I wouldn't even consider the companies that do the tracking on behalf of advertisers and the NSA to be necessarily distinct entities. We're talking about fully opaque companies specializing in things like ad placement, analytics, and content/widget hosting. Their resources are embedded in practically every webpage we visit nowadays, and are almost always transmitted unencrypted. I count about 20 unnecessary such hosts embedding resources on this page alone. So how can we see whether any one of these is run by, colluding with, or being snooped on by the NSA or anyone else?
Try getting any these companies to tell you just how they operate, who exactly they share our data with, how secure the data is, and what breaches they've had. Ask them if they're, in any way, in league with the NSA or any other branch of law enforcement. Ask them how many NSLs, subpoenas, and requests they've gotten, and how much data they've disclosed, including inadvertently, to third parties, including government, law enforcement, and unidentified persons.
This is where my mind goes whenever someone suggests that we have nothing to worry about from advertisers tracking us.
Consider linking Like fashion to Johanna Blakeley's 2010 TED Talk on the subject. Short version: trademark protection alone has proven more than sufficient to support a flourishing fashion industry that, economically, dwarfs the entire entertainment industry.
Indeed, I don't see how Boundless Informant is identifying participants or even geolocating with any more precision than any other IP address-based lookup. It seems to be precise only to the country level.
So Emmel didn't lie, considering she qualified her denial of geolocation and identification as being something they can't do with certainty in regard to all parties to a given communication. That leaves quite a bit of wiggle room.
Re: How is status quo "clearly good news for fair use"?
I think most of us can't help but regard a failure to erode the public interest as a win.
The part I find interesting is that it's a case of using a complete work, not just an excerpt or two. It's usually pretty difficult to get a determination of fair use when more than a portion of a work is at issue. In this case, the portion didn't matter, due to the copies being made (a) without intent to compete (b) for their factual rather than expressive content.
The parents and administrators probably still give this security company the benefit of the doubt. It's assumed the scans would only be used for attendance and would only be useful when the child is in school.
They don't even think of things like what could go wrong, how secure is this data being kept, how long do they keep it, what else might be done with it, what if someone uses the data to identify and track the children in places & situations where they (and their parents) expected anonymity, what happens when the company goes out of business or is acquired by a big government/military/law-enforcement contractor, etc.?
Agreed. It's in their interest to conceal the fact that they've declared him an "enemy", the ramifications of which are profound for Assange, Manning, anyone else who has any connection whatsoever with Wikileaks, and anyone who is in a position to leak any U.S. government/military information to anyone, ever.
Re: Re: Re: Mike NEVER deals with the morality of Napster.
Are you talking about Patronet, his buggy, overengineered, browser-based content subscription service? That seems to have died on its own, and is more comparable to crowdfunding than Napster. Rundgren was vocally anti-Napster and the like.
If the only people with the ability to develop a test for a deadly virus are so ethically challenged that they need to be "motivated" by a fat monopoly payday, then it's going to take a massive die-off of humankind before people get their priorities straight and realize that just because you can charge for something doesn't mean you should.
That kind of stuff continued through the mid-'80s where I lived. All the students in our (small-ish) high school were on guard for it, too; they even protected, across social and class divides, the kids who were acting out. No one was trying to "terrorize" or "bully" anyone. Everyone eventually grew up and became successful in adulthood; no one had to be taught a lesson or locked up for decades to send a message.
Our yearbook staff conspired to sneak things past the faculty advisor (or so we thought, who knows what she really knew), writing risqué captions, creating fake students, swapping in embarrassing photos of kids doing things they weren't supposed to be doing ... it was all just silly fun. Now it would be "bullying" and someone have to pay with a felony record, I guess.
As you said, they are in a public place. It would be improper to broadcast any footage disclosing the identities of the civilians, but I'm not sure the act of filming them can be said to be an invasion of privacy, even if they don't want cameras on them. And we've already established that cops don't have the right to privacy in these situations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
What I see is basically what I said in my previous comment: the post is merely a relayed report about an IP-maximalist organization spreading baseless FUD and employing faulty reasoning for upholding the status quo, to the detriment of the disabled. And that's not even Mike's assessment; KEI blogger Jamie Love is who ascertained these things. Mike's contribution, besides the secondary report, is really just the addition of his "see? yet more evidence of..." reaction.
I suppose his posting it here can be interpreted as an attempt to discredit someone, although "copyright holders" is a bit broad, since that's basically everyone who has ever authored anything. Rather, it's discrediting this particular business lobbying group, based on something they're actually doing. What more do you want?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
You want to have a conversation based on the merits of your post, yet your post is pure ad hominem.
the folks on TD who can't stand it when their leader is challenged
Like any blog, this one attracts more than its share of readers whose opinions are aligned with those of its contributors. And like most popular blogs, the writers know their audience, and both consciously and subconsciously write for it.
Yet, for some reason, you envision Techdirt readers as an obedient, unthinking cult, hanging on Masnick's every word and regarding him as their "leader". You regard all the readers - except those agree with you, I bet - as unable to formulate positions and arguments on their own, unwilling to see that his posts are mainly griping and shit-stirring.
Like I said, he knows his audience - he can certainly whip us up into a pissed-off comment frenzy - but we know him, as well. You guys keep trying to point out to us what's really going on, not realizing that we already know, and it doesn't matter, because most of the time, he's not saying anything we don't already agree with.
Mike and his guest bloggers just relay reports of outrageous things that the IP industry is up to, and they often express their opinions about it, and we all chime in with ours. It's as simple as that. He doesn't have us under mind control. He's not our "leader". One misstep and we'll turn on him...for that one post, which is how it should be.
This "leader" fixation is a generational thing. Mike's generation, the Gen Xers, distrust power and leaders in general, starting with their parents. The younger Millennials laugh at would-be leaders and rarely conflate celebrity with authority. But the older generation, the Baby Boomers - good god, they revere and exalt as ideologues anyone who's got anyone's attention, and can't comprehend the idea that everyone must be following someone. Of course there are exceptions to these trends, but I'm guessing you're in this camp, born before the 1970s. Am I right?
"Everyone wants stuff for free" is true and should be an integral part of these policy discussions. "Everyone just wants stuff for free" is not true and should not be the basis of policy.
The reality is that right now, many people choose to get gobs of convenient content for free, and most of those people also choose to pay for some content in various forms. This has been going on for a long time. Content still generates tons of cashflow. It's in different configurations than before, but the money is still all there, notwithstanding wages not keeping pace with inflation and debt.
What needs to be abandoned in these discussions is the notion that this longstanding reality - that not all content needs to be licensed and paid for ad infinitum - is an unsustainable situation which government needs to put an immediate and total stop to, or even curb to some degree. Likewise, pitting every proposal against the binary choice of strictly paying for every use and experience of content, versus no payment or enforcement for anything, is utter nonsense. And as we repeatedly point out here, it is counterproductive to regard as a hostile adversary every consumer who expects certain things - or anything - to be free.
Yet, the copyright maximalists have long dominated Congress's ear and have very well established these strict, absolute parameters for the conversation. It will require creative thinking to get lawmakers to understand that progress will come from realizing it is their duty to abandon this polarized framing of the issues.
A much more realistic starting point for policy is to acknowledge that the public fully expects that certain kinds of uses of content need not be licensed or subject to fees, and that most people draw some kind of distinction between the acceptability of unlicensed commercial and noncommercial uses. This has been manifesting in people's actual behavior for decades, and is supported by polls and the surge of democratized, creative output. Lawmakers and industry need to stop fighting these expectations and developments; these changes need to be enshrined and protected by law, not punished.