The German govt could ban such AV software from being sold in Germany. Even if the AV companies took the high road and refused to cave, the govt could make it illegal to use/own AV software which can remove their trojans.
also give them the power to hack people who have not committed a crime or are suspected of having done so.
I really want to know what the stated rationale for this is. The rationales I can guess at involve the the (suspected) criminal having good enough computer security practices to avoid getting infected by the trojan:
There's other reasons I can think of for why a govt would want to do this, but none that they'd want to admit to.
Traceability requires messaging services to store information that can be used to ascertain the content of people’s messages, thereby breaking the very guarantees that end-to-end encryption provides.
...
To comply, messaging services would have to keep giant databases of every message you send, ...
How exactly does that enable one to ascertain the contents of the messages?
"Shame on you for following the law"
I probably shouldn't be surprised at a politician saying that out loud intending for everyone it hear it, yet I am.
The real argument over Section 230 must include all aspects of corporate control over what was promised to be open and fair.So then would you be okay with 230 still applying to non-profits and personally run sites?
Maz: you are visibly offering a Public Forum and have ZERO disclaimers reserving rights, YET youSo if I put up my own personal blog, let anyone comment, but forgot to put up a disclaimer saying "I reserve the right to delete any comments as I see fit", there's some law that would require me to not delete comments? If so, which law is that? If not, what do you mean?
Prior art? Hell i would be wondering if Caspian hadn't been infringing on some other party's patents to begin with.Isn't Sable a "non-practicing entity"? Meaning that it's doing nothing that anyone could file a patent suit over?
You have a right to peacefully protest, but you don't have a right to riot and loot and be a thug.So you're okay with the bill redefining "riot" to include protests where there is no property destruction or violence?
I think he's claiming that the judge and each of the jury members was thinking:
If the cop is acquitted the Antifa will track me down and murder me, so for the sake of my own skin I'll make sure he's found guilty.Y'know, just like how SCOTUS threw out the obviously meritorious pro-Trump lawsuits alleging election fraud because the SCOTUS judges were all afraid of being murdered by Antifa if they sided with Trump.
I was answering the question "why is he including these allegations against Dominion in his lawsuit filings" with "statements made in lawsuit filings are immune to defamation claims, so he's repeating the allegations in a place he know he can't be sued for them".
What follows these accusations is a bunch of narrative that supposedly supports the claims about Dominion Lindell says MyPillow never made.
"I'm not letting this litigation privilege go to waste."
To be fair to Hodak, he meant "we could probably breed/engineer animals with the size and shape of dinosaurs". But then to be fair to people who misunderstood him, the entire point of Jurassic Park was that the park's attractions had DNA that was mostly genuine dinosaur DNA.
My point was always that shorting out due process was not a good idea.No one's advocating for due processes to be discarded or ignored.
If the point is "video, therefore maul bad", then that's not any better than the people who go around murdering civilians.If all people are doing is saying that he's guilty, without advocating for due process to be ignored, that's not all the same as people going around murdering civilians.
Juries decide if someone is to be punished by the state. No one here is encouraging people to extra-judicially punish the cop, they're just stating what they believe to be true.
And if it's been tampered with or not is for a jury to decide.If the video was tampered with after the police released it to the public, I'm sure the police will be quick to point that out. If the video was tampered with before it was released to the public, one would assume it would be to exonerate the cop. If the video was tampered with before it was released to the public to make the cop look worse... how the hell would that happen?
So when, as a defense against the accusation of defamation, she claimed she didn't really believe the things she had said, that claim was a lie, she actually believes what she said about Dominion, and this should be obvious enough that the AG shouldn't do anything? Or her claim in her defense is true, she actually doesn't believe the things she said in court about Dominion, but because she also said those same things to the public the AG should ignore her lying to the court? Or what?
offered up a bunch of hearsay and conjecture from QAnon-addled conspiracy theorists
Those same conspiracy theorists probably think that Powell somehow tricked Dominion into suing her, her saying "I didn't actually believe what I said" is all a part of that trick, and Dominion has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
over a site where someone quoted Barack Obama at you almost a decade ago and you still take it personally.Wait, what?
Having seen the innards of Powell's lawsuits I wouldn't be at all surprised if she manages to cause Smartmatic's lawyers at least a few facepalms and head-deskings. But then being an annoyance is different than presenting any sort of challenge.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Press Secretary
Given this (flagged) comment, I think he's claiming that Scary Devil Monastery is a defendant in a case before Judge Alan D Albright.