No defense attorney would have let it go through unless it was part of his plan.
Then again, he was not represented by a defense attorney. He was represented by a law school professor who has likely not seen a courtroom in years and a bunch of law students who likely had never seen a courtroom.
Ray Beckerman's summary is disingenuous, which is a shame. Instead of focusing on meaningless small issues in the trial, the overall issues of the case and the posture of the plaintiffs and defendants should be focused on.
I remember an article on ArsTechnica about Nesson getting in on the act. "Oh no, here comes Harvard professors â" the RIAA must be quaking in its boots!"
The sad reality is that Nesson and his crew did just about the job you'd expect from a law clinic â" average, if not below.
That's not to say law school clinics don't provide valuable legal aid, or that they can't have a great case here or there, but it is far from the norm.
Here, you have a professor (Nesson) who has likely not had much courtroom experience over the last many years trying to guide law students who have had little to no courtroom experience in how to defend a complicated, specialized case involving copyright infringement.
The antics of the defense were not those of a principled, strong defense plan. Then again, as the above poster mentioned, it seems the idea was to lay out a possible case for a constitutional challenge to statutory damages.
Besides, the idea that Harvard has some special magic that will win the day does not play out in the real world. The special magic of Harvard isn't trial outcomes, it's networking and job options for alumni.
Nevertheless, maybe the appeal on statutory damages will go through and do some good in the end.
This isn't even a fair use issue. Facts are not copyrightable. Copyright does not protect the idea, it only protects original expressions of ideas. Reiterated facts are not original expressions of an idea and, therefore, are not copyrightable.
Having to redo an experiment or study because of copyright concerns means you have bad legal advice.
You can't copyright facts. Writing about the facts of a study or experiment is nothing more than restating facts.
Sure, you can't just cut and paste someone else's summary of those facts verbatim (well, actually, you can in cases where they only state facts), but this still leaves you with clear ability to write about the experiment or study.
If you are unable to reword a summary of an experiment, do you really deserve to be in academia? There are thousands of PhD holders who'd love to take your place . ..
Of course, maybe the Techdirt author is from one of those legal jurisdictions (like the UK) which does allow authors to capture facts from the public domain in a compilation and thus gain a copyright claim over them. Even so, those protections are further limited to the compilation.
The Harvard piece, however, doesn't focus on the naive idea that copyright prevents the creation of new academic work directly.
Rather, it focuses on the indirect effect on innovation copyright imposes through barriers for disseminating copyrighted works. In other words, people are less able to gain access to academic works when medical journals cost literally hundreds of dollars to subscribe to.
Open access to scholarship aids this, but it does not eliminate the problem. No matter how open the access, the license to access the academic work depends upon whether the open access organization continues to grant it. Further, it often leaves academic work in one location and limits its ability to be republished and spread around.
Removing copyright poses the potential of aiding dissemination of copyrighted work, but of course it comes with its own problems. U.S. copyright law does not afford moral rights for authors as to attribution and other considerations -- whereas European laws do. Lack of moral rights may give rise to plagiarism and passing off in the academic world.
Nevertheless, the melodramatic idea that copyright stifles innovation because it prevents experiments or studies occurring is nonsense. If you have legal counsel advising this, dig deeper and ask pointed questions about what exactly they mean by this. If they can't articulate why you can't do the work, I would recommend seeking new counsel.
Heck, even patent law allows other people to recreate a patented device for personal use and the purpose of study.
This simply is not true. Yes, the technology has been there for decades. No, it has not been used as a constant surveillance system.
It is important to distinguish between privacy "concerns" and concerns of the legality of a system.
Such constant surveillance is plausibly within the current surveillance limits established by the Supreme Court through Katz v. US and its progeny. After all, how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy do we have in our public actions. (There are cases dealing with flyovers using targeted cameras which may preclude Lancaster's use of this system, though.)
Nevertheless, such an intrusion on the everyday activities of citizenry is a privacy concern. This means that whether or not it is allowable under the law, the question (and concern) is whether it should be done regardless of its legality.
There are reasons why this is and should be a concern for normal citizens (even outside the fallacious arguments of the "you don't have anything to fear if you are doing nothing wrong" camp).
First, the belief that someone is watching has chilling effects on the activities of people. This is a benefit for the prevention of crime, but is a negative when you throw in the impact it has on legal actions that may also violate social norms.
We try not to legislate social norms in this country but, rather, legislate laws that balance utility against liberty. (Note the word try -- there are always cases of bad laws, either intentionally or unintentionally passed.) Government run, controlled, and accessed surveillance in effect chills actions beyond social norms in a way that is nearly as effective as legislation.
Second, this is a fairness issue here. Surveillance only flows one way -- information taken in goes to the government. It is not widely disseminated. Therefore, those in power to review the information also have the power to highlight and bury information as they deem necessary. These people may deem it necessary for valid reasons, or invalid ones based on avoiding the embarrassment of friends or family.
Allowing all people to access the surveillance would alleviate this problem. The information will be free so, as an above poster commented, ordinary citizens will also be allowed to see when the watchers are caught figuratively (and literally) with their britches down. Even so, you will still have a chilling effect based upon social norms.
Third, there are real questions as to whether this is the best method of achieving the alleged goals of law enforcement. Does surveillance work better in creating a safe society, or does active police interaction within a community work better? Studies are inconclusive and often fail to properly measure effectiveness. The methodology of studies connecting cost-per-arrest are inherently flawed since some arrests do more to provide a community safety than others.
In the end this is a far more pervasive and intrusive surveillance than the past aerial surveillance referenced by the poster above.
So, privacy concerns from eyes in the sky were not settled decades ago. First, you confuse privacy concerns (which are necessarily ongoing and ever-changing in nature) with legal concerns (which are more static, albeit not completely static). Second, the surveillance discussed by the OP is significantly different than the kind you reference and, therefore, even the legal concerns of this program were not "settled decades ago."
Sadly, there may not actually be enough people to take over the job. In other words, if they fire the folks who did it, then they might not have anyone to hire to replace them.
Afterall, how many folks live in Montana? I mean, I know it's not like either the Dakotas, but nor is it very populated for the land it has.
Really, the people they need to fire is the city attorneys who thought this was legal and okay. Bad attorney! Go back to second year of law school! Bad!
Then again, he was probably just some solo practitioner who was friends with the mayor or something. "The interwebs? Aren't those the things with the tubes that send messages?"
Just an aside to this, every major airline tells you what you're flying on. I've flown United, Delta, British Air, Continental, and KLM the last year. Each one indicated whether it was an Airbus or Boeing, and which model.
First, Airbus pilots do control their planes. The difference is between hydraulic controls versus "fly-by-wire" digital controls. It's not the case that Airbus planes are "flown" by computers.
The problem is if there is a complete electrical failure. Fly-by-wire does not work in this case. Redundant systems reduce this likelihood (I think most Airbus commercial planes have 4 redundant systems plus redundant power supplies, or something like that).
Another problem is in a malfunction with one of the processors interpreting the wire-based commands. This is no more or less bad than a malfunction in the hydraulic systems of Boeing planes.
Second, the America versus Europe bit is ridiculous. In similarly false logic, you can trust me since I am an American who just finished living in Europe for 8 months. It is not a philosophical divide between nations, but a philosophical divide amongst airplane manufacturers and designers. There are already American fly-by-wire planes. In fact, the first digital fly-by-wire flightbed was a modified NASA F-8 Crusader, which first flew in 1972. That means those Franco-German Airbus fly-by-wire planes with European philosophies are actually descended from an American.
Anyway, some of the posters above pointing out the headline fail are right -- computer's didn't cause the crash.
Perhaps the worst bit of this whole tragedy is that we may never know what caused it, which means we may never be able to fix it.
For someone who attempts to use the trappings of logic for argument you fail to understand the most basic elements of philosophy and logic: definitions are imperfect an inexact.
First, there is no "correct" definition of a general, societal term nor a legal term. That is why the definitions available in dictionaries change over time, and that is why we have court systems.
Second, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the person. The passage quoted above refers to an attack on the individual or his beliefs rather than said person's argument.
I attacked the premise and, thus, the underlying argument of the poster. I did not attack the poster or his beliefs. Further, I did not call the poster weak, but rather the authority to which he appealed.
So, before you claim I used an ad hominem attack on someone, which is an attack by you on me in its own right, perhaps you should actually understand what I said, and the phrases you use in your own attack.
And trust me, using the legal definition of things as a starting point in a non-legal discussion or debate is generally unwise. Legal definitions tend to be terms of art with very specific, very circumspect meanings.
This differs greatly from non-legal definitions, which tend to be less circumspect, but nonetheless more exact in common understanding.
First, there is no such thing as "correct" information for a subjective definition such as "cybersquatting." Further, there is a decided difference between a definition and a legal definition. One is the general understanding of a term, the other is the legal understanding of a term.
So yes, ICANN has a specific definition of these two terms. The original threader above did not say "Domain parking != cybersquatting under the ICANN procedural definitions" but merely tried to argue that anyone who calls a domain parker a cybersquatter is wrong.
Well, they're not wrong.
Unless, that is, they are trying to call a domain parker a cybersquatter in front of ICANN.
So yes, the definition of legal terms is important.
But no, we are not talking just about legal terms. We're talking about non-legal labels generally understood by the community.
As for an ad hominem, I did no such thing.
Argumentem ad hominem is an argument against the man. I did not attack the poster. I have know idea who the poster is. I did not attack grammar or sentence structure.
Rather, I attacked the underlying premise of the poster as to who is a cybersquatter or domain parker. Further, I attacked the poster's appeal to authority which I felt was fallacious in nature.
Of course, really what it comes down to is that I am avoiding the packing and cleaning I must do before moving house.
Hold on for about an hour, I'll just go and edit that Wikipedia page . . .
Seriously? Quoting Wikipedia for support of an argument is weak. Domain parking and cybersquatting are not the same things, but they do overlap.
The reality is that you will be considered a "squatter" if you do nothing to develop a domain name. In other words, parking a domain on a Google Ads-based page with search and what-not is "squatting" if you never actually develop an independent site. You are "squatting," AKA doing nothing.
At the same time, you're also "parking" the domain. No worries -- maybe you will develop a site, who knows?
Trying to limit the animosity towards someone by attempting to use questionable supporting sources in order to highlight a technical difference in terminology ends up doing nothing. The real problem is that people will dislike the activity at issue whether you call it "domain parking" or "cybersquatting" or "interweb hullabaloo."
But then again, why should legit resellers care? They're the ones making money.
It is no different. Still, the land buyers you write about are "squatters." Not squatters in the adverse possession sense (I've been on this land for 20 years, now it's mine), but squatters in the sense of possessing the land (or domain) but not really developing it.
And, to be clear, I see nothing wrong with it. (Although sometimes I think they're a bit silly with their asking prices.)
This isn't quite legally accurate. Trademark protection is based on usage, not on "first-in-time" rights. Further, usage can be sliced up into many different areas of commerce. In other words, if they do register a trademark then they are not necessarily "too late."
On the other hand, they are too late for it to be handled simply. They would have to register the trademark (which takes time) and then, after receiving the registration, go through the ICANN dispute methods for the use of the domain name.
Possessing a trademark does not guarantee you will be able to wrest a domain name from a squatter. There are notable cases where both squatters and companies have won, so it is also not necessarily easy to anticipate the outcome.
Regardless, all this means is that the rest of the above poster's comments come into play. Buy it or pay a sniper to try and pick it up if it lapses. Or use a different one.
Aye, the parody does not have to be about the original work's author. For instance, the famous "The Wind Done Gone" case was not about Margaret Mitchell.
- Pacer
"Remembering to log in this time . . . I think."
Good point. I should have used the word "bad" instead of "poor."
Sadly, the kind of lawyer who mindlessly creates these kinds of documents probably is not poor, and probably does bank quite a bit per hour.
On the other hand, they may be corporate counsel. In that case, they get paid well, but in a salary. And they don't handle the litigation.
Generally, you don't want your litigator writing your contracts, and vice versa. Specialization and all that.
Anyhow, the spirit of my original comment stands: the lawyers drafting such documents don't deserve what they're paid.
It's really not that hard to actually provide clients with good counsel that is helpful to them. It's a shame some lawyers just take shortcuts and let it all be sorted out in court.
Whoever the attorneys are for this outfit are fools. It is likely they didn't do so well in law school and had connections.
Seriously, this is a stupid legal move for all of the reasons presented by the original poster.
Ah well. I guess bad law students have to eat, too.
Either that, or the managers wrote a legal-like document without understanding the law. Good for anyone who then needs to sue them later, but bad for the company.
If you are an IT guy working in a federal court, this also won't be a problem.
Usually, when you are working for the court, they let you through without checking.
I externed (like interning, except for school credit and you pay tuition fees for your school . . . which sounds crappy, in retrospect) at a federal court one summer in law school.
First day I had to register with the federal marshalls, I got a neck ID card I had to carry, and from then on I got to walk through the metal detector without being checked.
I know IT contractors had similar, albeit limited, arrangements. (For instance, some were issued Marshals as handlers since they were only there for a few hours -- the Marshal would shadow them as they worked. Sounds onerous, but the Marshals and contractors loved it -- they just shot the breeze the whole time.)
Of course, your mileage may vary. This is one courthouse -- others operate differently. At all courthouses, however, you can talk to people who will work with you so you can get your job (whatever it is) done.
Each court is different. You have to know your court.
First, if you are an attorney, or go to court regularly as a non-court employee (attorney's assistant, expert witness, etc), then you should have at least one non-camera phone. If you can, try getting a phone you can just pop a SIM chip into and out of easily. (Dunno how well that works in the US -- my US carrier was always Verizon, no SIMs.) Or just go Blackberry (that's what I have, and for that reason).
Second, if you have a reason for needing your laptop this should not be a problem. The prohibition against camera's is not a universal and absolute prohibition.
If you're an attorney, speak with the judge for your case. Using a Macbook/MBP as part of your trial is fine. Explain to him your situation, explain to him any added measures you will take to cover the camera (such as tape), and he will let you take it through. (If he does not, well, you're an attorney -- I shouldn't have to tell you how to fix it.)
If you're not an attorney, but are working for/helping one, then speak with the attorney who is your main contact. Explain the situation and offer multiple ways in which the court may be appeased (such as tape over the camera).
If the judge knows who has the cameras and something then gets out, there will be no problem. The full wrath of the court can be directed at you for breaching the court's trust.
If you truly think you NEED the laptop while in court for something other than the case, why? Either you work there, and then you simply need to ask your supervisor/employer for permission, or you don't and there's no reason for you to be chilling in the courthouse browsing the internets and Twittering with Ashton. (And if you're media -- seriously? No excuse for that, either.)
As for other non-judicial sensitive areas, you're on your own. If I ran a security team at a secure business location, I'd likely not even allow in mobiles to begin with. Regardless, your rights are much more limited in private situations.
Of course, you could always use the advice of some Slashdotters here. First, since Windows is a pain, either get an Apple service center to remove the camera (or get a Linux machine with no camera). Second, go Windows with no camera.
Oh, and as for the Dell Mini 9 -- if you are truly an Apple guy, and you get one of these, you better Hackintosh it. I did mine, and it's fantastic.
Using one of these right now on a Hackintoshed Dell Mini 9. I love it.
The reason I prefer it over dongle-based wireless?
Quick and easy. I don\t have to search for a dongle, plug it in, and go. Nor do I have to remember to unplug the dongle when it is storage time again.
Just close the laptop, toss it in your bag, turn the mouse off, toss it in the bag.
Quick and easy.
Hell, that's what Bluetooth is supposed to be about. Why by a Macbook Pro, with all of its hidden wireless gadgets (no wireless card sticking out, no bluetooth dongle sticking out, no camera stuck on top to be put away) if you don't actually USE those features?
Might as well buy a Dell then. (Which is not a bad thing.)
If you pay for the luxuries, might as well use them.
Whoever that press lawyer is must not have done well in Constitutional law, or must be angling for more billable hours for "research" from his press clients.
There is almost no way this can apply to media defendants. Further, the only way it could apply would strip it of almost all of its teeth.
Still, I think those wondering why this didn't fall under a privacy tort are on the mark.
This is the release of private information of a highly embarrassing nature, one of the four classic privacy torts. The question is how does the state in question treat such a privacy tort (each is different).
Another interesting aspect of this case is the law in question, from 1902, is 12 years after the famous Warren and Brandeis "The Right to Privacy" Harvard Law Review article. (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html)
It appears the 1902 law may have been an early attempt to recognize a privacy tort through the tort of libel.
Finally, the torts are not criminal cases. Therefore, the actions of Staples can not be classified as "illegal." Accordingly, questions of intent are not terribly relevant (accept as far as specific tort elements are concerned, and then they are weighed differently than criminal intents).
On top of this, I just went out of the county with my laptop as well. No problems so far (although re-entry seems to be the big issue.)
While I have not received my bar exam results, so I am not a lawyer (yet), and you should always consult a lawyer with legal questions, here is what I can tell you:
QUICK SUMMARY:
They can search your. Decryption will likely not matter much. They will likely NOT search your (sheer volumes). Searches are mainly used to find possessors of child pornography. Your risk of a search rises if there is something that leads them to believe you may possess child pornography. MOST IMPORTANT THING is to NEVER CHECK YOUR LAPTOP LUGGAGE. Airlines are worse than the government in this regard. Good luck, and IANAL. If you have more serious questions, consult an attorney. :END QUICK SUMMARY.
The US has the right to search your laptop. All of it. They even have the right to copy your drive and search more later.
This sucks. Is questionable against the Fourth Amendment. And people in Congress are working on it.
For your trip, it is unlikley that you will have an issue. They do not invasively search each laptop that cross the border (even though, legally, they can).
Even if they DO search your laptop, it is unlikely they will physically open your computer. (If, however, they feel you may be trafficking drugs hidden inside . . . that's another thing.)
To give some perspective, the power to search laptops is often used to find child pornography possession. So, if you have some reason to believe the government may view you as a person who may have child pornography, then there is a greater chance you will be searched. (Yes, here, more types of profiling is legal, and the government DOES NOT need a reasonable suspicion for the search.)
Also, decryption is not necessarily a good move. Why? Because the government can get through the encryption. How?
Whole hard drive copy. Subpoena requiring you to give up your password. Things like this.
Also, it may make things take longer.
On a purely practical side, I would worry less about the government and more about your airline.
DO NOT, EVER, CHECK YOUR LAPTOP LUGGAGE! The airline has a disturbing tendency to lose luggage containing laptops. In fact, my own experiences with a lost laptop should serve some warning.
This is where encryption would be good -- encrypt private files (such as tax forms, passwords, financial files, and other important documents) that you keep on your computer so that if it is lost or stolen, no one will steal your identity.
First, most eminent domain situations occur at local levels as the above poster suggests. This affects those local levels not at all.
Secondly, Kelo did nothing more than confirm the rights of the individual 50 State governments to define public use. This right had been laid out in case after case before Kelo, and if people take the time to read the Kelo opinion the realities that this case creates no new law is evident.
Most property law professors were not surprised at the outcome, but many had hoped and wished that a more conservative court would overturn or modify some of the previous decisions. As it is, if a property professor was surprised by the outcome after reading the opinion, then that professor needs to leave their self-idealistic world and read some more caselaw on the matter.
Kelo does nothing more than confirm States' rights to manage that States' property.
Slashdot Mirror
No defense attorney would have let it go through unless it was part of his plan.
Then again, he was not represented by a defense attorney. He was represented by a law school professor who has likely not seen a courtroom in years and a bunch of law students who likely had never seen a courtroom.
So, can we expect you to be running for President in 3 or so years? Or Glenn Beck?
Thank you.
Ray Beckerman's summary is disingenuous, which is a shame. Instead of focusing on meaningless small issues in the trial, the overall issues of the case and the posture of the plaintiffs and defendants should be focused on.
I remember an article on ArsTechnica about Nesson getting in on the act. "Oh no, here comes Harvard professors â" the RIAA must be quaking in its boots!"
The sad reality is that Nesson and his crew did just about the job you'd expect from a law clinic â" average, if not below.
That's not to say law school clinics don't provide valuable legal aid, or that they can't have a great case here or there, but it is far from the norm.
Here, you have a professor (Nesson) who has likely not had much courtroom experience over the last many years trying to guide law students who have had little to no courtroom experience in how to defend a complicated, specialized case involving copyright infringement.
The antics of the defense were not those of a principled, strong defense plan. Then again, as the above poster mentioned, it seems the idea was to lay out a possible case for a constitutional challenge to statutory damages.
Besides, the idea that Harvard has some special magic that will win the day does not play out in the real world. The special magic of Harvard isn't trial outcomes, it's networking and job options for alumni.
Nevertheless, maybe the appeal on statutory damages will go through and do some good in the end.
I just feel bad for Tenenbaum.
This isn't even a fair use issue. Facts are not copyrightable. Copyright does not protect the idea, it only protects original expressions of ideas. Reiterated facts are not original expressions of an idea and, therefore, are not copyrightable.
Having to redo an experiment or study because of copyright concerns means you have bad legal advice.
You can't copyright facts. Writing about the facts of a study or experiment is nothing more than restating facts.
Sure, you can't just cut and paste someone else's summary of those facts verbatim (well, actually, you can in cases where they only state facts), but this still leaves you with clear ability to write about the experiment or study.
If you are unable to reword a summary of an experiment, do you really deserve to be in academia? There are thousands of PhD holders who'd love to take your place . . .
Of course, maybe the Techdirt author is from one of those legal jurisdictions (like the UK) which does allow authors to capture facts from the public domain in a compilation and thus gain a copyright claim over them. Even so, those protections are further limited to the compilation.
The Harvard piece, however, doesn't focus on the naive idea that copyright prevents the creation of new academic work directly.
Rather, it focuses on the indirect effect on innovation copyright imposes through barriers for disseminating copyrighted works. In other words, people are less able to gain access to academic works when medical journals cost literally hundreds of dollars to subscribe to.
Open access to scholarship aids this, but it does not eliminate the problem. No matter how open the access, the license to access the academic work depends upon whether the open access organization continues to grant it. Further, it often leaves academic work in one location and limits its ability to be republished and spread around.
Removing copyright poses the potential of aiding dissemination of copyrighted work, but of course it comes with its own problems. U.S. copyright law does not afford moral rights for authors as to attribution and other considerations -- whereas European laws do. Lack of moral rights may give rise to plagiarism and passing off in the academic world.
Nevertheless, the melodramatic idea that copyright stifles innovation because it prevents experiments or studies occurring is nonsense. If you have legal counsel advising this, dig deeper and ask pointed questions about what exactly they mean by this. If they can't articulate why you can't do the work, I would recommend seeking new counsel.
Heck, even patent law allows other people to recreate a patented device for personal use and the purpose of study.
This simply is not true. Yes, the technology has been there for decades. No, it has not been used as a constant surveillance system.
It is important to distinguish between privacy "concerns" and concerns of the legality of a system.
Such constant surveillance is plausibly within the current surveillance limits established by the Supreme Court through Katz v. US and its progeny. After all, how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy do we have in our public actions. (There are cases dealing with flyovers using targeted cameras which may preclude Lancaster's use of this system, though.)
Nevertheless, such an intrusion on the everyday activities of citizenry is a privacy concern. This means that whether or not it is allowable under the law, the question (and concern) is whether it should be done regardless of its legality.
There are reasons why this is and should be a concern for normal citizens (even outside the fallacious arguments of the "you don't have anything to fear if you are doing nothing wrong" camp).
First, the belief that someone is watching has chilling effects on the activities of people. This is a benefit for the prevention of crime, but is a negative when you throw in the impact it has on legal actions that may also violate social norms.
We try not to legislate social norms in this country but, rather, legislate laws that balance utility against liberty. (Note the word try -- there are always cases of bad laws, either intentionally or unintentionally passed.) Government run, controlled, and accessed surveillance in effect chills actions beyond social norms in a way that is nearly as effective as legislation.
Second, this is a fairness issue here. Surveillance only flows one way -- information taken in goes to the government. It is not widely disseminated. Therefore, those in power to review the information also have the power to highlight and bury information as they deem necessary. These people may deem it necessary for valid reasons, or invalid ones based on avoiding the embarrassment of friends or family.
Allowing all people to access the surveillance would alleviate this problem. The information will be free so, as an above poster commented, ordinary citizens will also be allowed to see when the watchers are caught figuratively (and literally) with their britches down. Even so, you will still have a chilling effect based upon social norms.
Third, there are real questions as to whether this is the best method of achieving the alleged goals of law enforcement. Does surveillance work better in creating a safe society, or does active police interaction within a community work better? Studies are inconclusive and often fail to properly measure effectiveness. The methodology of studies connecting cost-per-arrest are inherently flawed since some arrests do more to provide a community safety than others.
In the end this is a far more pervasive and intrusive surveillance than the past aerial surveillance referenced by the poster above.
So, privacy concerns from eyes in the sky were not settled decades ago. First, you confuse privacy concerns (which are necessarily ongoing and ever-changing in nature) with legal concerns (which are more static, albeit not completely static). Second, the surveillance discussed by the OP is significantly different than the kind you reference and, therefore, even the legal concerns of this program were not "settled decades ago."
- John
Sadly, there may not actually be enough people to take over the job. In other words, if they fire the folks who did it, then they might not have anyone to hire to replace them.
Afterall, how many folks live in Montana? I mean, I know it's not like either the Dakotas, but nor is it very populated for the land it has.
Really, the people they need to fire is the city attorneys who thought this was legal and okay. Bad attorney! Go back to second year of law school! Bad!
Then again, he was probably just some solo practitioner who was friends with the mayor or something. "The interwebs? Aren't those the things with the tubes that send messages?"
Just an aside to this, every major airline tells you what you're flying on. I've flown United, Delta, British Air, Continental, and KLM the last year. Each one indicated whether it was an Airbus or Boeing, and which model.
Sometimes, you even know before you book it.
First, Airbus pilots do control their planes. The difference is between hydraulic controls versus "fly-by-wire" digital controls. It's not the case that Airbus planes are "flown" by computers.
The problem is if there is a complete electrical failure. Fly-by-wire does not work in this case. Redundant systems reduce this likelihood (I think most Airbus commercial planes have 4 redundant systems plus redundant power supplies, or something like that).
Another problem is in a malfunction with one of the processors interpreting the wire-based commands. This is no more or less bad than a malfunction in the hydraulic systems of Boeing planes.
Second, the America versus Europe bit is ridiculous. In similarly false logic, you can trust me since I am an American who just finished living in Europe for 8 months. It is not a philosophical divide between nations, but a philosophical divide amongst airplane manufacturers and designers. There are already American fly-by-wire planes. In fact, the first digital fly-by-wire flightbed was a modified NASA F-8 Crusader, which first flew in 1972. That means those Franco-German Airbus fly-by-wire planes with European philosophies are actually descended from an American.
Anyway, some of the posters above pointing out the headline fail are right -- computer's didn't cause the crash.
Perhaps the worst bit of this whole tragedy is that we may never know what caused it, which means we may never be able to fix it.
For someone who attempts to use the trappings of logic for argument you fail to understand the most basic elements of philosophy and logic: definitions are imperfect an inexact.
First, there is no "correct" definition of a general, societal term nor a legal term. That is why the definitions available in dictionaries change over time, and that is why we have court systems.
Second, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the person. The passage quoted above refers to an attack on the individual or his beliefs rather than said person's argument.
I attacked the premise and, thus, the underlying argument of the poster. I did not attack the poster or his beliefs. Further, I did not call the poster weak, but rather the authority to which he appealed.
So, before you claim I used an ad hominem attack on someone, which is an attack by you on me in its own right, perhaps you should actually understand what I said, and the phrases you use in your own attack.
And trust me, using the legal definition of things as a starting point in a non-legal discussion or debate is generally unwise. Legal definitions tend to be terms of art with very specific, very circumspect meanings.
This differs greatly from non-legal definitions, which tend to be less circumspect, but nonetheless more exact in common understanding.
First, there is no such thing as "correct" information for a subjective definition such as "cybersquatting." Further, there is a decided difference between a definition and a legal definition. One is the general understanding of a term, the other is the legal understanding of a term.
So yes, ICANN has a specific definition of these two terms. The original threader above did not say "Domain parking != cybersquatting under the ICANN procedural definitions" but merely tried to argue that anyone who calls a domain parker a cybersquatter is wrong.
Well, they're not wrong.
Unless, that is, they are trying to call a domain parker a cybersquatter in front of ICANN.
So yes, the definition of legal terms is important.
But no, we are not talking just about legal terms. We're talking about non-legal labels generally understood by the community.
As for an ad hominem, I did no such thing.
Argumentem ad hominem is an argument against the man. I did not attack the poster. I have know idea who the poster is. I did not attack grammar or sentence structure.
Rather, I attacked the underlying premise of the poster as to who is a cybersquatter or domain parker. Further, I attacked the poster's appeal to authority which I felt was fallacious in nature.
Of course, really what it comes down to is that I am avoiding the packing and cleaning I must do before moving house.
Oh, and since you seem to like Wikipedia, here are two articles for you on logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (Ad Hominem attacks)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority (Appeal to Authority).
Hold on for about an hour, I'll just go and edit that Wikipedia page . . .
Seriously? Quoting Wikipedia for support of an argument is weak. Domain parking and cybersquatting are not the same things, but they do overlap.
The reality is that you will be considered a "squatter" if you do nothing to develop a domain name. In other words, parking a domain on a Google Ads-based page with search and what-not is "squatting" if you never actually develop an independent site. You are "squatting," AKA doing nothing.
At the same time, you're also "parking" the domain. No worries -- maybe you will develop a site, who knows?
Trying to limit the animosity towards someone by attempting to use questionable supporting sources in order to highlight a technical difference in terminology ends up doing nothing. The real problem is that people will dislike the activity at issue whether you call it "domain parking" or "cybersquatting" or "interweb hullabaloo."
But then again, why should legit resellers care? They're the ones making money.
It is no different. Still, the land buyers you write about are "squatters." Not squatters in the adverse possession sense (I've been on this land for 20 years, now it's mine), but squatters in the sense of possessing the land (or domain) but not really developing it.
And, to be clear, I see nothing wrong with it. (Although sometimes I think they're a bit silly with their asking prices.)
This isn't quite legally accurate. Trademark protection is based on usage, not on "first-in-time" rights. Further, usage can be sliced up into many different areas of commerce. In other words, if they do register a trademark then they are not necessarily "too late."
On the other hand, they are too late for it to be handled simply. They would have to register the trademark (which takes time) and then, after receiving the registration, go through the ICANN dispute methods for the use of the domain name.
Possessing a trademark does not guarantee you will be able to wrest a domain name from a squatter. There are notable cases where both squatters and companies have won, so it is also not necessarily easy to anticipate the outcome.
Regardless, all this means is that the rest of the above poster's comments come into play. Buy it or pay a sniper to try and pick it up if it lapses. Or use a different one.
Aye, the parody does not have to be about the original work's author. For instance, the famous "The Wind Done Gone" case was not about Margaret Mitchell.
- Pacer "Remembering to log in this time . . . I think."
Good point. I should have used the word "bad" instead of "poor."
Sadly, the kind of lawyer who mindlessly creates these kinds of documents probably is not poor, and probably does bank quite a bit per hour.
On the other hand, they may be corporate counsel. In that case, they get paid well, but in a salary. And they don't handle the litigation.
Generally, you don't want your litigator writing your contracts, and vice versa. Specialization and all that.
Anyhow, the spirit of my original comment stands: the lawyers drafting such documents don't deserve what they're paid.
It's really not that hard to actually provide clients with good counsel that is helpful to them. It's a shame some lawyers just take shortcuts and let it all be sorted out in court.
Whoever the attorneys are for this outfit are fools. It is likely they didn't do so well in law school and had connections.
Seriously, this is a stupid legal move for all of the reasons presented by the original poster.
Ah well. I guess bad law students have to eat, too.
Either that, or the managers wrote a legal-like document without understanding the law. Good for anyone who then needs to sue them later, but bad for the company.
Oh, another quick point --
If you are an IT guy working in a federal court, this also won't be a problem.
Usually, when you are working for the court, they let you through without checking.
I externed (like interning, except for school credit and you pay tuition fees for your school . . . which sounds crappy, in retrospect) at a federal court one summer in law school.
First day I had to register with the federal marshalls, I got a neck ID card I had to carry, and from then on I got to walk through the metal detector without being checked.
I know IT contractors had similar, albeit limited, arrangements. (For instance, some were issued Marshals as handlers since they were only there for a few hours -- the Marshal would shadow them as they worked. Sounds onerous, but the Marshals and contractors loved it -- they just shot the breeze the whole time.)
Of course, your mileage may vary. This is one courthouse -- others operate differently. At all courthouses, however, you can talk to people who will work with you so you can get your job (whatever it is) done.
Usually you just have to ask.
- Pacer
This includes Federal court and state court.
Each court is different. You have to know your court.
First, if you are an attorney, or go to court regularly as a non-court employee (attorney's assistant, expert witness, etc), then you should have at least one non-camera phone. If you can, try getting a phone you can just pop a SIM chip into and out of easily. (Dunno how well that works in the US -- my US carrier was always Verizon, no SIMs.) Or just go Blackberry (that's what I have, and for that reason).
Second, if you have a reason for needing your laptop this should not be a problem. The prohibition against camera's is not a universal and absolute prohibition.
If you're an attorney, speak with the judge for your case. Using a Macbook/MBP as part of your trial is fine. Explain to him your situation, explain to him any added measures you will take to cover the camera (such as tape), and he will let you take it through. (If he does not, well, you're an attorney -- I shouldn't have to tell you how to fix it.)
If you're not an attorney, but are working for/helping one, then speak with the attorney who is your main contact. Explain the situation and offer multiple ways in which the court may be appeased (such as tape over the camera).
If the judge knows who has the cameras and something then gets out, there will be no problem. The full wrath of the court can be directed at you for breaching the court's trust.
If you truly think you NEED the laptop while in court for something other than the case, why? Either you work there, and then you simply need to ask your supervisor/employer for permission, or you don't and there's no reason for you to be chilling in the courthouse browsing the internets and Twittering with Ashton. (And if you're media -- seriously? No excuse for that, either.)
As for other non-judicial sensitive areas, you're on your own. If I ran a security team at a secure business location, I'd likely not even allow in mobiles to begin with. Regardless, your rights are much more limited in private situations.
Of course, you could always use the advice of some Slashdotters here. First, since Windows is a pain, either get an Apple service center to remove the camera (or get a Linux machine with no camera). Second, go Windows with no camera.
Oh, and as for the Dell Mini 9 -- if you are truly an Apple guy, and you get one of these, you better Hackintosh it. I did mine, and it's fantastic.
Good luck, and have fun.
- Pacer
Using one of these right now on a Hackintoshed Dell Mini 9. I love it.
The reason I prefer it over dongle-based wireless?
Quick and easy. I don\t have to search for a dongle, plug it in, and go. Nor do I have to remember to unplug the dongle when it is storage time again.
Just close the laptop, toss it in your bag, turn the mouse off, toss it in the bag.
Quick and easy.
Hell, that's what Bluetooth is supposed to be about. Why by a Macbook Pro, with all of its hidden wireless gadgets (no wireless card sticking out, no bluetooth dongle sticking out, no camera stuck on top to be put away) if you don't actually USE those features?
Might as well buy a Dell then. (Which is not a bad thing.)
If you pay for the luxuries, might as well use them.
There is almost no way this can apply to media defendants. Further, the only way it could apply would strip it of almost all of its teeth.
Still, I think those wondering why this didn't fall under a privacy tort are on the mark.
This is the release of private information of a highly embarrassing nature, one of the four classic privacy torts. The question is how does the state in question treat such a privacy tort (each is different).
Another interesting aspect of this case is the law in question, from 1902, is 12 years after the famous Warren and Brandeis "The Right to Privacy" Harvard Law Review article. (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html)
It appears the 1902 law may have been an early attempt to recognize a privacy tort through the tort of libel.
Finally, the torts are not criminal cases. Therefore, the actions of Staples can not be classified as "illegal." Accordingly, questions of intent are not terribly relevant (accept as far as specific tort elements are concerned, and then they are weighed differently than criminal intents).
And can tell you that you shouldn't really worry.
:END QUICK SUMMARY.
On top of this, I just went out of the county with my laptop as well. No problems so far (although re-entry seems to be the big issue.)
While I have not received my bar exam results, so I am not a lawyer (yet), and you should always consult a lawyer with legal questions, here is what I can tell you:
QUICK SUMMARY:
They can search your. Decryption will likely not matter much. They will likely NOT search your (sheer volumes). Searches are mainly used to find possessors of child pornography. Your risk of a search rises if there is something that leads them to believe you may possess child pornography. MOST IMPORTANT THING is to NEVER CHECK YOUR LAPTOP LUGGAGE. Airlines are worse than the government in this regard. Good luck, and IANAL. If you have more serious questions, consult an attorney.
The US has the right to search your laptop. All of it. They even have the right to copy your drive and search more later.
This sucks. Is questionable against the Fourth Amendment. And people in Congress are working on it.
For your trip, it is unlikley that you will have an issue. They do not invasively search each laptop that cross the border (even though, legally, they can).
Even if they DO search your laptop, it is unlikely they will physically open your computer. (If, however, they feel you may be trafficking drugs hidden inside . . . that's another thing.)
To give some perspective, the power to search laptops is often used to find child pornography possession. So, if you have some reason to believe the government may view you as a person who may have child pornography, then there is a greater chance you will be searched. (Yes, here, more types of profiling is legal, and the government DOES NOT need a reasonable suspicion for the search.)
Also, decryption is not necessarily a good move. Why? Because the government can get through the encryption. How?
Whole hard drive copy. Subpoena requiring you to give up your password. Things like this.
Also, it may make things take longer.
On a purely practical side, I would worry less about the government and more about your airline.
DO NOT, EVER, CHECK YOUR LAPTOP LUGGAGE! The airline has a disturbing tendency to lose luggage containing laptops. In fact, my own experiences with a lost laptop should serve some warning.
This is where encryption would be good -- encrypt private files (such as tax forms, passwords, financial files, and other important documents) that you keep on your computer so that if it is lost or stolen, no one will steal your identity.
Good luck and have a good trip.
- John
First, most eminent domain situations occur at local levels as the above poster suggests. This affects those local levels not at all.
Secondly, Kelo did nothing more than confirm the rights of the individual 50 State governments to define public use. This right had been laid out in case after case before Kelo, and if people take the time to read the Kelo opinion the realities that this case creates no new law is evident.
Most property law professors were not surprised at the outcome, but many had hoped and wished that a more conservative court would overturn or modify some of the previous decisions. As it is, if a property professor was surprised by the outcome after reading the opinion, then that professor needs to leave their self-idealistic world and read some more caselaw on the matter.
Kelo does nothing more than confirm States' rights to manage that States' property.
Ack! This post was by me. I timed out while multi-tasking. Oops. Pacer "I Am Not an Anonymous Coward, just a Coward"