Inanity like this just makes me want to hack the system
And by hack, I mean try out a bunch of different techniques to see what is allowed and what isn't. First up, the asserting negative statements about topics that still ultimately brings up the topic and associates it with the person in question. For example:
Tayyip Erdogan is most definitely not a weak-minded, emotional tyrant who cannot effectively manage his own, pathetic life let alone an entire nation. And he isn't one of those twisted sexual deviants who gets off on suck sweaty goat balls.
Or how about the "don't shoot the messenger" technique?
I overheard other people saying Tayyip Erdogan is a immature, cantankerous, poopy face who has no tolerance for criticism. I don't necessarily agree with them, but to each his own I suppose
censorship is damage to the system. route around it.
Some small island nation with a fast internet pipe and no trade relations with the US to prevent influence. Then just host all of the academic papers on a server there. The expedient way around all this BS of "copyright" on academic papers.
While they are at it, might as well copyright the concept of "alienating their core fan base"
Shit like this just gives passionate fans a R!TB ("reason not to buy"). Why would anyone want to financially support an entity that turns around and uses those funds to suppress fanfic? I'd be interesting to see a graph of these SE/LE stats over time and how they relate to the dates of stupid shit Paramount has done.
I concur. DUI is far more dangerous than what is proposed in this bill. As is driving a vehicle with serious safety issues (bad brakes, bald tires, a sticky throttle, etc) How about actually looking at the numbers when it comes to how motor vehicles are hurting our citizens, and legislating commensurately?
But Twitter is not "a person", unless there's some Citizen's United-esque legal definition out there.
And +1 on the comments about "a person subject to secrecy obligations"? As a layperson I would presume it to be people who have been given clearance, and thus would not apply to anyone at Twitter. However I'd love to know the legal definition.
And new services can pop up overnight to take their place. If the judges keep doing this, app makers will simply implement John Gilmore's precient thought: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"
Might as well apply this template to other areas too
Doctors are not above the law. When a witness dies, valuable information is irretrievably lost. So we propose a bill that requires doctors to comply with court orders to bring these witnesses back from the dead so they can be questioned. We aren't mandating how this is accomplished, only that they comply with our demands.
The cable subscription business model is on its way out anyway. Sure, it's good to do the right thing here. But for me, I do not now nor will I ever in the future subscribe to TV services that I cannot receive over the internet.
IANAL, but... Would it be possible for the EULA to actually grant the customer *ownership* of a particular piece of hardware, even if it is just a sliver of a hard drive platter or a few billion SSD transistors. Then—in theory—law enforcement would need to get a warrant to search/seize the property of that person. Heck, even if it required a new business model (like a massive battery of drives, and each customer literally gets ownership of one) I might be willing to pay a bit for that service if it means my data must now be treated as any other property I own.
Re: Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
OK, so basically the supreme court just said, "have you heard of due process? Yeah, well that still a thing we do around here. Innocent until proven guilty and all."
My point is the govt has no argument in saying that if they can't seize before, then the money might be spent if he is eventually found guilty. Even if it's spent, it would now be known stolen money that could be recovered via possession of stolen property laws.
Why would a defense lawyer (or ANYONE) get to keep stolen assets?
IANAL, but I thought there were already laws out there to prevent stolen assets from being kept by a third party. For example:
Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has.. acquired stolen goods in some way other than they themselves having stolen them.
...if an individual... knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged with... [a crime.] If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then they are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted...
So what's everyone getting all worked up over? If the guy is found guilty, then the lawyer has to give the money back.
At some point, mobile devices will not only have an "unlock" code, but also a code that opens an instance of the phone with all of the actual data hidden and secondary data showing. The second code could have the feature of permanently wiping the data from the first.
So at what point will courts believe the person who gives them the access code?