My mistake. I should have said Company Goon X instead of Lawyer X. But the basic point remains. People can fake Facebook stuff trivially. It should not be used in court without good evidence that it is legitimate.
Here's the real question: Why would any judge allow anything from a website that isn't provably from the person it claims to be from?
It's trivial for Lawyer X to set up an account purporting to be Claimant X. He could then say all sorts of things about how fun it's going to be to defraud Company X, or how Claimant X loves to get stoned, or whatever. Even vacation photos can be lifted from some other site, like flickr, and the EXIF data can be changed to make it look like the claimant was enjoying a nice vacation after allegedly getting paralyzed in an accident, or whatever.
This cuts both ways of course. It would also be trivial for Claimant X to have two accounts and keep one of them chock full of "Woe is me" blog posts that are "private" but accessible. Then when the judge gets to read the "private" data, it just reinforces the notion that the claimant was wronged by Company X. A separate, more private, account for real friends and family would be reasonably easy to keep off the radar, if you plan far enough in advance. Surely there are people who have done so.
Your comparison is off base because the NAACP doesn't break the law in their efforts.
A good comparison would be the Irish Republican Army. Sure they fought for their freedoms, but the methods they used were barbaric. Tossing a grenade at a funeral is outrageous, regardless of how you've been treated. Just like this anonymous attack is.
Now you're the one whose comparisons are way off base. Anonymous didn't kill anybody. They didn't even get anybody hurt.
And the other part of your assessment is wrong, too. Look at the history of the NAACP, and you'll find they've been breaking unjust laws since 1909, and getting arrested, beaten, and/or lynched because of it. Dining with white people, trying to vote, drinking from the white's water fountain, not sitting at the back of the bus; these were all broken laws.
Of course now that I see your username, I realize I have been trolled. Nicely done!
Can you immigine a 2 hour flight with some person yacking away the entire time getting loud and annoying... I still don't like to listen to other people phone conversations at a restaurant. You know the type...
I can see the opposite side to this. I'm sure the people I sit next to on planes would rather I chat on the cell phone instead of trying to start up a conversation with them. I always seem to sit next to the most fascinating people: pilots, nurses, engineers (ok, maybe not fascinating, but smart), surfers, holocaust survivors, you name it. I love talking to them and listening to what they have to say. The best part is that if I say something stupid or offensive (accidentally of course), I'll never see them again, so I don't worry about it.
Even so... what happened to politeness and consideration for other passengers?
Would these be the same passengers that got molested by the TSA before getting on the plane? I really don't think passengers value politeness and consideration any more. They just want to get the hell where they're going.
I'm sure your iPhone or you BlackBerry probably wouldn't cause interference, but can you say the same about every cellphone ever manufactured? Every app that ever existed, including ones that only work on jailbroken phones? Can you say the same about every phone that could be malfunctioning due to hardware or software operating outside of it's specifications? Can you absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that every piece of avionics on the plane is operating within it's specifications and has 100% effective shielding in place at all times?
Do you leave your cellphone on when your around old people? Can you absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that their pace maker won't crap out for all of the same reasons you suggested? Stop being ridiculous. If you can't kill an old fart with a cell phone, you sure can't take down an airplane.
A lot more lives are put at risk by people texting (or even talking on their cell phones) while driving. Maybe we should worry about known risks first before wasting regulations on things that have a 0.001% of actually mattering.
Yes, I think there would have to be some due process in order to determine what would be considered unlawful content. I also thing the ISPs should not be allowed to make that determination on their own.
One even bigger problem is that of jurisdiction, where things that are unlawful in some areas may be unlawful to block in others. That's why it makes the most sense for ISPs to stay out of blocking content all together.
The ISP level isn't the place to be blocking child porn, anyway - the time to stop that is before it's been made.
I absolutely agree.
As to the rest of your post: disallowing the blocking of lawful content is not the same as allowing or mandating the blocking of unlawful content. And it's certainly not the same as allowing or mandating the blocking of suspected unlawful content. The way its worded right now appears to err on the side of disallowing blocking.
Interestingly, NPR just had a story about how most ISPs are already doing deep packet inspection for government agencies upon subpoena. Now they're realizing there's nothing in their TOS that says they can't just do it all the time. Also, courts have ruled that emails aren't subject to privacy laws protecting snail mail.
For the record, I don't think ISPs should be forced to block illegal content, just that I don't think it's a bad thing if they decide to do so. I certainly don't think net neutrality rules should apply to illegal content. If they want to deeply inspect my packets going across their network, I really don't care. If they find out that I like researching bomb making techniques and floor plans to public buildings, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, wait... maybe I need to start using encryption.
Beagle's aren't just not scary, they're downright cute. I think walking past a row of cute beagles would make everybody feel just a little bit more relaxed. Those of us with allergies might just sneeze a bit.
Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to block unlawful content? That's just good common sense. If they know kidsxxx.cx is a vendor of child porn, then they should be allowed to block it.
I've only ever torrented legal stuff, so I don't know why you bring up torrents. If you had said "Bye-bye unlawful torrents," then you would have been correct. I don't see any problem with that. The way I see it, this basically guarantees that my ISP can't slow down my latest Linux download or Netflix movie just because some other asshole is using a torrent stream to download a movie they didn't want to pay for.
I generally consider myself pro-neutrality, but if your viewpoint is shared by most of the NN crowd, maybe I'm on the wrong side of the argument after all.
The right-wingers have one point though:
Liberals usually work incrementally. It starts with simple net neutrality rules. Then later on, they add some more rules. And more. And more. A Killswitch and some hate-crimes legislation later and before you know the government is all up in your intarwebs.
I can play that game, too! First conservatives get rid of capital gains taxes, then they get Kansas to teach intelligent design, then they cut tax rates for the ridiculously rich, and before you know it, we're looking at regressive taxes and the elimination of public schools.
You meant 8,000x not 800,000x. Unless you meant $1.08 million for the other program. However your point remains.
It's one of the things I don't understand about Democrats. Why don't they hold Republicans' feet to the fire? They say they want to repeal health care reform. Dems should say, "OK, why do you want to allow insurance companies to deny coverage to 6-year-olds with leukemia?" Then run an ad with some little kid at the hospital saying how health care reform has saved their parents from bankruptcy.
That's what the GOP used to do all the time with defense spending. They'd lament how the Democrats want US troops to die in combat since they wouldn't vote for a defense spending bill (that had a rider authorizing ANWR drilling).
Here's how it works: the novel, non-obvious kernel of a patent is called the independent claim (or claims). Independent claims don't refer to any other claim. Any claim that refers to another claim is called a dependent claim. If you infringe on one of them, you also infringe on the independent claim. Therefore, the independent claims are the main ones that you have to focus on first.
Inventors add dependent claims in an attempt to keep somebody from building a new patent on the independent claim. Sometimes, these extended claims make the original invention much more interesting or marketable, but they still depend on the core concept in the independent claim. It has nothing to do with hiding the heart of your invention under a pile of meaningless legalese. I'm sure it seems like that to the untrained eye, though.
I am not a lawyer, but I am an engineer that has successfully defended my company against a frivolous patent suit.
Actually, the whole "what it was originally supposed to mean" line of thought isn't valid either. Did the founding fathers intend for "effects" to include electronic files? The answer is NULL. They didn't know what electronic files were so they could not have intended one way or another.
Activist judges are the only kind of judge. They are supposed to act. They are supposed to interpret. They are supposed to add some common sense and personal opinions, and not just blindly recite the letter of the law. If the laws were perfectly clear, we wouldn't even need judges, right?
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake. I should have said Company Goon X instead of Lawyer X. But the basic point remains. People can fake Facebook stuff trivially. It should not be used in court without good evidence that it is legitimate.
Here's the real question: Why would any judge allow anything from a website that isn't provably from the person it claims to be from?
It's trivial for Lawyer X to set up an account purporting to be Claimant X. He could then say all sorts of things about how fun it's going to be to defraud Company X, or how Claimant X loves to get stoned, or whatever. Even vacation photos can be lifted from some other site, like flickr, and the EXIF data can be changed to make it look like the claimant was enjoying a nice vacation after allegedly getting paralyzed in an accident, or whatever.
This cuts both ways of course. It would also be trivial for Claimant X to have two accounts and keep one of them chock full of "Woe is me" blog posts that are "private" but accessible. Then when the judge gets to read the "private" data, it just reinforces the notion that the claimant was wronged by Company X. A separate, more private, account for real friends and family would be reasonably easy to keep off the radar, if you plan far enough in advance. Surely there are people who have done so.
Your comparison is off base because the NAACP doesn't break the law in their efforts.
A good comparison would be the Irish Republican Army. Sure they fought for their freedoms, but the methods they used were barbaric. Tossing a grenade at a funeral is outrageous, regardless of how you've been treated. Just like this anonymous attack is.
Now you're the one whose comparisons are way off base. Anonymous didn't kill anybody. They didn't even get anybody hurt.
And the other part of your assessment is wrong, too. Look at the history of the NAACP, and you'll find they've been breaking unjust laws since 1909, and getting arrested, beaten, and/or lynched because of it. Dining with white people, trying to vote, drinking from the white's water fountain, not sitting at the back of the bus; these were all broken laws.
Of course now that I see your username, I realize I have been trolled. Nicely done!
Can you immigine a 2 hour flight with some person yacking away the entire time getting loud and annoying... I still don't like to listen to other people phone conversations at a restaurant. You know the type...
I can see the opposite side to this. I'm sure the people I sit next to on planes would rather I chat on the cell phone instead of trying to start up a conversation with them. I always seem to sit next to the most fascinating people: pilots, nurses, engineers (ok, maybe not fascinating, but smart), surfers, holocaust survivors, you name it. I love talking to them and listening to what they have to say. The best part is that if I say something stupid or offensive (accidentally of course), I'll never see them again, so I don't worry about it.
Even so ... what happened to politeness and consideration for other passengers?
Would these be the same passengers that got molested by the TSA before getting on the plane? I really don't think passengers value politeness and consideration any more. They just want to get the hell where they're going.
I'm sure your iPhone or you BlackBerry probably wouldn't cause interference, but can you say the same about every cellphone ever manufactured? Every app that ever existed, including ones that only work on jailbroken phones? Can you say the same about every phone that could be malfunctioning due to hardware or software operating outside of it's specifications? Can you absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that every piece of avionics on the plane is operating within it's specifications and has 100% effective shielding in place at all times?
Do you leave your cellphone on when your around old people? Can you absolutely guarantee with 100% certainty that their pace maker won't crap out for all of the same reasons you suggested? Stop being ridiculous. If you can't kill an old fart with a cell phone, you sure can't take down an airplane.
A lot more lives are put at risk by people texting (or even talking on their cell phones) while driving. Maybe we should worry about known risks first before wasting regulations on things that have a 0.001% of actually mattering.
I remember that! I never would have figured it out on my own. Somebody else had to show me.
Jim Lovell: We're fried, Fred.
Jack Swigert: We're in a jam, Jim.
Fred Haise: We're totally jacked, Jack.
One even bigger problem is that of jurisdiction, where things that are unlawful in some areas may be unlawful to block in others. That's why it makes the most sense for ISPs to stay out of blocking content all together.
The ISP level isn't the place to be blocking child porn, anyway - the time to stop that is before it's been made.
I absolutely agree.
As to the rest of your post: disallowing the blocking of lawful content is not the same as allowing or mandating the blocking of unlawful content. And it's certainly not the same as allowing or mandating the blocking of suspected unlawful content. The way its worded right now appears to err on the side of disallowing blocking.
We've already seen the government alter DNS for sites it does not like, even though some seemed perfectly legal.
Now there's an interesting point. Perhaps net neutrality should apply to government agencies as well as ISPs.
Interestingly, NPR just had a story about how most ISPs are already doing deep packet inspection for government agencies upon subpoena. Now they're realizing there's nothing in their TOS that says they can't just do it all the time. Also, courts have ruled that emails aren't subject to privacy laws protecting snail mail.
For the record, I don't think ISPs should be forced to block illegal content, just that I don't think it's a bad thing if they decide to do so. I certainly don't think net neutrality rules should apply to illegal content. If they want to deeply inspect my packets going across their network, I really don't care. If they find out that I like researching bomb making techniques and floor plans to public buildings, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, wait... maybe I need to start using encryption.
What ever happened to those bomb-sniffing bees?
CCD
Beagle's aren't just not scary, they're downright cute. I think walking past a row of cute beagles would make everybody feel just a little bit more relaxed. Those of us with allergies might just sneeze a bit.
Just like spending more money on swine flu than regular flu.
The Logic of Free Market: Obviously, to keep the market free we must regulate it heavily.
Because, you know, monopolies would never take advantage of their customers, and companies would never collude to artificially increase prices.
Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to block unlawful content? That's just good common sense. If they know kidsxxx.cx is a vendor of child porn, then they should be allowed to block it.
I've only ever torrented legal stuff, so I don't know why you bring up torrents. If you had said "Bye-bye unlawful torrents," then you would have been correct. I don't see any problem with that. The way I see it, this basically guarantees that my ISP can't slow down my latest Linux download or Netflix movie just because some other asshole is using a torrent stream to download a movie they didn't want to pay for.
I generally consider myself pro-neutrality, but if your viewpoint is shared by most of the NN crowd, maybe I'm on the wrong side of the argument after all.
Who would be left to work factory jobs in abject conditions for minimum wage (or worse)?
Guatemalans?
The right-wingers have one point though: Liberals usually work incrementally. It starts with simple net neutrality rules. Then later on, they add some more rules. And more. And more. A Killswitch and some hate-crimes legislation later and before you know the government is all up in your intarwebs.
I can play that game, too! First conservatives get rid of capital gains taxes, then they get Kansas to teach intelligent design, then they cut tax rates for the ridiculously rich, and before you know it, we're looking at regressive taxes and the elimination of public schools.
If you are fine with AT&T, Google and Amazon control the internet then by all means, Network Neutrality ho!
Better those guys than the asshats at Comcast.
You meant 8,000x not 800,000x. Unless you meant $1.08 million for the other program. However your point remains.
It's one of the things I don't understand about Democrats. Why don't they hold Republicans' feet to the fire? They say they want to repeal health care reform. Dems should say, "OK, why do you want to allow insurance companies to deny coverage to 6-year-olds with leukemia?" Then run an ad with some little kid at the hospital saying how health care reform has saved their parents from bankruptcy.
That's what the GOP used to do all the time with defense spending. They'd lament how the Democrats want US troops to die in combat since they wouldn't vote for a defense spending bill (that had a rider authorizing ANWR drilling).
Whaddya know? I guess 2011 will be the year of mobile malware!
What if it's magnetic microbes from mars? Not only would that be interesting, but alliterative to boot!
I hope you were trying to be funny.
Here's how it works: the novel, non-obvious kernel of a patent is called the independent claim (or claims). Independent claims don't refer to any other claim. Any claim that refers to another claim is called a dependent claim. If you infringe on one of them, you also infringe on the independent claim. Therefore, the independent claims are the main ones that you have to focus on first.
Inventors add dependent claims in an attempt to keep somebody from building a new patent on the independent claim. Sometimes, these extended claims make the original invention much more interesting or marketable, but they still depend on the core concept in the independent claim. It has nothing to do with hiding the heart of your invention under a pile of meaningless legalese. I'm sure it seems like that to the untrained eye, though.
I am not a lawyer, but I am an engineer that has successfully defended my company against a frivolous patent suit.
Actually, the whole "what it was originally supposed to mean" line of thought isn't valid either. Did the founding fathers intend for "effects" to include electronic files? The answer is NULL. They didn't know what electronic files were so they could not have intended one way or another.
Activist judges are the only kind of judge. They are supposed to act. They are supposed to interpret. They are supposed to add some common sense and personal opinions, and not just blindly recite the letter of the law. If the laws were perfectly clear, we wouldn't even need judges, right?