Your comment: "It's a shame the US government doesn't understand the importance of anonymous public whistle blowing. Of course, maybe they do, but I'd rather not go there" got me thinking (briefly).
Here's how that ambivalence might play out:
"Thank you for calling the Anonymous Whistleblower Hotline. We value your help in highlighting issues which we need to cover up. Please remain at your current location. A federal agent has already been dispatched and will be pleased to arrest you. Your concern for the public good is appreciated. Have a nice day."
Would be quite the hoot if they tried to claim trademark over all the ticker symbols of the stocks traded on their exchange! The sooner IP maximalists reach the extreme where they put themselves out of business, the better, perhaps.
Well, this IS a soccer player we're dealing with, so not too surprising if he is not particularly smart in pursuing this.
An interesting development is that a second soccer player has also been granted one of these ridiculous super injunctions following hot on the heels of this case.
Apparently the judge granted that injunction because the player concerned claimed publication of his name would have a significant impact on his wife and family. Hmmm, or perhaps it was his alleged adultery that had the impact rather than the reporting of that affair.
I would like to make it illegal for politicians to speak before engaging their brains.
Seriously, I suppose the tendency to resort to legislation as a cure for all ills is the result of a culture in which politicians (and many times, the public) see their job as "lawmakers". If your job is to make laws, that is what you will do even though legislation is many times not the appropriate solution.
These cases are already covered by plenty of laws so one more on the books will not help. But education campaigns to help stigmatize these practices (as has been successfully done with drunk driving in many places) would be a better use of resources.
As an ICT manager, I find myself cursing Adobe more regularly than I would care to think. Every time we have a change in our personnel and need to transfer a licence to a new user or a new computer, we have to go through the incredible hoops set before us by Adobe.
I consider their products to be expensive to purchase (with frequent updates being required caused by the very backwards compatibility issue described in the article) and in many cases ludicrously bloated. It is beyond inconvenient.
Ironically, one of our former employees, who was enthusiastically advocating our own products be locked down by some complex licensing technology, was an ex-Adobe salesperson. He was extremely enamoured of the company for which he had previously worked and had no grasp of the trouble these tools cause for the customer who has actually bought their licence. And as has been observed so many times before, these same products can be obtained with cracks and serial codes from the torrents, thereby proving the pointlessness of these appalling mechanisms.
Given that linking is merely bringing the material to a wider readership, does he also, by extension, believe we should ask permission before reading his article? It seems the mark of a clueless person to publish material on the internet only to object to it reaching a wider audience than those who might have come across it on the site on which he himself published it. Words fail me.
The twist here is that the person in question, Andrew Marr, is a senior journalist (I'm not sure if he still is, but he used to be the BBC's own Political Editor) and here he was using one of these super injunctions to maintain his own privacy.
The article refers to comments by Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye magazine and a "team captain" on the very popular BBC satirical news quiz show, Have I Got News For You. Hislop referred to Marr's use of a super injunction as "a touch hypocritical" using classic British understatement to describe the situation.
This would be one solution, for sure. But what I can't get my head around, is how they would plan to handle the possibility that someone could pass the information to a friend outside Canadian jurisdiction who might then publish the information.
Or maybe it is not what the law says that they are concerned about, merely that here is a law so it has to be enforced. Wonder how many other outdated laws are on the books that they do not enforce, though.
I felt obliged to log in and comment simply to say that equating News of the World journalists with professionals, to my mind, amounts to flattery in the extreme, but we can let that go considering the suggestion doesn't undermine your point, Mike!
First, isn't much of what we are struggling with in these discussions evidence of the fact that, although laws should be decided jointly, the fact is that they are actually decided by a very small minority (legislators) influenced by powerful vested interests.
Second, I suspect the sentiments that give rise to your comment that "certainly my opinion is not going to do it..." are very much the reason most "normal" people feel somewhat powerless to effect change.
I can't decide whether this appears to herald a new era of Luddism (and a pretty extreme form of it at that) or of heightened paranoia. Either way, if you want to fear the unknown like this, you will end up banning an incredibly long list of potential threats. Taken ad absurdum, there is really very little among the most mundane of objects which could not in some way be used to make mischief.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" seems particularly apposite here.
As I have heard it noted before, a telephone is really a very rude device. It's ring is effectively the caller shouting "Here I am, give me your immediate attention!" Yes, one can ignore the ring, or silence it, but that is not always easy to do. For me, I start wondering whether I have ignored something really important.
Things are mitigated somewhat with caller ID of course, so one can choose, based on caller, whether to answer or not. But ultimately, more modern methods of communication generally leave open the option to give them attention now or later on. If someone leaves a voicemail, phones offer that too, but so many people simply hang up when they hear the voicemail prompt that I rarely have the option available to me.
I am in my late forties and identify wholeheartedly with the sentiment. To Yogi, who commented about women, I have to say that even my wife has commented to me that she rarely actually calls anyone and few people call her these days. Most of our communication, with friends, family or for work, is done using other electronic means (email, chat, instant messaging or even forum posts).
I had to laugh. A quick scan of the comments on that blog only turned up one that I could spot supporting Microsoft. Someone calling himself QA trying to point out that this is how the patent system works. It's all beyond laughable and one has to hope that this backfiring PR effort might give Microsoft pause for thought.
I particularly liked where one commenter highlighted a comment that MS is doing this for its customers and asked that he (as a customer) not be included.
If this were not so incredibly sad, it would be hilarious. Who can really take big companies like this seriously when they act like petulant children?
What an incredibly ignorant response from this guy. Obviously people should keep their personal data personal, but an email address is exactly the sort of thing people absolutely need to share. How else will anybody else be able to email them if they didn't pass that out. And knowing the dates someone is planning to travel is hardly secret personal information either. There are a host of reasons someone would get to know this.
Ryanair are only compounding their image as a company with no concern or respect for their customers. Hardly a winning approach to doing business!