Why do they think that legality trumps all these other issues, or makes them irrelevant?
Because they have the power to change the laws, either openly or via 'classified interpretations', so if the only way to judge whether or not something is acceptable is whether or not it's legal, then they can pretty much do anything they want.
Heh, now that would be brilliant, if all the funds seized were sent straight to pay the legal fees of those accused of crimes who are unable to afford a lawyer themselves. Money taken by the police would be used to defend those facing the police, that would be great, and provide an even greater disincentive than the idea I threw out.
The mainstream media shouldn't be able to use anyone's name/info without written consent
Thus making them even more useless than they already are, as it would be impossible to report on anything that involved someone.
Of course I can totally understand why he would say something like that, as if you had to get permission to report on someone and/or what they've done, then it would be trivially easy to simply say 'No' anytime someone wanted to report on something that you'd done and didn't want known or talked about, like say, running a revenge porn site and extortion racket.
1. 0% of the seized property or funds are allocated to the department that seized them. If the government is involved in the seizure, they still get 0% of the proceeds. Instead, the funds are all put towards a statewide pool, which shall be used only for school funding, on top of the pitiful amount they may already get.
Take away entirely the monetary incentive they have to steal everything they can get their hands on, and I'd imagine their enthusiasm for doing so would drop significantly.
Yeah, I've no doubt the reason he went to Google, rather than the individual sites, is he was hoping Google wouldn't look too deeply into his request, and would just grant it automatically.
Making claims against individual sites, and of course the owners/hosters of those sites are going to examine the claims, and given how utterly, blatantly obvious it is that his claims have nothing to do with people 'using his stuff without permission', and everything to do with silencing those reporting on his actions, I don't imagine those claims would hold up under much scrutiny.
And yet another attrocity the DOJ would never touch
“This Homan Square revelation seems to me to be an institutionalization of the practice that dates back more than 40 years,” Taylor said, “of violating a suspect or witness’ rights to a lawyer and not to be physically or otherwise coerced into giving a statement.”
Just let that sink in for a moment. 40 years of this. Four decades and counting of this kind of activity. Does anyone think they'll stop any time soon, or ever?
People in Chicago would be better of being kidnapped by the freakin' mob than taken into custody(or 'custody') by the Chicago police, at least if they work you over it's likely to be for 'business' rather than pleasure, and you're probably safer in their hands than with the police any day.
Indeed, if they had their way, we wouldn't be having 'this kind of dialogue', as any leaks would have been quickly destroyed, any leakers quickly thrown in solitary confinement to keep them from spreading any other 'dangerous classified information', and any news outlets or reporters quickly shut down and silenced if they dared to report on what had been leaked.
We may be having a discussion on the matter, but that's in spite of their actions and their wishes.
'We can work our way through this' = 'I already tried to dodge your question, why do you keep asking it?!'
AS: We’ll agree to disagree on that. So, if we’re going to build defects/backdoors or golden master keys for the US government, do you believe we should do so — we have about 1.3 billion users around the world — should we do for the Chinese government, the Russian government, the Saudi Arabian government, the Israeli government, the French government? Which of those countries should we give backdoors to?
AS: So you do believe then, that we should build those for other countries if they pass laws? MR: I think we can work our way through this. AS: I’m sure the Chinese and Russians are going to have the same opinion. MR: I said I think we can work through this. AS: Okay, nice to meet you. Thanks.
That point really needs to be hammered home any time someone starts talking about 'Golden keys' or 'backdoors', any company that builds in a weakness for one group is basically building in a weakness for everyone who cares to look for it, and some, if not most of those people are not going to be the kind of people that you'd want browsing through systems that are supposed to be secure.
In addition, a company that folds once is going to have a very difficult time refusing when others come knocking and demand the same level of access, and the only defense against that it to refuse every single time, no matter who's asking.
I can't help but think that he had to have been very unpleasantly surprised by the fact that they were willing, and able to call him out on his lies and attempts and dodging the question. I imagine he went there with the idea that he'd be able to just throw out the usual crap and they'd just nod their heads like the idiots in the 'news' do, to have them actually point out how completely wrong he was seems to have completely thrown him, to the point where all he could do was repeat the same empty line in response.
The infringing/not infringing status is not at all related to the content so it is fundamentally impossible to correctly determine what is valid and what isn't simply by looking at the content.
According to common sense and logic, yes. However, those that have been pushing to turn Google into their unpaid copyright policing force insist, constantly and without end, that it's 'easy' to spot infringing stuff, as you 'know it when you see it'.
As such, with Google restricting one kind of content, you can bet they will insist that they do so with other kinds of content.
Oh I know, my comment was actually based upon a quote made by the author of the books, who noted that while he could write a scene detailing a skull being pieced by an axe, and not get any grief over it, a similarly detailed scene regarding sex would have people throwing fits.
Graphic violence? Not a problem. Graphic sex? Huge problem. Societal priorities are so very screwed up...
Oh the US has an unhealthy dose of that too, plenty of people over here who see nothing wrong with the most violent movies or shows(like, say, Game of Thrones), but who flip completely out over the slightest suggestion of sexual content.
The company seems to be opening itself up to charges that if it can make such determinations for that type of content, it can also magically figure out what other content is "infringing" or not. This seems like a move that the company will regret.
If this move causes them some serious headaches dealing with the fallout, all the better, they deserve it for yanking the rug out from those that have been using their platform in such a short period of time, and for a reason that seems to have nothing to do with legal obligations, and everything to do with the prudishness of whoever is making the decision.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 23rd, 2015 @ 9:35pm
If 'want to make it home alive' was the entirety of it, then no, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, but when you tack on '... at the cost of the safety or lives of those around them', then yeah, it becomes a problem. When you've got cops gunning down innocent people because they might have presented a threat, then that's taking it just a titch too far with regards to 'protecting officer safety'.