The odds are much better than this is actually how the law is being written, and they are "expecting the court to correctly interpret it" because, you know, that' the job of the courts... to interpret the intended meaning of the law.
And then they complain about 'activist judges' who tell them their laws, as written, are crap and can't possibly stand in law.
If you can't pass a law which is actually compatible with your legal frame work, don't be surprised when a judge rules it void because it violated half a dozen legal foundations.
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).
This is just more stupidity to pander to big business and screw the rest of us.
the CFAA would be amended to treat any violation of a website's Terms of Service â" or an employer's Terms of Use policy â" as a criminal act
That's a really stupid f-ing idea.
Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.
So if I create a Facebook account without real information I've committed a crime now?
Anyone voting for this is too damned stupid to be passing laws about technology. We've been giving too much power in terms of EULAs and 'licenses' where companies make up their own terms which would be otherwise illegal -- applying the force of law behind this shit would be bad for all of us.
So big box retailers aren't good places to go for computer advice?
I'd be shocked if I haven't heard so many blatant falsehoods coming out of the mouths of people in these stores -- they're often clueless about the products, and more worried about up-selling you to Monster Cable or something.
I think it's a problem with social media in general.
The assumption has become that what people really want to do is be able to share everything at all times. Many of us have no interest in that, and don't trust the companies involved.
I find it especially annoying when companies start a push to ramp up their use of social media in the office. I don't see it as enhancing business value in most cases, and then you mostly get pressured to waste your time making sure you have an updated profile. Woo, that really enhanced my productivity.
All of a sudden the new buzzword becomes something everybody 'must have', and then charge ahead with it without having any idea of what it leads to. Then organizations and vendors go slightly gaga and try to get in on that.
Setting a phone to tell your friends everything you do -- well, that's pretty stupid IMO. Updates like this should be something you have to explicitly do each time.
I don't even see this as a specific failing with BB -- because everybody seems to think the world can't live without social media.
I suspect it's a generational/hipster thing -- I suspect there's a lot of people who think that your phone should do this. But I don't get it personally.
Suing? I expect Valve is more knowledgeable about the GPL and needing to be compliant than most.
But are they likely to?
First, what is Livelink? Second, what makes you think they wouldn't?
Doh, I meant to type Linux. Livelink is ECM software, and I type it more often than Linux.
What makes me think they wouldn't? Large amounts of companies who make closed products using GPL software and then claim they can't release their proprietary changes and the fact that I think companies will usually try sneak around it as opposed to obeying it.
I love unsubstantiated claims!
You must, you just made two of them... your first and last sentences.
Offer $1k for the heads of anybody who runs one of these organizations.;-)
It's gotten to the point where pretty much any unknown caller either gets hung up on immediately, or told to PFO since I can't believe they are who they claim to be.
If I actually have any business interest with you, send it to me in snail mail, because I no longer trust incoming calls -- between the fake tech support, notification I've won a cruise, or someone offering to lower my credit card interest but who has no idea of who I am, the vast majority of calls I receive are clearly fraudulent and coming from another country.
The issue people have a problem with is why does a random car stereo tech have a responsibility to investigate a large sum of cash that he finds.
Sadly, because the DEA could make the case that once he'd seen the money, he was a co-conspirator -- plus all of the rest of the stuff in the article.
This isn't "make secret compartment, go to jail"... this is "make secret compartment, service it when malfunctioning, see large pile of what government deems illegal cash, don't tell anybody, refuse to cooperate with DEA, go to jail".
Unfortunately, once he got pulled into discussions with DEA agents and didn't want to become an informant, he got even deeper mired into this.
Seriously, it's the TFA... maybe you should actually read it. It was the DEA who made the case to a judge, and the judge agreed.
If you want to debate the merits of the case, take it up with someone else. There's an entire article which describes how this went from bad to worse for him.
How the fuck is it anyone's business where I got $800k?
Ask your government. I'm merely telling you what happens, I'm certainly not defending it.
The legal process to get your money back is horribly flawed, and they can seize it on suspicion, and it's mostly a cash grab for the agency seizing it.
However, the fact remains, that if law enforcement finds you with that much cash, they'll likely seize it from you -- and then it will be up to you to prove you obtained it legally in the first place.
Have you not been paying attention? This has been going on for years.
Having $800K in cash you can't account for is going to get you into the territory of seizure laws, unless you can account for where you got it (and the onus is on you to prove that).
And, sadly, once he saw it, and reasonably knew what the second one was likely to be used for.. he was screwed. Because either he said nothing and became complicit, or he turned in some shady people who might not be understanding of that.
If he'd never seen what was inside, and never agreed to make another one, he'd probably have been shielded with "your honor, I have no idea what he kept in there".
But once he asked if there was anything he needed to worry about, and saw that much cash, and then made another one for them... well, I feel bad for the guy.
If I put it in my safe am I suddenly some sort of drug lord?
Depending on how much cash, if you were found with it you might need to prove it's legally obtained. Trying to deposit $10K or more (or whatever it is) into the bank in cash is going to get flagged as well.
During that time, she was involved in the company's public effort to fight the idea that IP addresses can be considered personally identifiable information.
So she led the charge to try to make as much stuff declared not private as possible, and wasn't ever actually a privacy advocate. Did she try to argue that the wi-fi information they scraped wasn't private either?
She'll no doubt be replaced with someone who cares even less about privacy.
Sadly, Google is evolving into a douchebag corporation like every other multi-billion dollar organization. My trust in them has been waning the last few years.
I'd agree with you, except when you purchase an MP3 you are not actually 'buying a product', you are licensing it's use. In the law, there's a big difference.
My problem with that is companies are increasingly adding licenses to what should be products.
Just because they say they're licensing it, doesn't mean they're not selling you something.
And in a lot of cases, if I'm just 'licensing' it for temporary use, they better start changing their cost structure -- because it costs as much to 'license' a CD as it does to buy the damned thing and rip it yourself.
Companies want the best of both worlds with this, and this ruling just goes further to give it to them.
There's nothing at all to prevent the publishers from taking their games and doing whatever they like unless they signed a contract with Sony to the contrary.
But I'm betting that there will be just enough stuff in there that is proprietary to make it just incompatible enough as to be entirely unusable.
I meant you won't be able to take a PS4 title, pop it into your PC and run it. Just because the CPU architecture is x86 doesn't mean Sony hasn't gone to great pains to ensure they don't quite work the same.
If PlayStation 4 is moving to a PC architecture, then what's the point of buying a PlayStation 4 over a home theater PC running a less-closed operating system such as Windows 8 or GNU/Linux?
So you can play the games for the Playstation?
The internals might be PC architecture, but Sony is going to make damned sure there's lots preventing you from running these games on a PC.
Sony is doing this to cut costs, not make something which is 'open' in any meaningful way. Because let's face it, Sony doesn't do that sort of thing.
Sharks have been able to sense electric fields for a very long time, migratory birds see magnetic fields, good luck sorting out the venemous platypus and all its strangeness... natural processes have had hundreds of millions of years to get a head start on us.
I think most people are no longer surprised by such things. Nature has been at this stuff way longer than we've even existed.
I can see a lot better use for this than putting it on buildings. How often do buildings in the first world get bombed anyway and what affect will it have on demolishing them when needed?
Are you seriously suggesting we stop panicking about unlikely things now? Because Western governments have spent the last decade fostering the panic, and I can't see them stopping any time soon. It's how they get away with everything these days, by invoking terrorism, child porn, or copyright infringement.
How often has the TSA found someone trying to blow up a plane?
There's simply too much money at stake to start winding down panic over activities which are low probability.
Slashdot Mirror
And then they complain about 'activist judges' who tell them their laws, as written, are crap and can't possibly stand in law.
If you can't pass a law which is actually compatible with your legal frame work, don't be surprised when a judge rules it void because it violated half a dozen legal foundations.
And the TOS for a web site could be random, arbitrary, and illegal ... there is no attempt whatsoever to address this. "By visiting this site, you owe me $1000 and a blowjob" or any other crap that has no place in contract law, and there's no attempt to ensure you're not waiving rights you're not supposed to be able to waive (like class action suits for instance).
This is just more stupidity to pander to big business and screw the rest of us.
That's a really stupid f-ing idea.
Website change their terms of service all the time, and at their whim. They assert copyright ownership of stuff their users create. They do whatever they want basically, and to their own benefit.
So if I create a Facebook account without real information I've committed a crime now?
Anyone voting for this is too damned stupid to be passing laws about technology. We've been giving too much power in terms of EULAs and 'licenses' where companies make up their own terms which would be otherwise illegal -- applying the force of law behind this shit would be bad for all of us.
Morons.
So big box retailers aren't good places to go for computer advice?
I'd be shocked if I haven't heard so many blatant falsehoods coming out of the mouths of people in these stores -- they're often clueless about the products, and more worried about up-selling you to Monster Cable or something.
It's then you idiot. You're too stupid to be a grammar nazi.
I think it's a problem with social media in general.
The assumption has become that what people really want to do is be able to share everything at all times. Many of us have no interest in that, and don't trust the companies involved.
I find it especially annoying when companies start a push to ramp up their use of social media in the office. I don't see it as enhancing business value in most cases, and then you mostly get pressured to waste your time making sure you have an updated profile. Woo, that really enhanced my productivity.
All of a sudden the new buzzword becomes something everybody 'must have', and then charge ahead with it without having any idea of what it leads to. Then organizations and vendors go slightly gaga and try to get in on that.
Setting a phone to tell your friends everything you do -- well, that's pretty stupid IMO. Updates like this should be something you have to explicitly do each time.
I don't even see this as a specific failing with BB -- because everybody seems to think the world can't live without social media.
I suspect it's a generational/hipster thing -- I suspect there's a lot of people who think that your phone should do this. But I don't get it personally.
Sure, but they email or text ... actual person to person phone calls from home is reserved for calling my parents for the most part.
It's just not a medium I rely on any more, which means the proportion of fraudulent calls is around 90%.
Good luck with that ... the calls I get are either from American area codes, or call centers in India who are there just to scam people.
So much of this is going to be outside the reach of any enforcement as to make it a joke. They don't care because nobody can touch them.
Send in the Seals or cal in an airstrike. ;-)
But are they likely to?
Doh, I meant to type Linux. Livelink is ECM software, and I type it more often than Linux.
What makes me think they wouldn't? Large amounts of companies who make closed products using GPL software and then claim they can't release their proprietary changes and the fact that I think companies will usually try sneak around it as opposed to obeying it.
You must, you just made two of them ... your first and last sentences.
Offer $1k for the heads of anybody who runs one of these organizations. ;-)
It's gotten to the point where pretty much any unknown caller either gets hung up on immediately, or told to PFO since I can't believe they are who they claim to be.
If I actually have any business interest with you, send it to me in snail mail, because I no longer trust incoming calls -- between the fake tech support, notification I've won a cruise, or someone offering to lower my credit card interest but who has no idea of who I am, the vast majority of calls I receive are clearly fraudulent and coming from another country.
Sadly, because the DEA could make the case that once he'd seen the money, he was a co-conspirator -- plus all of the rest of the stuff in the article.
This isn't "make secret compartment, go to jail" ... this is "make secret compartment, service it when malfunctioning, see large pile of what government deems illegal cash, don't tell anybody, refuse to cooperate with DEA, go to jail".
Unfortunately, once he got pulled into discussions with DEA agents and didn't want to become an informant, he got even deeper mired into this.
Seriously, it's the TFA ... maybe you should actually read it. It was the DEA who made the case to a judge, and the judge agreed.
If you want to debate the merits of the case, take it up with someone else. There's an entire article which describes how this went from bad to worse for him.
And how long will it take before people are suing Valve for the updates they'll have made for their distribution?
I find it unlikely they'll be putting a vanilla install of Livelink on it, and I'm skeptical they'd be willing to give back any changes they made.
Which means this is on a collision course with the GPL in all likelihood.
All valid and principled stands, none of which I disagree with.
And yet, reality says that law enforcement does it anyway, and will happily extend this presumed guilt to you by association.
Seriously, do some googling -- I'm not advocating for this, but it is undeniably a fact that it happens.
Don't bitch at me about it. I'm just pointing out that it's a real thing, and that it happens all the time. I certainly don't agree with it.
Ask your government. I'm merely telling you what happens, I'm certainly not defending it.
The legal process to get your money back is horribly flawed, and they can seize it on suspicion, and it's mostly a cash grab for the agency seizing it.
However, the fact remains, that if law enforcement finds you with that much cash, they'll likely seize it from you -- and then it will be up to you to prove you obtained it legally in the first place.
Have you not been paying attention? This has been going on for years.
Having $800K in cash you can't account for is going to get you into the territory of seizure laws, unless you can account for where you got it (and the onus is on you to prove that).
And, sadly, once he saw it, and reasonably knew what the second one was likely to be used for .. he was screwed. Because either he said nothing and became complicit, or he turned in some shady people who might not be understanding of that.
If he'd never seen what was inside, and never agreed to make another one, he'd probably have been shielded with "your honor, I have no idea what he kept in there".
But once he asked if there was anything he needed to worry about, and saw that much cash, and then made another one for them ... well, I feel bad for the guy.
Depending on how much cash, if you were found with it you might need to prove it's legally obtained. Trying to deposit $10K or more (or whatever it is) into the bank in cash is going to get flagged as well.
And actually trying to fix some of the social problems associated with drugs like poverty and lack of jobs.
But nobody has any interest in doing that. They'd rather have a large, for profit prison industry and sweep it all under the rug.
So she led the charge to try to make as much stuff declared not private as possible, and wasn't ever actually a privacy advocate. Did she try to argue that the wi-fi information they scraped wasn't private either?
She'll no doubt be replaced with someone who cares even less about privacy.
Sadly, Google is evolving into a douchebag corporation like every other multi-billion dollar organization. My trust in them has been waning the last few years.
Good riddance to her then.
I had only just realized it was ignore Slashdot day. I assure you, I did for the remainder of the day. :-P
My problem with that is companies are increasingly adding licenses to what should be products.
Just because they say they're licensing it, doesn't mean they're not selling you something.
And in a lot of cases, if I'm just 'licensing' it for temporary use, they better start changing their cost structure -- because it costs as much to 'license' a CD as it does to buy the damned thing and rip it yourself.
Companies want the best of both worlds with this, and this ruling just goes further to give it to them.
Ah, yes ... it's ignore Slashdot day again. Time to find something else to read today.
In an abstract, ideal world, maybe. Or at least consider their advice.
But if you really think turning over your life decisions to a committee of your friends is going to be a good idea, you deserve something like this.
Sorry, but he set himself up so he doesn't actually have voting shares, and entirely put his life in the hands of his, er, 'investors'.
Sounds like a case of 'epic stupid' to me.
There's nothing at all to prevent the publishers from taking their games and doing whatever they like unless they signed a contract with Sony to the contrary.
But I'm betting that there will be just enough stuff in there that is proprietary to make it just incompatible enough as to be entirely unusable.
I meant you won't be able to take a PS4 title, pop it into your PC and run it. Just because the CPU architecture is x86 doesn't mean Sony hasn't gone to great pains to ensure they don't quite work the same.
So you can play the games for the Playstation?
The internals might be PC architecture, but Sony is going to make damned sure there's lots preventing you from running these games on a PC.
Sony is doing this to cut costs, not make something which is 'open' in any meaningful way. Because let's face it, Sony doesn't do that sort of thing.
Sharks have been able to sense electric fields for a very long time, migratory birds see magnetic fields, good luck sorting out the venemous platypus and all its strangeness... natural processes have had hundreds of millions of years to get a head start on us.
I think most people are no longer surprised by such things. Nature has been at this stuff way longer than we've even existed.
Are you seriously suggesting we stop panicking about unlikely things now? Because Western governments have spent the last decade fostering the panic, and I can't see them stopping any time soon. It's how they get away with everything these days, by invoking terrorism, child porn, or copyright infringement.
How often has the TSA found someone trying to blow up a plane?
There's simply too much money at stake to start winding down panic over activities which are low probability.