Any lawsuit that attempts to force anyone from taking down protected speech can be anti-SLAPPed and now they are on the hook for legal fees. I don't think the people behind this cluster-debacle really thought this through. Here's what I tweeted last night to a few that voiced support for this bill (here is the bill's sponsor as the exemplar):
@IanCalderon born October 19, 1985 (age 30) #firstamendment #sosumi #antislapp #legalfees #badpublicity #streisandeffect @sagaftra @techdirt
Sure it's plagiarism, but from my brief Google search, that isn't against the law. Maybe there is a bar complaint that could have achieved the same effect, but barring that [pun intended[ using copyright as an interim solution seems ok. Let Congress fix it if they don't like it.
Look, it's great that Snowden turned out to be a nearly impeccable character that his opponents have to resort to lies and serious distortions to discredit him. But even if the guy were a drug addict with a penchant for young boys, THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE THE *FACTS* OF THE MATTER AT HAND.
This whole report is just a pathetic attempt at redirection, focusing on the messenger rather than the message. And more to the point (which Greenwald astutely pointed out in his piece), Snowden was not the one who made this information public. If anyone should be scrutinized by the government it is the JOURNALISTS and their institutions who analyzed the information he provided and independently determined it to be newsworthy.
Fuck the oxymorons on the House Intelligence Committee. I hope the next leak FUBARs each and every one of their personal and professional lives commensurate with the bullshit our government has put all of the previous intelligence whistleblowers combined.
I admit I'm ignorant of the particulars of the Canadian "notice and notice" system, but if I worked for University of Manitoba and if it weren't explicitly forbidden, I would pass on the letter per legal obligation along with a cover letter explaining that I have to send the enclosed letter along, but it is complete BS and you should feel free to ignore it, and call our office if you have questions. Because education is the way to solve this problem.
t's easy for some people to just say "Well, don't use Facebook," but for many people that's not really an option these days...
So use Facebook for "music videos, family dinners and other experiences" and "to stay in touch with family". But is it realistic for Facebook to be a platform that is best for all things to all people? You can still share a link to the article; just not with the "obscene" image associated. And there are probably better platforms for sharing more meaningful news and information that attract the the attention of clumsy, and overly-broad censors.
Actually the people directly exploiting these children to create the images are the worst of the worst. It's no different than the drug dealers vs. the addicts, IMHO. Not to absolve the viewers, but to inject a bit of perspective here.
So now countries and organizations will resort to posting the content via anonymous 3rd party sites, and then linking to it on their official channels. Or is the IOCC going to start punishing anyone who merely *LINKS* to "unauthorized" olympic content?
Anyone who argues for backdoors should have all of their investment and banking accounts put in a system with a backdoor. That would only be used by the "good guys" for "good reasons". And while we're at it, their email & texts goes into a similarly backdoored system. Let's see how loud they argue for it then.
I have Sonic broadband, which is simply reselling AT&T Uverse. They provide a VPN service so that AT&T can't capture my traffic. I'm sure it would be cheaper for people to pay for a 3rd party VPN service rather than pay their own ISP for "privacy". I wouldn't even trust them to respect my privacy if I did pay for it. I'm sure we will hear of them turning over data to a govt agency despite the customer "paying for privacy".
Anyone working on mobile phone locking software, please consider adding a duress passcode separate from the real passcode that would open the device with only some generic data included and simultaneously erase/invalidate all other data on the phone.
I'm sure for any popular and recognizable song out there, there are re-recorded versions, re-mastered versions, live versions, or even covers that could be used instead. Perhaps they didn't think to use one of those, but if this whole pre-1972 becomes a legal quagmire, you can bet this strategy will gain traction. Or just use a different song.
You have a lot of trolls and other undesirables coming to your site and leaving unwanted comments. Why don't you issue a few C&Ds to these folks and then if and when they come back, file a lawsuit. I would help fund such an experiment...