Well, to be annoyingly pedantic, there's a line somewhere - for example, you can (though certainly shouldn't) have a session key in a URL, for example...
From a technical point of view, if someone can guess a valid session ID, you're Doing It Wrong(TM). This is in addition to the fact that the session ID should not be in the URL—you don't want the session ID to be included if someone shares a link to the page.
On a moral level, the difference is that the session ID is a form of credential, equivalent to a username and password. By using someone else's session ID you're assuming their identity and committing fraud in order to gain access. A simple sequential document number, however, is not in any sense a form of credential—the number itself is not secret, and its purpose is identification, not authorization. Simply requesting arbitrary documents without making any false claims regarding your own identity should not be considered a crime.
Yes, but who nailed down those legal clarifications/distinctions/requirements surrounding that amendment? If your answer has the word "Court" in it (whether it has the word "Supreme" in it or not), then it backs up my point.
The requirements come from the Constitution, which derives its power from the People. Not "a court" or "the courts" or even the Supreme Court, all of which derive their own authority from the Constitution and are not in a position to define what it means.
I didn't suggest compelling an individual to implicate himself, and I didn't see anyone else suggest it either.
Plenty of people have suggested it, though you might not have recognized the suggestion for what it is. This is the common thread running through all of the proposals to mandate backdoors in encryption—forcing people to assist law enforcement in deciphering their coded documents.
This discussion is about compelling companies to give up information on individuals, which is completely different. Law enforcement and courts have long had the ability to compel phone companies, banks, and other companies to give up information regarding suspects under investigation.
Yes, via the "third-party doctrine", another long-standing injustice. The absurdity that some consider information less protected for being held by someone who isn't even a suspect in the case goes without saying. Non-suspects should enjoy more protection against unreasonable searches, not less. This discussion isn't just about making companies give up information they hold about third parties, however, as bad as that is. What the FBI, or at least Cromey, wants is the power to compel companies like Apple to engineer design flaws into their security systems such that, on the off chance that the device later becomes the target of a warrant, the FBI will be able to break the code.
This is all based on the mistaken assumption that obtaining a warrant gives the FBI a right to the plaintext data, not merely the physical device, and consequently that by securing the devices for their users these companies are obstructing legal warrants. That is not the case; the warrant only gives them the right to seize the device and perform such searches as they are able. The companies are not obstructing anything by making the devices secure against all attackers, including those in law enforcement.
... but again the decisions end up being made by the courts.
The courts have a lot of power, but their authority is not unlimited. The role of the courts is to arbitrate disputes, not make law. They remain legitimate only so long as their rulings remain fair, just, and compatible with the natural rights of everyone involved.
Creating a second legislative branch not based on proportional representation was the founding fathers' way to prevent this type of situation.
Be that as it may, if the problem is disproportionate decision-making power then this solution just enshrines a different imbalance, equally detrimental: the smaller states now have disproportionate influence over decisions which will predominately affect the larger states, which puts them in a position to hold the larger states' interests hostage.
The root of the problem is the reliance on a simple majority instead of consensus. Any bill which is opposed by a 49% minority, or even just 25%, needs to go back to the drawing board. The rule should be that a bill can only be passed by a 4/5 supermajority, if not the unanimous consent, of everyone affected by it. (Not all of Congress—that would just make the hostage situation even worse by allowing any minor state to veto any bill until their demands were met. Instead, if you can't achieve a clear consensus, you give the dissenters the ability to opt out in exchange for abstaining; if they take that option then they are no longer affected by the bill and their approval is not required.)
... if the courts find it reasonable, law enforcement officials have the right to violate your privacy.
There are a few hard requirements besides the courts' determination that the violation is "reasonable":
... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So no search or seizure of private property, however "reasonable", can be made legal (which is what it means to issue a warrant) in the absence of a specific target and probable cause. The TSA (for one) lacks both probable cause and a specific target, and thus has no legal authority to search or seize anything without the owner's consent. The law purporting to authorize this behavior amounts to a warrant issued without probable cause and without "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", which makes it unconstitutional, and thus void.
Let's say a legal warrant was issued for a specific case, however. That just means that law enforcement can legally ignore your property rights for the purpose of searching your property and/or seizing part of it as evidence. It does not imply that you have any obligation to help them understand it. Lest anyone make the mistake of thinking that "going dark" is a recent phenomenon, there were a number of well-known codes at the time this amendment was written, as well as any number of private ciphers, and it has long been established that while a warrant may allow law enforcement to seize a document written in code, it does not entitle them to compel the author—or anyone else—to decrypt the document or otherwise translate it into plain speech. The issuing of a warrant entitles the FBI to seize the physical device, nothing more. Making sense of it afterward is their problem, and theirs alone.
That's right, the officers and shareholders should; individually.
Sure. And then people will incorporate themselves to avoid paying those taxes.
How is that supposed to work, exactly? If they incorporate, they'll be a shareholder in the new corporation, and thus liable for the taxes on the corporation's holdings. Ergo, this is not a viable path to tax avoidance.
Sure, exactly like a wedding cake. If someone wants you to put a message you disagree with on a wedding cake, you are free to turn them down. That isn't discriminating against the client on the basis of any protected class; you don't provide that service to anyone.
The case you're thinking of, the one where the bakers were forced to make the cake, was about a perfectly normal wedding cake with no message where the baker didn't care for the people placing the order. I still disagree with that decision, but it wasn't about freedom of speech, but rather freedom of association, forced labor, and the taking of private property for public use (with or without compensation, it's theft either way).
However, at the same time if I am actively curating content, it is possible then that I can no longer claim no responsibility when hosting content that is illegal in nature.. so I think these platforms may wish to decide what sort of environment they are.
This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible, and reasonable, to set terms of use and enforce them opportunistically without necessarily being aware of, or responsible for, everything that users might post on the site.
If a "reasonable person" in your position would be aware that specific content was present on your site and you make no effort to take it down, you're responsible for it, even if you act as a "common carrier" and do not "actively curate" what your users post.
If you are (reasonably) unaware that specific user-posted content is present on your site then you are not responsible for it, even if you normally do exercise some degree of editorial control.
This binary "active curation vs. common carrier" distinction assumes that "curation" means reviewing every item submitted before it becomes part of the site, which is plainly unreasonable for any site of non-trivial size.
Sure, right up until that private service effectively becomes the common forum.
No, your private property remains your private property no matter how popular the service becomes. Mandating that you permit it to be used to send messages which you disagree with would be seizing your private property for public use; in a word, theft. Others are free to find or create a new "common forum" more conducive to their message if they don't like the terms associated with yours.
Zuckerberg was speaking of data which would be relevant for information security—things like IP addresses and access logs—which of course has absolutely nothing to do with these hypothetical "shadow profiles" Lojan was asking about. A simple case of miscommunication, or a well-executed bit of deflection? You decide.
If you want to open a bank account, you will need to have an ID... ... if you open a credit... you will be registered at the National Bank...
If you want to buy a phone, you need to have an ID...
... if people receive benefits from the state (and that is what we are talking about)...
One who opens an account with a private bank does not "receive benefits from the state".
One who purchases a phone from a private retailer, and receives wireless service from a private telecommunications provider, does not "receive benefits from the state".
Requiring ID to prove that one qualifies for tax-subsidized welfare programs is one thing. Mandating state-issued ID for private services is an entirely different matter. (Nationalising banking and telecommunications services such that there is no private equivalent is, of course, much worse than merely requiring ID.)
Moreover, this 'Big Brother' system goes far beyond a simple state-issued ID. Proving your identity is one thing, but this system is designed to collect huge amounts of very personal information—where you live, work, and shop, your bank accounts and lines of credit, your phone numbers and exam results—into a single database the government can troll through at will looking for "undesirables". Plus, of course, the inevitable hackers; given how much trouble powerful, self-interested, and reasonably competent entities have keeping their own critical data private, third-party data held by an unaccountable government bureaucracy doesn't stand a chance.
As for Linux it's all very sad - even H.264 is not hardware accelerated.
Hardware decoding of H.264 is supported under Linux through VA-API on Intel GMA 4500, Ironlake Graphics and newer, and AMD Radeon HD 4000 and newer. It is also supported through VDPAU on AMD Radeon HD 4000 and newer and nVidia GeForce 8 and newer. There are adapter libraries available in case you need to use a VA-API client with VDPAU drivers or vice-versa. Accelerated encoding is also supported on certain hardware.
The above is based on the Hardware video acceleration page on the Arch Linux wiki, and my own experience with hardware decoding on Intel graphics hardware with the Debian VA-API drivers.
If you're referring specifically to hardware H.264 decoding support in Firefox, AIUI hardware decoding support has been included in the last few versions but may be disabled by default, requiring some tweaks to the preferences.
Alternatively the "mechanism to unlock after 1 year" could require a digitally signed request that is also countersigned by multiple secure timestamping authorities possessiong X509 security certificates from trusted Root CAs holding the timestamping role trusted by the smartphone that agree that the 1yr unlocking request has been submitted to them at exactly Y time.
Or forget the CAs (which are vulnerable to hacking, of the technical, social, and political varieties) and instead require as input one year's worth of valid blocks from the Bitcoin blockchain, starting at a known checkpoint updated the last time the phone was online. Easy to do if a year has actually passed, cost-prohibitive otherwise. One thing proof-of-work blockchains are very good at is providing evidence of the passage of time.
That was the official rationale, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Being forced to contribute to someone else's speech is still forced speech. Moreover, issues of free speech aside, being forced to provide any service against your will is slavery.
If it's the only road available, then yes you're preventing him from travelling.
Regardless of whether there is another road available, this road is still your property, thus he has no right to travel on it without your permission. Withholding permission is not preventing him from doing anything that he has the right to do. This still falls firmly in the category of "not assisting" rather than "preventing".
Some would say that you must at least allow him to leave the confines of your property, if it surrounds him on all sides—you can't trap a person by buying up all the land around them. However, this does not imply that you must permit him to travel on your road, only that you must provide some means for him to cross it. (And even if he did trespass, his maximum liability would be proportional by the amount of damage they caused in the process, which is likely minimal.)
Now, if we adjust the scenario a bit to say that he had been using this land for travel before anyone else claimed it, then it may actually be his property (via homesteading), assuming that he never sold it or gave it away. In that case you would obviously have no right to infringe on his right to travel on his own land, and in fact may owe him compensation for building your road without permission on his property.
What if there is? Project Gutenberg did not make a copy on a German user's computer. If such a copy exists, the German user placed it there. Project Gutenberg is not German and did not take any action in Germany, including but not limited to making copies of items covered by German copyrights.
I would actually go so far as to say that the majority of criminals are dim.
The majority of criminals who get caught, you mean. Don't forget to account for sampling bias.
The mere coincidence of your device thinking it's near some location at some time should not be usable as "probably cause" because in that case, you don't have the probable cause until you have the information from your fishing expedition.
Indeed. Probable cause should be read as having sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the owner of the property to be searched or seized is likely to be convicted of a crime serious enough to—retroactively—justify this infringement of their property rights. Considering the results in retrospect, if your searches or seizures did not lead to the conviction of the property owner in at least 50% of cases, the standard for probable cause was too lax: the cause, however just, was not sufficiently probable. And on a more practical note, in any situation where you failed to convict the target of the search or seizure, with or without probable cause, you owe compensation to the property owner for the unjustified infringement of their rights.
Serving a warrant on a third party who is not even a suspect (such as Google in this scenario) is simply wrong, full stop. Even the information eventually led to locating the offender and won the government their case, that outcome wouldn't justify infringing Google's property rights. Now, nothing prevents them from asking for the data, and Google could turn it over voluntarily, but if they had previously agreed to keep the data private then doing so should open them up to civil liability for breach of contract.
There is zero chance that this system would ever be applied equitably to anyone with substantial political connections. The country's leaders will somehow always manage to have excellent "social credit" no matter what they do.
Now there should always be consequences when those citizens exercise their rights in evil and bad ways (yelling fire in a theater where no fire exists, inciting violence, libel/slander, shooting people, keeping people as slaves, etc. etc.).
"Consequences", sure. People may choose not to listen to you (or even associate with you) in the future. That is their right. But if the law says that you can be punished (e.g. with loss of property, liberty, or other legal rights) based on the content of your speech, your freedom of speech is being infringed.
This includes libel/slander laws, "incitement" laws, and yes, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Personally, I really wish people would stop putting forward this "yelling 'fire'" line in support of restrictions on speech; it was a poor ruling issued under duress. Consider the historical context—that line was used to uphold the punishment of people who opposed the draft, i.e. to stifle political speech. The court ruled that way mainly because the President at the time had already threatened to stuff the Court with partisan justices until he got the ruling he wanted. (At the time there was no limit to the number of justices which could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Today there can be no more than nine Supreme Court justices, in part due to this event.) Assuming everyone else behaves lawfully, the expected result of a false fire alarm is a certain amount of inconvenience, which is likely to get you banned from that theater (and possibly others) but otherwise poses no danger to anyone. If other patrons, believing that there is a real fire, panic and trample each other in their haste to escape, that is their fault and they should bear full liability for that outcome. Trampling people is not acceptable behavior whether or not there is a fire. This harm is the result of someone else's unreasonable behavior, not the false claim that there was a fire.
The GP is using "clearing" to mean two different things for credit cards vs. Bitcoin, though. A credit card transaction may show up in your account overnight, but it remains subject to chargebacks for months. A bitcoin transaction with 3-6 confirmations (~1-2 hours) is effectively "set in stone", just as if you had been payed in cash.
the whole point of damages is that the money is "wasted" by the defendant. if they got to keep it (after possibly a stern lecture), there'd be no incentive to follow the law.
The point of damages—restitution—is that the plaintiff is "made whole". Damages are not awarded to punish the plaintiff or to serve as a deterrent. Your actions damaged someone, so it's your responsibility to set things right. Punishment (retribution) is separate.
Of course, this is a copyright case, so the idea that there could be "damages" in any real sense is laughable. The production or distribution of unauthorized copies does not make the copyright holder any worse off than they were before.
One would at least hope that any punishment levied against the DoD for copyright infringement would be paid by those individuals responsible for the decision, and not the DoD itself (by which I obviously mean the taxpayers).
So the books are public domain in US, and available in the US, but *not* available in Germany. What's the problem?
The problem is that Project Gutenberg isn't making the books available in Germany. Project Gutenberg is making the books available in the US—that is where their operations are, and where the copying occurs. Germany is attempting to enforce German copyright law on actions by non-German citizens which take place outside of Germany.
... when you walk into a store you are subject to whichever laws cover the location you are in.
The "store" in this case is located in the US. Germany wants the US "store" to change its behavior toward the customers who walk into the store based on their country of origin.
Imagine if your store was located in a state which allowed liquor sales on Sunday, but a neighbouring state charged you with violating their state liquor laws because one of your customers had traveled across state lines on a Sunday to buy liquor from your store. This is no different.
The German court did not as Project Gutenberg to make any changes for users from the US.
No, they just asked Project Gutenberg to change their perfectly legal US-based operations to suit German law. Where the user is located is irrelevant; the copy was made in the US, by a US organization, not in Germany or by a German citizen. Germany is attempting to restrict foreign citizens from acting in ways which are legal for them according to the laws in effect where the actions occur. There is no reason that a US-based organization with no presence in Germany should have any reason to care about German law. More generally—the mere exchange of information with an individual in another jurisdiction is not sufficient grounds to subject oneself to the other party's jurisdiction.
And though we loose an hour of sleep in the Spring, we gain an hour of sleep in the Fall. So for that particular metric, short term it's bad, and long term it evens out.
Biologically, sleep does not "even out" over the long term. You cannot make up for an hour of lost sleep by sleeping an hour longer some other night, even within the same week, much less six months later.
Surveying the comments here, it seems that what people really want is a clock which tracks the start of local daylight. Why not just forget "mean solar time", which doesn't mean much with DST anyway, and switch to "Sunrise Time" where 8am is defined to be exactly at sunrise? To avoid the problems which plague "local time" we can arrange for "Sunrise Zones" at one-hour increments, similar to time zones but without DST. Each Sunrise Zone would share a uniform average time and differ from true Sunrise Time at any point within the zone by at most 45 minutes throughout the year; local sunrise would thus always occur between 7:15am and 8:45am. Unlike time zones, Sunrise Zones would depend on both latitude and longitude.
Of course, there are some downsides to Sunrise Time. For one, the length of day (8am to 8am) would vary by a few minutes depending on the time of year, rather than being a uniform 24 hours. Also, in exchange for a uniform sunrise, the time of sunset would vary twice as much—along the northern U.S. border, the worst case barring Alaska, sunset would be around 4pm in the winter and after midnight in the summer. On the whole, however, this would seem to offer what DST is trying to achieve, without requiring semiannual one-hour time shifts, and more closely matching local conditions for the more extreme latitudes. The calculations might be slightly more complex, but determining the sunrise time (UTC) at a known reference location is well within the capabilities of even a simple wristwatch these days.
In recent Android versions you can disable an app from running in the background entirely (Apps -> Application List -> [app] -> Battery -> Background Activity -> Off). A bit heavy-handed, but this MoviePass app seems like a great use case.
That they even feel the need to make an explicit law about handheld devices to cut down on distracted driving suggests that they would be much better off, and kill a lot of birds with one stone, if they required that except as required to operate the vehicle in a safe and proper manner (ie, changing gears, activating a turn signal, windshield wipers, etc), a driver must have both hands on the steering wheel at all times while the vehicle is not in park. Full stop.
The problem with this proposal is that it's "fixing" the wrong problem. Distracted driving has absolutely nothing to do with where you hands are; it's a matter of where your mind is. Having both hands on the wheel and eyes forward while mentally focusing on work, or kids, or plans for the evening, etc., is far worse than taking a moment at a suitable time to adjust the radio, look up the next segment of the route on your GPS, or simply drive with one hand on the wheel. Prohibiting "physical distractions" such as taking one hand off the wheel does not prevent these more dangerous mental distractions, and can actually make them worse. Preventing the driver from adjusting the radio or GPS does not stop these things from occupying their mind; it just ensures that they will continue to be distracted by silence / boredom / uncertainty / etc. since they aren't allowed to take a moment to deal with the root cause.
In my opinion there is no such thing as "non-distracted driving". Any driver must expect and recognize distractions and be capable of dealing with them safely. That includes planning ahead and minimizing "elective" distractions—though not to the irrational zero-tolerance levels some would prefer—but also, and more importantly, learning how to anticipate threats, and how to deal with distractions which do arise during low-risk periods, all while remaining aware of your surroundings and alert for any change in circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to be annoyingly pedantic, there's a line somewhere - for example, you can (though certainly shouldn't) have a session key in a URL, for example ...
From a technical point of view, if someone can guess a valid session ID, you're Doing It Wrong(TM). This is in addition to the fact that the session ID should not be in the URL—you don't want the session ID to be included if someone shares a link to the page.
On a moral level, the difference is that the session ID is a form of credential, equivalent to a username and password. By using someone else's session ID you're assuming their identity and committing fraud in order to gain access. A simple sequential document number, however, is not in any sense a form of credential—the number itself is not secret, and its purpose is identification, not authorization. Simply requesting arbitrary documents without making any false claims regarding your own identity should not be considered a crime.
Yes, but who nailed down those legal clarifications/distinctions/requirements surrounding that amendment? If your answer has the word "Court" in it (whether it has the word "Supreme" in it or not), then it backs up my point.
The requirements come from the Constitution, which derives its power from the People. Not "a court" or "the courts" or even the Supreme Court, all of which derive their own authority from the Constitution and are not in a position to define what it means.
I didn't suggest compelling an individual to implicate himself, and I didn't see anyone else suggest it either.
Plenty of people have suggested it, though you might not have recognized the suggestion for what it is. This is the common thread running through all of the proposals to mandate backdoors in encryption—forcing people to assist law enforcement in deciphering their coded documents.
This discussion is about compelling companies to give up information on individuals, which is completely different. Law enforcement and courts have long had the ability to compel phone companies, banks, and other companies to give up information regarding suspects under investigation.
Yes, via the "third-party doctrine", another long-standing injustice. The absurdity that some consider information less protected for being held by someone who isn't even a suspect in the case goes without saying. Non-suspects should enjoy more protection against unreasonable searches, not less. This discussion isn't just about making companies give up information they hold about third parties, however, as bad as that is. What the FBI, or at least Cromey, wants is the power to compel companies like Apple to engineer design flaws into their security systems such that, on the off chance that the device later becomes the target of a warrant, the FBI will be able to break the code.
This is all based on the mistaken assumption that obtaining a warrant gives the FBI a right to the plaintext data, not merely the physical device, and consequently that by securing the devices for their users these companies are obstructing legal warrants. That is not the case; the warrant only gives them the right to seize the device and perform such searches as they are able. The companies are not obstructing anything by making the devices secure against all attackers, including those in law enforcement.
... but again the decisions end up being made by the courts.
The courts have a lot of power, but their authority is not unlimited. The role of the courts is to arbitrate disputes, not make law. They remain legitimate only so long as their rulings remain fair, just, and compatible with the natural rights of everyone involved.
Creating a second legislative branch not based on proportional representation was the founding fathers' way to prevent this type of situation.
Be that as it may, if the problem is disproportionate decision-making power then this solution just enshrines a different imbalance, equally detrimental: the smaller states now have disproportionate influence over decisions which will predominately affect the larger states, which puts them in a position to hold the larger states' interests hostage.
The root of the problem is the reliance on a simple majority instead of consensus. Any bill which is opposed by a 49% minority, or even just 25%, needs to go back to the drawing board. The rule should be that a bill can only be passed by a 4/5 supermajority, if not the unanimous consent, of everyone affected by it. (Not all of Congress—that would just make the hostage situation even worse by allowing any minor state to veto any bill until their demands were met. Instead, if you can't achieve a clear consensus, you give the dissenters the ability to opt out in exchange for abstaining; if they take that option then they are no longer affected by the bill and their approval is not required.)
... if the courts find it reasonable, law enforcement officials have the right to violate your privacy.
There are a few hard requirements besides the courts' determination that the violation is "reasonable":
... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So no search or seizure of private property, however "reasonable", can be made legal (which is what it means to issue a warrant) in the absence of a specific target and probable cause. The TSA (for one) lacks both probable cause and a specific target, and thus has no legal authority to search or seize anything without the owner's consent. The law purporting to authorize this behavior amounts to a warrant issued without probable cause and without "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", which makes it unconstitutional, and thus void.
Let's say a legal warrant was issued for a specific case, however. That just means that law enforcement can legally ignore your property rights for the purpose of searching your property and/or seizing part of it as evidence. It does not imply that you have any obligation to help them understand it. Lest anyone make the mistake of thinking that "going dark" is a recent phenomenon, there were a number of well-known codes at the time this amendment was written, as well as any number of private ciphers, and it has long been established that while a warrant may allow law enforcement to seize a document written in code, it does not entitle them to compel the author—or anyone else—to decrypt the document or otherwise translate it into plain speech. The issuing of a warrant entitles the FBI to seize the physical device, nothing more. Making sense of it afterward is their problem, and theirs alone.
That's right, the officers and shareholders should; individually.
Sure. And then people will incorporate themselves to avoid paying those taxes.
How is that supposed to work, exactly? If they incorporate, they'll be a shareholder in the new corporation, and thus liable for the taxes on the corporation's holdings. Ergo, this is not a viable path to tax avoidance.
You mean like a wedding cake?
Sure, exactly like a wedding cake. If someone wants you to put a message you disagree with on a wedding cake, you are free to turn them down. That isn't discriminating against the client on the basis of any protected class; you don't provide that service to anyone.
The case you're thinking of, the one where the bakers were forced to make the cake, was about a perfectly normal wedding cake with no message where the baker didn't care for the people placing the order. I still disagree with that decision, but it wasn't about freedom of speech, but rather freedom of association, forced labor, and the taking of private property for public use (with or without compensation, it's theft either way).
However, at the same time if I am actively curating content, it is possible then that I can no longer claim no responsibility when hosting content that is illegal in nature.. so I think these platforms may wish to decide what sort of environment they are.
This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible, and reasonable, to set terms of use and enforce them opportunistically without necessarily being aware of, or responsible for, everything that users might post on the site.
If a "reasonable person" in your position would be aware that specific content was present on your site and you make no effort to take it down, you're responsible for it, even if you act as a "common carrier" and do not "actively curate" what your users post.
If you are (reasonably) unaware that specific user-posted content is present on your site then you are not responsible for it, even if you normally do exercise some degree of editorial control.
This binary "active curation vs. common carrier" distinction assumes that "curation" means reviewing every item submitted before it becomes part of the site, which is plainly unreasonable for any site of non-trivial size.
Sure, right up until that private service effectively becomes the common forum.
No, your private property remains your private property no matter how popular the service becomes. Mandating that you permit it to be used to send messages which you disagree with would be seizing your private property for public use; in a word, theft. Others are free to find or create a new "common forum" more conducive to their message if they don't like the terms associated with yours.
Zuckerberg was speaking of data which would be relevant for information security—things like IP addresses and access logs—which of course has absolutely nothing to do with these hypothetical "shadow profiles" Lojan was asking about. A simple case of miscommunication, or a well-executed bit of deflection? You decide.
If you want to open a bank account, you will need to have an ID ...
... if you open a credit ... you will be registered at the National Bank ... ...
If you want to buy a phone, you need to have an ID
... if people receive benefits from the state (and that is what we are talking about) ...
One who opens an account with a private bank does not "receive benefits from the state".
One who purchases a phone from a private retailer, and receives wireless service from a private telecommunications provider, does not "receive benefits from the state".
Requiring ID to prove that one qualifies for tax-subsidized welfare programs is one thing. Mandating state-issued ID for private services is an entirely different matter. (Nationalising banking and telecommunications services such that there is no private equivalent is, of course, much worse than merely requiring ID.)
Moreover, this 'Big Brother' system goes far beyond a simple state-issued ID. Proving your identity is one thing, but this system is designed to collect huge amounts of very personal information—where you live, work, and shop, your bank accounts and lines of credit, your phone numbers and exam results—into a single database the government can troll through at will looking for "undesirables". Plus, of course, the inevitable hackers; given how much trouble powerful, self-interested, and reasonably competent entities have keeping their own critical data private, third-party data held by an unaccountable government bureaucracy doesn't stand a chance.
As for Linux it's all very sad - even H.264 is not hardware accelerated.
Hardware decoding of H.264 is supported under Linux through VA-API on Intel GMA 4500, Ironlake Graphics and newer, and AMD Radeon HD 4000 and newer. It is also supported through VDPAU on AMD Radeon HD 4000 and newer and nVidia GeForce 8 and newer. There are adapter libraries available in case you need to use a VA-API client with VDPAU drivers or vice-versa. Accelerated encoding is also supported on certain hardware.
The above is based on the Hardware video acceleration page on the Arch Linux wiki, and my own experience with hardware decoding on Intel graphics hardware with the Debian VA-API drivers.
If you're referring specifically to hardware H.264 decoding support in Firefox, AIUI hardware decoding support has been included in the last few versions but may be disabled by default, requiring some tweaks to the preferences.
Alternatively the "mechanism to unlock after 1 year" could require a digitally signed request that is also countersigned by multiple secure timestamping authorities possessiong X509 security certificates from trusted Root CAs holding the timestamping role trusted by the smartphone that agree that the 1yr unlocking request has been submitted to them at exactly Y time.
Or forget the CAs (which are vulnerable to hacking, of the technical, social, and political varieties) and instead require as input one year's worth of valid blocks from the Bitcoin blockchain, starting at a known checkpoint updated the last time the phone was online. Easy to do if a year has actually passed, cost-prohibitive otherwise. One thing proof-of-work blockchains are very good at is providing evidence of the passage of time.
That was the official rationale, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Being forced to contribute to someone else's speech is still forced speech. Moreover, issues of free speech aside, being forced to provide any service against your will is slavery.
If it's the only road available, then yes you're preventing him from travelling.
Regardless of whether there is another road available, this road is still your property, thus he has no right to travel on it without your permission. Withholding permission is not preventing him from doing anything that he has the right to do. This still falls firmly in the category of "not assisting" rather than "preventing".
Some would say that you must at least allow him to leave the confines of your property, if it surrounds him on all sides—you can't trap a person by buying up all the land around them. However, this does not imply that you must permit him to travel on your road, only that you must provide some means for him to cross it. (And even if he did trespass, his maximum liability would be proportional by the amount of damage they caused in the process, which is likely minimal.)
Now, if we adjust the scenario a bit to say that he had been using this land for travel before anyone else claimed it, then it may actually be his property (via homesteading), assuming that he never sold it or gave it away. In that case you would obviously have no right to infringe on his right to travel on his own land, and in fact may owe him compensation for building your road without permission on his property.
So there's no copy on the German user's computer?
What if there is? Project Gutenberg did not make a copy on a German user's computer. If such a copy exists, the German user placed it there. Project Gutenberg is not German and did not take any action in Germany, including but not limited to making copies of items covered by German copyrights.
I would actually go so far as to say that the majority of criminals are dim.
The majority of criminals who get caught, you mean. Don't forget to account for sampling bias.
The mere coincidence of your device thinking it's near some location at some time should not be usable as "probably cause" because in that case, you don't have the probable cause until you have the information from your fishing expedition.
Indeed. Probable cause should be read as having sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the owner of the property to be searched or seized is likely to be convicted of a crime serious enough to—retroactively—justify this infringement of their property rights. Considering the results in retrospect, if your searches or seizures did not lead to the conviction of the property owner in at least 50% of cases, the standard for probable cause was too lax: the cause, however just, was not sufficiently probable. And on a more practical note, in any situation where you failed to convict the target of the search or seizure, with or without probable cause, you owe compensation to the property owner for the unjustified infringement of their rights.
Serving a warrant on a third party who is not even a suspect (such as Google in this scenario) is simply wrong, full stop. Even the information eventually led to locating the offender and won the government their case, that outcome wouldn't justify infringing Google's property rights. Now, nothing prevents them from asking for the data, and Google could turn it over voluntarily, but if they had previously agreed to keep the data private then doing so should open them up to civil liability for breach of contract.
It works both ways though.
There is zero chance that this system would ever be applied equitably to anyone with substantial political connections. The country's leaders will somehow always manage to have excellent "social credit" no matter what they do.
Now there should always be consequences when those citizens exercise their rights in evil and bad ways (yelling fire in a theater where no fire exists, inciting violence, libel/slander, shooting people, keeping people as slaves, etc. etc.).
"Consequences", sure. People may choose not to listen to you (or even associate with you) in the future. That is their right. But if the law says that you can be punished (e.g. with loss of property, liberty, or other legal rights) based on the content of your speech, your freedom of speech is being infringed.
This includes libel/slander laws, "incitement" laws, and yes, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Personally, I really wish people would stop putting forward this "yelling 'fire'" line in support of restrictions on speech; it was a poor ruling issued under duress. Consider the historical context—that line was used to uphold the punishment of people who opposed the draft, i.e. to stifle political speech. The court ruled that way mainly because the President at the time had already threatened to stuff the Court with partisan justices until he got the ruling he wanted. (At the time there was no limit to the number of justices which could be appointed to the Supreme Court. Today there can be no more than nine Supreme Court justices, in part due to this event.) Assuming everyone else behaves lawfully, the expected result of a false fire alarm is a certain amount of inconvenience, which is likely to get you banned from that theater (and possibly others) but otherwise poses no danger to anyone. If other patrons, believing that there is a real fire, panic and trample each other in their haste to escape, that is their fault and they should bear full liability for that outcome. Trampling people is not acceptable behavior whether or not there is a fire. This harm is the result of someone else's unreasonable behavior, not the false claim that there was a fire.
The GP is using "clearing" to mean two different things for credit cards vs. Bitcoin, though. A credit card transaction may show up in your account overnight, but it remains subject to chargebacks for months. A bitcoin transaction with 3-6 confirmations (~1-2 hours) is effectively "set in stone", just as if you had been payed in cash.
the whole point of damages is that the money is "wasted" by the defendant. if they got to keep it (after possibly a stern lecture), there'd be no incentive to follow the law.
The point of damages—restitution—is that the plaintiff is "made whole". Damages are not awarded to punish the plaintiff or to serve as a deterrent. Your actions damaged someone, so it's your responsibility to set things right. Punishment (retribution) is separate.
Of course, this is a copyright case, so the idea that there could be "damages" in any real sense is laughable. The production or distribution of unauthorized copies does not make the copyright holder any worse off than they were before.
One would at least hope that any punishment levied against the DoD for copyright infringement would be paid by those individuals responsible for the decision, and not the DoD itself (by which I obviously mean the taxpayers).
So the books are public domain in US, and available in the US, but *not* available in Germany. What's the problem?
The problem is that Project Gutenberg isn't making the books available in Germany. Project Gutenberg is making the books available in the US—that is where their operations are, and where the copying occurs. Germany is attempting to enforce German copyright law on actions by non-German citizens which take place outside of Germany.
... when you walk into a store you are subject to whichever laws cover the location you are in.
The "store" in this case is located in the US. Germany wants the US "store" to change its behavior toward the customers who walk into the store based on their country of origin.
Imagine if your store was located in a state which allowed liquor sales on Sunday, but a neighbouring state charged you with violating their state liquor laws because one of your customers had traveled across state lines on a Sunday to buy liquor from your store. This is no different.
The German court did not as Project Gutenberg to make any changes for users from the US.
No, they just asked Project Gutenberg to change their perfectly legal US-based operations to suit German law. Where the user is located is irrelevant; the copy was made in the US, by a US organization, not in Germany or by a German citizen. Germany is attempting to restrict foreign citizens from acting in ways which are legal for them according to the laws in effect where the actions occur. There is no reason that a US-based organization with no presence in Germany should have any reason to care about German law. More generally—the mere exchange of information with an individual in another jurisdiction is not sufficient grounds to subject oneself to the other party's jurisdiction.
And though we loose an hour of sleep in the Spring, we gain an hour of sleep in the Fall. So for that particular metric, short term it's bad, and long term it evens out.
Biologically, sleep does not "even out" over the long term. You cannot make up for an hour of lost sleep by sleeping an hour longer some other night, even within the same week, much less six months later.
Surveying the comments here, it seems that what people really want is a clock which tracks the start of local daylight. Why not just forget "mean solar time", which doesn't mean much with DST anyway, and switch to "Sunrise Time" where 8am is defined to be exactly at sunrise? To avoid the problems which plague "local time" we can arrange for "Sunrise Zones" at one-hour increments, similar to time zones but without DST. Each Sunrise Zone would share a uniform average time and differ from true Sunrise Time at any point within the zone by at most 45 minutes throughout the year; local sunrise would thus always occur between 7:15am and 8:45am. Unlike time zones, Sunrise Zones would depend on both latitude and longitude.
Of course, there are some downsides to Sunrise Time. For one, the length of day (8am to 8am) would vary by a few minutes depending on the time of year, rather than being a uniform 24 hours. Also, in exchange for a uniform sunrise, the time of sunset would vary twice as much—along the northern U.S. border, the worst case barring Alaska, sunset would be around 4pm in the winter and after midnight in the summer. On the whole, however, this would seem to offer what DST is trying to achieve, without requiring semiannual one-hour time shifts, and more closely matching local conditions for the more extreme latitudes. The calculations might be slightly more complex, but determining the sunrise time (UTC) at a known reference location is well within the capabilities of even a simple wristwatch these days.
In recent Android versions you can disable an app from running in the background entirely (Apps -> Application List -> [app] -> Battery -> Background Activity -> Off). A bit heavy-handed, but this MoviePass app seems like a great use case.
That they even feel the need to make an explicit law about handheld devices to cut down on distracted driving suggests that they would be much better off, and kill a lot of birds with one stone, if they required that except as required to operate the vehicle in a safe and proper manner (ie, changing gears, activating a turn signal, windshield wipers, etc), a driver must have both hands on the steering wheel at all times while the vehicle is not in park. Full stop.
The problem with this proposal is that it's "fixing" the wrong problem. Distracted driving has absolutely nothing to do with where you hands are; it's a matter of where your mind is. Having both hands on the wheel and eyes forward while mentally focusing on work, or kids, or plans for the evening, etc., is far worse than taking a moment at a suitable time to adjust the radio, look up the next segment of the route on your GPS, or simply drive with one hand on the wheel. Prohibiting "physical distractions" such as taking one hand off the wheel does not prevent these more dangerous mental distractions, and can actually make them worse. Preventing the driver from adjusting the radio or GPS does not stop these things from occupying their mind; it just ensures that they will continue to be distracted by silence / boredom / uncertainty / etc. since they aren't allowed to take a moment to deal with the root cause.
In my opinion there is no such thing as "non-distracted driving". Any driver must expect and recognize distractions and be capable of dealing with them safely. That includes planning ahead and minimizing "elective" distractions—though not to the irrational zero-tolerance levels some would prefer—but also, and more importantly, learning how to anticipate threats, and how to deal with distractions which do arise during low-risk periods, all while remaining aware of your surroundings and alert for any change in circumstances.