Why do I need to look into the constitution? The president is commander in chief, he is the military, he is also the arbiter of who is and isn't an enemy of the United States. Congress can pass a law declaring otherwise for specific declarations- obviously not if they are invading us, but the administration is where it is at because it is the administration that negotiates diplomacy.
I'm sure you are thinking that congress declares war, but having an enemy or ally is completely different then having a war.
The invasion in Iraq is an example for people who watched to much crime movies on TV and confused stories with reality. There are enough movies where the lone investigator/detective is convinced that someone specific is a perpetrator of a crime but can't prove it. As such he invents quite illegal means to find the evidence for his allegations he surely knows is there. But in the end, everything is dandy, because he manages to find the proof in the end.
Well, lets not pretend that Iraq never kicked the inspectors out, or that Saddam never publicly stated he still had WMDs, WMD programs, and was planning on setting programs right back up as soon as the sanctions are over, or that the UN inspection reports like those from the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM -which are available online to this day still - didn't bring up the questions of unaccounted for declared WMDs and materials or duel use materials banned under the same or that the collection of duel use materials implies possible banned weapons program capabilities or that in an interview on CBS, the main interrogator who claims he interviewed Saddam after his capture admitted that he needed to keep the appearances of WMDs up or else he feared neighboring countries would invade and Iraq couldn't defend themselves.
I mean because all that happened. It wasn't a situation where just one person was convinces, most of the world was, they just didn't think invasion was necessary and Iraq could be contained (like Russia, France, Germany, China). But this illustrates the "post 9/11 world" thought as President Clinton thought he still had it too but it was Iraq was contained and not a threat.
In reality, and in Iraq, it's not that way. If you can't prove someone is the perpetrator, it's often because there simply is no evidence. And all illegality will not help you to uncover it. Faked evidence like the yellow cake blunder won't cure it either. Iraq is a prime example how not to handle a perceived thread.
At first I was confused to why you kept saying illegal as in the actions of the protagonist when the illegality was the possession of the WMDs. Then I realized, you are one of those cool aid drinkers who thinks the invasion of Iraq is somehow illegal. Well, it wasn't despite what a bunch of internet lawyers and but hurt countries who think they somehow have sovereignty rights over the US thinks..
If we had continued the confinement of Iraq and the embargo, maybe we had some Arab Spring in 2004 instead of a bloody and murderous country and 1 billion people considering the U.S. the prime enemy of all muslims.
This time had already came and gone. Iraq citizens already attempted to rise up against Saddam and we refused to send them aid or even give them captured Iraqi military equiptment. The result was a lot of people got killed (mostly southern Shiites and Northern Kurds) and it wasn't the government forces.
I doubt Iraqi citizens suffering under the UN sanctions because Saddam wasn't distributing the aid and keeping it as a source of power over the people, would forget that attempt and try again- at least not for another generation and by that time Saddam probably would have been dead.
Well, its only the people who have the legal power and authority to declare wikileaks and assange an enemy of the United States that matters. Everyone else can have opinions but they will not mean much legally speaking.
If you want to expose the government, do it to a news organization not classified as an enemy.
well, the outing of Plame wasn't done by someone with a security clearance in a security role. Richard Armatage outed her at an event where her husband was acting important. A reporter asked who he was and Armatage said Plame's husband who got some gig because she worked at the CIA.
This is old news and it is a completely different type of situation.
huh? your quoting a declaration of independence from a monarchy to support your argument for the document that formed a second country after a war to obtain that independence?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
obviously, that's not true. Else we couldn't restrict voting or gun ownership to citizens and citizens who are not convicted felons. People in Germany or England can't claim the 4th or 5th amendment protections either.
But we can assume the constitution to be observed by the government when acting against anyone who is not an enemy and within our jurisdiction. The constitution applies to the government not people.
I honestly want to know what do people mean when they say "the world has changed" or use the term "post-9/11 world". The world has not changed. Terrorism (as a vaguely defined concept) existed before and it will continue to exist in the future.
What this means is that how we look at groups has changed. It used to be that terrorism was considered primarily a policing issue and we turned a blind eye to certain groups who attacked our enemies. Now, we don't ignore them and are willing to use military force in response to their/the threat or even in support of our enemy's response to it. What has changed is that countries sponsoring terrorists or aiding and supplying them, are now enemies instead of possible allies if we could find some advantage to it.
What is different about the post 9/11 world is that we assess the threats as if they are legitimate instead of waiting for when they could be legitimate (well, except when someone fell asleep on upping security at the Libyan embassy on an anniversary of 9/11). We take actions against the threats (not always violently) before they become problems like 9/11. The invasion of Iraq is an example of this. The fact that we couldn't verify the WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was pretending to still have them while trying to play the five nuckle shuffle with UN inspectors meant that they were a threat. Especially considering that those unaccounted for WMDs could be funneled to terrorists and used against civilians. Turns out there wasn't any WMDs left, but without being able to verify it, we assumed they were there.
if any country other then the US ever arrested a US president, Current or past, or any government official for that matter, for actions taken while in office serving the US, I would see it as justification to use the full might of the US military not only to return them to the US, but to ensure the country who did it never thought about doing it again.
I'm pretty sure quite a few other US citizens feel the same way and would not only support that action, but demand it from any sitting government. I'm also pretty sure these other countries know this and are more talk then anything else on the topic. But if they want to start a war, they can go ahead and so anything they want to do.
The judicial branch does not pursue justice, they adjudicate it. The executives branch takes care of law enforcement (within its abilities and power) then attempts to prosecute which is more in line with pursue.
This distinction while trivial, is important at the same time. A federal judge cannot hear of a crime then initiate the prosecution of someone for it. They cannot see you landlord kick you out for being black and all the sudden produce an arrest warrant and an injunction stopping your eviction. Someone has to take an action to put it in front of them- hence they adjudicate not pursue.
The US military doesn't make laws. But it can designate an enemy to make existing laws come into effect when members of the armed forces contact them. Its even in the summery " military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with 'communicating with the enemy" as it claims that is in the article obtained.
The acts of disclosing information is already illegal. Now it can be treason or consorting with the enemy if it goes to wikileaks. I see no problem with that.
This probably isn't about Assange in it's intent. They most likely found issues with the Manning prosecution and decided to make it easier to to apply more stringent penalties and get easier convictions with less effort if someone discloses information again.
I know a couple people who have registered a lot of.xxx domains and are planning on mirroring junk sites like churches and stuff.
I guess their master plan is to get real porn providers to eventually buy them in order to protect their.com names or something. It won't be long before the.xxx domain landscape is just as useless as anything else.
what different does it make? One is the same as the other. It's like starting an argument over who is the worst liar and somehow thinking it means the least is magically honest and worthy now.
If that was all the house republicans have done in the last 4 years, you might have something of a point. However, we both know that isn't true so bring it up is just like saying that because the guy you do not like is a bigger ass hat, the other guy acting like an ass hat you do like is now magically not one too. It is a pointless discussion that only shows you dislike someone not anything important. That is why I wanted to avoid it.
If 12 people with a degree in separation claim they saw that or anything else no matter how incredible it sound, then it is credible that something happened to make you all think you saw it. Usually, this is enough to convict someone of a crime as far as evidence goes- no matter how outlandish your claim might be.
I'm not sure why that seems like such a shock to you. But it is the way the world works.
I'm serious here, I'm not trolling or trying to bait you or anything. But it appears that you are against someone being in government because of their religion and think that punishing the rich will somehow fix what you see wrong with the country. I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Senate is controlled by democrats and they have refused to even take up legislation that came from the house meaning your R obstructionism is little more then a campaign lie you might have swallowed.
So how is this actually going to work? How many poor people have given you jobs you could live off of and how did they remain poor in the process?
But better yet, how is discriminating against someone because of their religion different then discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or ethnic make up? Do you seriously think it is perfectly fine to say, well, your a Latino, we can't hold that against you, -oh wait, your Christian, you can't run for office? Or well, I see you are otherwise qualified for the job, but OH Wait, You are Muslim- we can't have any of you here?
Not only that, but Google had blocked The Innocence of Muslims things in certain countries stating that they follow the laws and culture of the areas they have offices in.
So we know that Google itself has the ability to block access to it on a country specific basis. The Google exec, even if he didn't have the ability, had the ability to ask Google to cooperate with local laws and local law enforcement agencies as they claim they do all across the world already.
This entire situation seems to be more of a political statement by Google's Brazil offices then anything else. I cannot fathom why Google would be so keen on ignoring what everyone in the world has publicly seen them claiming they do.
Hans is a bad example because he wasn't much of a key figure. Just a vocal supporter and his actions were not tied to his work.
Hans is also a bad example because he was removed from the post and locked up in jail. There was no question about his continued influence on the project. Linus on the other hand, will remain a prominent figure in Linux.
It's funny. Linus is constantly paraded as the voice of Linux, the father of Linux, the kernel maintainer of Linux he is in essence a default spokesman of Linux. Then when he appears to run off the deep end, people want to act like he is an insignificant player with no influence at all.
The problem with language like this and actions like this isn't that they were done. It is that the profile of the person doing it. Ask yourself, why is it a problem that Chik Fil-A supports organizations that appose gay marriage? Now if it was just people working for the company donating to those organizations and not the head of the company, would it be the same issues? Like it or not, Linus is seen as the voice of Linux mainstream and he is now in Mr Cathy's shoes where doing and saying things can carry consequences outside of someone ignoring you or thinking you are just another bigot.
And why is religion special from anything else, in that it becomes poor form to criticize one after it graduates from being a cult?
There is an old saying, there is the truth and there is being mean.
Regardless of how people want to claim they are trying to be, when they criticize others for the sake of doing so, they are purposely being mean. Some claim this is "keeping it real" and I've seen some of those people break down in tears trying to start physical fights with others when it is turned back around on themselves.
So why is it that some people feel they can criticize anyone they want but no one can criticize them? This entire debate is about that. It is essentially, so what if he said something I agree with that hurt someone else' feelings. That's no reason to say something that hurts his feelings.
Or someone who gained access to the offices illegally, couldn't get past the network security so dropped a live CD into the laptop or system and went through the install process instead of boot image process in an attempt to use some tools to access networked information that went awry. The smashing of the windows and such could very well be the idiot's frustration pressing the wrong buttons.
But you are probably right about erasing evidence of crimes. Even if the evidence still exists, the fact that the offices were broken into and someone manipulated data on the systems shows potential for the reliability of that evidence. A judge might ask, well, according to this file and that file, you have been taking bribes how do you explain that. The politician responds, someone broke into our offices and messed with the computers, they installed an operating system on one of them commonly used by hackers. I have never seen those files in my life and suggest they were planted by the people who broke into my office.
I was looking for the differences between devices and medium marked for "data" verses music in general. It is because US copyright law provides for a specific tax on recording devices and medium that are supposed to be royalty payments for private copying due to the use of those devices by private people. This law also mandates they are marked appropriately too leading to the difference in labeling between data and music.
I thought that the DVD was covered by the tax too, but the law seems to specifically limit it to digital audio recording devices and medium. I do not know at this time if my belief in DVDs being covered is supported by real application (due to digital audio being inclusive in the DVD video format) or something I inferred because i have seen specific "data" dvds being sold.
The argument was not that it is not censorship, it was that companies are subject to laws in the areas they operate in and that sometimes means those laws and rules will remove the ability to give platforms for the speech.
Or in other words, you do not have any right to a platform or stage for your speech that overrides a company's legal obligation to follow the laws of the land in which they operate. Google being subject to the laws in the areas it operates is a separate and overriding issue then censorship. No speech rights will change that unless perhaps it is google's speech itself and the area has very strong free speech laws.
And basically here is the crux of the problem the politicians seem to have with the Internet - they literally treat it as a singularly-owned company that can be strongarmed to subscribe to their notions of legality.
That may be true in a larger scale, but in this specific case, it is a politician/judge who thinks that a company within it's jurisdiction is responsible for files it hosts.
We seem to break down on the have-office->respect-law line. I understand that completely, and actually I really do agree with this - it's just that in this particular case i find it hard to accept that any law was actually broken, since Youtube as a whole is not actively "broadcasting" on Brazil's territory - it's just... connected to the Internet. If someone wants to request youtube's server, no problem - but doing so, it should be the user who is liable to potentially breaking the law.
Well, that is definitely a defense Google can try to use. I doubt it will work when their tag line was broadcast yourself for a long time.
The provider himself would only be liable if he was operating illegally where the actual servers hosting the material are standing, and the facilitator has no way of knowing whether his client has any illegal actions in mind. The datacenters are standing in the US as far as we know, and those materials are not illegal in the US, so Brazil telling Google to take down something that is not illegal where it is hosted and penalizing them for not complying is, in my opinion, an excessive use of local law.
And here is where "what should be" and "what is" breaks down. For instance, the US expects US citizens and US companies to follow US law anywhere it goes unless there is a specific law in a specific place that contradicts US law. This means that a US citizen who goes to a hash-bar in Denmark is violation "free" but a citizen that gets smashed in Columbia where there isn't the same laws allowing the drug use can be in violation of US law as well as Colombian law. Similarly, a US company operating in Denmark could potentially sell drugs that would be illegal in the US but in Columbia, they are subject to US law if they are not prosecuted under Colombian law.
Other countries have the same issues. If a company has offices within the country, they cannot use the outside portions of the company's to skirt the local laws without the local portion of the company being held liable or the potential to be held accountable for those outside actions.
This gets more complicated because not illegal does not always translate to legal if someone is attempting to use foreign legal concepts to cover certain actions. Google has even less of a leg to stand on because the already blocks access to certain content in certain countries they have offices in because of local laws.
The basis of it all is that the Internet does not translate well to real life, and, as such, requires a whole new set of laws to accurately represent what is actually happening between computers.
Not really new laws but common sense on existing laws. The first analogy failed but it didn't fail. Google, who is making the video available, is located within the jurisdiction of the country with the laws, and they are breaking real laws- even if they are ridiculous laws.
Now: accessing the video. And i understand the fault lies in the hoster of the video that the video can be accessed, not the actual facilitator of the connection, e.g. an ISP? On whose behalf was the connection initiated - youtube, or a client requesting it? The ISP acts as you in your example, a proxy towards receiving illegal materials. Now, whether the proxy can be liable for that is a whole another story, but it would be cosmically retarded if the ISP had to monitor what you browse whether you're breaking any laws - as with you, whether the purchases I make are with stolen credit cards or not. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the accused.
This is a bit tricky because of the video was on TV, the user turning it on and tuning into a channel wouldn't be liable. It would be the person making it available. Likewise, youtube is making the video available. But here is an important distinction and the US as well as England does this all the time. We set up long and short wave radio stations as well as TV and AM/FM radio stations. We then broadcast propaganda into hostile areas attempting to gain the confidence of the people within them and subtly undermining their leadership (presumably our enemy). We do this outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the country so the country can pass any law it want, impose any fine it wants, but it cannot enforce it unless they invade and assert sovereignty over us. Had this been done by anyone within their jurisdictional boundaries, the penalties for violating the laws, the fines and all that would apply. Had Google not had an office in Brazil, they could just tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
The last example is just a matter of how the laws are formed and ratified - if I were prosecuted under any of them, it is due to it being ratified in the country where the content was hosted - so, in essence, i really would be prosecuted under local law, it's just that the local law specifies a distinct form of action under it - that is, extradition and allowing prosecution under laws in a different country. An important semantic difference!
Well, I did say it gets a lot more complicated because of all the international agreements and treaties. I find no fault in your interpretation outside of a possible condition that could allow someone within the country to do something entirely legal not knowing they were subject to US law or what ever for that act. That's not even a disagreement with you. It's just an expression of my distaste over the possible situation.
Sorry, but that's a straw man. If a "platform or stage" (ie: YouTube) is being constrained by law from broadcasting material, then it most definitely a case of free speech, not of an individual demanding they be provided with a channel.
Well, it is. If it is illegal to block the road, set up and amplifier, and start preaching one Monday morning while everyone is trying to get to work, then doing it would be illegal. You are still being constrained by a law- it makes no difference how free or what speech it was.
Now is it censorship, you bet. But like I said, you are not guaranteed a platform or a stage to make your speech from. Especially when you or someone on your behalf are violating a law to achieve it.
You can argue whether it's justified in this case, and as others have noted, there are legitimate reasons for certain types of speech in certain situations to be restricted. But it most definitely a free speech issue.
I think we might be running circles around each other a bit. I did not mean to imply that the speech issue disappeared. Just that Google has an obligation to follow the laws in the lands it has offices in or it will find itself facing penalties for failing to do that. It is google that needs to decide what they are willing to do, they aren't obligated to host the speech.
Wow.. I remember the fuss about it but started to ignore the entire thing after it seemed to be pounded to death forever. That had completely slipped my mind. Thanks for pointing it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I need to look into the constitution? The president is commander in chief, he is the military, he is also the arbiter of who is and isn't an enemy of the United States. Congress can pass a law declaring otherwise for specific declarations- obviously not if they are invading us, but the administration is where it is at because it is the administration that negotiates diplomacy.
I'm sure you are thinking that congress declares war, but having an enemy or ally is completely different then having a war.
Well, lets not pretend that Iraq never kicked the inspectors out, or that Saddam never publicly stated he still had WMDs, WMD programs, and was planning on setting programs right back up as soon as the sanctions are over, or that the UN inspection reports like those from the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM -which are available online to this day still - didn't bring up the questions of unaccounted for declared WMDs and materials or duel use materials banned under the same or that the collection of duel use materials implies possible banned weapons program capabilities or that in an interview on CBS, the main interrogator who claims he interviewed Saddam after his capture admitted that he needed to keep the appearances of WMDs up or else he feared neighboring countries would invade and Iraq couldn't defend themselves.
I mean because all that happened. It wasn't a situation where just one person was convinces, most of the world was, they just didn't think invasion was necessary and Iraq could be contained (like Russia, France, Germany, China). But this illustrates the "post 9/11 world" thought as President Clinton thought he still had it too but it was Iraq was contained and not a threat.
At first I was confused to why you kept saying illegal as in the actions of the protagonist when the illegality was the possession of the WMDs. Then I realized, you are one of those cool aid drinkers who thinks the invasion of Iraq is somehow illegal. Well, it wasn't despite what a bunch of internet lawyers and but hurt countries who think they somehow have sovereignty rights over the US thinks..
This time had already came and gone. Iraq citizens already attempted to rise up against Saddam and we refused to send them aid or even give them captured Iraqi military equiptment. The result was a lot of people got killed (mostly southern Shiites and Northern Kurds) and it wasn't the government forces.
I doubt Iraqi citizens suffering under the UN sanctions because Saddam wasn't distributing the aid and keeping it as a source of power over the people, would forget that attempt and try again- at least not for another generation and by that time Saddam probably would have been dead.
Well, its only the people who have the legal power and authority to declare wikileaks and assange an enemy of the United States that matters. Everyone else can have opinions but they will not mean much legally speaking.
If you want to expose the government, do it to a news organization not classified as an enemy.
well, the outing of Plame wasn't done by someone with a security clearance in a security role. Richard Armatage outed her at an event where her husband was acting important. A reporter asked who he was and Armatage said Plame's husband who got some gig because she worked at the CIA.
This is old news and it is a completely different type of situation.
huh? your quoting a declaration of independence from a monarchy to support your argument for the document that formed a second country after a war to obtain that independence?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
obviously, that's not true. Else we couldn't restrict voting or gun ownership to citizens and citizens who are not convicted felons. People in Germany or England can't claim the 4th or 5th amendment protections either.
But we can assume the constitution to be observed by the government when acting against anyone who is not an enemy and within our jurisdiction. The constitution applies to the government not people.
What this means is that how we look at groups has changed. It used to be that terrorism was considered primarily a policing issue and we turned a blind eye to certain groups who attacked our enemies. Now, we don't ignore them and are willing to use military force in response to their/the threat or even in support of our enemy's response to it. What has changed is that countries sponsoring terrorists or aiding and supplying them, are now enemies instead of possible allies if we could find some advantage to it.
What is different about the post 9/11 world is that we assess the threats as if they are legitimate instead of waiting for when they could be legitimate (well, except when someone fell asleep on upping security at the Libyan embassy on an anniversary of 9/11). We take actions against the threats (not always violently) before they become problems like 9/11. The invasion of Iraq is an example of this. The fact that we couldn't verify the WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was pretending to still have them while trying to play the five nuckle shuffle with UN inspectors meant that they were a threat. Especially considering that those unaccounted for WMDs could be funneled to terrorists and used against civilians. Turns out there wasn't any WMDs left, but without being able to verify it, we assumed they were there.
if any country other then the US ever arrested a US president, Current or past, or any government official for that matter, for actions taken while in office serving the US, I would see it as justification to use the full might of the US military not only to return them to the US, but to ensure the country who did it never thought about doing it again.
I'm pretty sure quite a few other US citizens feel the same way and would not only support that action, but demand it from any sitting government. I'm also pretty sure these other countries know this and are more talk then anything else on the topic. But if they want to start a war, they can go ahead and so anything they want to do.
The judicial branch does not pursue justice, they adjudicate it. The executives branch takes care of law enforcement (within its abilities and power) then attempts to prosecute which is more in line with pursue.
This distinction while trivial, is important at the same time. A federal judge cannot hear of a crime then initiate the prosecution of someone for it. They cannot see you landlord kick you out for being black and all the sudden produce an arrest warrant and an injunction stopping your eviction. Someone has to take an action to put it in front of them- hence they adjudicate not pursue.
The US military doesn't make laws. But it can designate an enemy to make existing laws come into effect when members of the armed forces contact them. Its even in the summery " military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with 'communicating with the enemy" as it claims that is in the article obtained.
The acts of disclosing information is already illegal. Now it can be treason or consorting with the enemy if it goes to wikileaks. I see no problem with that.
This probably isn't about Assange in it's intent. They most likely found issues with the Manning prosecution and decided to make it easier to to apply more stringent penalties and get easier convictions with less effort if someone discloses information again.
I know a couple people who have registered a lot of .xxx domains and are planning on mirroring junk sites like churches and stuff.
I guess their master plan is to get real porn providers to eventually buy them in order to protect their .com names or something. It won't be long before the .xxx domain landscape is just as useless as anything else.
Sigh,
what different does it make? One is the same as the other. It's like starting an argument over who is the worst liar and somehow thinking it means the least is magically honest and worthy now.
If that was all the house republicans have done in the last 4 years, you might have something of a point. However, we both know that isn't true so bring it up is just like saying that because the guy you do not like is a bigger ass hat, the other guy acting like an ass hat you do like is now magically not one too. It is a pointless discussion that only shows you dislike someone not anything important. That is why I wanted to avoid it.
If 12 people with a degree in separation claim they saw that or anything else no matter how incredible it sound, then it is credible that something happened to make you all think you saw it. Usually, this is enough to convict someone of a crime as far as evidence goes- no matter how outlandish your claim might be.
I'm not sure why that seems like such a shock to you. But it is the way the world works.
Do you ever think about what you write?
I'm serious here, I'm not trolling or trying to bait you or anything. But it appears that you are against someone being in government because of their religion and think that punishing the rich will somehow fix what you see wrong with the country. I'm not even going to get into the fact that the Senate is controlled by democrats and they have refused to even take up legislation that came from the house meaning your R obstructionism is little more then a campaign lie you might have swallowed.
So how is this actually going to work? How many poor people have given you jobs you could live off of and how did they remain poor in the process?
But better yet, how is discriminating against someone because of their religion different then discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or ethnic make up? Do you seriously think it is perfectly fine to say, well, your a Latino, we can't hold that against you, -oh wait, your Christian, you can't run for office? Or well, I see you are otherwise qualified for the job, but OH Wait, You are Muslim- we can't have any of you here?
Not only that, but Google had blocked The Innocence of Muslims things in certain countries stating that they follow the laws and culture of the areas they have offices in.
So we know that Google itself has the ability to block access to it on a country specific basis. The Google exec, even if he didn't have the ability, had the ability to ask Google to cooperate with local laws and local law enforcement agencies as they claim they do all across the world already.
This entire situation seems to be more of a political statement by Google's Brazil offices then anything else. I cannot fathom why Google would be so keen on ignoring what everyone in the world has publicly seen them claiming they do.
Hans is also a bad example because he was removed from the post and locked up in jail. There was no question about his continued influence on the project. Linus on the other hand, will remain a prominent figure in Linux.
It's funny. Linus is constantly paraded as the voice of Linux, the father of Linux, the kernel maintainer of Linux he is in essence a default spokesman of Linux. Then when he appears to run off the deep end, people want to act like he is an insignificant player with no influence at all.
The problem with language like this and actions like this isn't that they were done. It is that the profile of the person doing it. Ask yourself, why is it a problem that Chik Fil-A supports organizations that appose gay marriage? Now if it was just people working for the company donating to those organizations and not the head of the company, would it be the same issues? Like it or not, Linus is seen as the voice of Linux mainstream and he is now in Mr Cathy's shoes where doing and saying things can carry consequences outside of someone ignoring you or thinking you are just another bigot.
There is an old saying, there is the truth and there is being mean.
Regardless of how people want to claim they are trying to be, when they criticize others for the sake of doing so, they are purposely being mean. Some claim this is "keeping it real" and I've seen some of those people break down in tears trying to start physical fights with others when it is turned back around on themselves.
So why is it that some people feel they can criticize anyone they want but no one can criticize them? This entire debate is about that. It is essentially, so what if he said something I agree with that hurt someone else' feelings. That's no reason to say something that hurts his feelings.
Or someone who gained access to the offices illegally, couldn't get past the network security so dropped a live CD into the laptop or system and went through the install process instead of boot image process in an attempt to use some tools to access networked information that went awry. The smashing of the windows and such could very well be the idiot's frustration pressing the wrong buttons.
But you are probably right about erasing evidence of crimes. Even if the evidence still exists, the fact that the offices were broken into and someone manipulated data on the systems shows potential for the reliability of that evidence. A judge might ask, well, according to this file and that file, you have been taking bribes how do you explain that. The politician responds, someone broke into our offices and messed with the computers, they installed an operating system on one of them commonly used by hackers. I have never seen those files in my life and suggest they were planted by the people who broke into my office.
I was looking for the differences between devices and medium marked for "data" verses music in general. It is because US copyright law provides for a specific tax on recording devices and medium that are supposed to be royalty payments for private copying due to the use of those devices by private people. This law also mandates they are marked appropriately too leading to the difference in labeling between data and music.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1003
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1004
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1008
I thought that the DVD was covered by the tax too, but the law seems to specifically limit it to digital audio recording devices and medium. I do not know at this time if my belief in DVDs being covered is supported by real application (due to digital audio being inclusive in the DVD video format) or something I inferred because i have seen specific "data" dvds being sold.
The argument was not that it is not censorship, it was that companies are subject to laws in the areas they operate in and that sometimes means those laws and rules will remove the ability to give platforms for the speech.
Or in other words, you do not have any right to a platform or stage for your speech that overrides a company's legal obligation to follow the laws of the land in which they operate. Google being subject to the laws in the areas it operates is a separate and overriding issue then censorship. No speech rights will change that unless perhaps it is google's speech itself and the area has very strong free speech laws.
That may be true in a larger scale, but in this specific case, it is a politician/judge who thinks that a company within it's jurisdiction is responsible for files it hosts.
Well, that is definitely a defense Google can try to use. I doubt it will work when their tag line was broadcast yourself for a long time.
And here is where "what should be" and "what is" breaks down. For instance, the US expects US citizens and US companies to follow US law anywhere it goes unless there is a specific law in a specific place that contradicts US law. This means that a US citizen who goes to a hash-bar in Denmark is violation "free" but a citizen that gets smashed in Columbia where there isn't the same laws allowing the drug use can be in violation of US law as well as Colombian law. Similarly, a US company operating in Denmark could potentially sell drugs that would be illegal in the US but in Columbia, they are subject to US law if they are not prosecuted under Colombian law.
Other countries have the same issues. If a company has offices within the country, they cannot use the outside portions of the company's to skirt the local laws without the local portion of the company being held liable or the potential to be held accountable for those outside actions.
This gets more complicated because not illegal does not always translate to legal if someone is attempting to use foreign legal concepts to cover certain actions. Google has even less of a leg to stand on because the already blocks access to certain content in certain countries they have offices in because of local laws.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/youtube_blocks_anti_islam_film_in_saudi/
Not really new laws but common sense on existing laws. The first analogy failed but it didn't fail. Google, who is making the video available, is located within the jurisdiction of the country with the laws, and they are breaking real laws- even if they are ridiculous laws.
This is a bit tricky because of the video was on TV, the user turning it on and tuning into a channel wouldn't be liable. It would be the person making it available. Likewise, youtube is making the video available. But here is an important distinction and the US as well as England does this all the time. We set up long and short wave radio stations as well as TV and AM/FM radio stations. We then broadcast propaganda into hostile areas attempting to gain the confidence of the people within them and subtly undermining their leadership (presumably our enemy). We do this outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the country so the country can pass any law it want, impose any fine it wants, but it cannot enforce it unless they invade and assert sovereignty over us. Had this been done by anyone within their jurisdictional boundaries, the penalties for violating the laws, the fines and all that would apply. Had Google not had an office in Brazil, they could just tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Well, I did say it gets a lot more complicated because of all the international agreements and treaties. I find no fault in your interpretation outside of a possible condition that could allow someone within the country to do something entirely legal not knowing they were subject to US law or what ever for that act. That's not even a disagreement with you. It's just an expression of my distaste over the possible situation.
Well, it is. If it is illegal to block the road, set up and amplifier, and start preaching one Monday morning while everyone is trying to get to work, then doing it would be illegal. You are still being constrained by a law- it makes no difference how free or what speech it was.
Now is it censorship, you bet. But like I said, you are not guaranteed a platform or a stage to make your speech from. Especially when you or someone on your behalf are violating a law to achieve it.
I think we might be running circles around each other a bit. I did not mean to imply that the speech issue disappeared. Just that Google has an obligation to follow the laws in the lands it has offices in or it will find itself facing penalties for failing to do that. It is google that needs to decide what they are willing to do, they aren't obligated to host the speech.
Wow.. I remember the fuss about it but started to ignore the entire thing after it seemed to be pounded to death forever. That had completely slipped my mind. Thanks for pointing it out.