Even if this massive spying on citizens were to stop, does anyone believe the government can ever let go of this data now that they have it.
In fact, do you think that anyone in government could bring themselves to ever scale back this spying. Some might want to prevent its expansion, but I doubt anyone wants to or would be able to ever scale it back.
Like the federal budget, like politicians' ethics, like an object near a black hole, the size of this spying can move in only one direction.
> I am skeptical that this kind of massive citizen monitoring
> (much of it done for commercial reasons) would go on if it
> weren't in the interests of private companies.
Those who would be tyrants and dictators (whether they exist at present or in the future) are happy to let you think that, and blame private companies. It makes them look better.
Re: I wonder how the ASIC established that 249,000 had "no substantive content"
horse with no brain wrote:
> Oh, i don't know... maybe by looking at access logs?
> Maybe by looking at how little traffic was actually coming in?
> Actually, in this case it looks like a parking page site
So you're saying that commercial advertising of domain names for sale, or parking sites for domain names purchased but no web site yet set up means it is okay?
So it's okay to deprive advertisers of revenue? And it's okay to deprive the owner of a domain name the right to begin setting up their new website on their new domain?
Got it.
And I'm sure this was done with the utmost care and with the strongest of evidence. Not just some insane accusation based on an IP address or single domain name.
Re: Re: Well, Techdirt usually has "no substantive content"...
You've got to remember, he's paided by Hollywood, so 'substantive' is defined as bulk volume of number and/or size. A $200 Million dollar movie with no plot is better than a $20 Million dollar movie that wins awards, for example.
> I wonder how the ASIC established that 249,000 had "no substantive content".
Forget substantive content. It was all just an anomaly right? Or would this be collateral damage? You can expect some collateral damage in a city if you use a 45 megaton nuclear weapon to kill an ant.
Whether content is substantive or not, people have a right to say it and not have it taken down by private interests that cannot be bothered to exercise even the smallest bit of care in their use of nuclear weapons.
From the article . . .
> This meant thousands of other sites were blocked in the process,
> as many sites are often hosted on one shared IP address.
But wait. I thought an IP address was equal to one person, not a quarter million websites!
There are phones that don't need wires now. And you can listen to music and watch movies on them.
Maybe you can see a business opportunity here? No? What's that you say? People shouldn't be listening / watching that way because it's wrong? Okay, nevermind.
Re: Re: Yes, real world is you don't exactly own those phones.
So you think people should not own what they buy?
That's the essential crux of the conflict. There are a set of people who believe that putting a microprocessor in something means that someone else should own control of another person's property.
But Hollywood believes it is entitled to have everything on its own terms. We all know that by now.
Here's hoping Intellectual Vultures is the next Prenda
As an initial matter, because Patent Trolls such as Intellectual Vultures object to the term Patent Troll, I will use the non offensive term PTE to refer to them. Where PTE stands for Patent Trolling Entity.
Since Patent Trolling Entities use the US Postal service to send their threat and extortion letters, I wonder if they ever cross the line into federal crimes with serious penalties like mail fraud as Prenda has done?
What would it take to qualify? Threatening over a patent that has been invalidated? A patent that is pending? A patent that is being re-examined?
Will a PTE like Intellectual Vultures engage in Prenda like musical chairs games of "hide the party in interest"? Or hot potato games like "who's the decision maker"?
Re: GIANT? FIVE MILLION EUROS IS "GIANT" TO APPLE'S BILLIONS?
> GIANT? FIVE MILLION EUROS IS "GIANT" TO APPLE'S BILLIONS?
Using that logic, then why should it be so bad to have statutory damages for bogus DMCA takedowns? After all, what's a $150,000 per defective DMCA notice compared to Hollywood's billions and billions?
What about patents on ridiculous things like slide to unlock, which was described in a book on touch interface user interaction back in, I think 1991 or 1992? (Saw reference on Groklaw recently.)
Will they fix ridiculous patents that have already been granted?
Can they streamline the USPTO to require less human labor while scaling better by throwing patent applications into a room full of cats with PATENT GRANTED stamps attached to their feet?
On the post: Tech Companies Deny Letting NSA Have Realtime Access To Their Servers, But Choose Their Words Carefully
Whatever data they happen to have at present
In fact, do you think that anyone in government could bring themselves to ever scale back this spying. Some might want to prevent its expansion, but I doubt anyone wants to or would be able to ever scale it back.
Like the federal budget, like politicians' ethics, like an object near a black hole, the size of this spying can move in only one direction.
On the post: Tech Companies Deny Letting NSA Have Realtime Access To Their Servers, But Choose Their Words Carefully
Re: Each serving the other
> (much of it done for commercial reasons) would go on if it
> weren't in the interests of private companies.
Those who would be tyrants and dictators (whether they exist at present or in the future) are happy to let you think that, and blame private companies. It makes them look better.
On the post: Tech Companies Deny Letting NSA Have Realtime Access To Their Servers, But Choose Their Words Carefully
Facebook
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Re: I wonder how the ASIC established that 249,000 had "no substantive content"
> Oh, i don't know... maybe by looking at access logs?
> Maybe by looking at how little traffic was actually coming in?
> Actually, in this case it looks like a parking page site
So you're saying that commercial advertising of domain names for sale, or parking sites for domain names purchased but no web site yet set up means it is okay?
So it's okay to deprive advertisers of revenue? And it's okay to deprive the owner of a domain name the right to begin setting up their new website on their new domain?
Got it.
And I'm sure this was done with the utmost care and with the strongest of evidence. Not just some insane accusation based on an IP address or single domain name.
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Re: Re: Well, Techdirt usually has "no substantive content"...
He's not missing the point.
He's distracting from the point, which is what he's paid to do, and what he so consistently does.
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Re: Re: Well, Techdirt usually has "no substantive content"...
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Re: Re: Re: Duh
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Re: Re: Overblocking
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Re: Duh
I'm sure they will follow your wise advice and they'll block, let's say for example, blogspot.com.
Then we'll hear from the idiot brigade that it's just an anomaly.
On the post: Australia Sets New Overblocking Record: Aims For One Site, Takes Down 250,000
Several points
Forget substantive content. It was all just an anomaly right? Or would this be collateral damage? You can expect some collateral damage in a city if you use a 45 megaton nuclear weapon to kill an ant.
Whether content is substantive or not, people have a right to say it and not have it taken down by private interests that cannot be bothered to exercise even the smallest bit of care in their use of nuclear weapons.
From the article . . .
> This meant thousands of other sites were blocked in the process,
> as many sites are often hosted on one shared IP address.
But wait. I thought an IP address was equal to one person, not a quarter million websites!
On the post: Debate Over Mobile Phone Unlocking Highlights Fantasy Thinking vs. Real World
Re: Camcorders
There are phones that don't need wires now. And you can listen to music and watch movies on them.
Maybe you can see a business opportunity here? No? What's that you say? People shouldn't be listening / watching that way because it's wrong? Okay, nevermind.
The future.
We'll wake you up when the paradigm has shifted.
On the post: Chief Patent Judge Speaks Out Against Patent Trolls
Re: Judges actually do tend to follow statute...
On the post: Irony Alert: John Steele Denies Uploading Anything Ever Despite Growing IP Evidence
Re:
I think you are confusing Mike with Hollywood.
On the post: Debate Over Mobile Phone Unlocking Highlights Fantasy Thinking vs. Real World
Re: Re: Yes, real world is you don't exactly own those phones.
That's the essential crux of the conflict. There are a set of people who believe that putting a microprocessor in something means that someone else should own control of another person's property.
But Hollywood believes it is entitled to have everything on its own terms. We all know that by now.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Responds To This American Life & President Obama By... Filing More Patent Lawsuits
Here's hoping Intellectual Vultures is the next Prenda
Since Patent Trolling Entities use the US Postal service to send their threat and extortion letters, I wonder if they ever cross the line into federal crimes with serious penalties like mail fraud as Prenda has done?
What would it take to qualify? Threatening over a patent that has been invalidated? A patent that is pending? A patent that is being re-examined?
Will a PTE like Intellectual Vultures engage in Prenda like musical chairs games of "hide the party in interest"? Or hot potato games like "who's the decision maker"?
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Responds To This American Life & President Obama By... Filing More Patent Lawsuits
Re: 'basically, a big "F*** you" '
> First thing they do in law school is remove your conscience.
Apparently the first thing they do in Hollywood is remove your brain.
I'm sure horse_with_no_brain would agree.
On the post: France Tells Apple To Pay Giant 'You Must Be A Pirate' Tax On iPads
Re: GIANT? FIVE MILLION EUROS IS "GIANT" TO APPLE'S BILLIONS?
Using that logic, then why should it be so bad to have statutory damages for bogus DMCA takedowns? After all, what's a $150,000 per defective DMCA notice compared to Hollywood's billions and billions?
On the post: White House Also Releases Report On Patent Problems
Will they fix the already existing patents?
Will they fix ridiculous patents that have already been granted?
Can they streamline the USPTO to require less human labor while scaling better by throwing patent applications into a room full of cats with PATENT GRANTED stamps attached to their feet?
On the post: White House Also Releases Report On Patent Problems
Re:
On the post: MPAA: Oh, Of Course We Want To Help The Blind Read More... Just As Long As You Don't Touch Copyright
Re: You've gone blind from masnicking.
No matter how many times you repeat a lie does not make it true.