You might be able to do it with a dead-man's switch, or canary, without getting charged with destruction of evidence. Especially if you're arrested and can't reset the timer in time.
Of course, forgetting it will be one hell of an expensive one-use alarm clock.
This is good advice, but do not write it down on company computers (or keep an additional personal backup). There's a good chance Mr. Dickhead will be able to read it if it's on company computers.
If only we can erase Trump's presence during those same two terms, we'd be getting somewhere. His outlandish commentary on Obama was embarrasses my country.
I actually really liked the fact that Obama used social media to connect to the younger generation. It can be used for good, or evil, by politicians.
I have the first three, and I have read parts of all of them. Especially "Sorting and Searching".
It's reference material. You read it when you need it to get a much (much) better understanding of what you need to do to solve a problem. That's the point of reference material -- you don't have to read it except for the parts you need. That leaves your brain free to think of important things, like where you left your coffee cup.
IIRC, the glider case says that bots are illegal, due to copyright since it has to technically copy the code to run in memory, when you don't have a license to run it. And there are similar issues with selling your characters.
Here's what I'm wondering, though: if this is considered fraud, and EA can pursue it, then EA is stating their in-game currency is worth real money. If it's worth real money, they can't simply forbid it from being sold. If they claim it's theirs (which virtually every game maker does) and has zero value (which virtually every game maker does), having it worth a real value could force it to be declared legal to sell characters and in-game currency for real-world money. Doctrine of first sale and so on.
Plants pull carbon from both the ground and the air. Rich topsoil is full of carbon by definition.
Thus Human->ground (assuming you mean whole, preserved corpses going into the ground) doesn't really mean much, and means even less when you consider that sequestering bodies in caskets isn't done in most places (preferring non-preserving, or burning), the meat that is buried is insignificant. Even with 55 million humans dying per year, consider that we kill over 50 billion chickens every year, 40 million cows, and 100 million pigs. All of those are also eating plants, so they're consuming carbon. If what you said about them being carbon sinks was correct, we wouldn't have the issues with atmospheric carbon that we do.
In other words, that is not the cycle.
Some of our waste is just thrown in the ground, but that is not a good way to treat it. In order to prevent water contamination and diseases, our waste is filtered, blended, treated with bacteria, methane reclaimed, dried, chopped up, treated to remove pathogens, and used as fertilizer or otherwise churned back into the soil. Basically, it's fed to plants, and it goes back to us one way or another, in an altered form. Some of it goes right back into the atmosphere.
It sure sounds like it's not a cost effective way of making oil, but it might be very cost and space effective in sewage treatment.
It would be carbon neutral, very fast in comparison to traditional treatment, and sounds like there's no methane release (an issue in normal sewage treatment). If they can separate it on site, they can use the fuel generated to power the plant.
Except copyright only protects...copying verbatim or making derivative copies, still significantly like the original text/work.
Not really true in that respect. It protects all sorts of things, even compilations of works that might be copyrighted by others, but the compilation itself is copyrighted (e.g. the books Brad Templeton made by publishing jokes from rec.humor.funny). It doesn't have to be a verbatim copy, but derive a significant portion of its value from some copyrighted work. In fact, in the UK there was a judgement against someone who merely duplicated a style of photograph, found infringing due to having a history of actual copyright infringement. [I mostly disagree with this ruling, btw, but again copyright isn't strictly verbatim copies.]
The argument is that far fewer people will release their creative projects to the world without some form of protection, so it was coded into the US Constitution and subsequent treaties. Consider making something cool, then someone rich simply stealing the idea and capitalizing it through distribution channels while you reap nothing for your original creative idea. This has happened, and even happens today occasionally.
Basically, works based in fictional universes are copyrighted by the holder of the fictional universe, and such works are considered derivative because a large amount of their value (e.g. recognizability) are from the fictional universe or characters. There are certainly intentional exceptions such as parody where you make fun of the universe or the characters, and that's why sketch comedy like SNL has an ironclad protection to create their humor.
If one does not protect their IP then that opens up the door for your competitors to use your IP.
You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright. The Star Trek universe, and the characters, are copyrighted even if someone else writes a script using those characters. The copyright holder can selectively choose to prosecute all or none of the violators at his whim.
Certain copyright violations cannot be prosecuted, such as Fair Use. But it's very unlikely fan fiction can fall under fair use, although that has yet to be seen. I believe Star Trek Continues is trying to use that defense as they are non profit and claim their usage is educational (which usually does fall under Fair Use). This is a weak shield, but they also are not harming the franchise so it will likely be overlooked anyway.
The fundraising issue really bothers me. I know that Star Trek Continues had done some fundraising and was producing 45m episodes that were excellent. The production value was amazing, and they recreated parts of the set that were very convincing.
This may shut that down, without special dispensation from cbs/p.
However I don't think the law should create monopolies in the first place.
Without a monopoly, art will dry up. The purpose of copyright is to protect the artist from exactly what just happened. If that protection is lost, or blatant violations are not prosecutable, artists will stop releasing their work.
Regardless whether you believe he wouldn't have had the incentive is immaterial. He created the work, not the hotel, and the hotel not only abused their usage limitations, they insulted him in the offer to compensate.
Whenever you use a piece of art, you need to know whether you have the rights to use it. That burden is on that party using the work. So, yes, you actually are liable for copyright infringement, whether or not you think it was legal or not. Otherwise, it would lead to leaks that were unprosecutable and everyone would just claim they didn't know. But if it's a creative work of any kind, you should know that it's copyrighted... because all works are copyrighted by treaty. Whenever you copy/use a piece of art from anywhere, the default is that you're probably pirating it unless you're certain you're not. Whenever I use artwork, I also save the license agreement somewhere including screenshots and addresses allowing use.
But it seems dubious to sell short-term licenses for photographs - I've never even heard of that as a thing, and have no idea why anyone would agree to that.
This is a standard commercial license, and you haven't heard of it because you are not a professional photographer or need their services. Most commercial photography does not include the copyright, rather a license to use that copyright for a period of time and specific uses. People violate it all the time, and usually this is simple enough (and inexpensive enough) to deal with.
But TFA implied the hotel didn't care they pirated his work and offered a trivial sum for the excessive violation. The moment they exceeded the usage limits, they were violating copyright.
Consider lending someone your car to drive 100 miles. They return the car with 10,000 miles on it. You complain, and they offer to pay you for another 100 miles. That's not what the agreement was, and they made an insulting offer to compensate for it.
The hotel breached the contract and the copyright. In the US, that will result in treble damages of the value and use, plus potentially more due to the contract.
Whether it's worth $2M or not is debatable. But this absolutely isn't what the summary implied, that the "photographer is lazy" or something. No, he's quite serious about his work being appropriately compensated and not pirated. This is being pirated, and being used for marketing, and so on an so forth.
Most commercial contracts are written with a limited use. This photographer could not subsequently be selling this work of art, and if you look at the likes of Peter Lik (spell that correctly if you google it), the image sales alone could be worth more than $2M.
The summary implied that the hotel was inconvenienced in order for the photographer to make this image, yet he could've easily rented out the room. However, the hotel could not have easily made the shot themselves. That's insulting to professional photographers everywhere. They actually do more than just push a button.
Apple is being compelled to create speech in violation of the first amendment. It's not an issue of if they can do it. Unlike previous cases such as the Elayne Photography case when a photographer asserted first amendment rights against photographing a wedding where the couple was gay, the photographer hung out her shingle as a business for photographing weddings. Gays are protected in the state where this happened.
In this case, Apple is in the business of selling iphones, not selling custom firmware for iphones. They can't restrict sale from gays, for example, but forcing them to create custom firmware for random customers is not their business. Not to mention, the FBI isn't exactly a protected class, nor is apple refusing based on the fact they're FBI. They're refusing because they won't do it for anyone.
There were other cases where a 1st amendment defense wouldn't work, such as lavabit where they were handed a piece of equipment and ordered to install it.
Besides an NDA and security policy, you can ship them all encrypted laptops. Disable the USB connectors and external data connectors (physically, with epoxy) except maybe a single encrypted keyboard/mouse device like a logitech unified transceiver glued into one port, and only allow vpn into your systems to run executables. Also install gps tracking software in case of loss.
If you have them work on site, that's not cheap. It sounds like you're in the HST business, and that means probably based in NYC, and that means floorspace is a premium. On site work would cost a minimum of $50-100k/yr per contractor.... those contractors would much rather get an extra $45k per year and work from their own office on a $5k super laptop + keyboard + dual monitors, saving you a ton of money per person and making them happy. Have them pay for their own network, and do remote backups every night.
It really immaterial what the estimates of gifts were. In 2012, the FAA was ordered to have regulations in place by september 2015, to handle commercial UAS. They were explicitly prohibited from regulating hobby drones. UAS tech was blossoming, and the FAA knew this long ago.
In Sept 2015, they updated their AC-91 57, which had to do with hobby UAS. They had been running some tests for commercial flights, handing out occasional section 333 exceptions to movie industries and others.
In Nov 2015, they got feedback that this year's sales were expected to be around 1M+. Fearing what you stated, dumb people flying drones into manned aircraft, they cobbled together a site incredibly quickly requiring registration of all aircraft. They loosely, and wrongly, interpreted the law stating that they may not promulgate restrictions or regulations that affect any hobby or recreational UAS, to read that they may not promulgate rules that affect only hobby or recreational UAS. Despite having 3 years to see this and come up with regulations, they bypassed the mandatory 60 days of public comment stating that it was an emergency situation (caused by their own inaction, which case law has shown cannot be used as an excuse to consider it an emergency).
They are now requiring everyone 13 years old and up to publicly register their names and addresses. In a searchable database, publicly accessible. Failure to do this carries up to a 3 year jail sentence and $25,000 fine. This is the potential penalty for little johnny flying a drone at TWO INCHES above ground level in his own back yard. No joke, the FAA has asserted control from the top of a blade of grass (their words) to the top of the atmosphere. If a neighbor complains about little johnny in his back yard playing with a helicopter that looks like it weights more than 500g, a federal cop has probable cause.
The FAA had orders to have this in place 3 years ago, and failed. Based on that failure, they're claiming an emergency gives them rights to break the law and forgo public comment. The estimates for drone gifts don't matter... the FAA was given 3 years to solve this before it became an issue. Now they are breaking the law that literally requires an act of congress to reverse. (See section 336 which prohibits them from regulating hobby craft.)
There were so many other ways they could have handled this correctly. They could have requested hobby drone manufacturers enclose a copy of AC-91 57 in their packaging. They could have petitioned congress to change the law, allowing some regulation of hobby drones. They could have made a system that didn't allow searching for names and addresses of minors. They could have asked drone manufacturers to, by default, activate geofencing (but not require it). I'm sure there are other even better ways to handle this, too.
The prevailing attitude demonstrated by you is that UAS operators are inherently and collectively reckless. I see that promoted around like the terrorist muslim trope, and that attitude is stupid, unjustified, and ignorant. UAS pilots have been flying longer than manned aircraft pilots. Modelling clubs go back to the turn of the previous century. Like aircraft, there have been some close calls, but UAS operators are far more conscientious than drivers, even commercial drivers, at obeying common sense accepted methods of operation. To my knowledge, over a century of flying and only 2 people have ever been killed from a model aircraft. Compare that to any recreational activity... go cart racing, boating, fishing, skeet shooting, skiing, etc.
The FAA has previously acknowledged the minimal impact on national air space with only a single advisement circular recommending best practices originally written in 1981, which virtually all fliers read as "obey these suggestions and keep flying". It was recently updated 3 months ago when the FAA was charged with coming up with acceptable regulations for commercial fliers.
It's only because of ignorant knee-jerk statements like yours, with little basis on reality other than anecdotal reports, combined with the FAA's tardiness on creating real regulations that they were given 3 years to create due last september, that the FAA came out with their goofy-ass regulations which violates section 336 of the law explicitly denying them authority to regulate model aircraft.
There are levels to that statement which make it acceptable and unacceptable depending on the circumstances.
A sUAS illegally in the flight path of a manned aircraft should be removed with prejudice. It is extremely dangerous. Let it fall out of the sky. (Unfortunately, it probably won't just drop... most are programmed to return to sender upon loss of signal. That's where the GPS spoofing would commandeer it.)
A sUAS spotted 6 mi away by this device that is not endangering a manned aircraft (or high security dignitary or something), even if it's where it shouldn't technically be such as a Temporary Flight Restriction, should never be touched. If the operator affects it, it's reckless and should be a jailable offense even if done by law enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be able to do it with a dead-man's switch, or canary, without getting charged with destruction of evidence. Especially if you're arrested and can't reset the timer in time.
Of course, forgetting it will be one hell of an expensive one-use alarm clock.
And good luck getting on a plane with this.
This is good advice, but do not write it down on company computers (or keep an additional personal backup). There's a good chance Mr. Dickhead will be able to read it if it's on company computers.
If only we can erase Trump's presence during those same two terms, we'd be getting somewhere. His outlandish commentary on Obama was embarrasses my country.
I actually really liked the fact that Obama used social media to connect to the younger generation. It can be used for good, or evil, by politicians.
I have the first three, and I have read parts of all of them. Especially "Sorting and Searching".
It's reference material. You read it when you need it to get a much (much) better understanding of what you need to do to solve a problem. That's the point of reference material -- you don't have to read it except for the parts you need. That leaves your brain free to think of important things, like where you left your coffee cup.
IIRC, the glider case says that bots are illegal, due to copyright since it has to technically copy the code to run in memory, when you don't have a license to run it. And there are similar issues with selling your characters.
Here's what I'm wondering, though: if this is considered fraud, and EA can pursue it, then EA is stating their in-game currency is worth real money. If it's worth real money, they can't simply forbid it from being sold. If they claim it's theirs (which virtually every game maker does) and has zero value (which virtually every game maker does), having it worth a real value could force it to be declared legal to sell characters and in-game currency for real-world money. Doctrine of first sale and so on.
Plants pull carbon from both the ground and the air. Rich topsoil is full of carbon by definition.
Thus Human->ground (assuming you mean whole, preserved corpses going into the ground) doesn't really mean much, and means even less when you consider that sequestering bodies in caskets isn't done in most places (preferring non-preserving, or burning), the meat that is buried is insignificant. Even with 55 million humans dying per year, consider that we kill over 50 billion chickens every year, 40 million cows, and 100 million pigs. All of those are also eating plants, so they're consuming carbon. If what you said about them being carbon sinks was correct, we wouldn't have the issues with atmospheric carbon that we do.
In other words, that is not the cycle.
Some of our waste is just thrown in the ground, but that is not a good way to treat it. In order to prevent water contamination and diseases, our waste is filtered, blended, treated with bacteria, methane reclaimed, dried, chopped up, treated to remove pathogens, and used as fertilizer or otherwise churned back into the soil. Basically, it's fed to plants, and it goes back to us one way or another, in an altered form. Some of it goes right back into the atmosphere.
It sure sounds like it's not a cost effective way of making oil, but it might be very cost and space effective in sewage treatment.
It would be carbon neutral, very fast in comparison to traditional treatment, and sounds like there's no methane release (an issue in normal sewage treatment). If they can separate it on site, they can use the fuel generated to power the plant.
You're just making it worse on yourself.
National labs are contractors and definitely violate all those things.
Glad to see you posting here again, Richard Stallman.
Not really true in that respect. It protects all sorts of things, even compilations of works that might be copyrighted by others, but the compilation itself is copyrighted (e.g. the books Brad Templeton made by publishing jokes from rec.humor.funny). It doesn't have to be a verbatim copy, but derive a significant portion of its value from some copyrighted work. In fact, in the UK there was a judgement against someone who merely duplicated a style of photograph, found infringing due to having a history of actual copyright infringement. [I mostly disagree with this ruling, btw, but again copyright isn't strictly verbatim copies.]
The argument is that far fewer people will release their creative projects to the world without some form of protection, so it was coded into the US Constitution and subsequent treaties. Consider making something cool, then someone rich simply stealing the idea and capitalizing it through distribution channels while you reap nothing for your original creative idea. This has happened, and even happens today occasionally.
Basically, works based in fictional universes are copyrighted by the holder of the fictional universe, and such works are considered derivative because a large amount of their value (e.g. recognizability) are from the fictional universe or characters. There are certainly intentional exceptions such as parody where you make fun of the universe or the characters, and that's why sketch comedy like SNL has an ironclad protection to create their humor.
You're thinking of trademarks, not copyright. The Star Trek universe, and the characters, are copyrighted even if someone else writes a script using those characters. The copyright holder can selectively choose to prosecute all or none of the violators at his whim.
Certain copyright violations cannot be prosecuted, such as Fair Use. But it's very unlikely fan fiction can fall under fair use, although that has yet to be seen. I believe Star Trek Continues is trying to use that defense as they are non profit and claim their usage is educational (which usually does fall under Fair Use). This is a weak shield, but they also are not harming the franchise so it will likely be overlooked anyway.
"See a lot of post ignorant of the law."
*cough*
The fundraising issue really bothers me. I know that Star Trek Continues had done some fundraising and was producing 45m episodes that were excellent. The production value was amazing, and they recreated parts of the set that were very convincing.
This may shut that down, without special dispensation from cbs/p.
5-digit uid checking in. But neither statement above provided any evidence, and the OP being an AC, less credibility.
And 4 years later all the machines will crash when the date flips on their microvax servers.
Without a monopoly, art will dry up. The purpose of copyright is to protect the artist from exactly what just happened. If that protection is lost, or blatant violations are not prosecutable, artists will stop releasing their work.
Regardless whether you believe he wouldn't have had the incentive is immaterial. He created the work, not the hotel, and the hotel not only abused their usage limitations, they insulted him in the offer to compensate.
Whenever you use a piece of art, you need to know whether you have the rights to use it. That burden is on that party using the work. So, yes, you actually are liable for copyright infringement, whether or not you think it was legal or not. Otherwise, it would lead to leaks that were unprosecutable and everyone would just claim they didn't know. But if it's a creative work of any kind, you should know that it's copyrighted... because all works are copyrighted by treaty. Whenever you copy/use a piece of art from anywhere, the default is that you're probably pirating it unless you're certain you're not. Whenever I use artwork, I also save the license agreement somewhere including screenshots and addresses allowing use.
Your logic is debatable -- and that last sentence should be taken out back and whipped behind the shed.
This is a standard commercial license, and you haven't heard of it because you are not a professional photographer or need their services. Most commercial photography does not include the copyright, rather a license to use that copyright for a period of time and specific uses. People violate it all the time, and usually this is simple enough (and inexpensive enough) to deal with.
But TFA implied the hotel didn't care they pirated his work and offered a trivial sum for the excessive violation. The moment they exceeded the usage limits, they were violating copyright.
Consider lending someone your car to drive 100 miles. They return the car with 10,000 miles on it. You complain, and they offer to pay you for another 100 miles. That's not what the agreement was, and they made an insulting offer to compensate for it.
The hotel breached the contract and the copyright. In the US, that will result in treble damages of the value and use, plus potentially more due to the contract.
Whether it's worth $2M or not is debatable. But this absolutely isn't what the summary implied, that the "photographer is lazy" or something. No, he's quite serious about his work being appropriately compensated and not pirated. This is being pirated, and being used for marketing, and so on an so forth.
Most commercial contracts are written with a limited use. This photographer could not subsequently be selling this work of art, and if you look at the likes of Peter Lik (spell that correctly if you google it), the image sales alone could be worth more than $2M.
The summary implied that the hotel was inconvenienced in order for the photographer to make this image, yet he could've easily rented out the room. However, the hotel could not have easily made the shot themselves. That's insulting to professional photographers everywhere. They actually do more than just push a button.
5-10 years ago it also would've been more significant.
It wasn't that long ago where chess was able to beat a master.
PS: 5 digit uid.
Apple is being compelled to create speech in violation of the first amendment. It's not an issue of if they can do it. Unlike previous cases such as the Elayne Photography case when a photographer asserted first amendment rights against photographing a wedding where the couple was gay, the photographer hung out her shingle as a business for photographing weddings. Gays are protected in the state where this happened.
In this case, Apple is in the business of selling iphones, not selling custom firmware for iphones. They can't restrict sale from gays, for example, but forcing them to create custom firmware for random customers is not their business. Not to mention, the FBI isn't exactly a protected class, nor is apple refusing based on the fact they're FBI. They're refusing because they won't do it for anyone.
There were other cases where a 1st amendment defense wouldn't work, such as lavabit where they were handed a piece of equipment and ordered to install it.
Besides an NDA and security policy, you can ship them all encrypted laptops. Disable the USB connectors and external data connectors (physically, with epoxy) except maybe a single encrypted keyboard/mouse device like a logitech unified transceiver glued into one port, and only allow vpn into your systems to run executables. Also install gps tracking software in case of loss.
If you have them work on site, that's not cheap. It sounds like you're in the HST business, and that means probably based in NYC, and that means floorspace is a premium. On site work would cost a minimum of $50-100k/yr per contractor.... those contractors would much rather get an extra $45k per year and work from their own office on a $5k super laptop + keyboard + dual monitors, saving you a ton of money per person and making them happy. Have them pay for their own network, and do remote backups every night.
It really immaterial what the estimates of gifts were. In 2012, the FAA was ordered to have regulations in place by september 2015, to handle commercial UAS. They were explicitly prohibited from regulating hobby drones. UAS tech was blossoming, and the FAA knew this long ago.
In Sept 2015, they updated their AC-91 57, which had to do with hobby UAS. They had been running some tests for commercial flights, handing out occasional section 333 exceptions to movie industries and others.
In Nov 2015, they got feedback that this year's sales were expected to be around 1M+. Fearing what you stated, dumb people flying drones into manned aircraft, they cobbled together a site incredibly quickly requiring registration of all aircraft. They loosely, and wrongly, interpreted the law stating that they may not promulgate restrictions or regulations that affect any hobby or recreational UAS, to read that they may not promulgate rules that affect only hobby or recreational UAS. Despite having 3 years to see this and come up with regulations, they bypassed the mandatory 60 days of public comment stating that it was an emergency situation (caused by their own inaction, which case law has shown cannot be used as an excuse to consider it an emergency).
They are now requiring everyone 13 years old and up to publicly register their names and addresses. In a searchable database, publicly accessible. Failure to do this carries up to a 3 year jail sentence and $25,000 fine. This is the potential penalty for little johnny flying a drone at TWO INCHES above ground level in his own back yard. No joke, the FAA has asserted control from the top of a blade of grass (their words) to the top of the atmosphere. If a neighbor complains about little johnny in his back yard playing with a helicopter that looks like it weights more than 500g, a federal cop has probable cause.
The FAA had orders to have this in place 3 years ago, and failed. Based on that failure, they're claiming an emergency gives them rights to break the law and forgo public comment. The estimates for drone gifts don't matter... the FAA was given 3 years to solve this before it became an issue. Now they are breaking the law that literally requires an act of congress to reverse. (See section 336 which prohibits them from regulating hobby craft.)
There were so many other ways they could have handled this correctly. They could have requested hobby drone manufacturers enclose a copy of AC-91 57 in their packaging. They could have petitioned congress to change the law, allowing some regulation of hobby drones. They could have made a system that didn't allow searching for names and addresses of minors. They could have asked drone manufacturers to, by default, activate geofencing (but not require it). I'm sure there are other even better ways to handle this, too.
The prevailing attitude demonstrated by you is that UAS operators are inherently and collectively reckless. I see that promoted around like the terrorist muslim trope, and that attitude is stupid, unjustified, and ignorant. UAS pilots have been flying longer than manned aircraft pilots. Modelling clubs go back to the turn of the previous century. Like aircraft, there have been some close calls, but UAS operators are far more conscientious than drivers, even commercial drivers, at obeying common sense accepted methods of operation. To my knowledge, over a century of flying and only 2 people have ever been killed from a model aircraft. Compare that to any recreational activity ... go cart racing, boating, fishing, skeet shooting, skiing, etc.
The FAA has previously acknowledged the minimal impact on national air space with only a single advisement circular recommending best practices originally written in 1981, which virtually all fliers read as "obey these suggestions and keep flying". It was recently updated 3 months ago when the FAA was charged with coming up with acceptable regulations for commercial fliers.
It's only because of ignorant knee-jerk statements like yours, with little basis on reality other than anecdotal reports, combined with the FAA's tardiness on creating real regulations that they were given 3 years to create due last september, that the FAA came out with their goofy-ass regulations which violates section 336 of the law explicitly denying them authority to regulate model aircraft.
There are levels to that statement which make it acceptable and unacceptable depending on the circumstances.
A sUAS illegally in the flight path of a manned aircraft should be removed with prejudice. It is extremely dangerous. Let it fall out of the sky. (Unfortunately, it probably won't just drop ... most are programmed to return to sender upon loss of signal. That's where the GPS spoofing would commandeer it.)
A sUAS spotted 6 mi away by this device that is not endangering a manned aircraft (or high security dignitary or something), even if it's where it shouldn't technically be such as a Temporary Flight Restriction, should never be touched. If the operator affects it, it's reckless and should be a jailable offense even if done by law enforcement.