I'm afraid the situation is not that much better up here.
At least not as long as Stephen Harper and his Progressive Conservatives are still in power, a center right party.
The fact that they are "center right" has nothing to do with the present issue. I'm not aware that any Canadian government, current or previous, has even suggested the idea of restrictions on encryption or mandatory back doors in consumer products. In the U.S., the idea typically comes when Democrats are in the White House. (Remember the Clipper chip? That was under Clinton's administration.)
The FISA Court is not under the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. In the Federal Court system, the Supreme Court is at the top. Immediately below the Supreme Court are the Courts of Appeal for the different circuits which cover different geographical regions of the country. Also sitting directly below the Supreme Court are the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal which handles specialized cases like patent cases, and the FISA court, which handles cases whose national security implications require secrecy. Below the various Circuit Courts of Appeal are the district courts, which are the lowest courts in the federal system.
So, the FISA court, sort of sits beside the 2nd Circuit court, not below or above it. Only the Supreme Court can direct how the FISA court must interpret the law. That's not to say that the FISA court can't be guided by opinions in other circuits. Courts of appeal frequently look to opinions in other Circuit courts of Appeal for guidance on cases involving issues they haven't decided before, but they are not bound to follow opinions in other Circuits.
Absence of NAT is a feature! If not THE feature of IPv6!
NAT has many benefits besides reducing the number of IP addresses required. It has important security benefits in that it allows one to hide one's internal network structure from the outside world. Without NAT, attackers would know how many systems you have on your network as well as your router deployment. Potential attackers could benefit greatly from this information when planning and launching attacks.
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet of public, private, or parochial school grounds.
What if your house is within 1000 feet of a school. Are you not allowed to keep a gun in your house in that case? Does it matter if your house was there first and the school was built later?
Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws.
I wish that were true but it isn't. You'd be breaking copyright law. You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada. It isn't unusual for different companies to have exclusive rights to distribute in various countries, and the U.S. Netflix has no rights to distribute this copyrighted content in Canada. Therefore, in transferring the data from your VPN in the U.S. to your computer in Canada, you're copying copyrighted content which you have no authorization to do. That's illegal. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it is wrong to say that what you're doing isn't illegal.
1. They can accurately identify students and staff. Since no one has ever created a fake social media account that shouldn't be hard. Just require everyone to provide a list of all their accounts. No one would object to that, correct?
If you even just read the summary you would see that the school board is buying software which is capable of location based identification, so simple fake accounts should be easy to see through. I suppose a brother or sister in the same household might be able to pretend to be you, but beyond that, I doubt this software is that easy to fool.
Well, the fact that they are paying $13,000 per year in license fees strongly suggests that this software will give them access to information that isn't public.
The logic the majority used in ruling on this case seems pretty simple (unless I'm totally off): the patent troll had a patent that was still legally valid because there had been no court challenge to declare it invalid. Because the patent was still legally valid, the infringement of the patent is still a valid cause of action in a lawsuit.
Scalia's logic is that you can bypass a legal challenge over a patent that might be ruled invalid in court because it was never valid in the first place. The question is, though, how would you know whether the patent is valid without the court saying so?
But there are two separate types of infringement at issue here. First is direct infringement. This occurs when the defendant actually violated the patent him or herself. This is a strict liability offense, meaning that it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware of the patent or not, and it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware that his or her actions infringed the patent or not. And if the patent has not been declared invalid, it is presumed valid and the defendant is liable for damages even if the patent is later ruled invalid. This is well-established law and is not at issue in the Supreme Court's decision.
The other type of infringement is induced infringement. This occurs, for example when a defendant sells a product which would cause the end users to violate the patent. The defendant is not violating the patent directly. According to patent law, for a defendant to be liable for induced infringement, he or she must be aware of the patent and also aware that the usage of the product would be a violation of that patent. So the question before the Supreme Court was in the case of induced infringement, what if the defendant had a good faith reason to believe the patent to be invalid? I tend to agree with the majority here: if the patent wasn't declared invalid by a court, the usage of product would be infringing, so the defendant must have known that such usage would be infringing, since they knew of the patent. The dissenters (Scalia and Ch. J. Roberts) thought otherwise: if a patent is invalid, how can the defendant believe it to be infringed?
Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?
I feel like teaching anyone anything should never be illegal. Wanting to learn is the most natural human trait in the world.
Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.
I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exercises. We use a machine that measures heart rate and galvanic skin response to test our students. Once they learn the techniques, they can do with them what they want. It's not on me.
And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious prison time.
There are a lot of other things that are challenging once you're dead too, like brushing your teeth, combing your hair (and it's a real pain when it starts to fall out), and even scratching an itch. Being dead sucks, actually, and you'll have a lot more on your mind than keeping your WordPress site up to date!
The DMCA safe harbor protects them as long as they take it down immediately on request, and google is big enough to weather any lawsuit. Now if you or I were running an app store...
No, the DMCA provides no safe harbor for anyone profiting directly from the unauthorized sale of copyrighted works, intentional or otherwise. As long as the Google bookstore gets a cut of the profit on the sale, there's no safe harbor.
How exactly is the seat unsold in this case? It was sold, it is simply unoccupied.
I agree. If anything the airline made *more* money as it didn't have to expend the fuel to get the passenger from Chicago to LA.
Not only that, but if the seat is unoccupied when they're ready to close the doors, they can let a passenger on if the flight is overbooked, saving the airline both a seat on the next flight, and whatever compensation they had to offer the passenger who would have missed his flight because it was overbooked.
If you had read the article you link to (and I just did) you'd see that it does not conclude the same thing you do. Instead the article points out that it is far from a settled question on whether or not a defendant or suspect can be compelled to decrypt files. The Supreme Court has yet to deal with that issue directly, and the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue have adopted a standard in which the government must first show they know the location and existence of encrypted data. If they've seized a suspect's phone, they certainly can know these two things, so the Fifth Amendment, under that analysis, would offer no real protection.
I just read the entire article and the author forgot one other solution: the British solution Instead of putting the burden on app developers to include backdoors, or on Google to block apps that don't, put the burden on end users to turn over their keys to police when asked. I'm not saying I like this solution, but it is a solution the author of the article didn't consider. If you make the sentence for non-cooperation long enough, it doesn't really matter if the police find what they're looking for: they can just lock you up for not handing over the keys.
Whatever they design, it'll be broken fairly easily and circumvented just like DVD and Blu-ray and every other DRM format. This is just keeping the plebs from making easy copies.
"Keeping the plebs from making easy copies" would be a huge victory for the movie industry. There will always be some piracy, but the piracy the Industry fears most is that which occurs solely in the home, without the use of file sharing sites, cause it is ultimately the hardest to police.
on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though:)
YES! The colon produces methane which is a fuel and could be used in some kind of fuel cell, perhaps. It's a win-win: you'd fart less and not have to remember passwords!
Three things. 1. The Officer noticed a very strong scent of air freshener in the car when he approached, which is common in cases where people are trying to mask odors. 2. The two occupants of the vehicle both appeared quite nervous. 3. When questioned about their travel plans, the reasons given were fairly implausable: they claimed they were driving back to Omaha, Nebraska from Norfolk, Nebraska after checking out a vehicle that they were considering purchasing, this was suspicious according to the officer for various reasons including the fact that the vehicle's occupants admitted having not seen a picture of the vehicle and they drove for two hours late at night to look at it. These three things, taken separately, would probably not arise to the level of causing reasonable suspicion, but taken together it seems reasonable that they would.
No, the point is that in order to use the dog, they need to have probable cause of another crime having been committed. There wasn't any probable cause here, so they couldn't use the dog (whether it took longer or not).
That is simply not true. Read the opinion linked to the in summary. The finding is solely based on the fact that the duration of the traffic stop was increased while the officer waited for backup to arrive before conducting the dog sniff. The question of whether or not dog sniffs require reasonable suspicion or probable cause during a traffic stop was already decided in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407, a case cited in the present opinion, and it was found that no reasonable suspicion or probable cause was required unless, according to Caballes: the stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission.” (That mission being to deal with the traffic violation.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid the situation is not that much better up here.
At least not as long as Stephen Harper and his Progressive Conservatives are still in power, a center right party.
The fact that they are "center right" has nothing to do with the present issue. I'm not aware that any Canadian government, current or previous, has even suggested the idea of restrictions on encryption or mandatory back doors in consumer products. In the U.S., the idea typically comes when Democrats are in the White House. (Remember the Clipper chip? That was under Clinton's administration.)
The FISA Court is not under the jurisdiction of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal. In the Federal Court system, the Supreme Court is at the top. Immediately below the Supreme Court are the Courts of Appeal for the different circuits which cover different geographical regions of the country. Also sitting directly below the Supreme Court are the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal which handles specialized cases like patent cases, and the FISA court, which handles cases whose national security implications require secrecy. Below the various Circuit Courts of Appeal are the district courts, which are the lowest courts in the federal system.
So, the FISA court, sort of sits beside the 2nd Circuit court, not below or above it. Only the Supreme Court can direct how the FISA court must interpret the law. That's not to say that the FISA court can't be guided by opinions in other circuits. Courts of appeal frequently look to opinions in other Circuit courts of Appeal for guidance on cases involving issues they haven't decided before, but they are not bound to follow opinions in other Circuits.
Absence of NAT is a feature! If not THE feature of IPv6!
NAT has many benefits besides reducing the number of IP addresses required. It has important security benefits in that it allows one to hide one's internal network structure from the outside world. Without NAT, attackers would know how many systems you have on your network as well as your router deployment. Potential attackers could benefit greatly from this information when planning and launching attacks.
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet of public, private, or parochial school grounds.
What if your house is within 1000 feet of a school. Are you not allowed to keep a gun in your house in that case? Does it matter if your house was there first and the school was built later?
Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws.
I wish that were true but it isn't. You'd be breaking copyright law. You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada. It isn't unusual for different companies to have exclusive rights to distribute in various countries, and the U.S. Netflix has no rights to distribute this copyrighted content in Canada. Therefore, in transferring the data from your VPN in the U.S. to your computer in Canada, you're copying copyrighted content which you have no authorization to do. That's illegal. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but it is wrong to say that what you're doing isn't illegal.
1. They can accurately identify students and staff. Since no one has ever created a fake social media account that shouldn't be hard. Just require everyone to provide a list of all their accounts. No one would object to that, correct?
If you even just read the summary you would see that the school board is buying software which is capable of location based identification, so simple fake accounts should be easy to see through. I suppose a brother or sister in the same household might be able to pretend to be you, but beyond that, I doubt this software is that easy to fool.
Well, the fact that they are paying $13,000 per year in license fees strongly suggests that this software will give them access to information that isn't public.
The logic the majority used in ruling on this case seems pretty simple (unless I'm totally off): the patent troll had a patent that was still legally valid because there had been no court challenge to declare it invalid. Because the patent was still legally valid, the infringement of the patent is still a valid cause of action in a lawsuit.
Scalia's logic is that you can bypass a legal challenge over a patent that might be ruled invalid in court because it was never valid in the first place. The question is, though, how would you know whether the patent is valid without the court saying so?
But there are two separate types of infringement at issue here. First is direct infringement. This occurs when the defendant actually violated the patent him or herself. This is a strict liability offense, meaning that it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware of the patent or not, and it doesn't matter if the defendant was aware that his or her actions infringed the patent or not. And if the patent has not been declared invalid, it is presumed valid and the defendant is liable for damages even if the patent is later ruled invalid. This is well-established law and is not at issue in the Supreme Court's decision.
The other type of infringement is induced infringement. This occurs, for example when a defendant sells a product which would cause the end users to violate the patent. The defendant is not violating the patent directly. According to patent law, for a defendant to be liable for induced infringement, he or she must be aware of the patent and also aware that the usage of the product would be a violation of that patent. So the question before the Supreme Court was in the case of induced infringement, what if the defendant had a good faith reason to believe the patent to be invalid? I tend to agree with the majority here: if the patent wasn't declared invalid by a court, the usage of product would be infringing, so the defendant must have known that such usage would be infringing, since they knew of the patent. The dissenters (Scalia and Ch. J. Roberts) thought otherwise: if a patent is invalid, how can the defendant believe it to be infringed?
Train engineers are federal employees, and the lives of hundreds are in their hands. Now it's their turn to be watched.
Federal employees? I thought they worked for Amtrack.
So 36 is the least upper bound.
Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?
Selling information on how to cheat isn't the same as cheating.
No, but selling information on how to break the law is against the law. It's called being an accessory.
I feel like teaching anyone anything should never be illegal. Wanting to learn is the most natural human trait in the world.
Great. I'll open up a terrorism school where I teach people how to fly planes into buildings, assassinate government leaders, sabotage trains, make poison gases, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. I'm just teaching so it shouldn't be illegal.
I teach people how to relax, control their heart rate and galvanic skin response. It's actually a pretty trivial technique, basic meditation and centering exercises. We use a machine that measures heart rate and galvanic skin response to test our students. Once they learn the techniques, they can do with them what they want. It's not on me.
And that by itself is not illegal. But, if one of your perspective students said to you: "I think your techniques might help me to beat a polygraph test for a federal government job that I'm applying for. Where do I sign up?" And you say: "Right here, just give me a deposit check for $50 to guarantee your spot in the class." then you are an accessory to fraud. And because your student has said they are applying for a FEDERAL government job, you've committed a federal felony which carries some serious prison time.
There are a lot of other things that are challenging once you're dead too, like brushing your teeth, combing your hair (and it's a real pain when it starts to fall out), and even scratching an itch. Being dead sucks, actually, and you'll have a lot more on your mind than keeping your WordPress site up to date!
The DMCA safe harbor protects them as long as they take it down immediately on request, and google is big enough to weather any lawsuit. Now if you or I were running an app store...
No, the DMCA provides no safe harbor for anyone profiting directly from the unauthorized sale of copyrighted works, intentional or otherwise. As long as the Google bookstore gets a cut of the profit on the sale, there's no safe harbor.
Haven't you figured it out yet, here on /. it's not a crime if you use a computer.
Unless it's the NSA using their computers. Then it is a very serious crime.
How exactly is the seat unsold in this case? It was sold, it is simply unoccupied.
I agree. If anything the airline made *more* money as it didn't have to expend the fuel to get the passenger from Chicago to LA.
Not only that, but if the seat is unoccupied when they're ready to close the doors, they can let a passenger on if the flight is overbooked, saving the airline both a seat on the next flight, and whatever compensation they had to offer the passenger who would have missed his flight because it was overbooked.
In the USA, this would likely require a constitutional amendment, it is widely held that the Fifth Amendment "Right Against Self-Incrimination" protects the right not to divulge an encryption key.
If you had read the article you link to (and I just did) you'd see that it does not conclude the same thing you do. Instead the article points out that it is far from a settled question on whether or not a defendant or suspect can be compelled to decrypt files. The Supreme Court has yet to deal with that issue directly, and the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue have adopted a standard in which the government must first show they know the location and existence of encrypted data. If they've seized a suspect's phone, they certainly can know these two things, so the Fifth Amendment, under that analysis, would offer no real protection.
I just read the entire article and the author forgot one other solution: the British solution Instead of putting the burden on app developers to include backdoors, or on Google to block apps that don't, put the burden on end users to turn over their keys to police when asked. I'm not saying I like this solution, but it is a solution the author of the article didn't consider. If you make the sentence for non-cooperation long enough, it doesn't really matter if the police find what they're looking for: they can just lock you up for not handing over the keys.
Whatever they design, it'll be broken fairly easily and circumvented just like DVD and Blu-ray and every other DRM format. This is just keeping the plebs from making easy copies.
"Keeping the plebs from making easy copies" would be a huge victory for the movie industry. There will always be some piracy, but the piracy the Industry fears most is that which occurs solely in the home, without the use of file sharing sites, cause it is ultimately the hardest to police.
Personally I hope that she gets tied up in lawsuits based off this for the rest of her miserable life.
Getting brain cancer would be karma.
Especially if she then went on a whole food diet and it didn't cure her cancer!
on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though :)
YES! The colon produces methane which is a fuel and could be used in some kind of fuel cell, perhaps. It's a win-win: you'd fart less and not have to remember passwords!
What was the reasonable cause?
Three things. 1. The Officer noticed a very strong scent of air freshener in the car when he approached, which is common in cases where people are trying to mask odors. 2. The two occupants of the vehicle both appeared quite nervous. 3. When questioned about their travel plans, the reasons given were fairly implausable: they claimed they were driving back to Omaha, Nebraska from Norfolk, Nebraska after checking out a vehicle that they were considering purchasing, this was suspicious according to the officer for various reasons including the fact that the vehicle's occupants admitted having not seen a picture of the vehicle and they drove for two hours late at night to look at it. These three things, taken separately, would probably not arise to the level of causing reasonable suspicion, but taken together it seems reasonable that they would.
No, the point is that in order to use the dog, they need to have probable cause of another crime having been committed. There wasn't any probable cause here, so they couldn't use the dog (whether it took longer or not).
That is simply not true. Read the opinion linked to the in summary. The finding is solely based on the fact that the duration of the traffic stop was increased while the officer waited for backup to arrive before conducting the dog sniff. The question of whether or not dog sniffs require reasonable suspicion or probable cause during a traffic stop was already decided in Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407, a case cited in the present opinion, and it was found that no reasonable suspicion or probable cause was required unless, according to Caballes: the stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission.” (That mission being to deal with the traffic violation.)