PrometheeFeu's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the favorites dept
This week's favorites of the week post comes from PrometheeFeu
We all live in anticipation for The Call when Mike Masnick sends you an email
that asks you to write Techdirt Favorite Posts of the Week and changes your life
forever. We all wonder what we will be doing when it comes and how we will
react. I was cleaning up cat vomit and coughing my lungs out when I answered:
"Sure, I would love to!" In the spirit of making myself and all of you feel
better, I decided to try to tease out some of the good news in this week's
posts. We all love righteous indignation (and so I kept some) but sometimes
things are improving.
The week kicked off pretty well with the interesting news of Medvedev (our
favorite Putin stand-in) wanting to include a CC-like
option in Russian law. In practice, it is probably irrelevant, but it may
be a sign that the maximalists are starting to lose the battle for hearts and
minds. However, my country of birth's broadcast regulator ruined Monday with a "Won't
somebody think of MySpace" plea banning news organizations from the
admittedly annoying: "You can follow us on Twitter @TheNewsYouJustSaw". It
would be opening "Pandora's Box" they said. Pandora you say? Seems the
regulators are not above advertising music services.
It seems somebody is always getting in the way. Whether it be the
recording
industry artificially limiting the ways we can use the cloud for music,
the FDA
not really knowing how to deal with medical devices or Apple imposing
restrictive conditions on its apps, there is always someone who jumps in the
middle usually demanding money. What the barriers-to-trade supporters -- whether
they be copyright maximalists, FDA apologists or Apple lawyer groupies -- forget
is that those barriers don't just ensure safety or make money change hands. They
also preclude certain forms of innovation to the detriment of consumers. But
there is a silver lining, whether it be newspapers
switching to HTML5 to get out of the App Store (Sorry Apple Store), Amazon and
Google just going through with their service without label authorization or
Tricorder builders selling outside of the USA, capitalism always finds a way
to provide more and more valuable goods and services to consumers.
For the most part, Wednesday was a good day for civil rights. First, Senator
Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz announced plans to introduce a bill to prohibit GPS
tracking without consent. This is either spelling the end of the rule of law, or
asking the police to respect your basic rights, I forget which. Then, New
Zealand suddenly realized that the three strikes
law would violate their citizen's rights. Of course, that might land
them on Santa's the recording industry's the USTR's
Special 301 report listing those countries that placed their citizen's rights
above being a good little recording industry toady. But the crown jewel of that
day was
Samsung showing Sony how to do business: When somebody is doing work to
improve your product, help them, don't sue them. Of course, things are never
perfect, especially in New Jersey where apparently, real
journalists don't use message boards. Also settled in that case: real
programmers don't use emacs.
Thursday's opening just about knocked the breath out of me. The World
Intellectual Property Rights Organization (WIPO for friends) commissioned a
meta-study to see if intellectual monopolies harm innovation. (Spoiler:
It does). The legal landscape nevertheless remains dangerous if you want to
blow whistles under the Presidency of Mr. "sunshine is the best disinfectant."
(Not Medical Advice. Also, a lie.) Thankfully, the successes are mixed with
Wikileaks "associates" (as in they might get Facebook to recommend they
friend Assange's third cousin thrice removed) potentially being
criminalized for not testifying, and the prosecution against Thomas
Drake falling apart because the evidence
against him is so sensitive you can't even show flowcharts about it in
court.
Hopefully, more whistle-blowing lawsuits will fail
(or result in
favorable settlements) due to the Fed's paranoid obsession with secrecy.
The irony is just too good.
Unfortunately, it appears that despite all the progress of this week,
some people
are still pushing absurd laws. Lip-synching videos on YouTube could earn you a
jail term if public performances are criminalized. But you
probably shouldn't,
worry. It's highly unlikely you'll get caught unless you annoy a
government official.
Rule of law? What rule of law?
But let us end the week on a positive note. Officials tend to jump at
every opportunity
to terrify their constituents into the most absurd actions. (Anyone remember the
automatic letter openers to protect us from anthrax?) Well, every once
in a while, when the media tells us to be afraid,
somebody steps
up and says: "Calm down. Things are not that bad."
Final Disclaimer: I work at one of the above-mentioned companies as a software
engineer so feel free to consider that I am subject to some related biases.
However, I am not authorized to speak for my employer or anyone but myself
and my cat. The opinions expressed above are solely my opinion and should
be attributed to no one else on pain of looking foolish.


(untitled comment)
The law that is allegedly violated is not that auto-complete is being racist. It is that auto-complete is creating a database that contains ethnicity. Of course, given that the presence of the word "jew" in auto-complete does not actually indicate that the person actually is jewish, the lawsuit is bogus. But bogus in a different way.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so your assessment that significant extra protection was provided is based on what exactly? I'm not saying it's a bad assumption, but the article supports only the fact that Bush's daughters were in Buenos Aires and that they may have put themselves in a dangerous spot. Nothing in there suggests there were significant security arrangements made. So when abc gum asks: "How many were assigned to the Bush twins on their excursions, like to Buenos Aires for example." my answer is that I don't know, but that the article in question suggests few, not many.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are serial killers who rape and murder dozens of people. Does that mean we should stop handing out parking tickets?
So yes, the wars that Bush (as well as Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr) are orders of magnitudes worst than what we are talking about here. But that is not an excuse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither does the President of the United States. There are plenty of fetters. If he started abusing his power wantonly to comply with demands by kidnappers, the cabinet would most likely declare him incompetent and the VP would take over. Now of course, Cheney in charge isn't exactly what I would call peachy, but it's nowhere near as bad as you think.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good for you. It's very generous of you to chose to give the guy a hand so his daughter can go visit Mexico. Oh wait, you had no choice in the matter. He just reached in our pockets and took what he wanted. Well... You are still a generous soul for wanting to give.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know. But on the page you linked to, it said: "No Secret Service agents were anywhere to be seen in the lobby, according to ABC News’ Joe Goldman." My point was not that Obama's daughter shouldn't have gone to Mexico. My point was that it was irresponsible of her father to spend extra tax-payer dollars for it. So sending his kid with insufficient security is one way to do this. Of course, the Bush twins were adults and so if their father said: "I can't send enough Secret Service to protect you effectively", they could answer "OK, we'll risk it." Given how young Obama's daughter is, I simply assumed that the "go to Mexico with insufficient security" option was off the table.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I take your point, but that's hardly conclusive.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you very much for your concern for my well-being, but my heart and breathing rates are within normal parameters. As for the significance of taxpayer money, while larger amounts are more problematic and may indeed raise my heart-rate, I disapprove on principle of people who reach into my pocket whether they take a tenth of a penny or $1,000. I disapprove of it even more when they are using my money for the personal gratification of themselves, their friends and family. So, sure, I'm liable to throw tantrums and freak out (aka, write a couple comments on a website) when I hear about people stealing my money.
I'm not sure exactly how many agents it is appropriate to spend on the President's kids and wife. But I would say 25 is definitely excessive. I would tend to say 3-5 is about as much as is acceptable. Having known the children of a number of executives in dangerous countries who got along just fine with that number, (of people with much less training than secret service agents I might add) I would say that's good enough for the president's kids if you keep them out of particularly dangerous areas.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Re: Re:
She gets 25 Secret Service agents on her at all times when in the US? Security is about balancing protective measures with risk avoidance, making a cost-benefit analysis. Let's say that Obama's kids wanted to tour the front-line in Afghanistan and that doing that safely would require a company of marines and constant air support. Everyone would understand that the right thing to do would be for the girls to not go and spend all that tax-payer money.
Here, it's the same thing on a smaller scale. They can either put the girl in a dangerous situation and fly over 25 agents, or they can keep her in DC with her normal staff which is probably much smaller. (and at the very least does not need to fly there) The responsible thing to do is for Obama to explain to his kids that no, it's not his money to spend and that he can't justify having the American people's money finance such an expensive security apparatus just so his kids can go visit Mexico. But of course, he instead lets his kid go and makes us pay for it. Excuse me if I find that unacceptable.
And if people have done that in the past, that is no excuse. It is plainly unacceptable for Presidents to be so cavalier with tax-payer money.
(untitled comment)
Let's see, the President is spending our tax dollars to outfit his kid with a 25-person escort to Mexico and pointing it out is a "low blow"? If she can't be made safe with a reasonable escort (1-2 people tops), maybe she should stay in the White House or daddy could use his salary to pay the bill. I don't see why I as a tax payer should pay for her field trip.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As much as it is possible (and even plausible) that they went on fishing expeditions, I'm betting those GPS devices are expensive to acquire, maintain, install and then monitor, so I'm hesitant to say that FBI agents dipped into their budget willy-nilly. No impossible, but I'm willing to grant them some benefit of the doubt.
Re: Re:
Well, as much as I am suspicious of law enforcement, I don't think they actually thought this was illegal. The reasoning in Jones is fairly novel (in modern 4th Amendment jurisprudence) and so I would forgive an FBI agent who thought that this is no different than beepers which SCOTUS had said was not a search.
So they thought they were going through the proper channels. The real problem as I see it is that people in law enforcement are a bit too eager to believe that they can do things which makes everyone else raise an eyebrow.
Re: Re:
Well, to be fair, they used to think the Constitution did not require them to get a warrant. (Still doesn't necessarily. There are many cases where a search can be made without a warrant.) So if you think what you are doing is within the bounds of the 4th Amendment and that no warrant is needed, it would be a waste to spend resources on getting a warrant.
Of course, that is part of the problem. The culture in law enforcement should be to seek judicial review whenever there is a grey area rather than only doing so when you are sure it is absolutely necessary.
I'm just saying, it's not necessarily all nefarious.
Re:
I know... Slowly but surely we are winning. People who work for ICE and the TSA should feel terrible.
(untitled comment)
From what I've read, this sounds like an honest mistake. Most likely, some QA guy tried the functionality in Safari saw that it didn't work and sent a bug to the developer saying: "The feature is broken in Safari. Fix it!" The developer looked at what Safari was doing, and said: "Hm... Safari is acting weird. Stupid non-standard browser behavior. As though IE wasn't enough of a pain in the neck!" Then he wrote some code that made the feature work and forgot about it.
I seriously doubt anyone actually though this Safari behavior was a feature not a bug. If you develop for the web, a ridiculous amount of time is spent working around individual browser quirks. You rarely actually sit down and think: "Well maybe it's a feature that our application won't work in a major but quirky web browser out of the box."
(untitled comment)
I'm a little confused. Let's say I go to Canada and legally purchase a copy of 1984 that has been made without paying any royalties and then fly into the US. What is my copyright violation? As I understand it, it's illegal to copy, perform, etc in the US. But I did none of these things in the US. It was all done in a country where it was perfectly legal for me to do those things and then came into the US. Am I missing something?
(untitled comment)
So... If a Senator becomes Techdirt Favorite Posts of the Week author, does that mean all of us who did one these posts before are now Senators? Don't answer that question, I'm pretty sure I like my fantasy better than reality...
Re: Re: Re: well, shit
Nobody is saying that they may examine her thoughts! We are saying that she has to hand over evidence which is in her possession when an impartial arbiter has determined that there is probable cause that the evidence is relevant to a case where she may have violated the rights of another individual. That's it. What's wrong with that?
Re: Re: Re: No way in hell
What evil? They have her on tape admitting to the presence of the evidence on her hard-drive. All they are saying is: give us that thing we know you have. Her mind is not being violated.