It's illegal in California: https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-vehicle-code/division-3-registration-of-vehicles-and-certificates-of-title/chapter-1-original-and-renewal-of-registration-issuance-of-certificates-of-title/article-9-display-of-plates-tabs-and-stickers/section-52011-product-or-device-obscuring-reading-or-recognition-of-license-plate
I think the issue is that Alito has no clue what "youtube" is. He probably doesn't use the internet and didn't bother (or want) to ask his clerks to research and explain it to him. All he knows is that youtube is a big "woke" company (probably because Faux News said it is) and therefore he dislikes it.
"Just because you already paid for the hardware doesn’t mean you should get to use it for free going forward."
Sorry, the standard model only goes in reverse. If you also want to go forward, that'll be $100/month extra.
Be careful if installing smurftube into a residence. Running it between floors may be illegal in some states (Massachusetts for instance). It requires a hole in the wall's fire break (the horizontal 2x4s between floors) that are there to stop a fire from spreading to upper floors through the wall. I learned this the hard way when the building inspector failed my framing inspection.
I'm willing to bet that there is either a camera, motion sensor, or light sensor embedded in the ad zone that will detect being taped over, or otherwise hidden from view, and will disable the main screen. At least that's what I would do if I were stupid enough to actually build such a product. But I would also encourage anyone with some technical expertise to sign up for one of these things simply to dismantle it and find a way to hack the device.
I can think of multiple reasons to ban TikTok; the TidePod challenge, the boiling water challenge, the choking game challenge, and teaching kids "the shuffle" dance, but Chinese spying isn't one of them.
Prohibiting its use on government (or company) issued phones is just a good security policy. Banning its availability in the country is just performative claptrap for the China haters.
If you've ever watched any of HGTV's multitude of home renovation shows then you'll know this isn't anything new. The shows almost always fuzz out any artwork shown in the videoes. Also any bookcases have the books shelved spine in so the title can't be seen. Also, there might be a pitcher of lemonade on the table, but never a can of Coke or Pepsi.
Copyright as a concept is important so that artists can get paid for their work. But Copyright as implemented in the US and the EU is a bloated mess that just prevents ordinary people from doing ordinary things. Take the number of people sued for sharing pictures online of the Christ the Redeemer statue in Brazil.
There is no personal information involved if someone is having sex in public. It's public information at that point. I'm not saying that the cops should have been looking at the records, just that no one's rights are being violated by them doing so. Public sex is just that, public.
I have a smart doorlock and love it, not for any sort of added security, but for ease of use. It's geo-fenced so when I leave home the door locks behind me and unlocks when I come back. If I can't remember if I locked the door when going to bed, I can just use my phone to check. What a common protocol would allow is for the door to lock when it is bedtime and all of the lights are off. None of these things are revolutionary changes, but they save some time and trouble.
As for smart fridges, none of the ones available do anything "smart". I want one which makes me a shopping list based on what items are low. Or better yet, sends my Tesla Optima robot to the market to restock. Maybe save some electricity by cooling slightly lower when the fridge knows I'm going to have the door open multiple times when prepping dinner. But just putting a screen on the front so you can read your email while cooking doesn't make it smart. There was, however, a recent Reddit comment suggesting that maybe one could run a Git repo on a smart fridge.
Door locks are indeed a special case. The residential burglar has 3 ways to break into your house.
The owner didn't lock the door, so just walk in.
Kick the door open.
Break a window and climb through.
In none of those cases is the security of the lock (be it smart or dumb) involved. No one ever picks open a house door lock. The best lock in the world won't protect against #3.
Of course, even if the photo was NOT in the public domain due to it being a government photo, the photographer holds the copyright on any photos they take unless the copyright is reassigned. Newspaper staff photographer's photos are automatically assigned to the paper. Photos from stringers vary from photo to photo and paper to paper.
How are the police going to access my private camera feeds? Both of mine send the wireless video encrypted. Are they just talking about Ring doorbell cameras that stream to the cloud? Or the camera on my laptop/phone?
Like all of these "save the children" laws, they are just ways to absolve parents from doing their job. If you don't want your kid going to TechDirt or PornHub, just block the website. All modern browsers have blocking lists as does the firewall on your internet router. Don't know which ones to block, then block them all and whitelist Disney (nope, Disney has shows with same-sex kisses now. And non-white people). Or just have discussions about topics that they might be searching for. Or just keep them off the internet completely and assure that they will never have any opinions other than yours. Be a damn Parent. And, yes, I have kids.
Hardly ignorance. If a link is a copyright violation, then it follows that any pointer to a news article is also. Links are just pointers. As I come from the newspaper industry I can tell you that the proposal is purely a money grab from an industry that didn't understand how to change. Newspapers made their money selling ads to local businesses for hundreds of years and either couldn't or wouldn't find other revenue models.
@Naughty Autie, just wow. If you had half a brain, you'd have read the article and know that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright, but is just a money grab from failing businesses. By your argument, if I publish a book review and tell you to buy "The best book ever" that would be a copyright violation? Links are nothing more than pointers to potentially copyrighted items.Clicking on a link brings you to the same page as if you had typed in the URL. If the copyright holder didn't want you to read what they wrote, they wouldn't put it on the Web. Links, URLs, movie/book/tv titles, etc are not copyright-able. That's settled law.
Sorry for being pedantic, but a link tax won't hurt the internet, but it will kill the web, which is based entirely on links.
We're already seeing what happens when a country does this. Google is threatening to pull search from Australia over their link tax. France's attempt failed miserably when news aggregators simply stopped linking to French news sources (who then whined about not receiving traffic). Link taxes are a dead-end solution for any problems.
Bitcoin (and its relatives) are too expensive for things like MyFreeCams and OnlyFans. What's needed is a new cryptocurrency with a fixed value, 1 token = US$1.00, and a third-party service to sell and redeem them. But such a service would probably be blocked by MasterCard, plus is probably a form of money laundering.
Maybe these services should just move to cash-only via USPS.
Prison
Let's hope these cops serve their time in gen-pop. I'm sure the brothers there will be more than happy to introduce the cops to prison life.
infra red LEDs and license plates
It's illegal in California: https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-vehicle-code/division-3-registration-of-vehicles-and-certificates-of-title/chapter-1-original-and-renewal-of-registration-issuance-of-certificates-of-title/article-9-display-of-plates-tabs-and-stickers/section-52011-product-or-device-obscuring-reading-or-recognition-of-license-plate
How much does Youtube weigh
I think the issue is that Alito has no clue what "youtube" is. He probably doesn't use the internet and didn't bother (or want) to ask his clerks to research and explain it to him. All he knows is that youtube is a big "woke" company (probably because Faux News said it is) and therefore he dislikes it.
Going forward
"Just because you already paid for the hardware doesn’t mean you should get to use it for free going forward." Sorry, the standard model only goes in reverse. If you also want to go forward, that'll be $100/month extra.
smurftube
Be careful if installing smurftube into a residence. Running it between floors may be illegal in some states (Massachusetts for instance). It requires a hole in the wall's fire break (the horizontal 2x4s between floors) that are there to stop a fire from spreading to upper floors through the wall. I learned this the hard way when the building inspector failed my framing inspection.
Blocking the ad zone
I'm willing to bet that there is either a camera, motion sensor, or light sensor embedded in the ad zone that will detect being taped over, or otherwise hidden from view, and will disable the main screen. At least that's what I would do if I were stupid enough to actually build such a product. But I would also encourage anyone with some technical expertise to sign up for one of these things simply to dismantle it and find a way to hack the device.
chipotle chicken bowl
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Sweetgreens has renamed their bowl to "Chicken + Chipotle Pepper Bowl".
Banning TikTok
I can think of multiple reasons to ban TikTok; the TidePod challenge, the boiling water challenge, the choking game challenge, and teaching kids "the shuffle" dance, but Chinese spying isn't one of them. Prohibiting its use on government (or company) issued phones is just a good security policy. Banning its availability in the country is just performative claptrap for the China haters.
Photos of artworks
If you've ever watched any of HGTV's multitude of home renovation shows then you'll know this isn't anything new. The shows almost always fuzz out any artwork shown in the videoes. Also any bookcases have the books shelved spine in so the title can't be seen. Also, there might be a pitcher of lemonade on the table, but never a can of Coke or Pepsi. Copyright as a concept is important so that artists can get paid for their work. But Copyright as implemented in the US and the EU is a bloated mess that just prevents ordinary people from doing ordinary things. Take the number of people sued for sharing pictures online of the Christ the Redeemer statue in Brazil.
Personal information
There is no personal information involved if someone is having sex in public. It's public information at that point. I'm not saying that the cops should have been looking at the records, just that no one's rights are being violated by them doing so. Public sex is just that, public.
smart door locks and smart fridges
I have a smart doorlock and love it, not for any sort of added security, but for ease of use. It's geo-fenced so when I leave home the door locks behind me and unlocks when I come back. If I can't remember if I locked the door when going to bed, I can just use my phone to check. What a common protocol would allow is for the door to lock when it is bedtime and all of the lights are off. None of these things are revolutionary changes, but they save some time and trouble. As for smart fridges, none of the ones available do anything "smart". I want one which makes me a shopping list based on what items are low. Or better yet, sends my Tesla Optima robot to the market to restock. Maybe save some electricity by cooling slightly lower when the fridge knows I'm going to have the door open multiple times when prepping dinner. But just putting a screen on the front so you can read your email while cooking doesn't make it smart. There was, however, a recent Reddit comment suggesting that maybe one could run a Git repo on a smart fridge.
Door locks
Door locks are indeed a special case. The residential burglar has 3 ways to break into your house.
- The owner didn't lock the door, so just walk in.
- Kick the door open.
- Break a window and climb through.
In none of those cases is the security of the lock (be it smart or dumb) involved. No one ever picks open a house door lock. The best lock in the world won't protect against #3.Photo copyrights
Of course, even if the photo was NOT in the public domain due to it being a government photo, the photographer holds the copyright on any photos they take unless the copyright is reassigned. Newspaper staff photographer's photos are automatically assigned to the paper. Photos from stringers vary from photo to photo and paper to paper.
How?
How are the police going to access my private camera feeds? Both of mine send the wireless video encrypted. Are they just talking about Ring doorbell cameras that stream to the cloud? Or the camera on my laptop/phone?
TV
How long do you think it will take CSI:Vegas to use this as a script? A cut-up straw hat just screams for the CSI treatment.
Think of the children
Like all of these "save the children" laws, they are just ways to absolve parents from doing their job. If you don't want your kid going to TechDirt or PornHub, just block the website. All modern browsers have blocking lists as does the firewall on your internet router. Don't know which ones to block, then block them all and whitelist Disney (nope, Disney has shows with same-sex kisses now. And non-white people). Or just have discussions about topics that they might be searching for. Or just keep them off the internet completely and assure that they will never have any opinions other than yours. Be a damn Parent. And, yes, I have kids.
links as copyright violations
Hardly ignorance. If a link is a copyright violation, then it follows that any pointer to a news article is also. Links are just pointers. As I come from the newspaper industry I can tell you that the proposal is purely a money grab from an industry that didn't understand how to change. Newspapers made their money selling ads to local businesses for hundreds of years and either couldn't or wouldn't find other revenue models.
internet != web
@Naughty Autie, just wow. If you had half a brain, you'd have read the article and know that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright, but is just a money grab from failing businesses. By your argument, if I publish a book review and tell you to buy "The best book ever" that would be a copyright violation? Links are nothing more than pointers to potentially copyrighted items.Clicking on a link brings you to the same page as if you had typed in the URL. If the copyright holder didn't want you to read what they wrote, they wouldn't put it on the Web. Links, URLs, movie/book/tv titles, etc are not copyright-able. That's settled law.
internet != web
Sorry for being pedantic, but a link tax won't hurt the internet, but it will kill the web, which is based entirely on links. We're already seeing what happens when a country does this. Google is threatening to pull search from Australia over their link tax. France's attempt failed miserably when news aggregators simply stopped linking to French news sources (who then whined about not receiving traffic). Link taxes are a dead-end solution for any problems.
crypto tokens
Bitcoin (and its relatives) are too expensive for things like MyFreeCams and OnlyFans. What's needed is a new cryptocurrency with a fixed value, 1 token = US$1.00, and a third-party service to sell and redeem them. But such a service would probably be blocked by MasterCard, plus is probably a form of money laundering.
Maybe these services should just move to cash-only via USPS.