Sure it is. What if he took pictures of naked 10-year-old girls?
This whole mess is around something called the "border exception" to the "probable cause" requirement for search and seizure. The idea behind the exception is that the government gets to say what comes into the country, so it gets to search everything that comes in.
It's a bit silly, considering how easy it is for people to send stuff over the Internet. But, the fact that they can't do it for everything doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it for ANYTHING.
Really? The contents of the emails were generally posted on-line. Which emails were you referring to?
In any case, remember that the appropriate standard here is what ALASKA law says she should do with her email. The current President is in some hot water over the Presidential Records Act, but that act doesn't apply to the Governor of Alaska.
If you have both personal and business relationships with people, it's quite common for information to be intermingled in personal and business email accounts. Nothing generally wrong with that.
You're taking your quote out of context. In context, it's proceeded by a cite of Section 1201(b) and then "Unlike Section 1201(a), however, Congress did not . .." So, it's clearly referring to Section 1201(b), not to the entire DMCA.
And, that is correct -- Section 1201(b) does not bar circumvention for use. But, Section *1201(a)* does that when the protective measure controls both access and use.
Anyway, Elcom was a district court decision in a criminal case. And, the part here only allowed the court to get to the defendant's main argument, which he denied. While it's the best we have, you can't really use it to stand for much.
I think you may be parsing that incorrectly. If the technological measure "effectively controls access," then circumventing that measure is forbidden, regardless of the reason or purpose of circumvention. If the measure controls both access and use, then circumvention for any reason is a problem.
I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.
But, it's also important to teach kids about advertising -- they need to learn that advertisers LIE and will do anything to separate people from their money. (This is, unfortunately, even more true in kid's advertising than with adults.)
A few Christmases ago, I deliberately bought a crappy, but well-advertised, toy for each of my kids. We opened them up and compared them to what we saw on the TV commercials. I gave the kids the option to return the toys and get something else that I knew they would like.
There were two benefits: first, they look at advertisements with a lot more skepticism than their peers, and, second, if they get something they don't like, they're very willing to return it for something they do like.
These systems are not typically run to create an incentive for employees to churn out patents. The employee has already done the invention as part of his/her work and, generally, the company already has the right to patent it without the employee's further involvement. Often, though, the right folks at the company don't know about an invention. So, the program is there to create an incentive for those who know about the inventions to tell the appropriate people in the company.
The incentive has to be large enough to make it worth the employee's time to pick up the phone and do the legwork to describe it, but not so large that it motivates the employee to stop doing his/her job and start focusing on inventing.
$150,000 is the maximum statutory damage that can be awarded per infringed work. The minimum is $750 ($200 if the infringement was innocent). See 17 USC 504. The judge has to pick a number between the two.
Nobody ever goes into an infringement suit saying "I know the maximum we can get is $150K. But, we're only going to ask for $50,000." It's just bad strategy -- ask for $150k and you may get $30K. Ask for $50K and you may get $3K.
Uhh... FOIA applies only to federal information. Alaska may have a similar statute, but they may not. I'd be interested to hear your other reasons.
Keeping a strict separation between "work" email and "non-work" email is not always practical. How do you classify this email:
"Here's the document you asked for. BTW, thanks for inviting us over last night. We had a wonderful time."
Should you send that as two separate emails, to two separate addresses? And, what if you receive this sort of email? Do you respond back from one email address "Thanks for the document" and from the other "we really enjoyed having you over"?
Unfortunately, aggregation is not a derivative work under US copyright law. If anything, it's a compilation. On first blush, I don't even think static linking creates a derivative work.
Ok. I over-spoke. I have certainly read the GPL. You're referring to is a serious inconsistency in the GPL -- it says "you don't need to agree," but then it goes on to specify terms (Sec 15-17 of GPLv3) that the *user* has to agree to in order to be enforceable against the user (at least under US law).
So, I'm a user, I get to reject the GPL and still use the software. If the software, say, erases all a user's data and the user sues the author, this is about the exchange that could happen in court:
Author: "Judge, I distributed the software under the GPL, which limits my liability. Please toss this case out."
User: "Judge, I did not accept the GPL and I especially did not accept any limit on Author's liability. Furthermore, the GPL says that I don't have to accept the GPL to be able to run the software."
Judge: "User, you're right. Author, pay the man."
(There are other plausible scenarios. But, nothing in the GPL precludes this one.)
Don't get me wrong -- the basic idea behind the GPL is great. I just think that the GPL itself is not well-drafted.
Your first point is valid. I'm only familiar with US law, and there are limits to how much liability you can agree to do away with in a contract.
As to your last, you can manifest agreement in a number of ways. The easiest it to click on something that says "I agree." But, if you're given a license, told "your use of this product is governed by this license," and then use the product, you have agreed to the license, even if you never clicked "Agree."
Open source licenses like the GPL have the same basic "acceptance" problem. It's just that nobody worries about it since users of GPL software usually are aware of the GPL when they download it. Plus, some open-source software requires acceptance on install.
The problem with Ubuntu (and a bunch of other packages), though, is that the software comes pre-installed, and so the user never sees the license. And, if you don't know about the license, you can't be bound to it.
(The GNU folks will argue, approximately, "well, if you didn't accept the license, then you must be infringing the copyright of the software." That's correct, so far as it goes. But, there are other ways to get permission to run, such as Section 117 of the copyright act (in the US) or just an implied license. It's possible to argue "Well, you gave it to me without telling me you were licensing it under the GPL. Why should the GPL apply at all instead of the default set of rules for when this happens?")
That's an excellent point, but do you think that the amount of damages you can claim can be limited *without* your agreement?
The problem is that if you want to disclaim warranties or limit liability (or do any of a number of other things), the user has to be aware of the restriction and they have to accept that somehow. This is why companies use so-called "click-wrap" agreements -- it's a sure way to know that a person accepted the license.
Consider this case: you publish a nice piece of software, put it up on your website and invite people to download and run it. There is never a prominent place there where you tell them it's licensed to them under the GPL. I install your software and it deletes all my files. I sue you for my lost business, the time to recover the files, etc.... You say, "But, it was licensed under the GPL, which says that I'm not liable to you." And, my response is, "You never showed that to me. Had I known about it, I would not have installed the software." I now have a much better chance of getting a lot of money from you than I would have if you had made me click-through the GPL when I installed your software.
The price at my local pump went down by about 66 cents from its high ($4.04 to $3.38). That's a lot more than a "few pennies." (Until all the refineries shut down due to Ike, driving gas prices back up.)
I'd be interested if you could point to some evidence of price-fixing other than the prices themselves. But, without that, it just sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
Insider trading on Bear Stearns has nothing to do with antitrust law. That would be a violation of US securities laws. And, frankly, there were a lot of people who knew Bear Stearns was in trouble before hand -- it doesn't surprise me that they were shorting. And, by itself, shorting is not illegal.
There are far more than three companies owning media outlets:
ABC/Disney, NBC/GE, CBS/Viacom, Fox/News Corp., McClachy, Gannett, the New York Times. And, those are just ones that come to mind. There are countless bloggers and independent sources as well.
There's also more than one US airframe manufacturer: Boeing, Gulfstream/GD, Lookheed Martin. And, why do should we care how many US manufacturers there are as long as there are several internationally. They compete globally.
But, what the heck does any of this have to do with text messaging prices?
"In no event . . . will any copyright holder . . . be liable to you for damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program . .."
That's Section 16. If that doesn't cover use, I don't know what does.
The really interesting parts of the GPL are intended to apply only to distributions, which is why it's called a "distribution license." But, it has a few end-user parts in there as well. (See Section 15 also.)
Look at Sections 15-17 of GPLv3. Sound corporate and businesslike?
Note that these sections are intended to apply to USERS -- they are effectively an EULA. (I know... "but, it's a distribution license." And, it is, mostly. But, ell me why a distribution license limits liability . ..arising out of the USE [of] the program . ..) That's right: the GPL is an EULA.
So, first of all, I was just offering a few examples of valid reasons that the price could go up even when the underlying cost goes down.
As far as your #2: that's a red herring. Voice is also data. Heck, video is data. Web browsing is data. Why are any of these priced differently? It's partly because of bandwidth costs, but also partly because of the value that consumers place on them.
The only way that SMS pricing could be anti-competitive is if the cell companies had somehow agreed on pricing -- it isn't enough that they all price the same; you have to show that they agreed to do so. And, there is no evidence of that agreement.
In any case, the idea that Herb Kohl has the expertise to understand the dynamics of the cell phone market is absurd.
I didn't understand your point on #3. On my phone, I can forward a text message in an email, save it to a file or forward to somebody else. What more do you want?
No. Senators should leave well enough alone. This is just politicians trying to get the cell companies to pony up more campaign donations.
So what if SMS prices have gone up? We have an FTC and a Department of Justice which are tasked with antitrust enforcement, and they have a cadre of economists who analyze these things. Why does Herb Kohl think he knows any better?
It could easily be that SMS messages are not very price elastic -- even with SMS, the phone service is the lion's share of the cost. It could be that phone companies reduce the price of phone service and increase the price of messaging.
Best Buy also got slapped for that reason. And, nearly all TV sets are made outside the country, mostly in China, regardless of where they're sold. Speaking of stereotypes....
However, the large majority of people won't be affected because they get their TV through cable or satellite. This only applies to over-the-air broadcasts. It's unlikely that "inner-city welfare-check-receiving families" will be affected because most of such people have cable TV.
That would be great. However, every politician from your local school board to the presidency does it. Don't think Obama is above that. Obama had originally wanted to have secret balloting in the Democrat convention, until he discovered that his party's platform called for getting rid of secret ballots in union elections. (Because WITH secret ballots, workers in non-union shops were regularly voting against unionization. Opening the ballots allows pressure to be placed.) So, is Obama FOR the secrecy of elections, or against it? Or, is this a matter of changing his view based on what part of his constituency wants?
In any case, you've still misrepresented her -- she didn't say what they wanted to hear; she avoided saying what they didn't want to hear. It's a fine, but important, point.
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
"My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "
Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator."
She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.
In any case, recognize the position she's in -- the lunatic fringe of the republican party believes in the version of creationism that starts off with "Adam and Eve were in the garden with the dinosaurs", and she can't really say something that would tick them off. But, at the same time, she can't agree with them without appearing like a loon.
The Democrats have a similar problem with the lunatic fringe of the democrat party.
Unfortunately, with Internet T&C, there are a few times where the requirements to be legally binding are at odds with being readable to the layman. For example, if you want to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, you generally need to put that disclaimer in all-caps and specifically mention that warranty. But, "Warranty of Merchantability" is really a term of art, and a lay person may not understand what it means.
But, absent those times, the fact that a websites T&C are hard to read is really a problem with the lawyer not drafting them for the appropriate audience. Sometimes that comes from the site operator, who doesn't want to be billed for the extra legal time.
That said, I'm not a big fan of your suggested law -- that's a lot of money spent on documents that nobody really reads. More often than not a typical user who slogged through the T&C will conclude "Yeah, that's about what I expected."
Funny story: my kid signed up for the Ty Beanie Baby on-line service. At the end of the sign-in process (which was clearly intended for children to read), there was a cartoon character that said "Be sure to read the terms and conditions and click accept!" The T&C were in a separate scrolling 4-line text box, and was written in absurd legalese. I have no idea how Ty things that's going to be binding.
If a large number of people are ignorant about what science is and isn't, that is a fact which ought to be pointed out to students and those students ought to be taught to appreciate the differences. Otherwise, when the come across somebody who believes something different than they do, they will be unable to respond adequately.
I was only partially kidding in my jab at Democrats -- it's important for me to teach my kids what they believe and why those beliefs are wrong. Otherwise, when they are called to defend them, they will be unfamiliar with the attacks and it will be harder to respond.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is. What if he took pictures of naked 10-year-old girls?
This whole mess is around something called the "border exception" to the "probable cause" requirement for search and seizure. The idea behind the exception is that the government gets to say what comes into the country, so it gets to search everything that comes in.
It's a bit silly, considering how easy it is for people to send stuff over the Internet. But, the fact that they can't do it for everything doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it for ANYTHING.
Really? The contents of the emails were generally posted on-line. Which emails were you referring to?
In any case, remember that the appropriate standard here is what ALASKA law says she should do with her email. The current President is in some hot water over the Presidential Records Act, but that act doesn't apply to the Governor of Alaska.
If you have both personal and business relationships with people, it's quite common for information to be intermingled in personal and business email accounts. Nothing generally wrong with that.
You're taking your quote out of context. In context, it's proceeded by a cite of Section 1201(b) and then "Unlike Section 1201(a), however, Congress did not . . ." So, it's clearly referring to Section 1201(b), not to the entire DMCA.
And, that is correct -- Section 1201(b) does not bar circumvention for use. But, Section *1201(a)* does that when the protective measure controls both access and use.
Anyway, Elcom was a district court decision in a criminal case. And, the part here only allowed the court to get to the defendant's main argument, which he denied. While it's the best we have, you can't really use it to stand for much.
I think you may be parsing that incorrectly. If the technological measure "effectively controls access," then circumventing that measure is forbidden, regardless of the reason or purpose of circumvention. If the measure controls both access and use, then circumvention for any reason is a problem.
I have a similar approach with my kids. If you consistently say no, the kids stop asking. It's only when you start saying yes sometimes that they start. That's as true of advertising as it is of buying candy in the checkout aisles.
But, it's also important to teach kids about advertising -- they need to learn that advertisers LIE and will do anything to separate people from their money. (This is, unfortunately, even more true in kid's advertising than with adults.)
A few Christmases ago, I deliberately bought a crappy, but well-advertised, toy for each of my kids. We opened them up and compared them to what we saw on the TV commercials. I gave the kids the option to return the toys and get something else that I knew they would like.
There were two benefits: first, they look at advertisements with a lot more skepticism than their peers, and, second, if they get something they don't like, they're very willing to return it for something they do like.
These systems are not typically run to create an incentive for employees to churn out patents. The employee has already done the invention as part of his/her work and, generally, the company already has the right to patent it without the employee's further involvement. Often, though, the right folks at the company don't know about an invention. So, the program is there to create an incentive for those who know about the inventions to tell the appropriate people in the company.
The incentive has to be large enough to make it worth the employee's time to pick up the phone and do the legwork to describe it, but not so large that it motivates the employee to stop doing his/her job and start focusing on inventing.
$150,000 is the maximum statutory damage that can be awarded per infringed work. The minimum is $750 ($200 if the infringement was innocent). See 17 USC 504. The judge has to pick a number between the two.
Nobody ever goes into an infringement suit saying "I know the maximum we can get is $150K. But, we're only going to ask for $50,000." It's just bad strategy -- ask for $150k and you may get $30K. Ask for $50K and you may get $3K.
Uhh... FOIA applies only to federal information. Alaska may have a similar statute, but they may not. I'd be interested to hear your other reasons.
Keeping a strict separation between "work" email and "non-work" email is not always practical. How do you classify this email:
"Here's the document you asked for. BTW, thanks for inviting us over last night. We had a wonderful time."
Should you send that as two separate emails, to two separate addresses? And, what if you receive this sort of email? Do you respond back from one email address "Thanks for the document" and from the other "we really enjoyed having you over"?
Unfortunately, aggregation is not a derivative work under US copyright law. If anything, it's a compilation. On first blush, I don't even think static linking creates a derivative work.
Ok. I over-spoke. I have certainly read the GPL. You're referring to is a serious inconsistency in the GPL -- it says "you don't need to agree," but then it goes on to specify terms (Sec 15-17 of GPLv3) that the *user* has to agree to in order to be enforceable against the user (at least under US law).
So, I'm a user, I get to reject the GPL and still use the software. If the software, say, erases all a user's data and the user sues the author, this is about the exchange that could happen in court:
Author: "Judge, I distributed the software under the GPL, which limits my liability. Please toss this case out."
User: "Judge, I did not accept the GPL and I especially did not accept any limit on Author's liability. Furthermore, the GPL says that I don't have to accept the GPL to be able to run the software."
Judge: "User, you're right. Author, pay the man."
(There are other plausible scenarios. But, nothing in the GPL precludes this one.)
Don't get me wrong -- the basic idea behind the GPL is great. I just think that the GPL itself is not well-drafted.
Your first point is valid. I'm only familiar with US law, and there are limits to how much liability you can agree to do away with in a contract.
As to your last, you can manifest agreement in a number of ways. The easiest it to click on something that says "I agree." But, if you're given a license, told "your use of this product is governed by this license," and then use the product, you have agreed to the license, even if you never clicked "Agree."
Open source licenses like the GPL have the same basic "acceptance" problem. It's just that nobody worries about it since users of GPL software usually are aware of the GPL when they download it. Plus, some open-source software requires acceptance on install.
The problem with Ubuntu (and a bunch of other packages), though, is that the software comes pre-installed, and so the user never sees the license. And, if you don't know about the license, you can't be bound to it.
(The GNU folks will argue, approximately, "well, if you didn't accept the license, then you must be infringing the copyright of the software." That's correct, so far as it goes. But, there are other ways to get permission to run, such as Section 117 of the copyright act (in the US) or just an implied license. It's possible to argue "Well, you gave it to me without telling me you were licensing it under the GPL. Why should the GPL apply at all instead of the default set of rules for when this happens?")
That's an excellent point, but do you think that the amount of damages you can claim can be limited *without* your agreement?
The problem is that if you want to disclaim warranties or limit liability (or do any of a number of other things), the user has to be aware of the restriction and they have to accept that somehow. This is why companies use so-called "click-wrap" agreements -- it's a sure way to know that a person accepted the license.
Consider this case: you publish a nice piece of software, put it up on your website and invite people to download and run it. There is never a prominent place there where you tell them it's licensed to them under the GPL. I install your software and it deletes all my files. I sue you for my lost business, the time to recover the files, etc.... You say, "But, it was licensed under the GPL, which says that I'm not liable to you." And, my response is, "You never showed that to me. Had I known about it, I would not have installed the software." I now have a much better chance of getting a lot of money from you than I would have if you had made me click-through the GPL when I installed your software.
The price at my local pump went down by about 66 cents from its high ($4.04 to $3.38). That's a lot more than a "few pennies." (Until all the refineries shut down due to Ike, driving gas prices back up.)
I'd be interested if you could point to some evidence of price-fixing other than the prices themselves. But, without that, it just sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
Insider trading on Bear Stearns has nothing to do with antitrust law. That would be a violation of US securities laws. And, frankly, there were a lot of people who knew Bear Stearns was in trouble before hand -- it doesn't surprise me that they were shorting. And, by itself, shorting is not illegal.
There are far more than three companies owning media outlets:
ABC/Disney, NBC/GE, CBS/Viacom, Fox/News Corp., McClachy, Gannett, the New York Times. And, those are just ones that come to mind. There are countless bloggers and independent sources as well.
There's also more than one US airframe manufacturer: Boeing, Gulfstream/GD, Lookheed Martin. And, why do should we care how many US manufacturers there are as long as there are several internationally. They compete globally.
But, what the heck does any of this have to do with text messaging prices?
From the GPL (version 3):
"In no event . . . will any copyright holder . . . be liable to you for damages arising out of the use or inability to use the program . . ."
That's Section 16. If that doesn't cover use, I don't know what does.
The really interesting parts of the GPL are intended to apply only to distributions, which is why it's called a "distribution license." But, it has a few end-user parts in there as well. (See Section 15 also.)
Look at Sections 15-17 of GPLv3. Sound corporate and businesslike?
Note that these sections are intended to apply to USERS -- they are effectively an EULA. (I know... "but, it's a distribution license." And, it is, mostly. But, ell me why a distribution license limits liability . . .arising out of the USE [of] the program . . .) That's right: the GPL is an EULA.
So, first of all, I was just offering a few examples of valid reasons that the price could go up even when the underlying cost goes down.
As far as your #2: that's a red herring. Voice is also data. Heck, video is data. Web browsing is data. Why are any of these priced differently? It's partly because of bandwidth costs, but also partly because of the value that consumers place on them.
The only way that SMS pricing could be anti-competitive is if the cell companies had somehow agreed on pricing -- it isn't enough that they all price the same; you have to show that they agreed to do so. And, there is no evidence of that agreement.
In any case, the idea that Herb Kohl has the expertise to understand the dynamics of the cell phone market is absurd.
I didn't understand your point on #3. On my phone, I can forward a text message in an email, save it to a file or forward to somebody else. What more do you want?
Can you cite an example? I've been involved in a few transactions that have involved FTC approval, and they are definitely active.
No. Senators should leave well enough alone. This is just politicians trying to get the cell companies to pony up more campaign donations.
So what if SMS prices have gone up? We have an FTC and a Department of Justice which are tasked with antitrust enforcement, and they have a cadre of economists who analyze these things. Why does Herb Kohl think he knows any better?
It could easily be that SMS messages are not very price elastic -- even with SMS, the phone service is the lion's share of the cost. It could be that phone companies reduce the price of phone service and increase the price of messaging.
Best Buy also got slapped for that reason. And, nearly all TV sets are made outside the country, mostly in China, regardless of where they're sold. Speaking of stereotypes....
However, the large majority of people won't be affected because they get their TV through cable or satellite. This only applies to over-the-air broadcasts. It's unlikely that "inner-city welfare-check-receiving families" will be affected because most of such people have cable TV.
And then a few days later, she explained what she meant:
And that closes that book, but frothing-at-the-snout liberal knuckle-draggers will probably ignore it.
That would be great. However, every politician from your local school board to the presidency does it. Don't think Obama is above that. Obama had originally wanted to have secret balloting in the Democrat convention, until he discovered that his party's platform called for getting rid of secret ballots in union elections. (Because WITH secret ballots, workers in non-union shops were regularly voting against unionization. Opening the ballots allows pressure to be placed.) So, is Obama FOR the secrecy of elections, or against it? Or, is this a matter of changing his view based on what part of his constituency wants?
In any case, you've still misrepresented her -- she didn't say what they wanted to hear; she avoided saying what they didn't want to hear. It's a fine, but important, point.
Well, except that's not an accurate portrayal:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
Interesting how that context changes things.
In any case, recognize the position she's in -- the lunatic fringe of the republican party believes in the version of creationism that starts off with "Adam and Eve were in the garden with the dinosaurs", and she can't really say something that would tick them off. But, at the same time, she can't agree with them without appearing like a loon.
The Democrats have a similar problem with the lunatic fringe of the democrat party.
They're mandated by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
There's also no reason for them to be hard to read. See, for example, the FTC's privacy policy: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm
Unfortunately, with Internet T&C, there are a few times where the requirements to be legally binding are at odds with being readable to the layman. For example, if you want to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, you generally need to put that disclaimer in all-caps and specifically mention that warranty. But, "Warranty of Merchantability" is really a term of art, and a lay person may not understand what it means.
But, absent those times, the fact that a websites T&C are hard to read is really a problem with the lawyer not drafting them for the appropriate audience. Sometimes that comes from the site operator, who doesn't want to be billed for the extra legal time.
That said, I'm not a big fan of your suggested law -- that's a lot of money spent on documents that nobody really reads. More often than not a typical user who slogged through the T&C will conclude "Yeah, that's about what I expected."
Funny story: my kid signed up for the Ty Beanie Baby on-line service. At the end of the sign-in process (which was clearly intended for children to read), there was a cartoon character that said "Be sure to read the terms and conditions and click accept!" The T&C were in a separate scrolling 4-line text box, and was written in absurd legalese. I have no idea how Ty things that's going to be binding.
Yes.
Absolutely yes.
You should.
If a large number of people are ignorant about what science is and isn't, that is a fact which ought to be pointed out to students and those students ought to be taught to appreciate the differences. Otherwise, when the come across somebody who believes something different than they do, they will be unable to respond adequately.
I was only partially kidding in my jab at Democrats -- it's important for me to teach my kids what they believe and why those beliefs are wrong. Otherwise, when they are called to defend them, they will be unfamiliar with the attacks and it will be harder to respond.