As the White House said [link to WH statement], the Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the new Congress to implement the changes the President has called for. Given that legislation has not yet been enacted, and given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the telephony metadata program, the government has sought a reauthorization of the existing program, as modified by the changes the President directed in January.
So what he's saying is he doesn't want to end the current bulk collection program until he can work out a deal with Congress to authorize a new program that does the same thing with a different name?
How do we determine who in "the public" should have access to all the video?
I agree it shouldn't all go public, but it also shouldn't only be available to people in the video. It seems to me the best solution is that anyone can request that video be publicly released, and some group independent of the police - having custody of all the video - determines whether public release is appropriate. If it isn't, then they can determine if private release to just the requester is appropriate. No system is perfect, but that would be better than the police deciding who gets video.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
It could be, the person behind the name(s) could have more skill and intelligence than I give him or her or them credit for. It would take some real writing skill to come up with different styles, philosophies, and ideas, and stick to them consistently until it's time to switch to a new one.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a bocott, but basic business sense never to use paypal again
Never mind that, if you live in the US and are a US citizen, you are highly unlikely to be a target of the NSA - any number of other TLAs, yes, but the NSA, not likely.
I wouldn't say that. If you regularly speak with foreigners, particularly in government or in violent/terroristy parts of the world, or if you have a job where you have access to information the NSA would like to have, you could very well be targeted.
As for the observation that a copyright has been assumed, how quickly you forget past articles by the principals here declaring the need to properly establish the existence of copyright before attempting to assert legal rights.
When there were reasons to think there was no copyright, yes. For example, something was old enough to be in the public domain, or had so little creative aspect as to be uncopyrightable.
Problem is the article would fall a bit flat if it turns out that the photo is not subject to copyright.
You still have completely failed to provide any rationale for why this photo might not be copyrighted, even after having it explained to you repeatedly why there is every reason to think that it is. As Mike said, that is something a troll would do, not someone looking for honest conversation.
The problem with his "hook" is that the doctrine has relevance when a copyrighted work is involved, but he provided no information that copyright law was actually in play.
I imagine he didn't feel the need because the Techdirt audience is generally at least somewhat familiar with copyright issues, enough to understand that copyright in the US is automatic, and thus the photo is copyrighted. If he took the time to fully explain every single detail of every issue he writes about it would be a boring blog.
A necessary predicate for any discussion of fair use regarding a specific work is that the work must be secured by copyright, which to this point has been assumed, but not shown.
The only way it might not be copyrighted is if there is no person who took the photo (a la the monkey selfie). There seems no reason to think that could be the case since it was a mother showing her daughter the dress she'd bought. Clearly she took the photo of the dress on purpose, so she holds the copyright on it*.
* even if it were a work for hire, which is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, somebody would hold the copyright, even if it isn't the photographer