The blackmail branch of the Mafia in Canada would also like to present the ".J Edgar Hoover" award to the monopoly telephone/cable companies of Canada, for making the previously uncooperative ISPs store the information that is their stock in trade.
By changes made by the same government that has now opened yet another back door. Can you say "never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"?
Or other phases about hands...
I don't know if you can do so in the US, but in Canadian law you can seem to be able to sue both an individual and the body of which he is a part. Strong unions or companies usually pay to defend their members and try to pay any fines, but if the offence is serious enough, the union or employer won't be able to afford it, and the individual will be punished despite their efforts. This can be use by good people against bad, or bad people against good, it doesn't matter: as an example, people sue city councillors and the city all the time.
Cisco's past competitors have copied their CLI without objection from cisco. This may be a follow-on to the Oracle claim that the Java APIs are copyrightable...
Yes: it's a so-called "writ of assistance" or "general warrant". They keep being outlawed, and keep coming back. The RCMP said they retired their last general warrant just a few years ago, but the government of the day seems to trying to recreate a subset for people who use the internet...
Thanks, but it does need to be an indictable act, under the NZ criminal code. This looks rather like a civil copyright act, much like Canada's, and quite different from the US criminal one. (The US has two, one civil, one criminal).
Countries will extradite their citizens if they've been charged with a crime, but it has to be a crime in both countries, and it needs to be of some severity. Parking tickets aren't enough to get me extradited from Canada, even though not paying them is a misdemanor. Similarly, charging me with blasphemy in Iran and asking for me to extradited won't work either.
NZ needs to have made copyright infringement an indictable offence, and they need to have done so before Mr Dotcom was charged.
If not, and if they wish to get rid of him, they need to ensure somehow that he doesn't have a lawyer, and then hope he can't defend himself adequately.
Rightscorp is arguably afraid ISPs will refuse to cut off people under the DMCA unless a judge has ruled in a legitimate court proceeding that the person has infringed multiple times. They now propose to saddle ISPs with massive, expensive and interminable legal proceedings unless the ISP agrees to cut people off on mere accusation.
Lawyers often study "conflict of laws", where law A says "X is a crime" and B says "do X". Good legal draftsmen will therefor say something like "not withstanding A, do X", but not everyone is a good draftsman(/woman/shark). It would be amusing and very embarassing to charge a district attorney with possession of stolen property (;-))
It's arguably obtaining money upon a false pretense, which is criminal. The false pretense is that such a fee is lawful, much like a clause in a contract that says "you agree to spin straw into gold or provide Rumplestiltskin your first-born". Illegal since, well, fairy-tales.
More correctly, they want to control the news. One man controlled roughly 1/3 of the news at one point, and pushed for his preferred party and leader. The leader face-planted on a seadoo and the party had to do an unfriendly takeover of another party (mine!) to get into power. The newspaper chain in question is barely alive any more.
Odd, all three parties at various times said the CRTC was in bed with the big corporations.
The current government genuinely hit them with a clue-stick, mind you!
Right now, the government needs votes, and telecom behaviour has annoyed a large enough minority that they're worth campaigning to. Pitching to minorities has been a priority for the government since they got in, as they previously had been criticised as being composed entirely of white western farmers and oilmen.
This is a classic way to get a proponent of X into trouble: get them to say under what circumstances X would be breaking the law, and assert they were a proponent of breaking the law. Another is ordering someone not to do something legal, then charge them with disobedience. A third is to ask them if they had (ever) broken the law, then charge them with lying if they had but the statute of limitations had run out.
All are hard to defend against, as they're constructed half-truths. None addresses the propriety, truth or desirability of the original action, only the consequent, so a court can sometimes be tricked into ruling narrowly on the second part alone.
The OPP doesn't listen to the Ontario government. It listens to it's leaders, like Julian Fantino, now a minister in the Federal government that very much disagrees with the Courts about people having rights.
The former head of the OPP at the time of the G8 in Toronto is Julian Fantino. He is now Minister of Veterans Affairs in the government that so objects to personal privacy, so I'm not surprised at the OPP position.
Our ballot was an 8 1/2 by 11" sheet, mostly covered with cantidates for mayor. The number of candidates and seats are limited only by the paper and font size (;-)) It's not perfect, but it does scale.
Personally I'd like to draw lots for who gets stuck with dog catcher.
The ballots are counted when cast, and results reported in the hour after polls close. If there is anything suspicious, the paper is there for a judicial recount. And it's way cheaper than touchscreen PCs.
p=reject is a extremely strict check: if it doesn't pass, the email service drops it. It is only for transactional business mail, and should never be applied to mailing-list mail. Ask the IETF authors.
Yahoo, AOL and friends were under severe pressure to "do something, anything". They did do something, it's just that...
A week or so later the spam had proper signatures.
These mechanisms are only valid for "transactional" business email, where business correspondents need the email credibly labelled by the sending company. It's OK for stuff where you establish who to talk to by mail, telephone or wild-ass-guess, and make deals based on that lebel of security.
It's utterly inappropriate for mailing lists, remailers, discussion groups or material gatewayted between email and usenet or web services. The workaround are lies, told to convince the anti-spam functions of DKIM et all to let it through.
About a week after DKIM broke all the IETF and ISOC lists, the spammers were signing their spam so as to be deliverable once more. I was on the ISOC list at the time, and some unkind words got said about Yahoos.
Slashdot Mirror
The blackmail branch of the Mafia in Canada would also like to present the ".J Edgar Hoover" award to the monopoly telephone/cable companies of Canada, for making the previously uncooperative ISPs store the information that is their stock in trade.
I fear the neo-cons want us back in the day of William the Conqueror, where there were Normans and the peasants they owned.
By changes made by the same government that has now opened yet another back door. Can you say "never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"? Or other phases about hands...
I don't know if you can do so in the US, but in Canadian law you can seem to be able to sue both an individual and the body of which he is a part. Strong unions or companies usually pay to defend their members and try to pay any fines, but if the offence is serious enough, the union or employer won't be able to afford it, and the individual will be punished despite their efforts. This can be use by good people against bad, or bad people against good, it doesn't matter: as an example, people sue city councillors and the city all the time.
Cisco's past competitors have copied their CLI without objection from cisco. This may be a follow-on to the Oracle claim that the Java APIs are copyrightable...
Yes: it's a so-called "writ of assistance" or "general warrant". They keep being outlawed, and keep coming back. The RCMP said they retired their last general warrant just a few years ago, but the government of the day seems to trying to recreate a subset for people who use the internet...
Thanks, but it does need to be an indictable act, under the NZ criminal code. This looks rather like a civil copyright act, much like Canada's, and quite different from the US criminal one. (The US has two, one civil, one criminal).
Countries will extradite their citizens if they've been charged with a crime, but it has to be a crime in both countries, and it needs to be of some severity. Parking tickets aren't enough to get me extradited from Canada, even though not paying them is a misdemanor. Similarly, charging me with blasphemy in Iran and asking for me to extradited won't work either.
NZ needs to have made copyright infringement an indictable offence, and they need to have done so before Mr Dotcom was charged.
If not, and if they wish to get rid of him, they need to ensure somehow that he doesn't have a lawyer, and then hope he can't defend himself adequately.
Rightscorp is arguably afraid ISPs will refuse to cut off people under the DMCA unless a judge has ruled in a legitimate court proceeding that the person has infringed multiple times. They now propose to saddle ISPs with massive, expensive and interminable legal proceedings unless the ISP agrees to cut people off on mere accusation.
Lawyers often study "conflict of laws", where law A says "X is a crime" and B says "do X". Good legal draftsmen will therefor say something like "not withstanding A, do X", but not everyone is a good draftsman(/woman/shark). It would be amusing and very embarassing to charge a district attorney with possession of stolen property (;-))
Vote this up, folks!
It's arguably obtaining money upon a false pretense, which is criminal. The false pretense is that such a fee is lawful, much like a clause in a contract that says "you agree to spin straw into gold or provide Rumplestiltskin your first-born". Illegal since, well, fairy-tales.
That used to be how we built hospitals and paid for road improvements: they're called things like "local business improvement areas".
More correctly, they want to control the news. One man controlled roughly 1/3 of the news at one point, and pushed for his preferred party and leader. The leader face-planted on a seadoo and the party had to do an unfriendly takeover of another party (mine!) to get into power. The newspaper chain in question is barely alive any more.
Odd, all three parties at various times said the CRTC was in bed with the big corporations. The current government genuinely hit them with a clue-stick, mind you!
Right now, the government needs votes, and telecom behaviour has annoyed a large enough minority that they're worth campaigning to. Pitching to minorities has been a priority for the government since they got in, as they previously had been criticised as being composed entirely of white western farmers and oilmen.
He's probably on Rogers, where all of the above is trivially true.
This is a classic way to get a proponent of X into trouble: get them to say under what circumstances X would be breaking the law, and assert they were a proponent of breaking the law. Another is ordering someone not to do something legal, then charge them with disobedience. A third is to ask them if they had (ever) broken the law, then charge them with lying if they had but the statute of limitations had run out.
All are hard to defend against, as they're constructed half-truths. None addresses the propriety, truth or desirability of the original action, only the consequent, so a court can sometimes be tricked into ruling narrowly on the second part alone.
The OPP doesn't listen to the Ontario government. It listens to it's leaders, like Julian Fantino, now a minister in the Federal government that very much disagrees with the Courts about people having rights.
The Minister agrees, too:(:-))
The former head of the OPP at the time of the G8 in Toronto is Julian Fantino. He is now Minister of Veterans Affairs in the government that so objects to personal privacy, so I'm not surprised at the OPP position.
Our ballot was an 8 1/2 by 11" sheet, mostly covered with cantidates for mayor. The number of candidates and seats are limited only by the paper and font size (;-)) It's not perfect, but it does scale.
Personally I'd like to draw lots for who gets stuck with dog catcher.
A different percentage than the exit polls report...
The ballots are counted when cast, and results reported in the hour after polls close. If there is anything suspicious, the paper is there for a judicial recount. And it's way cheaper than touchscreen PCs.
p=reject is a extremely strict check: if it doesn't pass, the email service drops it. It is only for transactional business mail, and should never be applied to mailing-list mail. Ask the IETF authors.
Yahoo, AOL and friends were under severe pressure to "do something, anything". They did do something, it's just that ...
A week or so later the spam had proper signatures.
These mechanisms are only valid for "transactional" business email, where business correspondents need the email credibly labelled by the sending company. It's OK for stuff where you establish who to talk to by mail, telephone or wild-ass-guess, and make deals based on that lebel of security.
It's utterly inappropriate for mailing lists, remailers, discussion groups or material gatewayted between email and usenet or web services. The workaround are lies, told to convince the anti-spam functions of DKIM et all to let it through.
About a week after DKIM broke all the IETF and ISOC lists, the spammers were signing their spam so as to be deliverable once more. I was on the ISOC list at the time, and some unkind words got said about Yahoos.