Of course, there are people, like the parent, that are too stupid to understand how taxation work in the first place. So things like tax heavens are completely over their heads.
True, I was so stupid, I used to think they were called "tax havens", not "tax heavens". But I guess you enjoy paying taxes so much, you consider it a heavenly experience.
This would appear to be a bug in the international tax system.
Quite the contrary. It's not a bug it's a feature. The kind of deal Amazon was able to strike with Luxembourg is an important defense against overly greedy countries (like the U.S.) which try to tax more than they should be entitled to. Note that the story says this is only about non-U.S. earning. Why should the U.S. be entitled to taxes on non-U.S. earnings?
If Luxembourg is willing to offer lower tax rates than other countries, why shouldn't Amazon accept? It's no different than choosing to shop at a store that offers the lowest prices.
There was a really good TV show (fiction) called Amazon that ran around 2000 or so, but lasted only one season unfortunately. It dealt with some of these issues. It's available on DVD, but unfortunately it ends with a cliffhanger that was never resolved. Really awesome show though. Kind of like Lost, which came years later, only much better in my opinion.
Not true. In order to conform to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the new act only prohibits images that are obscene. In other words, it isn't enough that the (cartoon) images depict children having sex, the images must depict children having sex and ALSO must be obscene. Obscene speech was never protected by the U.S. Constitution. Cartoon images are no exception.
Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
True. Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law as well.
No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!
The parents were notified of the defamation and took no action to close the FB account, which remained available for another 11 months. The parents were held directly liable for failing to act once notified, not for what was posted on the fake FB account.
And Facebook was notified of the defamation and took no action for 11 months. Why is Facebook not liable? After all, Facebook had the technical ability to delete the account; the parents did not. For all we know, the kid may have even forgotten the password.
If you read either the article or the judgment, Facebook refused when the girl's parents contacted them. They said that only the original creator of the account could delete it.
Then Facebook is lying, cause they delete fake profiles all the time. If Facebook knew they were hosting defamatory content and didn't subsequently take steps to delete it, then it is Facebook that should be sued here, not the parents of the kid who created the fake page. For all we know, the kid may have forgotten the password!
All those "Nothing to stop" scenarios you threw out there are irrrelevant. They are more work and the FBI doesn't want more work. Due process is more work and they don't want that! So why on Earth would they "discuss with Apple" or "plant a malicious app" or anything else?
But if that's the case, then the current speeches by the FBI director are counterproductive to those aims. The only people who would choose not to buy an iPhone as a result of his comments are honest people. If anything, his speeches would encourage criminals to buy iPhones. Surely that can't be what the FBI wants, if it really is as hard to get at their data as he claims.
Exactly. If they really couldn't break it, the last thing the FBI director would be telling the public is "Hey, here's a device that criminals could use and completely cover their tracks!" By persuading the public that these phones provide an impenetrable wall that law enforcement can't get past, they are hoping criminals will feel comfortable recording their secret activities on their phones. This could provide a treasure trove of information and evidence for law enforcement.
No matter how strong the encryption algorithms are themselves, there's nothing to stop the FBI from planting a malicious app (a keylogger for instance). They could even serve Apple with a warrant to require them to install this app as a software update. And there's nothing to stop them from serving a warrant to the user of the phone him or herself requiring them to unlock the device. And, of course, there's always the possibility of exploiting vulnerabilities in the OS or some poorly written app. It's hard to believe that the iOS operating system has perfect security.
So it seems pretty clear that this publicity campaign is really all about creating a false sense of security. Think about it: if the FBI were really concerned, they'd be having quiet discussions with Apple, not shouting their concerns to the public. Is anyone not going to buy the device because the encryption is to strong for the FBI's taste? So what would the purpose of this publicity campaign be?
Actually, no there is not. There is no provision in law that makes obtaining copyrighted materials illegal if the copyright owner doesn't consent other than copying and distributing. If somehow I missed it, show me.
Downloading is copying. Before you download, there is one copy, on the server. After your download, there is still a copy on the server and there is also one on your computer which you directed your computer to write by initiating the download. It's pretty simple, really.
You can make low pass filters in the digital domain, just as in the analog domain. It's fairly easy, in fact. Instead of having the digital meter display the direct digitized signal, have it display an average over the last n samples. You could even make the value of n user-selectable, so you can control the amount of "slowness".
Things like end-to-end encryption (total encryption between the two users communicating like OTR, CryptoCat, Jitzi, etc., not only on each leg to/from the server like HTTPS), making GPG more userfriendly, making Tor more popular, etc.
then dragnet or not, user will be safer on the average, even from non-law abiding 3rd parties. (Not only safe from NSA, but safe from script kiddies too).
What makes you think those products will make you safe from the NSA when the NSA has been found to be intercepting PC shipments, installing their own hardware, and resealing the boxes, then shipping them to the end user?
If you have access to the ATM physically, why not just take the cash there and then?
Because there would only be a finite amount of cash in the machine. By installing this software, you can steal a little bit at a time, and the cash would be reloaded periodically.
...WiFi operates on UNREGULATED spectrum, which means anyone can use, and anyone must accept interference from other users...
and we did EXACTLY the same thing that Mariott was doing, for just that reason.... we also investigated the legality of it, and the conclusion we came to was that it was perfectly legal since it was on unregulated spectrum.
According to that logic, I can come with a router backpack and prevent all users from connecting to YOUR university network.
That's absolutely true, and we discussed that very scenario at our staff meeting. The conclusion was that about all we could do in that situation is demand that the person with router backpack either turn it off or leave the campus and charge him/her with trespassing if they didn't.
You're confusing unlicensed with unregulated. The FCC regulates ALL the RF spectrum in the US.
With that said...The rules include:
"...no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government"
This was definitely willful and arguably malicious as well.
The very law you quoted defeats your argument. First, you are correct that WiFi frequencies are unlicensed, not unregulated. However, the statute you quote says: "...no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government" [emphasis added]. So, if the WiFi spectrum is unlicensed, please explain how Marriott is in violation of this statute.
I just read the web page you linked to, and it only affirms my belief that the FCC was acting beyond their authority. First, as several other posters mentioned, I do incorrectly use the term "unregulated" in my post when I meant to say "unlicensed". However reading the web page you link to, the relevant section of the law here is section 333 of the Communications Act which states: "prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C. 333)". The key word there is LICENSNED. WiFi routers operate on UNLICENSED parts of the spectrum, so interfering with communications on those channels is not prohibited by that section of the Act. Reading the other sections that are quoted in that web page, it doesn't appear that Marriott's actions violated any other parts of the Act, so I think the FCC was really overreaching here.
Furthermore, this article seems to focus on jammers, and Marriott was not using a jammer here. They were merely sending de-auth packets. Jammers, as I understand the term refers to a device which creates radio frequency interference in order to interrupt or disable a communications channel.
Doesn't a cellular " jammer " utilize the same methods to prevent folks from using their phones ?
HUGE difference. Cell phones use LICENSED parts of the frequency spectrum, while WiFi uses UNLICENSED parts of the spectrum. Running a cell phone jammer will get you in huge lots of trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, there are people, like the parent, that are too stupid to understand how taxation work in the first place. So things like tax heavens are completely over their heads.
True, I was so stupid, I used to think they were called "tax havens", not "tax heavens". But I guess you enjoy paying taxes so much, you consider it a heavenly experience.
This would appear to be a bug in the international tax system.
Quite the contrary. It's not a bug it's a feature. The kind of deal Amazon was able to strike with Luxembourg is an important defense against overly greedy countries (like the U.S.) which try to tax more than they should be entitled to. Note that the story says this is only about non-U.S. earning. Why should the U.S. be entitled to taxes on non-U.S. earnings?
If Luxembourg is willing to offer lower tax rates than other countries, why shouldn't Amazon accept? It's no different than choosing to shop at a store that offers the lowest prices.
There was a really good TV show (fiction) called Amazon that ran around 2000 or so, but lasted only one season unfortunately. It dealt with some of these issues. It's available on DVD, but unfortunately it ends with a cliffhanger that was never resolved. Really awesome show though. Kind of like Lost, which came years later, only much better in my opinion.
What's depressing is that Australians probably won't take to the streets about this issue.
Really? I'm surprised Australians are even still allowed to take to the streets!
Not true. In order to conform to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the new act only prohibits images that are obscene. In other words, it isn't enough that the (cartoon) images depict children having sex, the images must depict children having sex and ALSO must be obscene. Obscene speech was never protected by the U.S. Constitution. Cartoon images are no exception.
Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
True. Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law as well.
No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!
It's general knowledge in typography that Helvetica is the most legible typeface.
Citations please?
The parents were notified of the defamation and took no action to close the FB account, which remained available for another 11 months. The parents were held directly liable for failing to act once notified, not for what was posted on the fake FB account.
And Facebook was notified of the defamation and took no action for 11 months. Why is Facebook not liable? After all, Facebook had the technical ability to delete the account; the parents did not. For all we know, the kid may have even forgotten the password.
If you read either the article or the judgment, Facebook refused when the girl's parents contacted them. They said that only the original creator of the account could delete it.
Then Facebook is lying, cause they delete fake profiles all the time. If Facebook knew they were hosting defamatory content and didn't subsequently take steps to delete it, then it is Facebook that should be sued here, not the parents of the kid who created the fake page. For all we know, the kid may have forgotten the password!
If the remarks were truly defamatory, then couldn't the girl or her parents simply get Facebook to delete the fake profile?
All those "Nothing to stop" scenarios you threw out there are irrrelevant. They are more work and the FBI doesn't want more work. Due process is more work and they don't want that! So why on Earth would they "discuss with Apple" or "plant a malicious app" or anything else?
But if that's the case, then the current speeches by the FBI director are counterproductive to those aims. The only people who would choose not to buy an iPhone as a result of his comments are honest people. If anything, his speeches would encourage criminals to buy iPhones. Surely that can't be what the FBI wants, if it really is as hard to get at their data as he claims.
Exactly. If they really couldn't break it, the last thing the FBI director would be telling the public is "Hey, here's a device that criminals could use and completely cover their tracks!" By persuading the public that these phones provide an impenetrable wall that law enforcement can't get past, they are hoping criminals will feel comfortable recording their secret activities on their phones. This could provide a treasure trove of information and evidence for law enforcement.
No matter how strong the encryption algorithms are themselves, there's nothing to stop the FBI from planting a malicious app (a keylogger for instance). They could even serve Apple with a warrant to require them to install this app as a software update. And there's nothing to stop them from serving a warrant to the user of the phone him or herself requiring them to unlock the device. And, of course, there's always the possibility of exploiting vulnerabilities in the OS or some poorly written app. It's hard to believe that the iOS operating system has perfect security.
So it seems pretty clear that this publicity campaign is really all about creating a false sense of security. Think about it: if the FBI were really concerned, they'd be having quiet discussions with Apple, not shouting their concerns to the public. Is anyone not going to buy the device because the encryption is to strong for the FBI's taste? So what would the purpose of this publicity campaign be?
Yea, how dare a city have any say in what goes on within the city!
I think the point is, it should be the consumers who get to decide, not the city government.
It's their search engine. Start your own search engine and you will get to decide what's in it.
Actually, no there is not. There is no provision in law that makes obtaining copyrighted materials illegal if the copyright owner doesn't consent other than copying and distributing. If somehow I missed it, show me.
Downloading is copying. Before you download, there is one copy, on the server. After your download, there is still a copy on the server and there is also one on your computer which you directed your computer to write by initiating the download. It's pretty simple, really.
You can make low pass filters in the digital domain, just as in the analog domain. It's fairly easy, in fact. Instead of having the digital meter display the direct digitized signal, have it display an average over the last n samples. You could even make the value of n user-selectable, so you can control the amount of "slowness".
Things like end-to-end encryption (total encryption between the two users communicating like OTR, CryptoCat, Jitzi, etc., not only on each leg to/from the server like HTTPS), making GPG more userfriendly, making Tor more popular, etc.
then dragnet or not, user will be safer on the average, even from non-law abiding 3rd parties. (Not only safe from NSA, but safe from script kiddies too).
What makes you think those products will make you safe from the NSA when the NSA has been found to be intercepting PC shipments, installing their own hardware, and resealing the boxes, then shipping them to the end user?
If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.
If you have access to the ATM physically, why not just take the cash there and then?
Because there would only be a finite amount of cash in the machine. By installing this software, you can steal a little bit at a time, and the cash would be reloaded periodically.
...WiFi operates on UNREGULATED spectrum, which means anyone can use, and anyone must accept interference from other users... and we did EXACTLY the same thing that Mariott was doing, for just that reason. ... we also investigated the legality of it, and the conclusion we came to was that it was perfectly legal since it was on unregulated spectrum.
According to that logic, I can come with a router backpack and prevent all users from connecting to YOUR university network.
That's absolutely true, and we discussed that very scenario at our staff meeting. The conclusion was that about all we could do in that situation is demand that the person with router backpack either turn it off or leave the campus and charge him/her with trespassing if they didn't.
You're confusing unlicensed with unregulated. The FCC regulates ALL the RF spectrum in the US.
With that said...The rules include:
"...no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government"
This was definitely willful and arguably malicious as well.
The very law you quoted defeats your argument. First, you are correct that WiFi frequencies are unlicensed, not unregulated. However, the statute you quote says: "...no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government" [emphasis added]. So, if the WiFi spectrum is unlicensed, please explain how Marriott is in violation of this statute.
I just read the web page you linked to, and it only affirms my belief that the FCC was acting beyond their authority. First, as several other posters mentioned, I do incorrectly use the term "unregulated" in my post when I meant to say "unlicensed". However reading the web page you link to, the relevant section of the law here is section 333 of the Communications Act which states: "prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C. 333)". The key word there is LICENSNED. WiFi routers operate on UNLICENSED parts of the spectrum, so interfering with communications on those channels is not prohibited by that section of the Act. Reading the other sections that are quoted in that web page, it doesn't appear that Marriott's actions violated any other parts of the Act, so I think the FCC was really overreaching here.
Furthermore, this article seems to focus on jammers, and Marriott was not using a jammer here. They were merely sending de-auth packets. Jammers, as I understand the term refers to a device which creates radio frequency interference in order to interrupt or disable a communications channel.
Doesn't a cellular " jammer " utilize the same methods to prevent folks from using their phones ?
HUGE difference. Cell phones use LICENSED parts of the frequency spectrum, while WiFi uses UNLICENSED parts of the spectrum. Running a cell phone jammer will get you in huge lots of trouble.
This is Europe, so probably around six months in prison.