All this talk about how terrorists might use burner phones overlooks the obvious: telemarketers that use burner phones. You know, the ones that call you at 9:00pm even though you're on the Do Not Call List to tell you you're eligible for a credit card fee reduction. Sure, you can report their current number to the Do Not Call list again, but nothing's going to happen if they simply toss the phone after a few hours of use.
Re: What about the City of Moutainview's share of the blame?
I was just about to say this. While we're quick to blame Comcast for this issue, what about the city? Did it drag it's feet? Did it not allow Comcast to get the proper permitting? However, if this was true, it would put Comcast in a no-win situation: 1) If they didn't say anything, the customer would think Comcast wasn't communicating. 2) If they told the customer that the city was dragging its heels, they'd be accused of shifting the blame.
But that's still no reason to try to bill the customer over $60,000... and then only backpedal when tech sites apply pressure. What about all the other companies who are in a similar situation but who didn't contact the media?
I was just about to say this. If Google stopped all its services in France, who would lose more: Google or the French people? Imagine if the entire country was locked out of GMail or search because Google wouldn't put up with the regulations from the government? And remember, French people are known for rioting over causes.
Like a commenter in the Ars article said, people could be reasonably confused if they saw a package named "Kik" that didn't come from the Kik company. And like a commenter here said, it would be like if you made a namespace called "walmart". How can you justify getting upset and pulling all your code when the real Walmart sends you a letter saying you're confusing people by using their name? It doesn't matter if Kik or Walmart make similar code since people will recognize the name and assume the code comes from these companies.
This proves two principles: 1) When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. In this case, everything must be watched in case anyone is a terrorist. This means innocent drawings and toddler-speak are now terrorist acts in the making. 2) Occam's Razor: how did the authorities twist, warp, and bend the information to make it fit their story of a terrorist in training? Yet the simplest answer is correct: a toddler makes a poor drawing and then doesn't have the vocabulary to explain it. If he can't pronounce "cucumber", why does anyone think he can pronounce "terrorism"?
But unofficial creations harm no one, whether or not they make money. Let's look at a few facts: Paramount is releasing "Star Trek Beyond", an offical Star Trek movie with the director of "Fast and Furious". This movie looks like it will be full of action, which may or may not appeal to Stra Trek fans. "Prelude to Axanar" has raised over a million dollars on Kickstarter. This shows that Star Trek fans want and support this kind of movie.
To put on a conspiracy cap for a minute... Who's being harmed? I would think Paramount is jealous that this fan film is getting more acceptance in the fan community than their official movie. AND the "Anaxar" people are showing that it's possible to make a quality movie for a fraction of the cost of a studio production. How much is it costing to make "Star Trek Beyond"? $100 million? $150 million? So, yes, I think Paramount thinks it's being harmed by the publicity for "Axanar"... though Paramount is creating more publicity with the lawsuit and the now silly list of words they think are copyrighted.
So explain how this is different from renting a movie from Redbox? If I only want to see a movie once, Netflix (streaming or DVD rental) or Redbox rental works fine. If I want to own the movie, I'll buy the DVD.
It would be interesting to see how people like this sheriff react to safes, such as those found in banks. Would he arrest the CEO of the Smith Safe Company for making a bank vault that the police couldn't break into? Them why is it any different for electronic devices? The whole point is that people want privacy and security. What would he tell banks if they said they didn't want a safe for $5 million worth of jewels?
Like many people are saying (myself included) is that many websites lost the "you're stealing our content" argument when they started serving annoying ads, video ads, and malware. And like so many people are saying, I wouldn't mind seeing ads if they were trusted or relevant.
Exactly. Why isn't this point getting more attention? It seems like everyone enjoys debating whether Apple should or shouldn't do what the FBI asks yet no one's really talking about how Apple got into this position in the first place.
Maybe if the FBI did its job at the beginning and didn't wipe the crime scene or tell the San Bernadino School Board to change the password then they could have gotten a good backup and they wouldn't be in this position.
But is it a net win? What happens to the plastic containers that the fruit is in? If the store is removing the skin because people throw the skin in the trash (instead of composting), won't these same people simply throw the plastic containers in the trash instead of recycling them? Or are we singling out Whole Foods buyers because they're more environmentally friendly? :)
I think the bigger issue is whether a "moron in a hurry" would think this wine is somehow related to the Lord of the Rings movies, which I'm sure is why the SJZ company is objecting to the name. Has "hobbit" really become a generic word for short people? Maybe to the wine owners, but maybe not to everyone else.
Why not go this route with GM and have them make tanks for the military for free? Ir's the same principal. I think the better comparison would be if the government told GM that it had to build armor onto its existing cars for free. After all, GM already has the infrastructure to make cars, so it shouldn't be that hard to add armor to it. And let the GM engineers figure out the specs for the armor for free as well.
I don't see what the problem is. The guy is clearly making replica Batmobiles. It doesn't matter what he calls them if people are recognizing them as being Batmobile replicas. DC Comics owns the likeness to the Batmobile and associated names. He's selling these without a license, implying an endorsement from DC Comics, and possibly in violation of another car-maker's license.
I vote to NOT link to any sites that block people who use ad-blockers. Send these sites a lesson that there are plenty of other sites with the same news.
The bottom line is this: I will continue to use an ad-blocker until the site can 100% guarantee that the ad-network won't serve me malware, damage my computer, or give me a "cryptolocker".
It's also disingenuous for these sites to serve annoying ads and malware but then get upset when people block the ads.
But this goes back to the issue of why sites serve flashing, distracting ads in the first place. Are they in the business to provide entertainment and news to readers or to provide an audience for the ads? I'm starting to think it's the latter.
I think any lawyer who brings an obviously poorly thought-out trademark or copyright suit into the court system should be disbarred. And since I came up with this idea, I have now copyrighted it and I'll sue anyone who uses this trademark without my permission.
First, he figured out the idea "people will believe a lie if you repeat it often enough".
Second, I'm sure he's figured out that way too many online media sites don't do research, either because they're too busy or too lazy. They see an e-mail from a guy who has a huge blog saying he invented e-mail so that's good enough. The site has a deadline so they write a framing story around the guy's blog, add a click-bait title like "You won't believe who invented e-mail? This will blow your mind and restore your faith in humanity." and call it a day. Then that site gets used as an accurate source by aggregator sites like BuzzFeed and the lie gets even deeper.
Thanks for this article. I wish the other media would pick up on these points, especially how the FBI should have their own forensic tools and experts, rather than just saying Apple should give in because they've helped the FBI before. Then again, this would be the same media that doesn't make a difference between unlocking a phone (which Apple has done) and writing new software (which will set a dangerous precedent). But when the media has 5 seconds to grab a Facebook user's attention, a lot of these details don't seem important enough to write about.