But it is not a contextually valid comparison. It doesn't fucking matter how licensing worked two-hundred fucking years ago, what matters is how it works NOW.
"Legally or historically" includes historically. Presuming that you're the same anonymous coward, you set the criteria, so deal with it.
It's also contextually valid. You have two confederations of otherwise soverign states. One was the early United States. The other is the modern European Union. The states that became the United States often had constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Hell, the states that became the early United States often had passed copyright laws well before the federal Copyright Act of 1790.
Your ignorance doesn't invalidate the validity of the comparison. It invalidates your opinion concerning the validity of the comparison, though.
Blah, blah, blah, private citizen breaks the law and goes to jail... Blah, blah, blah, agency violates the law and can't send the private citizen to jail... just like what happened here.
It is entirely correct for the FAA to attempt to regulate over the top of it...
No. It's not. Just like it's not entirely correct for me to kill you for advocating anarchy. But keep it up, I may become convinced... of both.
That is stupid reasoning. If heaviness, frequency, and location are problems, then they should be regulated directly, rather than regulating commerce just because it is correlated with these things. Many commercial operators use tiny drones. Many hobbyists use big drones. The regulation should be based on the size not the motivation of the user.
"Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use."
You skipped the most important part of the response. We live under the rule of law, not the rule of what Shanghai Bill thinks the law should be. If you get yourself elected to Congress, you even get 1/536th of a say in the matter.
And this is not going to make anybody forget about Seth Rich, murdered by the DNC for releasing the Podesta emails to Wiki leaks.
His parents certainly won't forget him, nor the fact that your and your fellow assholes keep fictionalizing his death in a sad attempt to smear political opponents.
There's a question that tends to generate thoughtful and introspective answers...
Should parents do more to limit screen time for themselves and their children during summer?
Thinly-veiled "Do you think that other people should do more to limit screen time," which is sure to bring out the maladjusted perfectionists, the hypocrites, and anyone otherwise desperate for attention.
The answer is no. You're not qualified, you don't have reliable information, you know little or nothing about those other people, and goddamnit, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
Is this the new normal for humanity?
Two income families, a general resistance to the idea of year-around school (even if only180-200/yrs instruction with multi-week breaks), and the threat of arrest/child protective services if you let your child out of your sight on public property?
Hell yes. And some appear to want to blame the parents.
Once the cat is out of the bag, they can't really have assurance that the files will be "returned" and copies not kept.
Philosophically true. Practically false. You would be wise to avoid messing with a Federal judge. Someone will find out. Someone will tell the other side, or the judge, or both. The judge will, in much more businesslike language, announce "JUDGE SMASH."
Grownups who are not sociopaths and have money at stake will try to avoid this fate. For example, they may fire the person messing with the judge, or simply throw them under the bus.
Or is he so disconnected from contemporary reality that he doesn't know that what constitutes a "file" nowadays is not necessarily the same as when he studied law all those years ago?
If you have to "return" an electronic file to me, it (1) prevents giving some system administrator the bright idea to simply irretrievably delete the file, otherwise called "destroying evidence" or spoliation, which is a big no-no and (2) tells me that you had that file so I no longer have to speculate as to whether you yourself possessed that file or not. Knowing that you definitely had a certain file is valuable information to me.
I would do that if (1) MS didn't cram W10 down my throat; (2) every major update doesn't reset browser preferences; (3) stop updating and breaking hardware drivers; and (4) I could disable telemetry. My Macbook and Ubuntu machines are auto-update enabled. Not my Windows gaming box. No thanks.
(1) It was ultra-scammy when they were doing that, but it's been more than 6 months since they've stopped, so it's time to throw out this reason. (2) Didn't notice this happening with the Creators Update (through Windows Update). Also, if you can't deal with this than God help you when you install anything related to the internet, since it ALL attempts to change your browser preference in more or less scammy ways. (3) O&O Shutup10 or a similar tool lets you disable this trivially. (4) O&O Shutup10 or a similar tool lets you disable as much of this as possible trivially. Windows 7 and 8 also include essentially the same telemetry now.
Unless you're Windows gaming on a non-networked system, disabling Windows Update makes you a substantial part of the problem. You don't get to blame it all on Microsoft.
Since nobody is naming the affected cameras, and the researcher inexplicably folded and removed his list on March 16, 2017, here's is a list courtesy of the internet archive. The list is also included here so that robots.txt cannot be used to eliminate it from view.
I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free. Despite having a vastly larger amount of classified information on her unsecured, authorized email server.
Your own link says that he was charged with "one count of unauthorized retention of defense information" and "one count of obstruction of justice."
Was the information on Clinton's server defense information? Was she not authorized to have it? Did she destroy defense (or classified, or U.S. government-owned) information to thwart investigation?
And no, her lawyers decision to withhold personal emails does not qualify as Clinton herself destroying information that is relevant to the investigation.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officerâ" Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Beyond the basic fact that 793(f) applies only to national defense information, and instead these were state department materials?
Gross negligence is "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil."
Colnaghi, U.S.A., Inc. v. Jewelers Protection Services, 611 N.E.2d 282 (N.Y. 1993) defines gross negligence as "conduct that evinces reckless disregard for the rights of others or 'smacks' of intentional wrongdoing," and "represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it."
That's essentially intent, but eliminates the requirement that there be contemporaneous consciousness of the nature of the action. Combine it with the requirement that it be national defense information and you're still behind the eight ball if you attempt to bring a charge.
Finally, the proposition was "There is no 'intent' test in the statue nor CFR regarding violation of the espionage act." Well, there is. You're merely attempting to move the goalposts, like the others before you.
My new laptop at work (ZBook 15 G3) has USB-C. It's everything USB should have been since the beginning.
The very fact that HP has to publish this chart for your laptop and other HP devices shows that it is not "everything USB should have been since the beginning." It's a confusing mishmash of functions potentially provided through the same mechanical interface, with no guarantee that anything is supported except for USB 2.0 signalling.
Where did I claim that? I have a business laptop with a Xeon and 64 GB of RAM. This is a Surface.
"Microsoft screwed up on this one. They're releasing old hardware. I bet they could have easily charged a surface on over USB Power Delivery [usb.org]."
You cited USB Power Delivery. But your laptop can't charge using USB Power Delivery. Your laptop can't power other devices using USB Power Delivery. What excuse it is that it's a "business laptop" with Xeon and an arbitrary amount of RAM? You extoll the virtues of this USB-C feature yet you don't even have a laptop that implements it. Which is, again, Microsoft's point. "USB-C" means any one of a dozen-plus different combinations of features. That's unacceptable.
What point? That M$ can't design a USB-C port with Thunderbolt...
That USB-C doesn't require it. That most manufacturer's don't include it. That you have to dig into the specifications to figure out what any particular USB-C port does.
and can't figure out how to transfer 100W power over USB-C?
That USB-C doesn't require it. That most manufacturer's don't include it. That you have to dig into the specifications to figure out what any particular USB-C port does.
Just because you can't use USB-C to charge a workstation which probably needs more than 150W at peak you are overlooking all the other benefit that USB-C provides?
I also can't use HP's USB-C to run a device that requires 100W such as a monitor from the HP machine, which is a USB-C benefit that neither the Microsoft nor the HP machine provide. Why not? Why do I have to research whether either machine provides USB-C power on demand? Well, for Microsoft's machine I don't, because it doesn't have a USB-C port. The USB port is a USB port and only a USB port. No confusion.
You continue to prove Microsoft's point while acting as if they've caused the problem. Add every manufacturer, excepting Apple's newest machines, to that list.
As if that's the only law or statute on classified information.
He called out the Espionage Act. That's the classified information section of the Espionage Act. Is there another Espionage Act?
It's called "moving the goalposts." You've just done it.
Cough espionage act cough. Intent is irrelevant - ask any of the whisteblowers prosecuted for mishandling classified evidence.
That IS the Espionage Act. Tell you what, why don't you specify the section of the U.S. code that you're referring to and we'll test that claim as well.
If I *need* to do some GPU work I can plug in an external GPU. Or gigabit ethernet or any other PCIe device.
Which means that your ZBook 15 G3 has a Thunderbolt-enabled USB-C port. But you've simply called it USB-C, which could also be merely USB 3 Gen2, USB 3 Gen1, or even technically USB 2. Which provides a perfect case study for Microsoft's point.
I bet they could have easily charged a surface on over USB Power Delivery.
Of course, you charge your device through the USB-C port, right? Nope! Your laptop still has a separate charging port. But USB-C should let you charge a device at up to 100W. Don't you have USB-C? You said it could easily be done. Why not?
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information...
My criminal law class taught that "knowingly and willfully" are intent elements. If you didn't know it or didn't will the act to happen (e.g., the information that you were given was unmarked and only later retroactively classified), then it's not a crime.
Your claim that there's no "intent" test in the statute is false. Yes, the law matters, but your flawed understandling of the law does not.
If it's so all-encompassing why do you need to follow USC 17/512 (c) and the DMCA take down procedures, aren't those about civil liability for ISPs.
My much longer answer was swallowed by the idiotic decision to have backspace function as both backspace and back-page in most browsers. Moronic.
The CDA and DMCA were being negotiated at roughly the same time and interlock in this respect. Also, the CDA says that a provider cannot be treated as the "publisher" or "speaker," but copyright law doesn't care - you're liable for reproducing and/or distributing, whether you published/spoke the post yourself or not.
The CDA therefore included a quasi-exception for intellectual property (47 USC 230(e)(2)), "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.") and the DMCA shortly afterward extended the CDA immunity concept by saying that there's no civil liability for copyright infringement so long as you follow the notice/takedown/counternotice/restore procedure, do not have "red flag" knowledge of specific infringements, and terminate service to repeat infringers. Note that if you've complied with the technicalities of the DMCA (register an agent with the copyright office!) and restored material after receiving a counternotice, you're not civilly liable just as you would have been under an exceptionless CDA.
Since we have an actual lawyer here, how does it work in the US when the core of the civil tort is an alleged criminal act? Like say someone burned my house down, the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court. It certainly sounds like I'd sue for arson...
No, you're sue for "torts" such as destruction of property and intentional infliction of emotional distress. More to the point, you'd have to sue the gas station that sold the arsonist the gasoline for something such as negligence, which means that you'd have to prove that the gas station owed you a duty of care, that they beached that duty, that the breach caused your injury, and that there was actual damage. The mere fact that you partially blame the gas station for the arson isn't enough. Same thing in wrongful death situations.
You can go after everyone for everything that you perceive to have gone wrong (people and lawyers often do), but you're not going to succeed just because you blame them. You have to fit it into a recognized tort, which usually means that you have to show that someone owed you a duty of care, breached it, and that there was a sufficient causal connection to a concrete injury to you (or a close relative).
people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns?
Ah ha! The topical analogy rears its head. Let's sue Remington for manufacturing the gun. But the gun was legally manufactured and sold to Joe. Maybe Joe was a straw purchaser. Maybe Joe was a secret bank robber. Maybe Joe only later decided to rob banks. Who cares -- if Remington hadn't made those guns, this wouldn't have happened. So Congress enacts things like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. You can't sue Remington for manufacturing and lawfully selling a gun that later ends up being used in a crime. Just like the Communications Decency Act says that you can't sue a service provider for providing a lawful service that happens to be used by a terrorist.
Congress decided that allowing communities to post and exchange information was valuable, that requiring background investigations for Internet accounts was ridiculous, and that moderating material should be encouraged but couldn't feasibly be mandated. They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
"Legally or historically" includes historically. Presuming that you're the same anonymous coward, you set the criteria, so deal with it.
It's also contextually valid. You have two confederations of otherwise soverign states. One was the early United States. The other is the modern European Union. The states that became the United States often had constitutions before the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Hell, the states that became the early United States often had passed copyright laws well before the federal Copyright Act of 1790.
Your ignorance doesn't invalidate the validity of the comparison. It invalidates your opinion concerning the validity of the comparison, though.
It's a perfectly valid comparison to anyone who actually knows the history of the United States from colonial times through ~1800.
Blah, blah, blah, private citizen breaks the law and goes to jail...
Blah, blah, blah, agency violates the law and can't send the private citizen to jail... just like what happened here.
No. It's not. Just like it's not entirely correct for me to kill you for advocating anarchy. But keep it up, I may become convinced... of both.
"Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use."
You skipped the most important part of the response. We live under the rule of law, not the rule of what Shanghai Bill thinks the law should be. If you get yourself elected to Congress, you even get 1/536th of a say in the matter.
His parents certainly won't forget him, nor the fact that your and your fellow assholes keep fictionalizing his death in a sad attempt to smear political opponents.
There's a question that tends to generate thoughtful and introspective answers...
Thinly-veiled "Do you think that other people should do more to limit screen time," which is sure to bring out the maladjusted perfectionists, the hypocrites, and anyone otherwise desperate for attention.
The answer is no. You're not qualified, you don't have reliable information, you know little or nothing about those other people, and goddamnit, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
Two income families, a general resistance to the idea of year-around school (even if only180-200/yrs instruction with multi-week breaks), and the threat of arrest/child protective services if you let your child out of your sight on public property?
Hell yes. And some appear to want to blame the parents.
The large central desert has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Gotcha.
BTW, JUDGE SMASH was unabashedly lifted from one of my favorite ArsTechnica headline/illustration combos.
So you haven't installed any security updates since they switched to monthly rollups where you cannot pick-and-choose?
Shame on you...
Philosophically true. Practically false. You would be wise to avoid messing with a Federal judge. Someone will find out. Someone will tell the other side, or the judge, or both. The judge will, in much more businesslike language, announce "JUDGE SMASH."
Grownups who are not sociopaths and have money at stake will try to avoid this fate. For example, they may fire the person messing with the judge, or simply throw them under the bus.
If you have to "return" an electronic file to me, it (1) prevents giving some system administrator the bright idea to simply irretrievably delete the file, otherwise called "destroying evidence" or spoliation, which is a big no-no and (2) tells me that you had that file so I no longer have to speculate as to whether you yourself possessed that file or not. Knowing that you definitely had a certain file is valuable information to me.
Signed,
A lawyer.
(1) It was ultra-scammy when they were doing that, but it's been more than 6 months since they've stopped, so it's time to throw out this reason.
(2) Didn't notice this happening with the Creators Update (through Windows Update). Also, if you can't deal with this than God help you when you install anything related to the internet, since it ALL attempts to change your browser preference in more or less scammy ways.
(3) O&O Shutup10 or a similar tool lets you disable this trivially.
(4) O&O Shutup10 or a similar tool lets you disable as much of this as possible trivially. Windows 7 and 8 also include essentially the same telemetry now.
Unless you're Windows gaming on a non-networked system, disabling Windows Update makes you a substantial part of the problem. You don't get to blame it all on Microsoft.
Since nobody is naming the affected cameras, and the researcher inexplicably folded and removed his list on March 16, 2017, here's is a list courtesy of the internet archive. The list is also included here so that robots.txt cannot be used to eliminate it from view.
3G+IPCam Other,3SVISION Other,3com CASA,3com Other,3xLogic Other,3xLogic Radio,4UCAM Other,4XEM Other,555 Other,7Links 3677,7Links 3677-675,7Links 3720-675,7Links 3720-919,7Links IP-Cam-in,7Links IP-Wi-Fi,7Links IPC-760HD,7Links IPC-770HD,7Links Incam,7Links Other,7Links PX-3615-675,7Links PX-3671-675,7Links PX-3720-675,7Links PX3309,7Links PX3615,7Links ipc-720,7Links px-3675,7Links px-3719-675,7Links px-3720-675,A4Tech Other,ABS Other,ADT RC8021W,AGUILERA AQUILERA,AJT AJT-019129-BBCEF,ALinking ALC,ALinking Other,ALinking dax,AMC Other,ANRAN ip180,APKLINK Other,AQUILA AV-IPE03,AQUILA AV-IPE04,AVACOM 5060,AVACOM 5980,AVACOM H5060W,AVACOM NEW,AVACOM Other,AVACOM h5060w,AVACOM h5080w,Acromedia IN-010,Acromedia Other,Advance Other,Advanced+home lc-1140,Aeoss J6358,Aetos 400w,Agasio A500W,Agasio A502W,Agasio A512,Agasio A533W,Agasio A602W,Agasio A603W,Agasio Other,AirLink Other,Airmobi HSC321,Airsight Other,Airsight X10,Airsight X34A,Airsight X36A,Airsight XC39A,Airsight XX34A,Airsight XX36A,Airsight XX40A,Airsight XX60A,Airsight x10,Airsight x10Airsight,Airsight xc36a,Airsight xc49a,Airsight xx39A,Airsight xx40a,Airsight xx49a,Airsight xx51A,Airsight xx51a,Airsight xx52a,Airsight xx59a,Airsight xx60a,Akai AK7400,Akai SP-T03WP,Alecto 150,Alecto Atheros,Alecto DVC-125IP,Alecto DVC-150-IP,Alecto DVC-1601,Alecto DVC-215IP,Alecto DVC-255-IP,Alecto dv150,Alecto dvc-150ip,Alfa 0002HD,Alfa Other,Allnet 2213,Allnet ALL2212,Allnet ALL2213,Amovision Other,Android+IP+cam IPwebcam,Anjiel ip-sd-sh13d,Apexis AH9063CW,Apexis APM-H803-WS,Apexis APM-H804-WS,Apexis APM-J011,Apexis APM-J011-Richard,Apexis APM-J011-WS,Apexis APM-J012,Apexis APM-J012-WS,Apexis APM-J0233,Apexis APM-J8015-WS,Apexis GENERIC,Apexis H,Apexis HD,Apexis J,Apexis Other,Apexis PIPCAM8,Apexis Pyle,Apexis XF-IP49,Apexis apexis,Apexis apm-,Apexis dealextreme,Aquila+Vizion Other,Area51 Other,ArmorView Other,Asagio A622W,Asagio Other,Asgari 720U,Asgari Other,Asgari PTG2,Asgari UIR-G2,Atheros ar9285,AvantGarde SUMPPLE,Axis 1054,Axis 241S,B-Qtech Other,B-Series B-1,BRAUN HD-560,BRAUN HD505,Beaulieu Other,Bionics Other,Bionics ROBOCAM,Bionics Robocam,Bionics T6892WP,Bionics t6892wp,Black+Label B2601,Bravolink Other,Breno Other,CDR+king APM-J011-WS,CDR+king Other,CDR+king SEC-015-C,CDR+king SEC-016-NE,CDR+king SEC-028-NE,CDR+king SEC-029-NE,CDR+king SEC-039-NE,CDR+king sec-016-ne,CDXX Other,CDXXcamera Any,CP+PLUS CP-EPK-HC10L1,CPTCAM Other,Camscam JWEV-372869-BCBAB,Casa Other,Cengiz Other,Chinavasion Gunnie,Chinavasion H30,Chinavasion IP611W,Chinavasion Other,Chinavasion ip609aw,Chinavasion ip611w,Cloud MV1,Cloud Other,CnM IP103,CnM Other,CnM sec-ip-cam,Compro NC150/420/500,Comtac CS2,Comtac CS9267,Conceptronic CIPCAM720PTIWL,Conceptronic cipcamptiwl,Cybernova Other,Cybernova WIP604,Cybernova WIP604MW,D-Link DCS-910,D-Link DCS-930L,D-Link L-series,D-Link Other,DB+Power 003arfu,DB+Power DBPOWER,DB+Power ERIK,DB+Power HC-WV06,DB+Power HD011P,DB+Power HD012P,DB+Power HD015P,DB+Power L-615W,DB+Power LA040,DB+Power Other,DB+Power Other2,DB+Power VA-033K,DB+Power VA0038K,DB+Power VA003K+,DB+Power VA0044_M,DB+Power VA033K,DB+Power VA033K+,DB+Power VA035K,DB+Power VA036K,DB+Power VA038,DB+Power VA038k,DB+Power VA039K,DB+Power VA039K-Test,DB+Power VA040,DB+Power VA390k,DB+Power b,DB+Power b-series,DB+Power extcams,DB+Power eye,DB+Power kiskFirstCam,DB+Power va033k,DB+Power va039k,DB+Power wifi,DBB IP607W,DEVICECLIENTQ CNB,DKSEG Other,DNT CamDoo,DVR DVR,DVS-IP-CAM Other,DVS-IP-CAM Outdoor/IR,Dagro DAGRO-003368-JLWYX,Dagro Other,Dericam H216W,Dericam H502W,Dericam M01W,Dericam M2/6/8,Dericam M502W,Dericam M601W,Dericam M801W,Dericam Other,Digix Other,Digoo BB-M2,Digoo MM==BB-M2,Digoo bb-m2,Dinon
Your own link says that he was charged with "one count of unauthorized retention of defense information" and "one count of obstruction of justice."
Was the information on Clinton's server defense information? Was she not authorized to have it? Did she destroy defense (or classified, or U.S. government-owned) information to thwart investigation?
And no, her lawyers decision to withhold personal emails does not qualify as Clinton herself destroying information that is relevant to the investigation.
One of these things is not like the other...
That is the popular press summary's fault.
From the actual research paper:
"Our particular case with a 200-nm pitch translates into a resolution in excess of 120,000 dots per inch (DPI)."
That's 14.4 billion dots per square inch.
Beyond the basic fact that 793(f) applies only to national defense information, and instead these were state department materials?
Gross negligence is "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil."
Colnaghi, U.S.A., Inc. v. Jewelers Protection Services, 611 N.E.2d 282 (N.Y. 1993) defines gross negligence as "conduct that evinces reckless disregard for the rights of others or 'smacks' of intentional wrongdoing," and "represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it."
That's essentially intent, but eliminates the requirement that there be contemporaneous consciousness of the nature of the action. Combine it with the requirement that it be national defense information and you're still behind the eight ball if you attempt to bring a charge.
Finally, the proposition was "There is no 'intent' test in the statue nor CFR regarding violation of the espionage act." Well, there is. You're merely attempting to move the goalposts, like the others before you.
The very fact that HP has to publish this chart for your laptop and other HP devices shows that it is not "everything USB should have been since the beginning." It's a confusing mishmash of functions potentially provided through the same mechanical interface, with no guarantee that anything is supported except for USB 2.0 signalling.
"Microsoft screwed up on this one. They're releasing old hardware. I bet they could have easily charged a surface on over USB Power Delivery [usb.org]."
You cited USB Power Delivery. But your laptop can't charge using USB Power Delivery. Your laptop can't power other devices using USB Power Delivery. What excuse it is that it's a "business laptop" with Xeon and an arbitrary amount of RAM? You extoll the virtues of this USB-C feature yet you don't even have a laptop that implements it. Which is, again, Microsoft's point. "USB-C" means any one of a dozen-plus different combinations of features. That's unacceptable.
That USB-C doesn't require it. That most manufacturer's don't include it. That you have to dig into the specifications to figure out what any particular USB-C port does.
That USB-C doesn't require it. That most manufacturer's don't include it. That you have to dig into the specifications to figure out what any particular USB-C port does.
I also can't use HP's USB-C to run a device that requires 100W such as a monitor from the HP machine, which is a USB-C benefit that neither the Microsoft nor the HP machine provide. Why not? Why do I have to research whether either machine provides USB-C power on demand? Well, for Microsoft's machine I don't, because it doesn't have a USB-C port. The USB port is a USB port and only a USB port. No confusion.
You continue to prove Microsoft's point while acting as if they've caused the problem. Add every manufacturer, excepting Apple's newest machines, to that list.
He called out the Espionage Act. That's the classified information section of the Espionage Act. Is there another Espionage Act?
It's called "moving the goalposts." You've just done it.
That IS the Espionage Act. Tell you what, why don't you specify the section of the U.S. code that you're referring to and we'll test that claim as well.
Which means that your ZBook 15 G3 has a Thunderbolt-enabled USB-C port. But you've simply called it USB-C, which could also be merely USB 3 Gen2, USB 3 Gen1, or even technically USB 2. Which provides a perfect case study for Microsoft's point.
Of course, you charge your device through the USB-C port, right? Nope! Your laptop still has a separate charging port. But USB-C should let you charge a device at up to 100W. Don't you have USB-C? You said it could easily be done. Why not?
Which is Microsoft's point...
A testable claim! Oh God, I love testable claims about the law. No "could be this" or "could be that," just it's there or it's not.
18 U.S. Code sec. 798 - Disclosure of classified information
My criminal law class taught that "knowingly and willfully" are intent elements. If you didn't know it or didn't will the act to happen (e.g., the information that you were given was unmarked and only later retroactively classified), then it's not a crime.
Your claim that there's no "intent" test in the statute is false. Yes, the law matters, but your flawed understandling of the law does not.
Too bad edx93 was the instigator. Perhaps you forgot to click "parent" that one last time.
My much longer answer was swallowed by the idiotic decision to have backspace function as both backspace and back-page in most browsers. Moronic.
The CDA and DMCA were being negotiated at roughly the same time and interlock in this respect. Also, the CDA says that a provider cannot be treated as the "publisher" or "speaker," but copyright law doesn't care - you're liable for reproducing and/or distributing, whether you published/spoke the post yourself or not.
The CDA therefore included a quasi-exception for intellectual property (47 USC 230(e)(2)), "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.") and the DMCA shortly afterward extended the CDA immunity concept by saying that there's no civil liability for copyright infringement so long as you follow the notice/takedown/counternotice/restore procedure, do not have "red flag" knowledge of specific infringements, and terminate service to repeat infringers. Note that if you've complied with the technicalities of the DMCA (register an agent with the copyright office!) and restored material after receiving a counternotice, you're not civilly liable just as you would have been under an exceptionless CDA.
No, you're sue for "torts" such as destruction of property and intentional infliction of emotional distress. More to the point, you'd have to sue the gas station that sold the arsonist the gasoline for something such as negligence, which means that you'd have to prove that the gas station owed you a duty of care, that they beached that duty, that the breach caused your injury, and that there was actual damage. The mere fact that you partially blame the gas station for the arson isn't enough. Same thing in wrongful death situations.
You can go after everyone for everything that you perceive to have gone wrong (people and lawyers often do), but you're not going to succeed just because you blame them. You have to fit it into a recognized tort, which usually means that you have to show that someone owed you a duty of care, breached it, and that there was a sufficient causal connection to a concrete injury to you (or a close relative).
Ah ha! The topical analogy rears its head. Let's sue Remington for manufacturing the gun. But the gun was legally manufactured and sold to Joe. Maybe Joe was a straw purchaser. Maybe Joe was a secret bank robber. Maybe Joe only later decided to rob banks. Who cares -- if Remington hadn't made those guns, this wouldn't have happened. So Congress enacts things like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. You can't sue Remington for manufacturing and lawfully selling a gun that later ends up being used in a crime. Just like the Communications Decency Act says that you can't sue a service provider for providing a lawful service that happens to be used by a terrorist.
Congress decided that allowing communities to post and exchange information was valuable, that requiring background investigations for Internet accounts was ridiculous, and that moderating material should be encouraged but couldn't feasibly be mandated. They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.