Please don't hate on the UK because some of our politicians are assclowns.
I was going to say the same with regards to the United States and our politicians here, but then I looked at our federal and state governments and realized everyone's an assclown.
This has zero chance of becoming UK law.
I hope so. But over the last several years it's seemed most shitty law proposals in Western countries have become either laws outright or "policies" of some sort.
[T]hey're not actively requiring the user to accept or directly agree with the assertion that they own those trademarks.
Let's have another look at the quote in question:
You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Book and Wall), or any confusingly similar marks, except as expressly permitted by our Brand Usage Guidelines or with our prior written permission.
They use the phrase "our copyrights or trademarks," and immediately after that phrase, they have a list of terms. They are saying that they own the "copyrights or trademarks" for or to those terms. They say that "You will not use" said terms unless your use of said terms agrees with them, either by way of their guidelines or their written permission. When you sign an agreement, you are agreeing to what that agreement says. By signing Facebook's new agreement, you are agreeing that "book" and "wall" are two of their "copyrights or trademarks."
Now for my disclaimer: I am also not a lawyer. But (to me) the way Facebook has worded the paragraph or section in question makes it clear that they're doing what the headline says they're doing.
I would have said "CDs and vinyl LPs," because that keeps the sentence from slowing down unnecessarily, but I knew what you meant in your original post. This is Slashdot, though. I'm pretty sure the terms of service require me to make crappy jokes.
Sure, but the way most people I've talked to and read interpret the book, they never get past the whole surveillance and control thing. They're stuck on the result rather than on what can lead toward it, which was Orwell's point in writing the book.
You missed the point entirely. I didn't dismiss the warnings Orwell gives us about surveillance, and especially about perpetual surveillance. What I meant is that the problem with how most people apply the book is that they stop with the technological you're-watched-everywhere nightmare and never look at the other issues Orwell raises and warns about in the same book. (Nationalism, for one.) I am always watching out for news like that of the TVs That Watch the Watcher, I encourage everyone to guard themselves against those sorts of things, and in addition to this I am always on guard against the sorts of tricks used to manipulate people out of reason and into emotion and blind devotion to an abstraction.
If I were still in high school, I would agree with you. What I took away from 1984 after the first reading is all the technological nightmarish oppression that Orwell depicted. When I read the book again, though, that changed. I'm not at all saying that Orwell wasn't warning about invasive technology, but the bigger point of the book is the control the state has over the people's hearts and minds. It's not about the surveillance, it's about what the surveillance is meant to achieve. All the totalitarian measures seemed to be more of a stopgap until the language was finally reduced to meaninglessness via Newspeak and people's ability for thought was so hemmed in by the basic language filled with all sorts of shades of meaning. When Orwell writes about the Two Minutes Hate and the anti-sex propaganda, he makes it clear that those are the more dangerous dangers, because instead of people's having better outlets for their energiesâ"namely, sexâ"all their passions and energies were put toward the service of Big Brother and the government above them. The surveillance is to help enforce that, but the ultimate goal is to make it impossible for people to think about anything else, to want to think about anything else. If all that we get from 1984 is that surveillance is bad, we're not reading it right.
As set forth in our privacy policy, and in compliance with United States law, Dropbox cooperates with United States law enforcement when it receives valid legal process, which may require Dropbox to provide the contents of your private Dropbox. In these cases, Dropbox will remove Dropboxâ(TM)s encryption from the files before providing them to law enforcement.
How does Dropbox define "valid legal process"? Do they mean something like, I don't know, receiving an actual search warrant? Or do they mean rolling over when the police say, "Hey, um, we'd just like to look at all these users' files. We have no warrant or real reason to do so, but we think someone might potentially be doing something illegal and we promise we're only working to 'protect' people and all that jazz."
And yet the government, banks, corporations, etc. all require you to provide it because they assume it to be secure. Or rather, because they convince us SSNs are secure, all while knowing they're not.
The whole summary is one giant clusterfuck. Try this on for size:
George Hotz (GeoHot), famous for his iPhone hacking achievements, is planning on fighting Sony over their violating his rights to use--however he sees fit--hardware he's paid for. Ever since sharing his iPhone hacks, Hotz has always claimed being against piracy and says he's never pirated any game, or even signed any PlayStation Network agreements. He's asking for donations to fight Sony and try to achieve something similar to what was previously accomplished by the EFF in regard to cellphones.
And I threw in the most relevant link of them all, viz., the link to fucking donate.
Both are our "real privacy enem[ies]." Google et al make money off all the information they index and archive about us, and the law-enforcement agencies can turn around and demand that data to intimidate, harass, and persecute us. We're getting royally screwed no matter how you look at it, but at least Google can't send you to pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or beat the shit out of you on the way there.
Given this, and how big the media conglomerates are, and how they can get basically any law they lobby for, I think there will be no change for at least thirty more years, unless the government shits itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to say the same with regards to the United States and our politicians here, but then I looked at our federal and state governments and realized everyone's an assclown.
I hope so. But over the last several years it's seemed most shitty law proposals in Western countries have become either laws outright or "policies" of some sort.
Let's have another look at the quote in question:
They use the phrase "our copyrights or trademarks," and immediately after that phrase, they have a list of terms. They are saying that they own the "copyrights or trademarks" for or to those terms. They say that "You will not use" said terms unless your use of said terms agrees with them, either by way of their guidelines or their written permission. When you sign an agreement, you are agreeing to what that agreement says. By signing Facebook's new agreement, you are agreeing that "book" and "wall" are two of their "copyrights or trademarks."
Now for my disclaimer: I am also not a lawyer. But (to me) the way Facebook has worded the paragraph or section in question makes it clear that they're doing what the headline says they're doing.
I would have said "CDs and vinyl LPs," because that keeps the sentence from slowing down unnecessarily, but I knew what you meant in your original post. This is Slashdot, though. I'm pretty sure the terms of service require me to make crappy jokes.
God damn I wish I had mod points.
Vinyl CDs? Where can I find those?
Then I think many will appreciate Markdown.
If you consider a catalog of information to be Literature, then yes, Wikipedia is Literature.
Sure, I'll just travel back in time to 30 August 2011 so I can avoid paying the early-termination fee.
Well, fuck.
Never had any issues with my floppies shitting out on me. Zip disks, however...
Don't worry, they'll force a false confession anyway.
I was referring, in jest, to your threat to firebomb Gearbox's offices. ;)
Please do let us know how your chat with the FBI goes.
Yes. What government would pass up the opportunity to harass people at its discretion, especially in cases so subjective as those this law applies to?
Sure, but the way most people I've talked to and read interpret the book, they never get past the whole surveillance and control thing. They're stuck on the result rather than on what can lead toward it, which was Orwell's point in writing the book.
You missed the point entirely. I didn't dismiss the warnings Orwell gives us about surveillance, and especially about perpetual surveillance. What I meant is that the problem with how most people apply the book is that they stop with the technological you're-watched-everywhere nightmare and never look at the other issues Orwell raises and warns about in the same book. (Nationalism, for one.) I am always watching out for news like that of the TVs That Watch the Watcher, I encourage everyone to guard themselves against those sorts of things, and in addition to this I am always on guard against the sorts of tricks used to manipulate people out of reason and into emotion and blind devotion to an abstraction.
Dammit, Slashdot, those a's-circumflex are supposed to be em dashes.
If I were still in high school, I would agree with you. What I took away from 1984 after the first reading is all the technological nightmarish oppression that Orwell depicted. When I read the book again, though, that changed. I'm not at all saying that Orwell wasn't warning about invasive technology, but the bigger point of the book is the control the state has over the people's hearts and minds. It's not about the surveillance, it's about what the surveillance is meant to achieve. All the totalitarian measures seemed to be more of a stopgap until the language was finally reduced to meaninglessness via Newspeak and people's ability for thought was so hemmed in by the basic language filled with all sorts of shades of meaning. When Orwell writes about the Two Minutes Hate and the anti-sex propaganda, he makes it clear that those are the more dangerous dangers, because instead of people's having better outlets for their energiesâ"namely, sexâ"all their passions and energies were put toward the service of Big Brother and the government above them. The surveillance is to help enforce that, but the ultimate goal is to make it impossible for people to think about anything else, to want to think about anything else. If all that we get from 1984 is that surveillance is bad, we're not reading it right.
How does Dropbox define "valid legal process"? Do they mean something like, I don't know, receiving an actual search warrant? Or do they mean rolling over when the police say, "Hey, um, we'd just like to look at all these users' files. We have no warrant or real reason to do so, but we think someone might potentially be doing something illegal and we promise we're only working to 'protect' people and all that jazz."
You know, there's a much easier way to get these people to stop hating us: Stop occupying their lands and killing their brethren.
And yet the government, banks, corporations, etc. all require you to provide it because they assume it to be secure. Or rather, because they convince us SSNs are secure, all while knowing they're not.
And I threw in the most relevant link of them all, viz., the link to fucking donate.
Both are our "real privacy enem[ies]." Google et al make money off all the information they index and archive about us, and the law-enforcement agencies can turn around and demand that data to intimidate, harass, and persecute us. We're getting royally screwed no matter how you look at it, but at least Google can't send you to pound-you-in-the-ass prison, or beat the shit out of you on the way there.
Given this, and how big the media conglomerates are, and how they can get basically any law they lobby for, I think there will be no change for at least thirty more years, unless the government shits itself.