Re: Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
In this case, if you want a direct analogy minus the internet it's basically someone took a picture of someone in a compromising position, gave it to scumbag and who posts it in his shop window. Scumbag then tracks down the subject and told them to pay them money or they will leave it in their shop window for everyone to see. It's straight up extortion. It's different if the tool is blind, but it obviously is not if the host is tracking down the people in the picture to get them to pay for removal.
the issue here is what does "using it" mean? If you get someone's phone number and call them to buy drugs from them, is that identity theft? You used the information, and you did something illegal, but it wasn't the act of using the information that was unlawful as it is in identity theft.
It's simple.. Pay me or I will harm you (or continue to harm you in this case) is extortion.. the scumbag is responsible for the harm, is doing the harm for the purpose demanding payment to stop it.
If you change it to "pay me or I will not give you this latte" or "pay me to take down something that I did not put up for the purpose of harming you until you pay to make it stop" (you know, like as a service) then it's not really extortion anymore.
You have got the definition and common use of censorship wrong is all. It doesn't have to be an attempt at manipulation like you think.. Putting blank boxes over porn is also censorship. I agree though, censorship for political manipulation is a different problem, but the word censorship itself doesn't imply that at all.
Well it is using a government law to stiffle someone's expression.. But copyright is used almost exclusively for censorship if you want to get technical about it, so I kindof agree it's not really any more or less "as censorship" than usual here.
Very little effort? Do you have any idea how much work they spend on fake reports, manipulating legislation and "re-educating" people, paying people to troll techdirt, making commercials about how piracy is killing our dishwashers and such? Not to mention all the work lawyers do to sue people and send out their extortion letters and such.. There is a ton of effort involved in maintaining this sham, don't kid yourself.
If we assume the O.P is right and there is some kind of epidemic in the tech industry of outsourced jobs, I doubt the proper response is to take no responsibility and write them off anyway :) (Who knows how those crazy techies think.. They are obviously outsourcing jobs for some crazy techie reason completely unrelated to our task of growing the economy)
Course it effects them or they wouldn't be messing with it all the time.. Their ability to fund their campaigns and their next jobs after they leave office are on the line, and a whole tonne of other types of perks I'm sure.
Re: Know what they call a non-national criminal law in Canada?
It's very stupid to pass a "cyber bullying" law at all. If it needs to be illegal, it needs to be illegal in reality as well as on the internet. There will never be any case that we need more protection from bullying, or anything else for that matter because of the oogie boogie internet.
Or at least, if there was a mistake in this case and these people got off due to some loophole or technicallity when they actually did commit serious crimes they should fix that mistake, not pretend it was a cyber bullying problem when it wasn't.
Also, for the loud noise, if the violent games are more competitive or more engaging than the non violent games, the competitiveness itself could easily prompt some (very minor) retaliation or taunting, as kids will do when they win or lose something they actually care about (ie: not golf)