If the police wants you for X, for any value of X, do you really expect privacy?
I expect due process and that everybody get their ducks in a row - in this case that should have been a subpoena. Its not like anyone was in any immediate danger from the suspect - there was no rush. If the guy was a legitimate suspect the cops should have no problem running it past the appropriate oversight (i.e. the judge who issues the subpoena).
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. The fact that you went off on a complete tangent instead of addressing the point that this is not the general case as you portrayed it just indicates that you are a bootlicker. You have no consistent idealogy other than kowtow to authoritae and when pressed on your rationalizations you can't support them and just make up new rationalizations to justify your bootlicking.
They followed their privacy policy. The guy should have read it. This seems to be a surprise to you, so maybe you should have read it to, and if it bothers you, stop playing.
Gee, maybe YOU should read the privacy policy. I just did. It doesn't say anything like what you are implying it does. The closest it gets is that they will disclose as required by law - not the convenience of law enforcement.
As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee).
Correct. Seems to be that historically, as long as the cops didn't ask - directly or indirectly - for the evidence BEFORE it was collected, then the collector is not considered an agent of the government.
However, in cases like this, it seems to me that an excessive use of such services creates an implied request for the collection of such information and in particular a contract to deliver any information in an ongoing fashion would pretty much define them as acting on the behalf of the government. That they might have other customers for the same information should not be enough to void that relationship either.
There's generally nothing unethical about helping the police find someone who's accused of committing a crime.
But this isn't the general case.
This is a case where a company has violated the presumptive right to privacy of its customers in order to do so. That completely changes the situation.
It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.
No, its the monied and powerful screwing those who don't have as loud a say in what the government does.
Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?
What do you mean by "action" - federal lawsuit? There certainly have been plenty of actions - like the creation of laws preventing one company from owning all the television stations in one area.
The wording has a distinctly corporate/legalese air to it. No need for that sort of precise construction unless you are trying to satisfy someone else's requirements.
You clearly don't understand a thing about culture. Taken to its logical conclusion your position would stop all creative work dead in its tracks because nothing exists in a vacuum - nothing is created completely from scratch. James Campbell pointed out that there are probably less than five stories in all of human history, we just keep telling them over and over again with slight variations, and most of those are just retellings of one specific story, the monomyth.
I'm sure every company doing business in China is obeying the same chinese laws that Apple are. So if Apple is violating human rights by obeying those laws, then everyone else is too.
You suck terribly at basic set theory. Just how would the manufacture of, say shoes for example, have anything to do with censorship?
Wait - they are Amish until a certain age, then they're NOT Amish?
Yeah, that's basically it.
Re:This kind of hype was exactly the problem
on
The Long Shadow of Y2K
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
We see exactly the same reaction today about all the issues that face us (whether personal, local, national or world-wide). The considered, thoughtful and measured responses that would (given a chance) produce equitable solutions with a minimum of fuss get washed away by the ignorant but vocal commentators in the media. These people don't care about the problem, or finding a solution. All they want is the cameras pointing in their direction.
Do you also refuse to buy any product made in China?
If the manufacturer is known to violate basic human rights, then yes. Or are you implying that every single company doing business in China is a human rights violator?
but copyright isn't all bad! If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!
It is, however, unfair to expect that other people should lose their freedom of expression in order to encourage people to pay for it. Copyright isn't the only means of compensating people for creative work, In the grand scheme of things it is really quite new and is used to compensate those who do the non-creative work of distribution far more than it is used to compensate the actual creator.
But, I think I should point out to you that the LTTE isn't much of an example any more since they, and probably a hundred thousand other Tamils, have been massacred out of existence recently.
Hah well honestly if you cant hold it in for *one hour* then maybe you shouldn't be flying anyway.
Yeah, lets see you try that. I'm not talking about a little squirt either. You try holding in a good piss for even 30 minutes confined to your chair with nothing to do but fidget. And even if it that were possible, telling people who couldn't do it that they don't deserve to fly? Man that horse must be at least 20 hands tall.
Didn't your mother ever tell you that you'd better go to the bathroom before you leave the house because she aint stopping on the way? Is it impossible for you to go to the bathroom before you're making that final hour-long descent?
Your solution is for the entire contingent of passengers to use the bathroom on the plane one hour out from landing just in case they have to urinate in half an hour? Yeah, that's some good goosesteppin right there.
It wasn't a binary mixed in flight as the scare has been. PLX and any other nitro-based explosive should be detectable by the standard screening procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
If the police wants you for X, for any value of X, do you really expect privacy?
I expect due process and that everybody get their ducks in a row - in this case that should have been a subpoena.
Its not like anyone was in any immediate danger from the suspect - there was no rush. If the guy was a legitimate suspect the cops should have no problem running it past the appropriate oversight (i.e. the judge who issues the subpoena).
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. The fact that you went off on a complete tangent instead of addressing the point that this is not the general case as you portrayed it just indicates that you are a bootlicker. You have no consistent idealogy other than kowtow to authoritae and when pressed on your rationalizations you can't support them and just make up new rationalizations to justify your bootlicking.
They followed their privacy policy. The guy should have read it. This seems to be a surprise to you, so maybe you should have read it to, and if it bothers you, stop playing.
Gee, maybe YOU should read the privacy policy.
I just did.
It doesn't say anything like what you are implying it does.
The closest it gets is that they will disclose as required by law - not the convenience of law enforcement.
As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee).
Correct. Seems to be that historically, as long as the cops didn't ask - directly or indirectly - for the evidence BEFORE it was collected, then the collector is not considered an agent of the government.
However, in cases like this, it seems to me that an excessive use of such services creates an implied request for the collection of such information and in particular a contract to deliver any information in an ongoing fashion would pretty much define them as acting on the behalf of the government. That they might have other customers for the same information should not be enough to void that relationship either.
There's generally nothing unethical about helping the police find someone who's accused of committing a crime.
But this isn't the general case.
This is a case where a company has violated the presumptive right to privacy of its customers in order to do so. That completely changes the situation.
It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.
No, its the monied and powerful screwing those who don't have as loud a say in what the government does.
Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?
What do you mean by "action" - federal lawsuit? There certainly have been plenty of actions - like the creation of laws preventing one company from owning all the television stations in one area.
I'm glad the bad guy got caught,
Alleged bad guy. Even you, with your demonstrated skepticism, have been suckered in by the "if the cops want him, he must be guilty" mindset.
what exactly makes you think it's coerced?
The wording has a distinctly corporate/legalese air to it. No need for that sort of precise construction unless you are trying to satisfy someone else's requirements.
Distributing a derivative work of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner is copyright infringement.
Bingo. If people without javascript got mod points anymore, I would mod you up (and the other guy down for simply being wrong).
You have no right to rip off other people's work without permission.
While it may be true that you have no legal right, you do have every moral right.
You clearly don't understand a thing about culture. Taken to its logical conclusion your position would stop all creative work dead in its tracks because nothing exists in a vacuum - nothing is created completely from scratch. James Campbell pointed out that there are probably less than five stories in all of human history, we just keep telling them over and over again with slight variations, and most of those are just retellings of one specific story, the monomyth.
I'm sure every company doing business in China is obeying the same chinese laws that Apple are. So if Apple is violating human rights by obeying those laws, then everyone else is too.
You suck terribly at basic set theory.
Just how would the manufacture of, say shoes for example, have anything to do with censorship?
Wait - they are Amish until a certain age, then they're NOT Amish?
Yeah, that's basically it.
We see exactly the same reaction today about all the issues that face us (whether personal, local, national or world-wide). The considered, thoughtful and measured responses that would (given a chance) produce equitable solutions with a minimum of fuss get washed away by the ignorant but vocal commentators in the media. These people don't care about the problem, or finding a solution. All they want is the cameras pointing in their direction.
Dittos!
Maybe you should ask these guys? Dig those shades, huh?
Maybe you should look up the word that is painted across the top of that picture.
Clueforyou: By definition Amish restrictions don't apply.
Do you also refuse to buy any product made in China?
If the manufacturer is known to violate basic human rights, then yes.
Or are you implying that every single company doing business in China is a human rights violator?
but copyright isn't all bad! If you create something it isn't unfair to expect people to pay for it!
It is, however, unfair to expect that other people should lose their freedom of expression in order to encourage people to pay for it.
Copyright isn't the only means of compensating people for creative work, In the grand scheme of things it is really quite new and is used to compensate those who do the non-creative work of distribution far more than it is used to compensate the actual creator.
Plus, it is as lot more fun to say "assless."
You must be the worst person to go to the cinema with!
At least I can recognize reductio ad absurdum.
Matches and lighters may be banned, but if you need only one match who is going to find it?
They are not banned.
Dood, you responded to the wrong post.
But, I think I should point out to you that the LTTE isn't much of an example any more since they, and probably a hundred thousand other Tamils, have been massacred out of existence recently.
Hah well honestly if you cant hold it in for *one hour* then maybe you shouldn't be flying anyway.
Yeah, lets see you try that. I'm not talking about a little squirt either. You try holding in a good piss for even 30 minutes confined to your chair with nothing to do but fidget.
And even if it that were possible, telling people who couldn't do it that they don't deserve to fly? Man that horse must be at least 20 hands tall.
Didn't your mother ever tell you that you'd better go to the bathroom before you leave the house because she aint stopping on the way? Is it impossible for you to go to the bathroom before you're making that final hour-long descent?
Your solution is for the entire contingent of passengers to use the bathroom on the plane one hour out from landing just in case they have to urinate in half an hour? Yeah, that's some good goosesteppin right there.
right, because this is directly comparable to being systematically enslaved & murdered...
Ah, so the only point at which it is wise to take heed of the past is after people have been killed.
Got it!
An application is only required to be GPL'd if it has GPL dependencies;
Gee you sure glossed over the definition of 'dependencies' there. I bet it felt good.
It wasn't a binary mixed in flight as the scare has been.
PLX and any other nitro-based explosive should be detectable by the standard screening procedure.