... be related to 'Turkish military says MIT shipped weapons to al-Qaeda' (MIT being the Turkish national intelligence agency)? With Google turning up 165000 hits on this, the censor might just be a bit late.
Are there any incentives in the bill to encourage copyright holders to provide legal access? A report released by KPMG and praised by the MPAA finds that 'UK Users Need 27 Services to Get Most Popular Films'. Judging by media reports, the situation is not really better in Australia.
... honest public servants need such protection? They have nothing to hide. The law makes sure that the rotten apples can stay in the police force and continue to break the law with no accountability at all.
So why are there only few complaints? A report 'Bundesnetzagentur', the German FCC, on traffic management by European network providers sheds some light on this: The providers are allowed to keep all information on throttling and deep packet inspection as 'commercial secrets' - can't have customers know about it and complain ... (https://netzpolitik.org/2014/studie-der-bundesnetzagentur-netzneutralitaet-wird-in-ganz-europa-v erletzt-provider-verweigern-auskunft-zu-details/ in German, the pictures show how large parts of provider statements have been blackened out before publication). To be clear: It is the providers that do the censoring, but the watchdog that expressively allows them to withhold the information from the customers.
>>"when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a foreign attack on the United States "
Would this refer to an actual war, with foreign tanks roaming the streets of US cities, or the hypothetical risk of a single terrorist on US soil attack being repeated at an undetermined time in the future?
The internet is a wild west at the moment, where anybody is free to shoot (sorry, sue) anybody else for no reason other than they feel like it, and they have a gun (lawyer at hand)
Didn't like a product your bought at Amazon? Want to help others spending money at a restaurant with rude waiters? Better check if you can afford the lawsuit before posting a comment.
Trolling may be a nuisance occasionally. Until we can protect commenters from malicious prosecution and other harassment, there are plenty of other options available to keep trolls in check without threatening the right to free speech.
Would this be the same UK Government that scrapped the ID card scheme in 2010 as part of their measures 'to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion'?
with a) the lobbyists on the two sides largely representing the same global interests and b) the NSA likely to have access to all information deemed to be relevant, it would seem the the public are the only ones completely in the dark, and the EU severely disadvantaged. While it is understandable that the US want to preserve their NSAdvantage, why would the EU support them in this?
They are getting away too easy. Why not attach conditions to keep EFF and defendants on equal footing - waive the 'no standing' defense in return - reverse the burden of evidence. The DOJ can still decide if that is a price worth paying, of if they can find a way to preserve the evidence after all - run any search the EFF may want to run, and preserve any data that may result - turn over to the court very detailed metadata of the data destroyed (quantity, origin, data stored, reason stored, legal basis for storing, ...) - order storage of representative samples, i.e., keep x% data selected in a statistically meaningful way