If the frequency of fake serious stories like this one increases, people's trust will drop and their skepticism will rise, which will naturally reduce the effect of fake stories. To me this seems like a very ineffective cyberwar "weapon".
"So anyone who points out that Techdirt got it wrong should shut up?"
No, when Techdirt gets it wrong you should, in a constructive adult fashion, point that out and explain why. In this case though , I see no reason at all to believe TD got it wrong and your comment was a mile away from being constructive or adult, and was just trollish. So shut up.
And if this is what you think amounts to cyber way, I say bring it on. Some over-paid gamblers lost some money and some other over-paid gamblers made some, and the net result was not much of anything. Beats a real war any day.
If you engage your brain for a second you might realise that anyone with a laptop can walk down the road and do exactly what Google did, and there is nothing illegal or punishable about it. Hopefully you'll then see how stupid your analogy is.
I see you don't understand how burden of proof works. Not surprising...
Multiple investigations around the world have failed to find evidence of Google doing anything with the data collected, let alone something bad. What do you know that everyone involved in those investigations somehow missed?
...Mike voiced an opinion based on NOTHING, but then he claims to be Mr. Evidence-Based.
This statement is evidence of very limited intellectual ability on your part. If you think that the desire to state an opinion and the desire to find and present evidence are mutually exclusive traits then you're just too dumb to participate.
Re: Re: Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
"do you even understand what a 'natural right' is ?
clearly you do not."
Your screed has left me thinking the same thing about you.
"is it your natural right not to be mugged ?
is it your natural right not to be murdered ?
or to have your car stolen or your wife raped ?"
Why on earth do copyright maximalists always insist on bringing murder and rape into a discussion about copying, as if they're anywhere close to each other in significance. There is nothing, NOTHING, you can create that is significant enough to compare it's copying to murder and rape. The comparison makes you look like an over-entitled fool.
"copyright and the protection of idea's is also not contingent on specific laws and are in fact 'inalienable' rights..."
This is simply false, and I again ask for any credible source for this claim.
"You write a book you have a natural right not to have that stolen from you..."
Society has long agreed that it is wrong to physically take that book away from you and deprive you of its use, i.e. steal it. Copying is completely different, as is society's attitude to it.
"...and copying something and reducing any profits made from that creation is theft."
That is simply not the definition of theft, not by any dictionary, legal or common-sense meaning of the word. There is no natural or legal right guaranteeing a profit. Profit is something you earn by convincing people to pay more for your product or service than it costs you to provide.