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.
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?
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!
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"?