change or stop complaining. You don't have to use Google, Chrome, Android or any other Google Product. You choose it.
Google's gonna do what has already been done. Seriously, I have a LastPass account. Master password encrypted, with two factor authentication, that contains my Google password, that also has two factor authentication. Lastpass also sells a yubikey that I can tie to my account, with two factor auth. Soooo, while I applaud the Goog for stepping up on security ideas, a lot of this road has been done before.
Also, please please steal my phone. I can shut it down and wipe it from anywhere in the world, or simply lock it and track it. And before anyone says anything, yes it's custom rooted and root encrypted.
Lastly, before anyone asks, yeah it's a bit of a pain when I have to reinstall an OS or if I change/flash my phone.
You mean except for the top ones that state "Ad related to"? Yeah, they should definitely make that clearer, maybe put a big pastel yellow box around it or something.
that Anon was a single group, person, entity or body that had one single focus. Last I knew Anon was much bigger than that, yet it seems everyone commenting has this belief that Anon is either good or bad and that one action directly affects another. I'm beginning to wonder how many of these tech savvy users actually understand what Anonymous is.
Westboro Baptist?
Also, if the basis is on today, let's look at that. Today, Christians (this is a generalization) believe in the death penalty, with holding taxes from their government, personal financial growth, an end to welfare, oh, and that their God is the only true god and all other gods are blasphemy and heresy. How many times now have we seen it where christians in THIS country have tried their best to silence other religion? And if you can't think of any, I'll be more than happy to give examples of those too.
Back to my original statement, all religions have their extremes and those people will take offense at any other religion.
The same could be said about christians to. As a matter of fact, all religions have their extremes and those people will take offense at any other religion.
Because
A) The complexity of the on site skills needed are likely to be missing in the agents hitting your house for, well, whatever you fear they would search you for.
B) This only works within the last few seconds of a power off scenario on your pc. Count how long it take you to kick in your door, reach your pc, pull off the cover and "freeze" your RAM. Then count how long it take you to power off your pc - physically - and add 3-5 seconds for PSU discharge. This is more an espionage technique than a LLE job.
C) How many enforcement agencies search a pc on site? I think you'll notice that most will rip out your pc and take ti back for examination.
So really the idea of "freezing" your RAM to exercises an encryption key from it is a bit more sci-fi than real life. Most likely, they'll just brute force your HDD, or you, to get the passcode.
Ah well when you put it that way it's just plain simple! Seriously, yes you CAN get data from this, but your not likely to come up to this situation at any point in your life. Also, if this is truly a fear of your and you don't understand how to protect your keys better then you kind of deserve to get it where ever they want to put it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good site for documentation of the trampling of said First Amendment Rights. While it doesn't show illegal, it does show "getting arrested for."
As for illegal. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland wiretapping and eavesdropping laws have been leveraged to prosecute people for video tapping. While these were over turned by the Supreme courts many time these laws are still used for the arrest or punishment of a citizen and only 38 states have laws that officially declare that it IS legal to record a police officer in the course of duty. I'd link to it, but you obviously don't understand how to use Google to do any research anyhow.
My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.
Actually in some states it is actually illegal to record an image of law enforcement. Laws like that could pose serious problems to people with wearable computers.
I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. (and yes, that IS what she said.)
There are great reasons to do this, unfortunately, most manufacturers will forget to Keep It Simple.
I think that was his actual point. It's free speech to her if she says it, but not if she has to hear it. Just as it's ironic that free-speech evangelists are for crucifying her for her speech just as she did them. It's like a 7-layer hypocrisy dip.
It is not a crime to rip your CD if there is not DRM or other protection. It is a crime to store the ripped files in a way that they are distributed, such as in a shared folder or over the internet (there are other ways to share them over the internet than P2P) with anyone else. This is the hole in the argument @Jason Levine brings. By sharing his media he is then distributing a copy of those works. So you are correct that format shifting is not the issue here, but rather what happens afterwards, unless the cd contains any type of copy protection.
Do keep in mind though that the RIAA has gone after people for format shifting, (Atlantic v. Howell), and though they have not so far succeeded, all it takes it one.
It's not you're own phone if it's on contract. If you bought it out right then its already unlocked. Unlocking is not jail-breaking or rooting, which modifies the phone's code. Jailbreaking was found to be legal in the case of phones, though not tablets, consoles or other such systems.
On that note, I feel it should be said that I do not agree with the RIAA, MPAA or any other organization that helps to continue the abusive actions imposed on legal possessors of media, in the forms of DRM or any thing else.
I think first, you're gonna have to define the use of the term property. I grant you that your property is in fact your property, unless it's their property and they are simply lending/leasing it to you for the term of your contract. That's where the fine print comes into play. It's NOT illegal to unlock your phone. It's simply illegal to unlock your phone without your carrier's blessing, since they own the rights utilize the license for the software on it. Your carrier can unlock your phone for you, and many will at the end of your contract. It's illegal to unlock your phone yourself or use a third party to do it. In this sense, you do not own your phone and have no property rights. You in fact do not own the phone until the completion of your contract since you pay for your phone and your service on a monthly basis through your contract. Should you wish to truly make this argument, they would have to ban unlocked phones. All this said, I don't think the decision is just, but I also don't think people are arguing this correctly.
And now it's mostly people who are disconnected from reality.
Somebody didn't watch Breaking Bad. :)
Well that's just dumb. Everyone knows that after the first 2 ladders you just pull the one off the bottom and put it on top! Yet another example of government overspending!
You don't see what with "other distibutions?" The Mint UI? Mint is both it's own distro and an UI. We aren't eager to "preach." It's more of a suggestion for something else. Also, there's an Ubuntu derivative of Mint that allows those with Ubuntu backgrounds to utilize Mint without having to learn how to use something else, and all with out having to deal with the new privacy concerns Ubuntu is raising. On a personal note, how is me sharing my experience "preaching?" I didn't even say it was better or that people should move to it. I simply stated that I didn't miss Ubuntu when I moved.
I went Mint, never missed Ubuntu for a second.
You can read it on ARS if it makes you feel better.
So stop using Google Products. Seriously, if you don't like it change or stop complaining. You don't have to use Google, Chrome, Android or any other Google Product. You choose it.
Google's gonna do what has already been done. Seriously, I have a LastPass account. Master password encrypted, with two factor authentication, that contains my Google password, that also has two factor authentication. Lastpass also sells a yubikey that I can tie to my account, with two factor auth. Soooo, while I applaud the Goog for stepping up on security ideas, a lot of this road has been done before. Also, please please steal my phone. I can shut it down and wipe it from anywhere in the world, or simply lock it and track it. And before anyone says anything, yes it's custom rooted and root encrypted. Lastly, before anyone asks, yeah it's a bit of a pain when I have to reinstall an OS or if I change/flash my phone.
I should read the later comments, apparently you beat me to this point.
You mean except for the top ones that state "Ad related to"? Yeah, they should definitely make that clearer, maybe put a big pastel yellow box around it or something.
that Anon was a single group, person, entity or body that had one single focus. Last I knew Anon was much bigger than that, yet it seems everyone commenting has this belief that Anon is either good or bad and that one action directly affects another. I'm beginning to wonder how many of these tech savvy users actually understand what Anonymous is.
I think you confuse Linux with Ubuntu.
Westboro Baptist? Also, if the basis is on today, let's look at that. Today, Christians (this is a generalization) believe in the death penalty, with holding taxes from their government, personal financial growth, an end to welfare, oh, and that their God is the only true god and all other gods are blasphemy and heresy. How many times now have we seen it where christians in THIS country have tried their best to silence other religion? And if you can't think of any, I'll be more than happy to give examples of those too. Back to my original statement, all religions have their extremes and those people will take offense at any other religion.
The same could be said about christians to. As a matter of fact, all religions have their extremes and those people will take offense at any other religion.
Because A) The complexity of the on site skills needed are likely to be missing in the agents hitting your house for, well, whatever you fear they would search you for. B) This only works within the last few seconds of a power off scenario on your pc. Count how long it take you to kick in your door, reach your pc, pull off the cover and "freeze" your RAM. Then count how long it take you to power off your pc - physically - and add 3-5 seconds for PSU discharge. This is more an espionage technique than a LLE job. C) How many enforcement agencies search a pc on site? I think you'll notice that most will rip out your pc and take ti back for examination. So really the idea of "freezing" your RAM to exercises an encryption key from it is a bit more sci-fi than real life. Most likely, they'll just brute force your HDD, or you, to get the passcode.
Ah well when you put it that way it's just plain simple! Seriously, yes you CAN get data from this, but your not likely to come up to this situation at any point in your life. Also, if this is truly a fear of your and you don't understand how to protect your keys better then you kind of deserve to get it where ever they want to put it.