"Who could possibly mod this comment as insightful?"
Someone who is intelligent and insightful too.
"The guy obviously doesn't have a clue what the issue is here."
The issue is the DoJ has no legal right, AFAICT, to compel Google to cough up this information.
"There is no suggestion that Google broke the law. The request from the DOJ is to gather information regarding child porn on the internet."
Just like Bush is just using these 'NSA warrantless wiretaps' only against terrorists?
"While I can see why Google might be concerned about trade secrets being exposed, they're clearly on the wrong side of this issue. If they can help the govt fight child porn but making their log files available in a way that doesn't compromise trade secrets then they should do so. Also, FYI, the govt isn't asking for any personallhy identifiable information. They just want to see general information about searches relating to child porn. Anyone who has any mod points, mod this guy/gal down."
If Google chose to do so, in the way they want to, then fine.
But the DoJ is trying to compel Google to cough up this info without any legal basis behind it.
My fear, just like Google's is the DoJ wants to use this info for stuff other than it claims:
Another reason for objecting to the subpoena, Google says in its brief authored by Al Gidari and Lisa Delehunt at the law firm of Perkins Coie, is that government lawyers might share the information with the FBI for criminal prosecution--say, of people who typed in search terms like "marijuana cultivation or "directv hacking."
"The point is, that Gonzales put his loyalty to the President above his duty to answer the legislative branch. When he talks to law students and the press he claims the President is acting legally when he bypasses the FISA, when he talks to Congress he simply refuses to answer the question.
This is the same thing, he's acting as a politician with an agenda rather than as a enforcer of the law. Google are right to refuse to be dragged into what is simply a political lobbying exercise."
Then he should be put under oath and ordered to answer the questions or be found in comtempt. Nobody's fault but Congress for not doing that.
is why the DoJ thinks they have a legal right to access Google's information/logs?
Do they have any credible evidence that Google broke the law? Or that a particular user broke the law? If so, they they should subpoena an individual users records.
It seems to me that the DoJ merely wants Google information because they want to go on a "fishing expedition". Google should have no obligation to assist the DoJ in a "fishing expedition".
The DOJ on "information and belief" have some theories apparently. Just because Google has information that may or may not disprove their theory, no one should compel Google to turn over that information. It's up the the DoJ to get their own information if they believe such. If they don't have their own independent source from which to obtain it, then too bad.
"Put it this way, if you get a subpoena for your quicken files in a tax dispute, you must turn it over (if it exists). To destroy it is a crime. On the other hand, you can refuse to answer questions. You just can't refuse to turn over evidence. Encryption is viewed as an extension of this principle."
That's what the parent was talking about. Not answering the question with the question being "What is the passphrase?"
When the RIAA sues people based on filenames rather than actually inspecting the contents of the file, that lawsuit is, de facto, illegal. Without inspecting the contents of the file, one doesn't know whether that file contains copyrighted material. It could, in fact, contain an audiobook of a person reviewing the song. It could contain a public-domain song with the same title. It could contain a person singing it.
99% of the time, the RIAA's attorneys assume it contains a copyrighted song, when in fact they have no proof it does. THAT is illegal.
"But how do they prove that you put the file up on the P2P networks? Maybe your computer was broken into, either by network or physically, and the file was copied off and put on the P2P network. Maybe you sent it to your friend (fair use) and he uploaded it to the P2P network."
Those are all interesting defenses, and you are free to try any/all of them in a court of law when you get illegally sued by the RIAA.
Enjoy spending thousands of dollars on your lawyer and wasting dozens of hours of time. Maybe you'll even win.
"Could someone object on the basis of religious discrimination if they believe that RFID implants constitute the "Mark of the Beast"?"
I would imagine it would be just like the article stated: They can't/won't force you, but if you refuse, you don't get acccess to the datacenter. Just like the Mark of the Beast "... no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name."
"If you travel fast enough you can get as far as you like in as short a time as you like. There's an effect called time dilation. Maybe you haven't heard of it?"
Which basically means, the faster you move, the slower time moves for you relative to a stationary observer.
Which basically means, when you move at the speed of light, no time passes for you.
So although you could get to a star 100 light years away in the blink of an eye to you, it would be 100 years to someone on earth. All the people you knew would be dead by the time you get back, even though you might have only aged a few days.
"In the old days people had a way of dealing with people like the RIAA execs. They grabbed them, stripped them, beat them, coated them in tar and feathers. In other words they made a public example of them to discourage other similar-thinking assholes from doing the same thing. Are we too civilized for that today?"
It's for the same reason, we don't challenge them to a duel like men.
It's because they are pussies who hide behind lawyers, judges, lawsuits, attorneys and law enforcement agents.
IOW, they are cowards who can't fight their own battles man to man.
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
Without judicial oversite and checks and balances, you don't know this.
It's like the same doublespeak Bush used when he said a year ago that under the Patriot Act wiretaps require a court order ("In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."), and how he says these wiretaps are different ("I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," he said. "This is different from the NSA program.")
It's the same doublespeak Clinton used when he said "I never had sex with that woman" and then was confronted with proof he got a blow job from Monica Lewinski -- i.e., Sex = sexual intercourse, not ORAL SEX.
The lawyers on all sides will stretch the truth and mix words to make you believe something that really isn't true.
"Mr. Frank Forchione received his BA in Economics from Kent State University and the JD degree from the University of Akron. Mr. Forchione was appointed first assistant prosecutor for the city of Canton in 1989 and, in 1993, became the prosecutor for the City. Mr. Forchione's responsibilities as prosecutor include: overseeing all criminal cases in the Canton Municipal Court Jurisdiction, advising the police department in criminal matters, supervising the assistant prosecutors, and conducting criminal jury trials as well as felony preliminary hearings. In addition, he is the special prosecutor for Tuscarawas County, New Philadelphia, North Canton, Perry Township, Stark County Prosecutor's Office, and Massillon Municipal Court. Mr. Forchione is also a contributing writer for the editorial column of The Canton Repository. Mr. Forchione recently published an article in Ohio Lawyer entitled "Understanding the Domestic Violence Law."
>>"If I'm being sued, I settle out of court for fearing of losing more money. Even if she wins the case, she's lost more money than the settlement."
>And that's exactly why it keeps happening and will keep happening until those getting sued do what some companies have done on patent claims: Team up and share legal expenses. As long as people roll over, it enables their behavior.
Right again. The RIAA & their law sharks have a big portion of the other 16,000 (people who have settled) x $3,500 (settled) = $56M in settlement money to spend.
They sue the same way those bastards at DirecTV did. They "carpet bomb" and fish with "dolpin unsafe nets" -- they don't care if they financially "kill" innocents along the way as long as they kill the bad guys or get a bunch of tuna.
If they stop now, their fear is that the guilty will be led to believe that they can fight it too. If EVERYONE who was sued would fight it to the end, perhaps the bad guys would change their thinking. Blame the innocents who said they would rather settle for $3500 than fight it.
The only way to stop this type of injustice is to change the civil legal system in various possible ways, such as:
Have court-appointed attorneys, just like in criminal cases.
Make it so loser automagically pays winner's legal fees.
Change the burden of proof to be GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT rather than a preponderance of the evidence.
Allow a person in a civil trial to plead the 5th without negative inferences.
"And it still doesn't support AIM encryption. The only way to have a secure IM with gaim is to talk to another gaim user.
I still don't understand why their developers chose to do this. One of the few things that is right with AIM is the secure-chat feature. It's fairly easy to set up, and its very secure.
Because:
AIM's encryption is closed-source and proprietory. How it works would have to be reverse engineered.
GAIM doesn't natively include ANY encryption support and doesn't want to. Stuff like that is to be done via plug-ins. Bothering the GAIM developers about something that is supposed to go in a plug-in will get you nowhere.
In fact, there's not much I need a Windows machine for.
Mutt works far better than any email program I have used on Windows -- including Outlook, Eudora, and Thunderbird.
FireFox is all I need for web browsing.
GAIM is all I need for IMing.
But, I haven't found a replacement for Agent for USENET access. Everything I've used on other platforms is inferior.
Zonk and CowboyNeal are beta-testing techology that combines cellphones, instant messages and email to avoid SlashDot article duplications. The results will be published a couple times on Slashdot in the not-to-distant future.
"As an analogy (not to evolution, to filtered randomisation), fill a box with balls. Cut small holes in the bottom, and shake randomly.. what do you find? the small ones drop out. Wow! Isn't that amazing! A completely undirected random process of shaking the balls in a box caused them to seperate themselves into collections of big and small. Must be the work of God!"
You've introduced an "intelligently designed", non-random event here. Your "cutting small holes in the box" turns this from a random event into one intelligently designed to emit small balls on a "random basis".
"The thing that Christian fundamentalists fear most is children being raised learning that because of evolution, God isn't necessary in any part of the equation of how we came to be."
No. The thing Christians fear is people believing an untruth/lie that puts their soul in eternal jeopardy. Christians believe that in order to be saved, people need to believe what is written in the Bible is true. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible -- intelligent design is totally compatible with the Bible.
Christians realize hell is real and fear people going there. They don't want people going there because they were deceived by "science".
Slashdot Mirror
Someone who is intelligent and insightful too.
The issue is the DoJ has no legal right, AFAICT, to compel Google to cough up this information.
Just like Bush is just using these 'NSA warrantless wiretaps' only against terrorists?
If Google chose to do so, in the way they want to, then fine.
But the DoJ is trying to compel Google to cough up this info without any legal basis behind it.
My fear, just like Google's is the DoJ wants to use this info for stuff other than it claims:
Then he should be put under oath and ordered to answer the questions or be found in comtempt. Nobody's fault but Congress for not doing that.
is why the DoJ thinks they have a legal right to access Google's information/logs?
Do they have any credible evidence that Google broke the law? Or that a particular user broke the law? If so, they they should subpoena an individual users records.
It seems to me that the DoJ merely wants Google information because they want to go on a "fishing expedition". Google should have no obligation to assist the DoJ in a "fishing expedition".
The DOJ on "information and belief" have some theories apparently. Just because Google has information that may or may not disprove their theory, no one should compel Google to turn over that information. It's up the the DoJ to get their own information if they believe such. If they don't have their own independent source from which to obtain it, then too bad.
That's what the parent was talking about. Not answering the question with the question being "What is the passphrase?"
When the RIAA sues people based on filenames rather than actually inspecting the contents of the file, that lawsuit is, de facto, illegal. Without inspecting the contents of the file, one doesn't know whether that file contains copyrighted material. It could, in fact, contain an audiobook of a person reviewing the song. It could contain a public-domain song with the same title. It could contain a person singing it.
99% of the time, the RIAA's attorneys assume it contains a copyrighted song, when in fact they have no proof it does. THAT is illegal.
Those are all interesting defenses, and you are free to try any/all of them in a court of law when you get illegally sued by the RIAA.
Enjoy spending thousands of dollars on your lawyer and wasting dozens of hours of time. Maybe you'll even win.
I would imagine it would be just like the article stated: They can't/won't force you, but if you refuse, you don't get acccess to the datacenter. Just like the Mark of the Beast "... no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or name of the beast, or the number of his name."
"If you travel fast enough you can get as far as you like in as short a time as you like. There's an effect called time dilation. Maybe you haven't heard of it?"
Which basically means, the faster you move, the slower time moves for you relative to a stationary observer.
Which basically means, when you move at the speed of light, no time passes for you.
So although you could get to a star 100 light years away in the blink of an eye to you, it would be 100 years to someone on earth. All the people you knew would be dead by the time you get back, even though you might have only aged a few days.
Not too helpful.
"Thirdly, did they really expect 'unlimited' to mean unlimited?"
Yeah, how dare someone expect 'unlimited' to really mean 'unlimited.
Pretty stupid of them. I, of course, always expected 'unlimited' to mean 'limited'.
: rolls eyes :
"What is illegal here putting such CD-R pile for a sale. But I think it's illegal everywhere. As long as you give it away for free - you are Okay."
Finally, a SANE ruling. That just makes common sense. I wonder why this took so long?
Evolution involves random genetic mutations which build up over time.
Not true.
Those mutations would necessarily be psuedo-random, not random.
That's OK, because at least that would stop them from potentially filtering phonecalls "en masse" thru stuff like Echelon.
"In the old days people had a way of dealing with people like the RIAA execs. They grabbed them, stripped them, beat them, coated them in tar and feathers. In other words they made a public example of them to discourage other similar-thinking assholes from doing the same thing. Are we too civilized for that today?"
It's for the same reason, we don't challenge them to a duel like men.
It's because they are pussies who hide behind lawyers, judges, lawsuits, attorneys and law enforcement agents.
IOW, they are cowards who can't fight their own battles man to man.
You know, there's a lot to be said about being an "Anonymous Coward".
Consider the following: Provide all the proof of your allegations, but do so in an anonymous manner (e.g., Mixminion).
There is one inescapable truth: If you are truly anonymous, then you are lawsuit proof.
"I don't really understand what the big deal is.
[...]
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
Without judicial oversite and checks and balances, you don't know this.
It's like the same doublespeak Bush used when he said a year ago that under the Patriot Act wiretaps require a court order ("In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."), and how he says these wiretaps are different ("I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," he said. "This is different from the NSA program.")
It's the same doublespeak Clinton used when he said "I never had sex with that woman" and then was confronted with proof he got a blow job from Monica Lewinski -- i.e., Sex = sexual intercourse, not ORAL SEX.
The lawyers on all sides will stretch the truth and mix words to make you believe something that really isn't true.
Here's a picture of the idiot.
The guy looks real tough... :(
From the original page (GOOGLE-CACHED):
>>"If I'm being sued, I settle out of court for fearing of losing more money. Even if she wins the case, she's lost more money than the settlement."
>And that's exactly why it keeps happening and will keep happening until those getting sued do what some companies have done on patent claims: Team up and share legal expenses. As long as people roll over, it enables their behavior.
Right again. The RIAA & their law sharks have a big portion of the other 16,000 (people who have settled) x $3,500 (settled) = $56M in settlement money to spend.
They sue the same way those bastards at DirecTV did. They "carpet bomb" and fish with "dolpin unsafe nets" -- they don't care if they financially "kill" innocents along the way as long as they kill the bad guys or get a bunch of tuna.
If they stop now, their fear is that the guilty will be led to believe that they can fight it too. If EVERYONE who was sued would fight it to the end, perhaps the bad guys would change their thinking. Blame the innocents who said they would rather settle for $3500 than fight it.
The only way to stop this type of injustice is to change the civil legal system in various possible ways, such as:
"And it still doesn't support AIM encryption. The only way to have a secure IM with gaim is to talk to another gaim user.
I still don't understand why their developers chose to do this. One of the few things that is right with AIM is the secure-chat feature. It's fairly easy to set up, and its very secure.
Because:
DirecTV getting fined $5.4M is like all the endusers DirecTV sued for ~$4K.
And the "crime" is about the same: Getting a little free TV is no better/worse than getting called by a telemarketer in the middle of dinner.
The difference is DirecTV isn't going bankrupt because of this and DirecTV can write this off, unlike the endusers.
In fact, there's not much I need a Windows machine for.
Mutt works far better than any email program I have used on Windows -- including Outlook, Eudora, and Thunderbird.
FireFox is all I need for web browsing.
GAIM is all I need for IMing.
But, I haven't found a replacement for Agent for USENET access. Everything I've used on other platforms is inferior.
Zonk and CowboyNeal are beta-testing techology that combines cellphones, instant messages and email to avoid SlashDot article duplications. The results will be published a couple times on Slashdot in the not-to-distant future.
What do you mean, "start"?
That's exactly what they did in Operation: Decrypt, Operation: SiteDown, and Operation: Buccaneer.
They rely on the "idiot element".
It's the people that allow these idiots to infiltrate the group that get busted. It's the groups that can smell the rat that still are out there.
There are some things that the government and the courts have no business getting involved with.
You've introduced an "intelligently designed", non-random event here. Your "cutting small holes in the box" turns this from a random event into one intelligently designed to emit small balls on a "random basis".
No. The thing Christians fear is people believing an untruth/lie that puts their soul in eternal jeopardy. Christians believe that in order to be saved, people need to believe what is written in the Bible is true. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible -- intelligent design is totally compatible with the Bible.
Christians realize hell is real and fear people going there. They don't want people going there because they were deceived by "science".