I understand it's pretty rare to accidentally get child porn on your PC, but it is not impossible. Isn't this exactly how you want somebody to react if it happens?
I'm pretty tired of how lazy the police are getting these days. There are entire categories of crimes that basically amount to "it's too hard to prove you actually committed the crime we want to get you for, so we had this created instead." Are we really at the point where we're going to take somebody's children away for trying to do the right thing because it's too inconvenient to investigate it and arrive at a real conclusion?
If they have an allegation to make with regards to how the child porn got there, they need to make it. Otherwise they need to commend him and ensure that nonsense like this doesn't happen.
It appears that Sabu's children were an exploited liability. Would you risk your loved ones for your ideals? Or is your answer still simply and obviously "fuck snitches"?
(Not the OP.)
Thinking about your children and the impact that your actions have on them is awesome. I fully encourage it. It is, I think, part of the responsibility of parenthood: Your life is no longer just about you, and you need to be cognizant of that fact.
But it's rather late at the government informant stage to throw down the "look how good of a parent I am!" card, isn't it?
Would I risk my loved ones for my ideals? Probably not. But see, I would make that determination before I decided to commit federal crimes and then not commit them. If I decide to commit the crimes, I have already abandoned my children to the hope I am never caught. Having a last-minute change of heart doesn't make him noble and it doesn't make up for what he did to his kids--he's still likely to go to jail.
Since we're quoting media it reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons, where Bart is talking to an, ahem, faith healer:
Bart: I figure I'll go for the life of sin, followed by the presto-change-o deathbed repentance.
Brother Faith: Wow, that's a good angle. Uh, but it's not God's angle. Why not spend your life helping people instead? Then you're also covered in case of sudden death.
Bart: Full coverage? Hmm...
Sorry, Sabu; you don't get full coverage. So yeah, he deserves our derision for being a scumbag to his children. He also deserves our derision for squealing like a stuck pig the second he was caught, and for throwing everybody who acted with him under the bus to save himself.
Every single turn on this whole LulzSec trip he has shown himself to be utterly and completely self-interested. "Should I commit crimes? Forget the kids." "Oh no, consequences! Forget the others!" He can try to paint it however he wants, but he's still a little fuck from every perspective I can see.
If you had a design you felt was innovative enough to patent and you spent a ton of R&D on, and you saw a company producing something that you believe is infringing on your ideas, would you just sit back and let them run with it?
See, that is the flaw in your argument. You're supposing that any appreciable portion of patent law relates to something "innovative enough to patent" that somebody "spent a ton of R&D on." Especially as it pertains to companies the size of Apple or Microsoft.
There are a few such cases, to be sure. But the vast majority are incremental improvements slapped together, or something done for decades with "using a computer!" stuck on the back. There's no bar for innovation; every idea a company that size has ever had goes through the patent process because $10k to them is worth less than a sneeze. There are an estimated 250 million Android phones that have been activated[1], growing at a rate of about 700,000 per day. Let's ignore the existing install base (which Apple probably will not); at $5/device, they are asking for $3,500,000 per day. Do you see now why filing BS patents that took no thought and no effort at every turn in hopes that one hits the jackpot makes sense? $3.5MM can pay for 350 patent applications per day that never make a dime. (And you can be assured that many "make a dime," whether directly, as a patent bludgeon or simply as a boost to the company. Patents can be valuated and listed as a company asset on its balance sheets even if it is never licensed.)
Maybe this is one of the good patents that cost a billion dollars in R&D. I doubt it, but maybe. It still doesn't matter. The next one won't be, and there will be a next one.
And let's be honest here. There's no mobile patent worth $3.5 million per day.
I bought it, gosh, I don't know, four years or so ago. It was right after it came out of beta. In fact I'm pretty sure I got a discount for pre-ordering it.
At some point a year or so later they decided that they liked money or something. I got an e-mail telling me of course I wouldn't lose the features that had existed when I bought it -- but they wouldn't be giving me any of the new features they had developed (which consisted primarily of new websites that would now work with the software). That was part of a new subscription service. I suppose uptake for that was poor, because a bit after that they started offering a $79 lifetime "subscription." So basically they wanted an extra $79 from me for software I already bought. We're not talking major changes here, just iterative additions to supported websites it can scrape content from. In fact they actually removed a few sites that they had labeled as "beta" but given to the previous customers and then decided were only going to be for the subscription customers later on.
Technically they've done nothing wrong. I'm sure in the license somewhere was verbiage that I was not entitled to any functionality upgrades, but it still struck me as shady. Especially when it went from "come on, your monthly fee will support continued development!" to "just pay us one more time." If they need monthly income to support the product, I could at least understand that. Wiping out that excuse shows it for what it was: A money grab.
It's kind of ridiculous that I paid for it at all, given the abundance of quality free software in the same realm, but they made me actively regret having done so.
I really can't agree with your post, and I think a poster has already replied and hit most of my comments with regards to your objections to the methods of the government. There was a couple of other things I wanted to comment on, however:
If this turns out to be at all true, and if we were a healthy democracy, the "leader" and his handlers would be facing serious jailtime, while those incited into this behavior would see a blackmark on their record and probation, hopefully scared straight. But those days died out sometime in the early naughties, and things have only gone downhill from there.
I generally consider myself rather lenient on crime. I'd certainly never make it as a politician with my beliefs. With only a handful of exceptions, I usually don't support anything approaching life sentences, even for murder. For example I have argued a few times on other websites that that boy who killed three people in Ohio probably should not receive anything near that level of punishment. I also believe sex offender laws go way too far, especially as they cover things like "sexting." I wish prosecutors would use more common sense and stop pretending to be tough on crime so that they can leapfrog into a more political career. Etc, etc. In short, I am anything but a "HANG THEM FROM THE YARDARM!" tough-on-crime type.
But even still, I have no idea why you feel the way you do as quoted above.
These people committed crimes, and they should be held to account for that. I probably wouldn't support harsh sentences (I'd have to see exactly what they're accused of before I can comment), but probation? Being a spineless twat who can be whipped into committing crimes doesn't excuse you from the consequences of those crimes, nor should it. They certainly deserve to spend some time in jail, even if it is only a year or so.
What is even more telling, is how blase people are about the idea of a countercultural "leader" inciting criminality and then handing those he's managed to influence over to the authorities for "processing." Too many of us don't even seem to know enough to be ashamed, or appalled, by this kind of thing
I wouldn't say I'm blase about it; rather, I'm amused. These idiots tried to act superior and invincible, and yet this guy squealed like a stuck pig the second consequences caught up with him. Are any of us really surprised about that? Why should his "followers" be? Why should "I thought this stool pigeon would protect me!" be any kind of defense? The hackers he has helped to indict should be appalled, but I'm not. It's exactly how the government should be trying to bring down organizations like this.
I just find it hilarious. Do you remember their final message, where they tried to make it sound like they'd accomplished what they set out to do and were therefore done instead of the reality--that they were running for the hills as fast as their legs could carry them, screaming over their shoulders that they hope somebody else will take over for them? It reminds me of the Robin Williams joke about anthrax: "Remember when they sent Anthrax to Tom Daschle's office? They cleared that fucking place out. 'Everybody out, come on!' Helmets, suits, they're all leaving. And when the Congressman walked out they go: 'But the rest of you, go about your lives. Everything is perfectly OK. We'll be miles away.'"
Honestly the only thing that bothers me is that he's going to get less of a sentence for being spineless. He should share their fate, but I suppose there would be no reason to help the investigation if that were the case. Ah, well.
So he sung like a stool pigeon when they caught him, loudly and urgently enough that they agreed to be lenient with him in exchange for his help catching the others--which he happily gave them--but then he goes to Twitter to explain how he got caught so other people can get away with it?
No, that doesn't add up. That would take more of a spine than he has.
Amazing how everything ceases to be lulz-y when consequences catch up with a person.
This is more common than one would think. Back in high school, I was taking a bunch of computer courses including a CCNA program and an MCSE program. The teacher for both was an awesome guy (favorite high school teacher hands down) and a good teacher and before anybody asks: Yes, he was certified in anything he taught and a bunch of crap on top.
Anyway, he basically had to keep dumbing the courses down. He had a quote he pulled out from time to time: "I like playing X-Box, therefore I like computers, therefore I want to take this class." And to be fair, there were some computer classes--keyboarding, computer applications, etc--that were great to take if you liked computers and wanted an easy A on your schedule. These just weren't them.
The CCNA course was broken up into four semesters, which was pretty crazy. In any event, enrollment in CCNA 1 was about 150 students. CCNA 2 had about 25, and by the time we got into the last year with CCNA 3/CCNA 4 there were twelve or thirteen of us. In fact, there were so few students that the administration wanted to cancel the classes, but the teacher went to bat for us and we were allowed to finish it out.
The classes were canceled for lack of interest after that year (my senior year).
Is there any inherent reason why it would have to be Windows?
To not create a console that has no games available.
I applaud things like Steam Play, but games with Steam Play still comprise only about 10% of my catalogue. I'd be surprised if it was much more than that on the total catalogue.
A lot of people might like if Steam tried to force publishers to create for an independent platform, but it isn't their job. It isn't even to their benefit, since they seem like they're only creating specifications and not the device itself. What is to their benefit is to immediately have access to all or the vast majority of the games they already sell, and steam users' existing libraries. That means Windows.
I'm not a lawyer so I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, if a cop physically harms you but does not charge you with resisting arrest, he is effectively admitting he assaulted you for no reason.
Well I am not a lawyer either, but generally speaking police are protected for their behavior if it is done in good faith in the course of their duties. That's pretty clearly the case here: Somebody called the police about a suspicious vehicle and they stopped it and detained the passengers. They're fully justified in that and their conduct is largely protected based on their operating on good faith, even if no charges are ultimately filed. It wasn't assault just because of a lack of charges.
That said, it seems likely that they operated with excessive force and that is why the tapes mysteriously disappeared. It's now the word of you and your cameraman against (presumably) seven police officers and pretty much the only thing they have to say is that you were resisting. They could certainly charged with excessive force, and you might even be able to find a way to charge them with assault in that specific circumstance if there was nothing justified about the way they were treating you to begin with. That part I have no idea about. But it's not assault simply because you got hurt and not charged, and it's why the cameras are magically broken to begin with.
If people can't put out the effort to register on their own or get to a voting booth, how likely are they to put out the effort to learn about the candidates and issues, and make an informed choice? Making it easier for idiots to vote is a _bad_ thing.
I waffle on this issue more than Mitt Romney waffles on, well, every issue ever.
On the one hand, I understand completely: If the candidates I want to win end up losing, I want to know it was because the other voters made informed choices and disagreed with me. Not because they were hoodwinked, not because they saw what letter was next to the guy's name and knew everything they needed to know, not because they think candidates stand for things they don't actually stand for, not because they think their choice has nice hair or teeth or the right or wrong religion.
But on the other hand, the "idiots"--and that's an awfully loaded term--are going to be represented by these very same people. That's why they were able to vote differently from me. Don't they deserve the same voice in the process even if they choose to be wholly uninformed and vote party or anti-incumbent or whatever they do? Don't "idiots" need representation as much as I do, quite possibly more?
Not to mention the fact that while there are plenty of thoroughly uninformed white people, those more likely to be uniformed are going to tend to be minorities who don't have the same access to information as the average Slashdotter does. Yeah, they could go to the library (if they know how to use a computer) -- but look at how many people don't vote because it's not convenient enough. The idea of spending hours at the library before that is going to be a non-starter for even more significant numbers of people. It's also significantly easier for a white-collar worker to find time to vote than a blue-collar worker.
It's tough. I certainly want informed voters, but does that mean that encouraging uninformed voters to vote is a bad idea? Ehhh...
I had a similar thought about code reuse, but an entirely different conclusion: I thought that they weren't re-using good code since the same problem has cropped up at least two times. That sounds more like a case of re-rolling things that definitely shouldn't be re-rolled (date/time handling) to me.
In either event, they're not using particularly good practices. Either they are constantly reinventing the wheel and apparently in error-prone ways, or they are re-using code but paying no attention to keeping that external code up to date.
The only other thing I can think of is that Azure is somehow so drastically different than anything else they have ever done that they had to do the code again from scratch -- which is probably a problem all by itself.
I don't disagree that somehow expecting the president to control gas prices is stupid, but oil is not an open market. People can't just choose to enter the oil-selling market. It's a natural monopoly--in rather the most literal sense of the term--and further to that it is controlled primarily by a cartel.
And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files
I don't think that issue is as clear as you do. There's little stopping Congress from passing a law granting themselves some sort of worldwide jurisdiction (assuming the law would be otherwise valid). The better question is whether any of the rest of the world would care. If they refuse to extradite, the point is moot.
In this particular case, I see little reason not to extradite. His actions would be illegal pretty much everywhere, which is one major factor to the extradition process. Prosecutors could simply assure they will not seek the death penalty (assuming it's even possible; it depends what he would be charged under) to defuse another. Though it's debatable on a philosophical level, the vast majority of these nations also recognize our legal system as fair and capable of a fair trial, defusing another. If the US really does have a sealed indictment, it's already declared that he has, in fact, engaged in behavior that can be reasonably construed as breaking US law insofar as being deserving of bringing him to trial. I see no reason for other nations to second guess that declaration as a matter of policy, which means they would be making exceptions for Assange and quite frankly opening themselves up to problems in the future in terms of equal protection within their jurisdictions.
How did they get the indictment? I don't know. We haven't seen it, obviously, assuming it even exists. We don't know what it's for, so it's hard to even speculate. I've seen some interesting theories with regard to the Espionage Act. Quoting a law professor's interpretation of the act, it "prohibits the willful communication, delivery, or transmission to 'any person not entitled to receive it' of 'any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.'" That certainly seems to apply, at least superficially enough to bring to trial. Assange's propensity for running his mouth and making comments about how he hopes to bring governments down makes it awfully hard to backtrack on his intent as well. You can probably manage jurisdiction pretty easily since the information was originally hosted on, and thus disseminated from, Amazon servers -- Amazon being an American company and the servers likely, at least in part, on American soil. And that's just one way. (The whole article is interesting if you want to read it. You can see each parties' biases shine through, but they all bring up a lot of good points that would be raised at trial.)
I'm not making any judgments about the case itself, by the way. I'm simply saying that whether or not he should be brought to trial or should be extradited is not nearly so simple an issue. In fact he probably should be; I think the burdens on that end have been met. The better questions are whether he should be prosecuted and if he is, if he should be convicted.
If it goes to trial, there are a ton of huge issues. First Amendment protections; the definition of journalists; the requirement of intent; application of not only the law but First Amendment protection itself to foreign nationals (on foreign soil); the very definitions of espionage themselves. I think he has a lot of damn good defenses -- probably more than enough to generate reasonable doubt. I simply believe they should be adjudicated in the United States if you United States makes those allegations. The other burdens to extradition are met in my mind.
somebody's going to sue FB for sure when that happens!
Anybody with money is going to get sued for pretty much anything they do. It's a sad reality of our society.
They won't have any case. Facebook is not doing anything other than passing along information the user himself has asked it to display. It's really no different than a post on their wall in that regard, except the placement and the narrow purpose. If I tell Facebook I'm safe and I'm not, how exactly is that Facebook's fault or their problem, much less an actionable tort?
Somebody will still try it, of that I have no doubt. I would simply advise anybody contemplating suing had best think twice before angering a company worth billions of dollars with a frivolous lawsuit. Imagine if Facebook decided to ask for attorney fees for their troubles...
I had to giggle at the fact that the article starts off by calling him "ESR" and then goes on to explain what he did.
If people know who the hell "ESR" is they already know what he's done. If they don't, perhaps the first introduction to him should be his name?
Yes, it's in the title (I wonder if that was done by the submitter or editor?). It's still bad form. You can be casual or you can be formal, but mixing and matching it is just silly.
Many of us would like to stay home, especially in those circumstances.
But when movies are routinely grossing $25MM in a weekend (and I just plucked that number from last weekend) and hundreds of millions over a theater run, you lose an awful lot of credibility trying to claim that nobody wants to do something when you really mean that you don't want to do it. The fact that you have to throw in yet another insult when somebody points that out to you doesn't exactly speak well for you either.
Maybe you had something to say worth listening to. I don't know. It got lost in the bullshit, insults and rhetoric.
Eh, I don't know. If somebody downloads and installs tools suggested by this core group of "hacker geniuses" under the auspices of "this will hurt the bad guys, not you -- we promise" I think calling them idiots might not be gratuitous at all. "But it's open source!" Yeah. I'm just certain the people running it combed through the source and verified the hashes before they blindly did what they were told.
That nobody has fleeced the sheep yet is a small miracle, but it will happen. In fact it might be a good way to hurt Anonymous as a whole. If you take away their firepower, their ability to do anything much more significant than guess at passwords or sweep a website for known security vulnerabilities is basically eliminated.
Well, you're right of course, which is why the university will also try to ding you for some sort of "technology access fee" on top of the absolute gouging you'll get for tuition, course materials and anything else you get from the university.
Naturally they have a right to secure their network, but if the sites the submitter listed are getting blocked it's because somebody's incompetent, lazy, or taking it upon themselves to exercise some kind of moral authority over their adult students' activities that extends well beyond such mandate.
Companies EXIST to make money for their INVESTORS, nobody else.
No. Companies exist for the benefit of society. Defining "the benefit of society" to be "make money for their INVESTORS, nobody else" is a relatively recent phenomenon as we try as hard as we can to re-create a medieval aristocracy.
I'm sure it will work out better the second go 'round.
Step #1 is to contact your representatives, yes. I would expand it beyond simply the three who directly represent you and include anybody in your state's delegation, particularly those who support nonsense laws that make things like this possible. No reason not to expand it even more than that if you want.
Step #2 is to see if you can get a news organization to bite. There may or may not be any traction here, but it's worth the effort.
Step #3 is to lawyer up. Try to find a lawyer who won't take a fee up front, either one who takes a cut of the winnings or one willing to do it pro bono. It shouldn't be too hard considering this is pretty much a guaranteed victory. You already have evidence of their outright fraud. In particular you already have them stating on the record that they investigated the matter -- meaning when you prove it is bullshit, you're already 90% of the way to proving they did it with malicious intent. If this process is some sort of automated DMCA frontend, you've got them for fraud under the DMCA as well and can seek punitive damages for the abuse of process.
More to the point, they'll never let it get to trial. What jury in the world is going to believe the idea that some idiot can come along and get 130ish year exclusive right to the generic sound of birds singing--thousands of years into recorded history and hundreds of years after audio recordings became possible? It's not going to happen and they know it's not going to happen. They're counting on being able to bully and intimidate you into doing what they want and like most bullies, confronting them is going to send them running for the hills. In this case, it will likely send them running with a nice little check in your pocket for your troubles.
It's a hassle, yes; probably more hassle than it's worth. It's a risk too, which is why it's important to find a lawyer who will work for a cut of the settlement rather than a hourly fee. You certainly don't want to be bankrupted by winning. But it's also the only way there is any chance of this kind of idiotic bullying to stop. Maybe you can't afford to fight; maybe rolling over and letting them have their way is the best choice for you in your situation. Nobody will judge you for it. But if you can fight, fight. These kind of victories are victories for everybody, not just yourself.
For me, the real question is fundamental. Why, in the modern "free" world does being outed as a homosexual cause one to prefer suicide rather than live with the shame?
As a society, would it not be better to address such a fundamental social problem than to simply treat the symptoms?
Absolutely. Unfortunately, much like the civil rights era, we're just not at that stage and I see no way to force society to advance more quickly than it is ready to advance.
Look at the Republican primaries as a great example. The more moderate opinions on gay marriage tend toward either "it's none of the governments business" (a fine position but hardly a stand on the issue) or "separate but equal," an acknowledgment that denying gays the ability to marry is wrong but still wanting to make it clear that there's just something wrong with gay people and the relationship they have can't be the same as the relationship straight people have. Those are the moderate positions. Then you have guys like Reverand Dozier, honorary co-chair of Rick Santorum's Florida campaign, declaring that "homosexuality makes God want to vomit" and is "a paramount sin." These are the men vying to be the leader of the United States for at least the next four years -- and even among them there's a kind of tacit approval of discrimination. This isn't meant to be a political statement against the Republicans, by the way; if I'm not mistaken, President Obama took that exact same "separate but equal" gutless position. If we can't even expect better behavior of our leaders, and one of the most powerful men on the planet, then I don't see how we can advance the debate. (Ironically I respect the "eew, burn in hell!" folks more than the "separate but equal" folks. At least they're willing to take a stand. The ones trying to have it both ways irritate me to no end, but that is neither here nor there.)
Likewise, look at the schoolyards. The first insult out of a kid's mouth these days will be some variation of "fag." In some ways it doesn't feel like that should be a big deal, but can you imagine being a gay student and seeing that when other students want to insult each other that the worst thing they can think of to say about each other is that are, well, exactly like you? Are you likely to come out in that environment? How long, exactly, are you going to suppress your own sexuality because you're ashamed of it? Maybe this kid didn't realize that his roommate would kill himself, but neither should it be particularly surprisingly. There's a definite psychological impact to feeling like you have to hide who you are.
The good news is that the tides are changing. I think my generation--I'm 28--is either the tail end of the acceptance of this kind of behavior or perhaps the first generation of unacceptance. That's not to say that the problem is gone or that it is going to be gone any time soon, rather that I think we've reached the tipping point and by a small amount, the attitude of tolerance and acceptance is now the majority opinion. This will only continue until, much like discrimination against black people today (we have a ways to go with Latin discrimination it seems), the holders of those discriminatory opinions will be the ones with something to hide and something to be ashamed of. I have no idea how many generations that will take, but I doubt we can speed it up.
I agree with most of what you said, with one notable exception: Violence is not unquestionably bad. It may be unfortunate, but there are plenty of times it is not only fully justified, but the right thing to do.
Law enforcement can certainly require you to give them your name and a few other specific bits of information required to verify your identity, but I have seen nothing to suggest they have the power to compel a company to disclose information about you absent a court order.
I actually agree with you on your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, even against some peoples' interpretations that administrative law is not real law.
But I do wonder what would happen if the states, rather than trying to bypass federal law, just started fucking with them? For example, who owns the airports? In the case of a government owner (I know some have been privatized) what if they just decided the TSA weren't welcome there? What if they passed a law forbidding the use of x-ray technology on people that is not for an expressly medical purpose and then walked a few TSA screeners out in handcuffs? What if they passed a law requiring additional licensing of security agents and then simply never issued the license? Or for the machinery itself? All of these seem like pretty obvious state issues, except insofar as they are obviously intended to fuck with the TSA.
It's probably not a fight they could win. Even if all of their actions stood up in court--and that is a pretty big if--it would just result in a stare-down with the government forbidding any flights to leave the states who were doing it and seeing who blinks first. It would be interesting to see though.
The supremacy clause arguably applies only to laws
Arguably? How can you just hand-wave away the single most important question for your entire argument?
You may be right, but I doubt you will get anywhere with the argument that an agency created and authorized by federal law, with powers within that scope that have the full effect of law, are not laws for the purposes of the supremacy clause.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand it's pretty rare to accidentally get child porn on your PC, but it is not impossible. Isn't this exactly how you want somebody to react if it happens?
I'm pretty tired of how lazy the police are getting these days. There are entire categories of crimes that basically amount to "it's too hard to prove you actually committed the crime we want to get you for, so we had this created instead." Are we really at the point where we're going to take somebody's children away for trying to do the right thing because it's too inconvenient to investigate it and arrive at a real conclusion?
If they have an allegation to make with regards to how the child porn got there, they need to make it. Otherwise they need to commend him and ensure that nonsense like this doesn't happen.
(Not the OP.)
Thinking about your children and the impact that your actions have on them is awesome. I fully encourage it. It is, I think, part of the responsibility of parenthood: Your life is no longer just about you, and you need to be cognizant of that fact.
But it's rather late at the government informant stage to throw down the "look how good of a parent I am!" card, isn't it?
Would I risk my loved ones for my ideals? Probably not. But see, I would make that determination before I decided to commit federal crimes and then not commit them. If I decide to commit the crimes, I have already abandoned my children to the hope I am never caught. Having a last-minute change of heart doesn't make him noble and it doesn't make up for what he did to his kids--he's still likely to go to jail.
Since we're quoting media it reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons, where Bart is talking to an, ahem, faith healer:
Sorry, Sabu; you don't get full coverage. So yeah, he deserves our derision for being a scumbag to his children. He also deserves our derision for squealing like a stuck pig the second he was caught, and for throwing everybody who acted with him under the bus to save himself.
Every single turn on this whole LulzSec trip he has shown himself to be utterly and completely self-interested. "Should I commit crimes? Forget the kids." "Oh no, consequences! Forget the others!" He can try to paint it however he wants, but he's still a little fuck from every perspective I can see.
See, that is the flaw in your argument. You're supposing that any appreciable portion of patent law relates to something "innovative enough to patent" that somebody "spent a ton of R&D on." Especially as it pertains to companies the size of Apple or Microsoft.
There are a few such cases, to be sure. But the vast majority are incremental improvements slapped together, or something done for decades with "using a computer!" stuck on the back. There's no bar for innovation; every idea a company that size has ever had goes through the patent process because $10k to them is worth less than a sneeze. There are an estimated 250 million Android phones that have been activated[1], growing at a rate of about 700,000 per day. Let's ignore the existing install base (which Apple probably will not); at $5/device, they are asking for $3,500,000 per day. Do you see now why filing BS patents that took no thought and no effort at every turn in hopes that one hits the jackpot makes sense? $3.5MM can pay for 350 patent applications per day that never make a dime. (And you can be assured that many "make a dime," whether directly, as a patent bludgeon or simply as a boost to the company. Patents can be valuated and listed as a company asset on its balance sheets even if it is never licensed.)
Maybe this is one of the good patents that cost a billion dollars in R&D. I doubt it, but maybe. It still doesn't matter. The next one won't be, and there will be a next one.
And let's be honest here. There's no mobile patent worth $3.5 million per day.
[1] http://www.asymco.com/2011/12/21/how-many-android-phones-have-been-activated/
It's better than what PlayOn did.
I bought it, gosh, I don't know, four years or so ago. It was right after it came out of beta. In fact I'm pretty sure I got a discount for pre-ordering it.
At some point a year or so later they decided that they liked money or something. I got an e-mail telling me of course I wouldn't lose the features that had existed when I bought it -- but they wouldn't be giving me any of the new features they had developed (which consisted primarily of new websites that would now work with the software). That was part of a new subscription service. I suppose uptake for that was poor, because a bit after that they started offering a $79 lifetime "subscription." So basically they wanted an extra $79 from me for software I already bought. We're not talking major changes here, just iterative additions to supported websites it can scrape content from. In fact they actually removed a few sites that they had labeled as "beta" but given to the previous customers and then decided were only going to be for the subscription customers later on.
Technically they've done nothing wrong. I'm sure in the license somewhere was verbiage that I was not entitled to any functionality upgrades, but it still struck me as shady. Especially when it went from "come on, your monthly fee will support continued development!" to "just pay us one more time." If they need monthly income to support the product, I could at least understand that. Wiping out that excuse shows it for what it was: A money grab.
It's kind of ridiculous that I paid for it at all, given the abundance of quality free software in the same realm, but they made me actively regret having done so.
I really can't agree with your post, and I think a poster has already replied and hit most of my comments with regards to your objections to the methods of the government. There was a couple of other things I wanted to comment on, however:
I generally consider myself rather lenient on crime. I'd certainly never make it as a politician with my beliefs. With only a handful of exceptions, I usually don't support anything approaching life sentences, even for murder. For example I have argued a few times on other websites that that boy who killed three people in Ohio probably should not receive anything near that level of punishment. I also believe sex offender laws go way too far, especially as they cover things like "sexting." I wish prosecutors would use more common sense and stop pretending to be tough on crime so that they can leapfrog into a more political career. Etc, etc. In short, I am anything but a "HANG THEM FROM THE YARDARM!" tough-on-crime type.
But even still, I have no idea why you feel the way you do as quoted above.
These people committed crimes, and they should be held to account for that. I probably wouldn't support harsh sentences (I'd have to see exactly what they're accused of before I can comment), but probation? Being a spineless twat who can be whipped into committing crimes doesn't excuse you from the consequences of those crimes, nor should it. They certainly deserve to spend some time in jail, even if it is only a year or so.
I wouldn't say I'm blase about it; rather, I'm amused. These idiots tried to act superior and invincible, and yet this guy squealed like a stuck pig the second consequences caught up with him. Are any of us really surprised about that? Why should his "followers" be? Why should "I thought this stool pigeon would protect me!" be any kind of defense? The hackers he has helped to indict should be appalled, but I'm not. It's exactly how the government should be trying to bring down organizations like this.
I just find it hilarious. Do you remember their final message, where they tried to make it sound like they'd accomplished what they set out to do and were therefore done instead of the reality--that they were running for the hills as fast as their legs could carry them, screaming over their shoulders that they hope somebody else will take over for them? It reminds me of the Robin Williams joke about anthrax: "Remember when they sent Anthrax to Tom Daschle's office? They cleared that fucking place out. 'Everybody out, come on!' Helmets, suits, they're all leaving. And when the Congressman walked out they go: 'But the rest of you, go about your lives. Everything is perfectly OK. We'll be miles away.'"
Honestly the only thing that bothers me is that he's going to get less of a sentence for being spineless. He should share their fate, but I suppose there would be no reason to help the investigation if that were the case. Ah, well.
So he sung like a stool pigeon when they caught him, loudly and urgently enough that they agreed to be lenient with him in exchange for his help catching the others--which he happily gave them--but then he goes to Twitter to explain how he got caught so other people can get away with it?
No, that doesn't add up. That would take more of a spine than he has.
Amazing how everything ceases to be lulz-y when consequences catch up with a person.
This is more common than one would think. Back in high school, I was taking a bunch of computer courses including a CCNA program and an MCSE program. The teacher for both was an awesome guy (favorite high school teacher hands down) and a good teacher and before anybody asks: Yes, he was certified in anything he taught and a bunch of crap on top.
Anyway, he basically had to keep dumbing the courses down. He had a quote he pulled out from time to time: "I like playing X-Box, therefore I like computers, therefore I want to take this class." And to be fair, there were some computer classes--keyboarding, computer applications, etc--that were great to take if you liked computers and wanted an easy A on your schedule. These just weren't them.
The CCNA course was broken up into four semesters, which was pretty crazy. In any event, enrollment in CCNA 1 was about 150 students. CCNA 2 had about 25, and by the time we got into the last year with CCNA 3/CCNA 4 there were twelve or thirteen of us. In fact, there were so few students that the administration wanted to cancel the classes, but the teacher went to bat for us and we were allowed to finish it out.
The classes were canceled for lack of interest after that year (my senior year).
To not create a console that has no games available.
I applaud things like Steam Play, but games with Steam Play still comprise only about 10% of my catalogue. I'd be surprised if it was much more than that on the total catalogue.
A lot of people might like if Steam tried to force publishers to create for an independent platform, but it isn't their job. It isn't even to their benefit, since they seem like they're only creating specifications and not the device itself. What is to their benefit is to immediately have access to all or the vast majority of the games they already sell, and steam users' existing libraries. That means Windows.
Well I am not a lawyer either, but generally speaking police are protected for their behavior if it is done in good faith in the course of their duties. That's pretty clearly the case here: Somebody called the police about a suspicious vehicle and they stopped it and detained the passengers. They're fully justified in that and their conduct is largely protected based on their operating on good faith, even if no charges are ultimately filed. It wasn't assault just because of a lack of charges.
That said, it seems likely that they operated with excessive force and that is why the tapes mysteriously disappeared. It's now the word of you and your cameraman against (presumably) seven police officers and pretty much the only thing they have to say is that you were resisting. They could certainly charged with excessive force, and you might even be able to find a way to charge them with assault in that specific circumstance if there was nothing justified about the way they were treating you to begin with. That part I have no idea about. But it's not assault simply because you got hurt and not charged, and it's why the cameras are magically broken to begin with.
I waffle on this issue more than Mitt Romney waffles on, well, every issue ever.
On the one hand, I understand completely: If the candidates I want to win end up losing, I want to know it was because the other voters made informed choices and disagreed with me. Not because they were hoodwinked, not because they saw what letter was next to the guy's name and knew everything they needed to know, not because they think candidates stand for things they don't actually stand for, not because they think their choice has nice hair or teeth or the right or wrong religion.
But on the other hand, the "idiots"--and that's an awfully loaded term--are going to be represented by these very same people. That's why they were able to vote differently from me. Don't they deserve the same voice in the process even if they choose to be wholly uninformed and vote party or anti-incumbent or whatever they do? Don't "idiots" need representation as much as I do, quite possibly more?
Not to mention the fact that while there are plenty of thoroughly uninformed white people, those more likely to be uniformed are going to tend to be minorities who don't have the same access to information as the average Slashdotter does. Yeah, they could go to the library (if they know how to use a computer) -- but look at how many people don't vote because it's not convenient enough. The idea of spending hours at the library before that is going to be a non-starter for even more significant numbers of people. It's also significantly easier for a white-collar worker to find time to vote than a blue-collar worker.
It's tough. I certainly want informed voters, but does that mean that encouraging uninformed voters to vote is a bad idea? Ehhh...
I had a similar thought about code reuse, but an entirely different conclusion: I thought that they weren't re-using good code since the same problem has cropped up at least two times. That sounds more like a case of re-rolling things that definitely shouldn't be re-rolled (date/time handling) to me.
In either event, they're not using particularly good practices. Either they are constantly reinventing the wheel and apparently in error-prone ways, or they are re-using code but paying no attention to keeping that external code up to date.
The only other thing I can think of is that Azure is somehow so drastically different than anything else they have ever done that they had to do the code again from scratch -- which is probably a problem all by itself.
I don't disagree that somehow expecting the president to control gas prices is stupid, but oil is not an open market. People can't just choose to enter the oil-selling market. It's a natural monopoly--in rather the most literal sense of the term--and further to that it is controlled primarily by a cartel.
I don't think that issue is as clear as you do. There's little stopping Congress from passing a law granting themselves some sort of worldwide jurisdiction (assuming the law would be otherwise valid). The better question is whether any of the rest of the world would care. If they refuse to extradite, the point is moot.
In this particular case, I see little reason not to extradite. His actions would be illegal pretty much everywhere, which is one major factor to the extradition process. Prosecutors could simply assure they will not seek the death penalty (assuming it's even possible; it depends what he would be charged under) to defuse another. Though it's debatable on a philosophical level, the vast majority of these nations also recognize our legal system as fair and capable of a fair trial, defusing another. If the US really does have a sealed indictment, it's already declared that he has, in fact, engaged in behavior that can be reasonably construed as breaking US law insofar as being deserving of bringing him to trial. I see no reason for other nations to second guess that declaration as a matter of policy, which means they would be making exceptions for Assange and quite frankly opening themselves up to problems in the future in terms of equal protection within their jurisdictions.
How did they get the indictment? I don't know. We haven't seen it, obviously, assuming it even exists. We don't know what it's for, so it's hard to even speculate. I've seen some interesting theories with regard to the Espionage Act. Quoting a law professor's interpretation of the act, it "prohibits the willful communication, delivery, or transmission to 'any person not entitled to receive it' of 'any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.'" That certainly seems to apply, at least superficially enough to bring to trial. Assange's propensity for running his mouth and making comments about how he hopes to bring governments down makes it awfully hard to backtrack on his intent as well. You can probably manage jurisdiction pretty easily since the information was originally hosted on, and thus disseminated from, Amazon servers -- Amazon being an American company and the servers likely, at least in part, on American soil. And that's just one way. (The whole article is interesting if you want to read it. You can see each parties' biases shine through, but they all bring up a lot of good points that would be raised at trial.)
I'm not making any judgments about the case itself, by the way. I'm simply saying that whether or not he should be brought to trial or should be extradited is not nearly so simple an issue. In fact he probably should be; I think the burdens on that end have been met. The better questions are whether he should be prosecuted and if he is, if he should be convicted.
If it goes to trial, there are a ton of huge issues. First Amendment protections; the definition of journalists; the requirement of intent; application of not only the law but First Amendment protection itself to foreign nationals (on foreign soil); the very definitions of espionage themselves. I think he has a lot of damn good defenses -- probably more than enough to generate reasonable doubt. I simply believe they should be adjudicated in the United States if you United States makes those allegations. The other burdens to extradition are met in my mind.
Anybody with money is going to get sued for pretty much anything they do. It's a sad reality of our society.
They won't have any case. Facebook is not doing anything other than passing along information the user himself has asked it to display. It's really no different than a post on their wall in that regard, except the placement and the narrow purpose. If I tell Facebook I'm safe and I'm not, how exactly is that Facebook's fault or their problem, much less an actionable tort?
Somebody will still try it, of that I have no doubt. I would simply advise anybody contemplating suing had best think twice before angering a company worth billions of dollars with a frivolous lawsuit. Imagine if Facebook decided to ask for attorney fees for their troubles...
I had to giggle at the fact that the article starts off by calling him "ESR" and then goes on to explain what he did.
If people know who the hell "ESR" is they already know what he's done. If they don't, perhaps the first introduction to him should be his name?
Yes, it's in the title (I wonder if that was done by the submitter or editor?). It's still bad form. You can be casual or you can be formal, but mixing and matching it is just silly.
Many of us would like to stay home, especially in those circumstances.
But when movies are routinely grossing $25MM in a weekend (and I just plucked that number from last weekend) and hundreds of millions over a theater run, you lose an awful lot of credibility trying to claim that nobody wants to do something when you really mean that you don't want to do it. The fact that you have to throw in yet another insult when somebody points that out to you doesn't exactly speak well for you either.
Maybe you had something to say worth listening to. I don't know. It got lost in the bullshit, insults and rhetoric.
Eh, I don't know. If somebody downloads and installs tools suggested by this core group of "hacker geniuses" under the auspices of "this will hurt the bad guys, not you -- we promise" I think calling them idiots might not be gratuitous at all. "But it's open source!" Yeah. I'm just certain the people running it combed through the source and verified the hashes before they blindly did what they were told.
That nobody has fleeced the sheep yet is a small miracle, but it will happen. In fact it might be a good way to hurt Anonymous as a whole. If you take away their firepower, their ability to do anything much more significant than guess at passwords or sweep a website for known security vulnerabilities is basically eliminated.
Well, you're right of course, which is why the university will also try to ding you for some sort of "technology access fee" on top of the absolute gouging you'll get for tuition, course materials and anything else you get from the university.
Naturally they have a right to secure their network, but if the sites the submitter listed are getting blocked it's because somebody's incompetent, lazy, or taking it upon themselves to exercise some kind of moral authority over their adult students' activities that extends well beyond such mandate.
No. Companies exist for the benefit of society. Defining "the benefit of society" to be "make money for their INVESTORS, nobody else" is a relatively recent phenomenon as we try as hard as we can to re-create a medieval aristocracy.
I'm sure it will work out better the second go 'round.
Step #1 is to contact your representatives, yes. I would expand it beyond simply the three who directly represent you and include anybody in your state's delegation, particularly those who support nonsense laws that make things like this possible. No reason not to expand it even more than that if you want.
Step #2 is to see if you can get a news organization to bite. There may or may not be any traction here, but it's worth the effort.
Step #3 is to lawyer up. Try to find a lawyer who won't take a fee up front, either one who takes a cut of the winnings or one willing to do it pro bono. It shouldn't be too hard considering this is pretty much a guaranteed victory. You already have evidence of their outright fraud. In particular you already have them stating on the record that they investigated the matter -- meaning when you prove it is bullshit, you're already 90% of the way to proving they did it with malicious intent. If this process is some sort of automated DMCA frontend, you've got them for fraud under the DMCA as well and can seek punitive damages for the abuse of process.
More to the point, they'll never let it get to trial. What jury in the world is going to believe the idea that some idiot can come along and get 130ish year exclusive right to the generic sound of birds singing--thousands of years into recorded history and hundreds of years after audio recordings became possible? It's not going to happen and they know it's not going to happen. They're counting on being able to bully and intimidate you into doing what they want and like most bullies, confronting them is going to send them running for the hills. In this case, it will likely send them running with a nice little check in your pocket for your troubles.
It's a hassle, yes; probably more hassle than it's worth. It's a risk too, which is why it's important to find a lawyer who will work for a cut of the settlement rather than a hourly fee. You certainly don't want to be bankrupted by winning. But it's also the only way there is any chance of this kind of idiotic bullying to stop. Maybe you can't afford to fight; maybe rolling over and letting them have their way is the best choice for you in your situation. Nobody will judge you for it. But if you can fight, fight. These kind of victories are victories for everybody, not just yourself.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, much like the civil rights era, we're just not at that stage and I see no way to force society to advance more quickly than it is ready to advance.
Look at the Republican primaries as a great example. The more moderate opinions on gay marriage tend toward either "it's none of the governments business" (a fine position but hardly a stand on the issue) or "separate but equal," an acknowledgment that denying gays the ability to marry is wrong but still wanting to make it clear that there's just something wrong with gay people and the relationship they have can't be the same as the relationship straight people have. Those are the moderate positions. Then you have guys like Reverand Dozier, honorary co-chair of Rick Santorum's Florida campaign, declaring that "homosexuality makes God want to vomit" and is "a paramount sin." These are the men vying to be the leader of the United States for at least the next four years -- and even among them there's a kind of tacit approval of discrimination. This isn't meant to be a political statement against the Republicans, by the way; if I'm not mistaken, President Obama took that exact same "separate but equal" gutless position. If we can't even expect better behavior of our leaders, and one of the most powerful men on the planet, then I don't see how we can advance the debate. (Ironically I respect the "eew, burn in hell!" folks more than the "separate but equal" folks. At least they're willing to take a stand. The ones trying to have it both ways irritate me to no end, but that is neither here nor there.)
Likewise, look at the schoolyards. The first insult out of a kid's mouth these days will be some variation of "fag." In some ways it doesn't feel like that should be a big deal, but can you imagine being a gay student and seeing that when other students want to insult each other that the worst thing they can think of to say about each other is that are, well, exactly like you? Are you likely to come out in that environment? How long, exactly, are you going to suppress your own sexuality because you're ashamed of it? Maybe this kid didn't realize that his roommate would kill himself, but neither should it be particularly surprisingly. There's a definite psychological impact to feeling like you have to hide who you are.
The good news is that the tides are changing. I think my generation--I'm 28--is either the tail end of the acceptance of this kind of behavior or perhaps the first generation of unacceptance. That's not to say that the problem is gone or that it is going to be gone any time soon, rather that I think we've reached the tipping point and by a small amount, the attitude of tolerance and acceptance is now the majority opinion. This will only continue until, much like discrimination against black people today (we have a ways to go with Latin discrimination it seems), the holders of those discriminatory opinions will be the ones with something to hide and something to be ashamed of. I have no idea how many generations that will take, but I doubt we can speed it up.
I agree with most of what you said, with one notable exception: Violence is not unquestionably bad. It may be unfortunate, but there are plenty of times it is not only fully justified, but the right thing to do.
Do you have a source for this?
Law enforcement can certainly require you to give them your name and a few other specific bits of information required to verify your identity, but I have seen nothing to suggest they have the power to compel a company to disclose information about you absent a court order.
I actually agree with you on your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, even against some peoples' interpretations that administrative law is not real law.
But I do wonder what would happen if the states, rather than trying to bypass federal law, just started fucking with them? For example, who owns the airports? In the case of a government owner (I know some have been privatized) what if they just decided the TSA weren't welcome there? What if they passed a law forbidding the use of x-ray technology on people that is not for an expressly medical purpose and then walked a few TSA screeners out in handcuffs? What if they passed a law requiring additional licensing of security agents and then simply never issued the license? Or for the machinery itself? All of these seem like pretty obvious state issues, except insofar as they are obviously intended to fuck with the TSA.
It's probably not a fight they could win. Even if all of their actions stood up in court--and that is a pretty big if--it would just result in a stare-down with the government forbidding any flights to leave the states who were doing it and seeing who blinks first. It would be interesting to see though.
Arguably? How can you just hand-wave away the single most important question for your entire argument?
You may be right, but I doubt you will get anywhere with the argument that an agency created and authorized by federal law, with powers within that scope that have the full effect of law, are not laws for the purposes of the supremacy clause.