You might be suprised to know this, but in europe all these exclusive deals and crippled phones are NOT legal and don't happen. When you got to buy a phone you can easily do that from a third party shop that simply displays the phones with a list of providers next to it.
The only way you generally can buy a locked phone, in the EU, is through the provider concerned. You can even buy such phones at third party shops, but they typically come clearly labled with the service provider's logo. The service provider will have paid full price to the manufacturer (it might even be a bit more that an unlocked phone due to firmware changes and/or branding). The price they choose to sell them to customers and retailers is entirely up to them.
I think if there was actually a threat of the corporate equivalent of jail (forced closure of the business for a period of time) and capital punishment (revoking of the corporate charter), corporations wouldn't be able to get away with a lot of what they do today.
You'd also need to have the equivalent of "in custody awaiting trial" and "bail" as well as enforced shutdown of business whilst the a trial was in progress.
Perjury is the specific act of lying to the courts - lying to me is just lying no matter what I say. If the letter is asking for information destined for court filings, it is pretty reasonable to point out the consequences of lying.
However you don't need to involve a court in order to send a DMCA notice. Indeed there is typically no intention to involve a court at all. Since in order to do so requires actually producing evidence.
But does US law allow a company to be prosecuted for perjury? If not the individual can get out of it based on the fact that his employer told him something and he acted in good faith.
Does any criminal law actually apply to "corporate people"? It's not as if there are too many situations involving a corporation even getting arrested...
At last count, last time I installed XPSP2 from scratch, a few weeks ago, it took something like 105 updates to bring it up to current. THank god for WSUS, thats alot of bandwith. Way back in the windows 2000 times, they would release "rollup" patches, that would perform the work of 30 or so patches in one. Why have they not had them for XP?
When a third party did this, with the "AutoPatcher" package, Microsoft set their lawyers on them.
If one generation is more coddled than the one before it which was also more coddled than the one before it there is a progression of increasing coddles. Things are not staying the same.
Things can also change in the sense of the coddling being different rather than a variation in the overall amount of coddling. As well as how what is politically correct in one time/place can be politically incorrect (even taboo) in a different time/place.
Where's the report on the sincere apology (or even the perfunctory social apology) from the police? Oh, yeah, there isn't one! Not even on the level of a "pardon me" when you accidentally bump into someone. Perhaps we need a series of stories like: "Police raised by wolves, don't know how to say I'm sorry"
Just as well wolves don't have lawyers or the followup might be "Why we wouldn't put up with humans in our pack".
With complete transparency, any "interesting" crime will be first judged by the public, based on third and fourth-hand information with no legal repercussions for errors (it's not *perjury* when the local rag prints gossip and rumors that are dead wrong), and the jury will be tainted by exposure to this mess, and the accused will be punished by the public even if acquitted by the legal system.
The attitude of the media can matter a lot. Such a person may well be "punished by the public" if they are portrayed as a guilty person who escaped justice. As opposed to an innocent person who experienced the terrible ordeal of being falsely (even maliciously) accused of some horrible crime.
The lady served with the request is one of the hardcore anty-Huntigndon Life Sciences protesters. Have you ever seen them?
I live in Cambridge and I have. I have also seen how it has evolved over the last 10 years. Once upon a time it was a cause celebre and had an overwhelming public support. That was 10+ years ago and. The public support by now has completely evaporated and from having the support of most of the city they are now down to 20 "hardcore" protesters.
In which case the more sensible thing to do would probably be to apply for ant-terrorist "control orders" against these people. Especially considering all the fuss made about these being created in the first place. But presumably that won't be done since she isn't the "right religion"...
And that is exactly the problem with RIPA in the first place. The assumption is that if there's encrypted data
There's also the assumption that if the investigator thinks it's encrypted data that's what it is... The point of a good encryption algorithm is that the cyphertext looks like random data.
Encrypting your data and not hiding it is the same as getting a $100k super secure safe, locking your stuff in it, but leaving it in the middle of the living room. Any { law enforcement agency / criminal gang / anyone with more resources and more muscles that you } will just force you to give them the key.
Of course it would help if lots of people encrypted their data. So that encrypted data didn't stand out. In the same way that houses and cars typically have locks.
In other words, they see the super secure safe and automatically assume there must be at least $1M in there and then they force you to give them the key. The govt will cite all kinds of stupid idiotic laws, the criminals will start cutting of the fingers (yours or your loved ones').
Assuming that there isn't overlap between "the govt" and "the criminals".
If the adversary is convinced that you do have the data and knows the data type, then create a similar but fake data set to be substituted for the real one.
Assuming you know what they might be looking for before they catch you.
No, they're talking about hiding information on animal rights activism and civil disobedience activities from the authorities who are trying to create a police state.
Actually we don't know enough to know. "Animal rights activists" is a group which includes both dangerous terrorists and those who seek to change the law through democratic political process. (It's actually perfectly possible that the latter may be more threatening to status quo interested than the former. Especially if they are amongst the first to condem the former.)
I don't accept the "if you aren't a criminal then you have nothing to hide" position.
Maybe anyone who says this could be offered a one way trip to Burma or Pakistan. Though those who make this claim are typically hypocritical, try asking them for their bank card and PIN...
A lot of people on/. seem to like to say, "I've got hidden volumes, one volume with the really bad stuff and one volume with just embarrassing stuff." But really, if your concern is privacy and not "getting away with a crime" the embarrassing stuff is the thing you want to hide. And financial stuff is going to be conspicuously not present to anyone looking.
From a security POV having this kind of distinction reduces security. Since having all the stuff you most want hidden in one place makes that the first place someone is likely to look...
Unfortunately, by a quirk of fate, the corporate veil (am studying Banking law), cannot be pierced except when government dues/taxes are due or in times of War.
Does the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" qualify?
As for books, with the studio's "blessing" comes the right to use images and trademarked items ("USS Enterprise", "light saber", etc.).
Paramount went through a phase claiming tradmarks on just about anything they could get away with. Including character and ship names. Anything that might stand a chance of ebing upheld in a court...
- Yes, she can still donate to charity with her own Harry Potter encyclopedia etc. I think this would be a selling point over the strictly for-profit encyclopedia.
It would probably also be a selling point that the author is JK Rowling rather than J Random Blogger.
- Suing for charity. Yes that is an interesting PR move.
The only place where lawyers apparently might need charity right now is Pakistan.
Electronic voltage regulator and electronic ignition. There might have been a model or two that still had mechanical ignition in the early 80's, but I can't think of one. The last electro-mechanical voltage regulators were phased out in the late 1960's.
Subs in the Falklands war could have been deadly if their maintenance routines did not lead to interface cards being damaged. They were. After Belgrano was sunk the no Argentinian captains wanted to risk their ship.
Grow ops aren't just "a plant", it's hundreds of them. A lot of the time they ruin the house, create mold due to high humidity levels, rewire everything increasing the risk of fire, etc..
Without prohibition people would probably use greenhouses instead. Carrying out horticulture in such a way probably breaks a whole bunch of laws regardless of the legal status of the plants being grown.
IMO the best solution to that kind of problems is a direct democratic decision by the jurisdiction's population (in that case the whole U.S.). Create a few sets of rules (e.g. a "green one" topping at 55 mph, one that's in line with your neighbour's limits and perhaps one without any limits (just on highways?)), create a few sets of punishments for breaking said rules (going over the limit costs ya lots of green, your license, nothing). Send said lists and some pros and cons (by the respective political groups, of course) to every voting person, let em vote it off. I'm pretty sure in most cases medium fines with medium speed limits would be voted for. People want security, yet be able to travel quickly. They want others with disprespect for said security to be punished accordingly yet know they'll get caught too some day.
One basic problem with speed limits is that a speed which is safe can vary greatly. e.g. in daylight, with a dry road and little traffic 90mph might be a perfectly acceptable driving speed. Whereas in the dark, with heavy traffic, a wet load and fog anything over 20mph might be highly dangerous. Yet taking the average of these and saying "The speed limit is 55mph" is rather daft.
What about speed limits?
Most people break at least 1 every time they drive.
If speed limits are sensible they will be observed. If they are drastically different from the appropriate speed for the road (in either direction) they will tend to be ignored. Making a big fuss about speed limits can lead to sitations of people driving too fast for the conditions whilst still being "under".
Copyright law isn't "special" -- it's been around in some form or another for hundreds of years
Other legal concepts have been around for thousands of years. A Roman would easily understand the idea of laws against theft or fraud whereas they wouldn't when it came to copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be suprised to know this, but in europe all these exclusive deals and crippled phones are NOT legal and don't happen. When you got to buy a phone you can easily do that from a third party shop that simply displays the phones with a list of providers next to it.
The only way you generally can buy a locked phone, in the EU, is through the provider concerned. You can even buy such phones at third party shops, but they typically come clearly labled with the service provider's logo.
The service provider will have paid full price to the manufacturer (it might even be a bit more that an unlocked phone due to firmware changes and/or branding). The price they choose to sell them to customers and retailers is entirely up to them.
I think if there was actually a threat of the corporate equivalent of jail (forced closure of the business for a period of time) and capital punishment (revoking of the corporate charter), corporations wouldn't be able to get away with a lot of what they do today.
You'd also need to have the equivalent of "in custody awaiting trial" and "bail" as well as enforced shutdown of business whilst the a trial was in progress.
Perjury is the specific act of lying to the courts - lying to me is just lying no matter what I say. If the letter is asking for information destined for court filings, it is pretty reasonable to point out the consequences of lying.
However you don't need to involve a court in order to send a DMCA notice. Indeed there is typically no intention to involve a court at all. Since in order to do so requires actually producing evidence.
But does US law allow a company to be prosecuted for perjury? If not the individual can get out of it based on the fact that his employer told him something and he acted in good faith.
Does any criminal law actually apply to "corporate people"? It's not as if there are too many situations involving a corporation even getting arrested...
At last count, last time I installed XPSP2 from scratch, a few weeks ago, it took something like 105 updates to bring it up to current. THank god for WSUS, thats alot of bandwith. Way back in the windows 2000 times, they would release "rollup" patches, that would perform the work of 30 or so patches in one. Why have they not had them for XP?
When a third party did this, with the "AutoPatcher" package, Microsoft set their lawyers on them.
If one generation is more coddled than the one before it which was also more coddled than the one before it there is a progression of increasing coddles. Things are not staying the same.
Things can also change in the sense of the coddling being different rather than a variation in the overall amount of coddling.
As well as how what is politically correct in one time/place can be politically incorrect (even taboo) in a different time/place.
Where's the report on the sincere apology (or even the perfunctory social apology) from the police? Oh, yeah, there isn't one! Not even on the level of a "pardon me" when you accidentally bump into someone. Perhaps we need a series of stories like: "Police raised by wolves, don't know how to say I'm sorry"
Just as well wolves don't have lawyers or the followup might be "Why we wouldn't put up with humans in our pack".
With complete transparency, any "interesting" crime will be first judged by the public, based on third and fourth-hand information with no legal repercussions for errors (it's not *perjury* when the local rag prints gossip and rumors that are dead wrong), and the jury will be tainted by exposure to this mess, and the accused will be punished by the public even if acquitted by the legal system.
The attitude of the media can matter a lot. Such a person may well be "punished by the public" if they are portrayed as a guilty person who escaped justice. As opposed to an innocent person who experienced the terrible ordeal of being falsely (even maliciously) accused of some horrible crime.
The lady served with the request is one of the hardcore anty-Huntigndon Life Sciences protesters. Have you ever seen them?
I live in Cambridge and I have. I have also seen how it has evolved over the last 10 years. Once upon a time it was a cause celebre and had an overwhelming public support. That was 10+ years ago and. The public support by now has completely evaporated and from having the support of most of the city they are now down to 20 "hardcore" protesters.
In which case the more sensible thing to do would probably be to apply for ant-terrorist "control orders" against these people. Especially considering all the fuss made about these being created in the first place. But presumably that won't be done since she isn't the "right religion"...
And that is exactly the problem with RIPA in the first place. The assumption is that if there's encrypted data
There's also the assumption that if the investigator thinks it's encrypted data that's what it is...
The point of a good encryption algorithm is that the cyphertext looks like random data.
Encrypting your data and not hiding it is the same as getting a $100k super secure safe, locking your stuff in it, but leaving it in the middle of the living room. Any { law enforcement agency / criminal gang / anyone with more resources and more muscles that you } will just force you to give them the key.
Of course it would help if lots of people encrypted their data. So that encrypted data didn't stand out. In the same way that houses and cars typically have locks.
In other words, they see the super secure safe and automatically assume there must be at least $1M in there and then they force you to give them the key. The govt will cite all kinds of stupid idiotic laws, the criminals will start cutting of the fingers (yours or your loved ones').
Assuming that there isn't overlap between "the govt" and "the criminals".
If the adversary is convinced that you do have the data and knows the data type, then create a similar but fake data set to be substituted for the real one.
Assuming you know what they might be looking for before they catch you.
No, they're talking about hiding information on animal rights activism and civil disobedience activities from the authorities who are trying to create a police state.
Actually we don't know enough to know. "Animal rights activists" is a group which includes both dangerous terrorists and those who seek to change the law through democratic political process. (It's actually perfectly possible that the latter may be more threatening to status quo interested than the former. Especially if they are amongst the first to condem the former.)
I don't accept the "if you aren't a criminal then you have nothing to hide" position.
Maybe anyone who says this could be offered a one way trip to Burma or Pakistan.
Though those who make this claim are typically hypocritical, try asking them for their bank card and PIN...
A lot of people on /. seem to like to say, "I've got hidden volumes, one volume with the really bad stuff and one volume with just embarrassing stuff." But really, if your concern is privacy and not "getting away with a crime" the embarrassing stuff is the thing you want to hide. And financial stuff is going to be conspicuously not present to anyone looking.
From a security POV having this kind of distinction reduces security. Since having all the stuff you most want hidden in one place makes that the first place someone is likely to look...
that is, of course, assuming that the police forensics team has an ounce of competence.
They've had six months, what does that tell you about their competence?
the veil of incorporation can be pierced at any time if it is believed that a member or members of the board have personally acted illegally.
If this were not the case anyone planning a crime would incorporate...
Unfortunately, by a quirk of fate, the corporate veil (am studying Banking law), cannot be pierced except when government dues/taxes are due or in times of War.
Does the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" qualify?
As for books, with the studio's "blessing" comes the right to use images and trademarked items ("USS Enterprise", "light saber", etc.).
Paramount went through a phase claiming tradmarks on just about anything they could get away with. Including character and ship names. Anything that might stand a chance of ebing upheld in a court...
Most (but not all) of the creativity behind the lexicon comes from the mind of Rowling or whoever she was inspired by. Hence this work is derivative.
What next people (or their estates) claiming copyright on biographies?
- Yes, she can still donate to charity with her own Harry Potter encyclopedia etc. I think this would be a selling point over the strictly for-profit encyclopedia.
It would probably also be a selling point that the author is JK Rowling rather than J Random Blogger.
- Suing for charity. Yes that is an interesting PR move.
The only place where lawyers apparently might need charity right now is Pakistan.
Electronic voltage regulator and electronic ignition. There might have been a model or two that still had mechanical ignition in the early 80's, but I can't think of one. The last electro-mechanical voltage regulators were phased out in the late 1960's.
And when were diesel engines "phased out"?
Subs in the Falklands war could have been deadly if their maintenance routines did not lead to interface cards being damaged.
They were. After Belgrano was sunk the no Argentinian captains wanted to risk their ship.
Grow ops aren't just "a plant", it's hundreds of them. A lot of the time they ruin the house, create mold due to high humidity levels, rewire everything increasing the risk of fire, etc..
Without prohibition people would probably use greenhouses instead. Carrying out horticulture in such a way probably breaks a whole bunch of laws regardless of the legal status of the plants being grown.
IMO the best solution to that kind of problems is a direct democratic decision by the jurisdiction's population (in that case the whole U.S.). Create a few sets of rules (e.g. a "green one" topping at 55 mph, one that's in line with your neighbour's limits and perhaps one without any limits (just on highways?)), create a few sets of punishments for breaking said rules (going over the limit costs ya lots of green, your license, nothing). Send said lists and some pros and cons (by the respective political groups, of course) to every voting person, let em vote it off. I'm pretty sure in most cases medium fines with medium speed limits would be voted for. People want security, yet be able to travel quickly. They want others with disprespect for said security to be punished accordingly yet know they'll get caught too some day.
One basic problem with speed limits is that a speed which is safe can vary greatly. e.g. in daylight, with a dry road and little traffic 90mph might be a perfectly acceptable driving speed. Whereas in the dark, with heavy traffic, a wet load and fog anything over 20mph might be highly dangerous. Yet taking the average of these and saying "The speed limit is 55mph" is rather daft.
What about speed limits?
Most people break at least 1 every time they drive.
If speed limits are sensible they will be observed. If they are drastically different from the appropriate speed for the road (in either direction) they will tend to be ignored.
Making a big fuss about speed limits can lead to sitations of people driving too fast for the conditions whilst still being "under".
Copyright law isn't "special" -- it's been around in some form or another for hundreds of years
Other legal concepts have been around for thousands of years. A Roman would easily understand the idea of laws against theft or fraud whereas they wouldn't when it came to copyright.