I think the bigger issue here is that the DMCA blatantly violates the First Amendment. It's sort of like the law restricting the export of encryption software, but if you print the algorithm on a T-shirt you can walk across the US/Canada border with no problem while wearing it.
Don't forget to credit Techdirt for hosting your post, or Mike for creating Techdirt. Or wait, maybe you should credit the inventors of the Web technology. Should you credit the creator of the canvas on which the Beethoven portrait was painted? What about the instructor who taught the artist?
A company like Telstra has investors, and if it doesn't, it has clients who have investors. By agreeing to censorship and potentially opening themselves up to retribution, they risk the stock prices of their investors should the hacking have an impact.
So while their backpedalling may seem like they are scared of hackers, it's as close as they are going to get to saving face in the light of the possibility that a decision based on PR could affect them in the pocketbook.
From reading Barnett's bio on the ICE web page, he strikes me as a lawyer/lobbyist who is far more interested in advancing his own career than anything else. It seems from his actions and words that ICE came up with a flawed plan, exectuted it badly, and Barnett has the choice of either falling on the sword or lying through his teeth.
I'm guessing like a true lobbyist, he lied.
I am deeply disappointed in the direction the current administration has taken on technology and IP issues. Barnett seems to typify the worst of those values. He's nothing but a pawn for the MPAA and RIAA.
Maybe instead of requiring this, if there was some sort of privacy certification from a private organization or the state, like "Certified to be Privacy Safe". Then in order to receive the certification, said site would have to meet whatever the default criteria was - like having privacy on by default.
But I think requiring social media to be private by default would be onerous and unenforceable.
OK I see what the NRA is going for here. But if the doctors simply don't ask "do you own a gun" and address every parent with gun safety info, whether or not they own one, it will bypass the issue altogether.
This fascinates me because it's how binary is converted to decimal. It makes me think that instructors who come from a computer age realize it is a better way to teach multiplication and at the same time prepare students for working with binary.
This is very straightforward. Unless he had a contract stipulating otherwise, Ainsworth did the work for hire, so Lucas owns the property.
There's no evidence Ainsworth created the costumes independently then sold them to Lucas. Lucas hired him to specifically make them. So Ainsworth does not own the copyright on the costumes or merchandise. It all belongs to Lucas, who hired Ainsworth to make them.
Most? Really, I am interested in what your definition of "most" is. A quick glance at Wikipedia reveals there are literally dozens of web browsers, and those are just the ones currently available. And what, 7 of them are listed as having "privacy" features? Oh yeah. That is soooo most.
Wait, let's limit your comment to modern browsers (I'll be generous). Private browsing wasn't added to Explorer until IE8, wasn't in Firefox until 3.5, wasn't in Chrome until version 4. I don't want to go into how many people are using mobile browsers (God knows what's being passed over those connections), or how many people continue to use Opera on their Wii because they have no choice.