Ontario Court of Appeal Reverses Bangoura Net Jurisdiction Decision
The Ontario Court of Appeal released its much-anticipated Bangoura v. Washington Post decision yesterday, reversing the lower court' s ruling that asserted jurisdiction over the Post in a dispute over an article published in 1997. The appellate court' s reversal is welcome news since the case had the potential to create a chilling effect on Internet publication.
The lower court decision attracted considerable attention as it stood as perhaps the most aggressive (and wrong-headed) Internet jurisdiction analysis. I characterized the decision as establishing a "moving target" test for Internet jurisdiction, since there was no connection to Ontario when the article was first published (the connection with the province only arose years later when the Bangoura moved from Africa to Toronto).
The unanimous appellate court had little trouble reversing the decision, noting that "the connection between Ontario and Mr. Bangoura' s claim is minimal at best. In fact, there was no connection with Ontario until more than three years after the publication of the articles in question." Moreover, the court concluded that there was no evidence of significant harm in the province.
Given that analysis, the court rightly concluded that "it was not reasonably foreseeable in January 1997 that Mr. Bangoura would end up as a resident of Ontario three years later. To hold otherwise would mean that a defendant could be sued almost anywhere in the world based upon where a plaintiff may decide to establish his or her residence long after the publication of the defamation."
The court also provided a couple of comments touching specifically on Internet jurisdiction caselaw. It considered the Gutnick decision and concluded that given the different facts, it wasn't helpful. Moreover, the court acknowledged the range of Internet jurisdiction tests (including the targeting test). It noted that it did not find it necessary to adopt any of the potential tests for this case, but that it might be useful to consider the analysis in a future case involving Internet publication.
As my two co-posters pointed out, Global Warming has indeed been implicated in exacerbating Katrina.
Regardless, I myself didn't explicitly blame Katrina on Global Warming. My point was that the US Government is now aware that catastrophic weather systems (that CAN be exacerbated by Global Warming) CAN result in disasters on their own soil. Too often the US seems to deny the possibility that bad things can happen to them.
They can. And this is a wake-up call, however you want to look at it.
If tobacco or alcohol had been invented/discovered within the last ten years they would be outlawed along with hard drugs (and I for one would be an outlaw).
It's only because telemarketing has been around for so long that it's allowed to exist.
The only way in which it's different to spam is that it's worse: You HAVE to listen to it when they send it; not just when you check your e/voice-mail.
My company leases a photocopier. The machine, toner, drum and servicing are provided "free", but we pay a nominal fee per copy.
I wouldn't be surprised if home users were forced into a similar agreement by printer manufacturers, except without the "free" machine, consumables and service. All backed up by Internet verification for our convenience, of course.
33" flat screen actually, and the quality is near-perfect. You must be watching crappy encodes. If not... I have a lovely Blu-Ray system you might be interested in...
I've just bought an XviD-capable DVD player for my TV. I can now watch DVD-quality movies that fit onto a standard 700MB CD-ROM, courtesy of BitTorrent.
AFAIK, Blu-Ray and its equivalent (HD-DVD or whatever) are being developed in order to provide Hi-Definition video and/or longer video per disc.
Why would I want Blu-Ray? As soon as Hi-Def becomes standard (or even before), it'll be available via BitTorrent compressed to less than the size of a standard DVD at HD quality. I can then watch Hi-Def films on my existing hardware.
So if this hack-proof protection is designed to foil copyright infringers, it's going to fail. Copyright infringers will simply use their existing hardware to view Hi-Def on standard DVDs on standard XviD players. Why would we criminals buy Blu-Ray in the first place?
I'm considering cycling past the local schools here and slapping bumper stickers on all the SUVs parked outside. Two slogans spring immediately to mind:
Eccentrica Gallumbits, the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon 6, is filing for bankruptcy after facing a tax audit for 25% of her last financial year's earnings.
The UK's Data Protection Act, especially as it pertains to medical data, is remarkably strict.
Nonetheless, it came as no surprise to me that, when I worked at a medical centre and they upgraded all their machines, the old ones were merely dumped in the attic before being carted off by the local Council's binmen.
I asked about this (not in terms of security, but because I wanted the machines). Apparently UK companies have to PAY the Council to removed old computers, as part of some enviromental legislation. I offered to take them away for free, naturally.
The only reason I didn't get any "protected" data along with them was because I'd previously wiped it off. But even that was little more than a standard "empty recycle-bin" - it likely wouldn't stop anyone who knew what they were doing.
It's all very well having data protection policies, but unless you tell officials HOW to erase data, it won't be done.
First thing I did on reading this article was try to register www.vistasucks.com
Unfortunately someone has already pre-empted Microsoft's future userbase.
Slashdot Mirror
Ontario Court of Appeal Reverses Bangoura Net Jurisdiction Decision
The Ontario Court of Appeal released its much-anticipated Bangoura v. Washington Post decision yesterday, reversing the lower court' s ruling that asserted jurisdiction over the Post in a dispute over an article published in 1997. The appellate court' s reversal is welcome news since the case had the potential to create a chilling effect on Internet publication.
The lower court decision attracted considerable attention as it stood as perhaps the most aggressive (and wrong-headed) Internet jurisdiction analysis. I characterized the decision as establishing a "moving target" test for Internet jurisdiction, since there was no connection to Ontario when the article was first published (the connection with the province only arose years later when the Bangoura moved from Africa to Toronto).
The unanimous appellate court had little trouble reversing the decision, noting that "the connection between Ontario and Mr. Bangoura' s claim is minimal at best. In fact, there was no connection with Ontario until more than three years after the publication of the articles in question." Moreover, the court concluded that there was no evidence of significant harm in the province.
Given that analysis, the court rightly concluded that "it was not reasonably foreseeable in January 1997 that Mr. Bangoura would end up as a resident of Ontario three years later. To hold otherwise would mean that a defendant could be sued almost anywhere in the world based upon where a plaintiff may decide to establish his or her residence long after the publication of the defamation."
The court also provided a couple of comments touching specifically on Internet jurisdiction caselaw. It considered the Gutnick decision and concluded that given the different facts, it wasn't helpful. Moreover, the court acknowledged the range of Internet jurisdiction tests (including the targeting test). It noted that it did not find it necessary to adopt any of the potential tests for this case, but that it might be useful to consider the analysis in a future case involving Internet publication.
As my two co-posters pointed out, Global Warming has indeed been implicated in exacerbating Katrina.
Regardless, I myself didn't explicitly blame Katrina on Global Warming. My point was that the US Government is now aware that catastrophic weather systems (that CAN be exacerbated by Global Warming) CAN result in disasters on their own soil. Too often the US seems to deny the possibility that bad things can happen to them.
They can. And this is a wake-up call, however you want to look at it.
...to have come out of the New Orleans disaster, it is this:
Perhaps the US Government will stop ignoring the threat of Global Warming as somebody else's problem.
Some kid guessed her password reminder and we're calling him a hacker? Even "cracker" would be too good for this feat of leetness.
Not sure I'd even deign to call him a script-kiddie.
Seriously.
If tobacco or alcohol had been invented/discovered within the last ten years they would be outlawed along with hard drugs (and I for one would be an outlaw).
It's only because telemarketing has been around for so long that it's allowed to exist.
The only way in which it's different to spam is that it's worse: You HAVE to listen to it when they send it; not just when you check your e/voice-mail.
"Warm Tea" mod. Controversy ensues.
My company leases a photocopier. The machine, toner, drum and servicing are provided "free", but we pay a nominal fee per copy.
I wouldn't be surprised if home users were forced into a similar agreement by printer manufacturers, except without the "free" machine, consumables and service. All backed up by Internet verification for our convenience, of course.
33" flat screen actually, and the quality is near-perfect. You must be watching crappy encodes. If not... I have a lovely Blu-Ray system you might be interested in...
I've just bought an XviD-capable DVD player for my TV. I can now watch DVD-quality movies that fit onto a standard 700MB CD-ROM, courtesy of BitTorrent.
AFAIK, Blu-Ray and its equivalent (HD-DVD or whatever) are being developed in order to provide Hi-Definition video and/or longer video per disc.
Why would I want Blu-Ray? As soon as Hi-Def becomes standard (or even before), it'll be available via BitTorrent compressed to less than the size of a standard DVD at HD quality. I can then watch Hi-Def films on my existing hardware.
So if this hack-proof protection is designed to foil copyright infringers, it's going to fail. Copyright infringers will simply use their existing hardware to view Hi-Def on standard DVDs on standard XviD players. Why would we criminals buy Blu-Ray in the first place?
I'm considering cycling past the local schools here and slapping bumper stickers on all the SUVs parked outside. Two slogans spring immediately to mind:
"Protecting my Kids... Fucking the Environment!"
"MY kids are safe... YOURS aren't!"
Eccentrica Gallumbits, the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon 6, is filing for bankruptcy after facing a tax audit for 25% of her last financial year's earnings.
It is totally unenforceable and for that matter wou...
What? What do you mean I owe you $0.25? All I said was "bollo..."
Damn! $0.50!! For fuck's sake!
ARGH!!
The UK's Data Protection Act, especially as it pertains to medical data, is remarkably strict.
Nonetheless, it came as no surprise to me that, when I worked at a medical centre and they upgraded all their machines, the old ones were merely dumped in the attic before being carted off by the local Council's binmen.
I asked about this (not in terms of security, but because I wanted the machines). Apparently UK companies have to PAY the Council to removed old computers, as part of some enviromental legislation. I offered to take them away for free, naturally.
The only reason I didn't get any "protected" data along with them was because I'd previously wiped it off. But even that was little more than a standard "empty recycle-bin" - it likely wouldn't stop anyone who knew what they were doing.
It's all very well having data protection policies, but unless you tell officials HOW to erase data, it won't be done.
Flamebait? Oh right, I forgot to use tags...
...welcome our new soulless, embryo-munching overlords.
First thing I did on reading this article was try to register www.vistasucks.com Unfortunately someone has already pre-empted Microsoft's future userbase.