If we lived in a nation where the laws applied to the people who make them and the people who enforce them and the people who donate the money to keep those other two groups in control, then, yes, anyone who uses those devices without prior written authorization of the FCC would be fined, at least.
But in a nation where a bipartisan effort was made to exempt telcos from civil or criminal penalties for violating the law, that's very unlikely.
That sounds like it would require phone-to-phone connections bypassing the towers, which I don't think any commercial phones come designed to do; centralized providers who make money selling you text messages at the equivalent of $1,000 a megabyte don't want you bypassing their little walled gardens.
What you're describing would be a form of mesh networking. Mesh networking is a big thing that a lot of the Free Software Foundation and TORProject types have been working on for a while.
First, by "a hacker group" you obviously mean "terrorists."
Second, if someone starts exposing illegal covert surveillance, that's not a reason to stop illegal covert surveillance, that's a reason to increase surveillance to catch the terrorists who are trying to interfere with law enforcement.
I hate working overnights, because I'm always so late to these conversations.
If anyone's still paying attention: the copyright corps want to call this piracy because it really is piracy, in the sense that piracy is the way you undermine mercantilism by turning it against itself. I'd like to draw your attention to this blog/opinion article from around the time of the financial crash in 2008:
The news articles about people like Steven Klein and "Sam Bacile" AKA Nakoula Basseley Nakoula make a pretty strong implication that if the film wasn't designed as hate speech, it was designed to instigate attacks from muslim terrorists (albeit "secret cells" of muslim terrorists in California, not active militants in Libya).
It's looking more and more like there were two groups: angry but nonviolent protesters from the local area, and armed militants from as far away as Pakistan who used - and possible took action to create - the mob as a diversion.
I don't suppose there's a chance that information and speculation puts your rhetorical question into context as ignorant and shameful?
A massive migration of persecuted ethnic minorities was sparked by what was later determined to be hoax/prank-ish social media messages; preying upon fears of racial violence sparked by a protest the month before where police had killed a few and injured many.
It made me wonder if the protest mob was a deliberate diversion ... which is now making the rounds as a possibility:
So, in that light, I'm prepared to look at YouTube's actions as more like trying to take the megaphone out of the hands of the guy yelling fire. In most cases, the antidote to improper speech is better speech, but let's mop up the blood first and then let the crazy guy go back to shouting insults.
What excuse? They don't need an excuse. They just need the Graduated Response/Six Strikes plans to finally go into effect. Then they don't need to spend money on lawyers or even get their employees PI licenses because they won't need to meet any evidentiary standard at all.
he court goes through the caselaw history on colors as trademark, and the question of whether or not a color is "functional" or not
The way it was explained to me many years ago is that not only is the Louboutin red not functional, it's dysfunctional; it actually makes scuffs and minor sole damage more obvious, can leave marks on certain surfaces, and (the finish to make the red more obvious, not the red itself) can make you more likely to slip.
And this is on purpose. It's deliberately wasteful extravagance, conspicuous consumption.
Dunno ... maybe that pushes it so far down into non-functionality that it becomes functional again.
Well, hypothetical ... what if the FBI really did "never had" the information, because it was always remotely accessed from an NCFTA server?
FBI Agent leaves laptop open with a username and password in plain view or written on a post-it (because "o hai Im FBI! c my gun pew pew! I haz nashunul seekrits lulz" seems to fit the profile of a joker who shows up to a hacker conference to shill for the FBI in an EFF tshirt).
AntiSec grabs the post-it, logs into NCFTA website, downloads file.
FBI issues factually accurate but still deceptive denial.
If a troll takes it too far or no one laughs, there's really no chance of a graceful dismount OR EVEN AN APOLOGY, as the apology of a troll - "it was just a joke" comes far too close to the reply of an unrepentant bully: "can't you take a joke?"
The desire to lockdown the conversation isn't really that hard to understand.
Cable company vs. FOX is kind of like Alien vs. Predator - on one hand, you enjoy watching because they're both terrible, and the more damage they do to each other the better; but on the other hand, you take whatever shots you can at them because, at the end of the day, they're fighting over who gets to eat you.