Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now.
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
"The earth is flat" is also an out-and-out lie, but search engines won't delist my pages if I make that assertion, nor will I be subject to prosecution in any nation for saying so.
Look at what would happen if you shot an American on American soil from Canada or Mexico.
The key word in the above sentence is "you". The basis on which the judge dismissed this claim is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which immunizes foreign governments from suits by Americans in U.S. courts except in cases where the complete tort occurred on U.S. soil. The key word there is governments. Private citizens can still be sued, so I don't recommend you personally shoot someone across the border unless you are doing so as a government agent. As other posters have pointed out, this kind of immunity is necessary to protect, for example, drone operators who take out terrorism suspects on foreign soil.
Customers' email addresses and usage data were transmitted to the company's Canadian servers, the lawsuit alleges.
/sarcasm Isn't international law fun?
I'm aware of that, but the post I was responding to was talking about a Canadian law. Last time I checked, you can't bring suit in a U.S. federal court over a Canadian law.
I get that it's creepy and all that they would be collecting this stuff, but precisely what law was being broken? Is there a statute about sex toy usage privacy?
Umm, I think the countries invaded by Germany, such as Poland and Netherlands, etc., had an even WORSE time with the Nazis!
and decided to do something about it.
Actually, it was the allies, British, Amerericans, etc., that did something about it! Some of the earliest hate speech laws ever passed were in Germany during the Weimar Republic and they were used by Nazi's to suppress dissent. Frankly, I find it shocking that a country that lived under such an oppressive regime as the Nazi's would continue with these sorts of laws.
For various reasons including avoiding US taxes and generating localized ad revenue directly, Facebook does have holdings in various countries including Germany. Thus they are (partially) a German company and thus have to adhere to local laws. Facebook could easily avoid this by repatriating all it's holdings and income to the US, whether that is good for the US, Facebook or German economies is an entirely different question.
Why mix taxes into this issue? There are many countries that offer much more competitive tax rates than the U.S. but don't have the draconian hate speech laws that Germany has. Perhaps it would make more sense to move operations there.
Shouldn't it depend on who owns the servers? If the overseas servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in the US, then serve the warrant against the US corporation. If the servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in a foreign nation then the FBI should go through Interpol to obtain a warrant in the jurisdiction in which the servers/corporation are located.
Really? Suppose you are an American living in the U.S. but you own a vacation home in Tuscany. Should a judge in the U.S. have the authority to issue a warrant that allows U.S. police to raid your Tuscany home?
SMS is not free to all people, it is heavily pwnt by the bandwidth providers.
Not only that, it cuts out people using a computer or tablet instead of a phone. Yes, you can send SMS's from computers, but it's very difficult to receive them unless you're using a phone. An ideal messaging system would work equally well on a computer, tablet, or phone, and it should be Internet based so there's no chance you'll be charged extra fees by your provider if you use it out of your home country, for instance.
What is Cyberfox? How is it different than Firefox? The summary mentions Mozilla, and I know that Mozilla makes Firefox, but I have used Mozilla products for about 15 years, and I have never even heard of Cyberfox. Did someone just have a stroke and replace all occurrences of "fire" with "cyber"?
Your submission should answer more questions than it raises!
Same. First thing I did was go to Wikipedia to read the page on Cyberfox, guess what? There IS NO PAGE on Cyberfox! Can't be a very well known browser.
Another possibility is that there is information in the recordings which may exonerate him, perhaps someone else in the house threatening to kill the victim. The prosecution is required by law to share exculpatory evidence with the defense, even if they don't plan to use it at trial.
For its first several years of running, Amazon.com lost money hand over fist, but when they finally did start to make money, they really did. I suspect it's the same with Uber. It's still early days and they're knocking out the competition. As long as they stick with it, they'll do spectacularly well in the long term.
The summary doesn't make this clear but this is not a final ruling in this case. The judge merely granted the plaintiff (IMDb) a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from enforcing this statute until the case is decided. However, since a preliminary injunction is granted only if there's a good chance the party filing the motion will succeed at trial, it does bode well. The state has an uphill battle at this point.
That's because only the dealership that originally sold the car can see who has access and manually remove someone from the app.
That is a problem on more than 1 level.
It's not bad design from the point of view of the dealer. This basically means that all used car sales will have to go through a dealership. It will be the end of private used car sales. This was probably by design.
This is no different from the drill for laptops. On your travel day, back up your phone, encrypt the backup, send through your by vpn to a server stateside, reset the phone to factory defaults. Download the backup when safely stateside.
As soon as the customs officer sees your phone is set to factory defaults, he's going to want you to log into your accounts. That's no different from providing the password for your device.
That doesn't help if you are American and want to visit some other countries. At some point you have to come back, and these border search rules apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Pascal has always been exceptional performing math. Makes sense for a super computer IMHO. The fact that I wrote pascal for my math degree is bonus!
Are you sure you're not thinking of Fortran? I've never heard that Pascal is unusually good at math compared to other general purpose programming languages.
But if you read the 9th Circuit Courts opinion, you'd see that the reason they decided as they did was that Trump's order was too broad, excluding not only "aliens", but also potentially lawful residents who are non-citizens, such as visa holders, and others who may have been lawfully in the United States and left temporarily. If the order had been limited to those with no legal standing in the U.S. at all, the opinion might have been different.
This. Does anyone seriously advocate that someone who posts something like "Death to America!" and has images of ISIS flags all over their Facebook page NOT be stopped at the border??
No. But it is legitimate to ask if people should be required to divulge all of their social media accounts and unlock/decrypt all of their devices so agents can determine whether or not a person posted such comments in the first place.
Another solution is to pass a law saying that all US citizen data has to be kept in servers in the US.
What about e-mail or other service providers that don't have servers in the U.S.? Would it be illegal, under your framework, for U.S. citizens to sign up for e-mail or other data accounts with foreign providers with no U.S. presence? How exactly would enforcement work?
Slashdot Mirror
Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now.
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
"The earth is flat" is also an out-and-out lie, but search engines won't delist my pages if I make that assertion, nor will I be subject to prosecution in any nation for saying so.
Look at what would happen if you shot an American on American soil from Canada or Mexico.
The key word in the above sentence is "you". The basis on which the judge dismissed this claim is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which immunizes foreign governments from suits by Americans in U.S. courts except in cases where the complete tort occurred on U.S. soil. The key word there is governments. Private citizens can still be sued, so I don't recommend you personally shoot someone across the border unless you are doing so as a government agent. As other posters have pointed out, this kind of immunity is necessary to protect, for example, drone operators who take out terrorism suspects on foreign soil.
The summary also says (emphasis added):
I'm aware of that, but the post I was responding to was talking about a Canadian law. Last time I checked, you can't bring suit in a U.S. federal court over a Canadian law.
PIPEDA. Companies in Canada must disclose what information is collected and why and only use it for the intended purpose.
According to the summary the lawsuit was filed in Illinois, so I doubt Canadian law would apply.
I get that it's creepy and all that they would be collecting this stuff, but precisely what law was being broken? Is there a statute about sex toy usage privacy?
We Germans had a bad time with the nazis
Umm, I think the countries invaded by Germany, such as Poland and Netherlands, etc., had an even WORSE time with the Nazis!
and decided to do something about it.
Actually, it was the allies, British, Amerericans, etc., that did something about it! Some of the earliest hate speech laws ever passed were in Germany during the Weimar Republic and they were used by Nazi's to suppress dissent. Frankly, I find it shocking that a country that lived under such an oppressive regime as the Nazi's would continue with these sorts of laws.
For various reasons including avoiding US taxes and generating localized ad revenue directly, Facebook does have holdings in various countries including Germany. Thus they are (partially) a German company and thus have to adhere to local laws. Facebook could easily avoid this by repatriating all it's holdings and income to the US, whether that is good for the US, Facebook or German economies is an entirely different question.
Why mix taxes into this issue? There are many countries that offer much more competitive tax rates than the U.S. but don't have the draconian hate speech laws that Germany has. Perhaps it would make more sense to move operations there.
Shouldn't it depend on who owns the servers? If the overseas servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in the US, then serve the warrant against the US corporation. If the servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in a foreign nation then the FBI should go through Interpol to obtain a warrant in the jurisdiction in which the servers/corporation are located.
Really? Suppose you are an American living in the U.S. but you own a vacation home in Tuscany. Should a judge in the U.S. have the authority to issue a warrant that allows U.S. police to raid your Tuscany home?
SMS is not free to all people, it is heavily pwnt by the bandwidth providers.
Not only that, it cuts out people using a computer or tablet instead of a phone. Yes, you can send SMS's from computers, but it's very difficult to receive them unless you're using a phone. An ideal messaging system would work equally well on a computer, tablet, or phone, and it should be Internet based so there's no chance you'll be charged extra fees by your provider if you use it out of your home country, for instance.
This article seems to be specific to Canada, but I think the same is true everywhere, especially the U.S. Is there anywhere where it's different?
What is Cyberfox? How is it different than Firefox? The summary mentions Mozilla, and I know that Mozilla makes Firefox, but I have used Mozilla products for about 15 years, and I have never even heard of Cyberfox. Did someone just have a stroke and replace all occurrences of "fire" with "cyber"? Your submission should answer more questions than it raises!
Same. First thing I did was go to Wikipedia to read the page on Cyberfox, guess what? There IS NO PAGE on Cyberfox! Can't be a very well known browser.
Another possibility is that there is information in the recordings which may exonerate him, perhaps someone else in the house threatening to kill the victim. The prosecution is required by law to share exculpatory evidence with the defense, even if they don't plan to use it at trial.
For its first several years of running, Amazon.com lost money hand over fist, but when they finally did start to make money, they really did. I suspect it's the same with Uber. It's still early days and they're knocking out the competition. As long as they stick with it, they'll do spectacularly well in the long term.
The summary doesn't make this clear but this is not a final ruling in this case. The judge merely granted the plaintiff (IMDb) a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from enforcing this statute until the case is decided. However, since a preliminary injunction is granted only if there's a good chance the party filing the motion will succeed at trial, it does bode well. The state has an uphill battle at this point.
FWIW, I have a 12 year old HP Laserjet that deserves this accolade. Liked it so much it has a 9 year old brother as well.
I've found Brother printers aren't nearly as well built as HP printers.
He should be arrested, immediately.
On what grounds?
That's because only the dealership that originally sold the car can see who has access and manually remove someone from the app.
That is a problem on more than 1 level.
It's not bad design from the point of view of the dealer. This basically means that all used car sales will have to go through a dealership. It will be the end of private used car sales. This was probably by design.
This is no different from the drill for laptops. On your travel day, back up your phone, encrypt the backup, send through your by vpn to a server stateside, reset the phone to factory defaults. Download the backup when safely stateside.
As soon as the customs officer sees your phone is set to factory defaults, he's going to want you to log into your accounts. That's no different from providing the password for your device.
Simpler way: just don't visit the United States.
That doesn't help if you are American and want to visit some other countries. At some point you have to come back, and these border search rules apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.
Pascal has always been exceptional performing math. Makes sense for a super computer IMHO. The fact that I wrote pascal for my math degree is bonus!
Are you sure you're not thinking of Fortran? I've never heard that Pascal is unusually good at math compared to other general purpose programming languages.
Haven't they seen Jurassic Park?
But if you read the 9th Circuit Courts opinion, you'd see that the reason they decided as they did was that Trump's order was too broad, excluding not only "aliens", but also potentially lawful residents who are non-citizens, such as visa holders, and others who may have been lawfully in the United States and left temporarily. If the order had been limited to those with no legal standing in the U.S. at all, the opinion might have been different.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't kids learn Spanish AND Python?
This. Does anyone seriously advocate that someone who posts something like "Death to America!" and has images of ISIS flags all over their Facebook page NOT be stopped at the border??
No. But it is legitimate to ask if people should be required to divulge all of their social media accounts and unlock/decrypt all of their devices so agents can determine whether or not a person posted such comments in the first place.
Another solution is to pass a law saying that all US citizen data has to be kept in servers in the US.
What about e-mail or other service providers that don't have servers in the U.S.? Would it be illegal, under your framework, for U.S. citizens to sign up for e-mail or other data accounts with foreign providers with no U.S. presence? How exactly would enforcement work?