Quite rightly the Judge should throw the book at them when this a total abuse of power for greedy theft. Makes you wonder all else they stole in their past.
They were dumb too when never link your personal details to BitCoin theft when instead just put funds in an obscure BitCoin account then do nothing for 1 to 10 years until the heat blows over and you have a perfect plan to cash out.
I can say that ecx.images-amazon.com is where they store all the product photos where naturally an SSL friendly site has to keep such location behind a valid certificate.
No such luck when change that HTTP link to HTTPS and we can see that Amazon has no certificate installed when this link defaults to the SSL certificate of their cloud hosting provider meaning site name mismatch and a huge connection warning.
I see this as disgusting when it is hardly like Amazon lack the funds to install the right certificates and to provide their visitors with the full encrypted and safe shopping experience.
So name and shame is not such a bad idea of such huge sites along with a boycott should they fail to change.
There are of course many sites out there who provide the full SSL service like Wiki do.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't ask for much from the world's tech companies. All he wants is for them to proactively police the web for child pornography, piracy and extremist content. He's not offering to pay for these services. He just expects Google et al to do this on their own time and own dime to make the world a better place.
I am already sure that the European Court of Justice have already ruled that Governments can't do this. To force businesses to do unpaid work is akin to modern slavery.
After all the Government does not hand an arms manufacturer a long list of desired hardware and then go "all for free" or to demand engineers build a new bridge for "zero charge".
So I have no idea why the Government wants to freeload off Internet data services when they pay GCHQ for data right but not Google for data?
As has been made clear before then if the Government wants Google to do work then the Government can enter into contract with Google to buy services at a fair market rate. Should Google refuse then sure the Government can aim to change the law to force them but they still need to pay for the work.
What a day this is when Joe Public has to explain basic economics to the poxy Government who seem intent on forcing slavery.
Beyond this all being a bad idea then I can say that many sites DO want to move to SSL but there are problems in doingn so where beyond technical implementation the main problem is that SSL certificates requite third party validation. It may be nice to ensure a valid business but this is no one off charge when such services want to milk the punters for all they can with an annual subscription of a high fee.
This is why if SSL is to become the standard across a vast variety of different sites then we need FREE validation. That is exactly what the EFF plan to implement in about 6 months time when they automate the validation process.
So not much can happen until then. Sure we need to lead sites into using SSL by default but it is still wrong to claim unencrypted is somehow dangerous or harmful.
Copyright belongs to the one who pushed the button and not the one who encouraged the shot. Like a wife saying to he husband to take a photo when the copyright belongs to him and not her.
To do the opposite creates no end of problems with people saying they encouraged a famous photo to be taken with the photographer playing the trained monkey in this.
The problem here of course is that copyright is a human concept meaning no macaque monkey can own copyright. That means this photo is expelled from copyright into the public domain.
You can always get this macaque monkey in Court though to fight for his copyright when he should be as good as many rights holders in terms of pointing fingers and screaming tantrums. I just don't see it working out.
"We added an update with some more details. The court's ruling, apparently, is not entirely clear on if this applies to infringing videos or not. In the original case, apparently the company claimed the original video was *not* uploaded with permission, which would indicate that the copy was unauthorized (favoring streaming sites' arguments), but other elements of the ruling suggest otherwise and the court more or less ignores the specific issue entirely."
This would indicate to me that the video being infringing or not infringing was unimportant to the ruling regardless when all embedding is lawful.
After all had the ECJ believed embedding an infringing video was unlawful then they would have said guilty from the moment they heard that the video was uploaded to YouTube without the approval of the owner. The fact that the video was already made public elsewhere seems unimportant when there is only infringing and not infringing where an unofficial YouTube upload is certainly infringing.
Still I do much await the English version to see clearly what these Judges said and what we can reasonably assume from what they did not say.
That incident sounds like a Cyber War attack even if it was an accident which makes it lucky that Syria did not take down United States Governmental services, or worse, even if they may lack that technology.
So the US terror campaign against the on-line world continues one country at a time.
As he was arrested then so was he bailed while they continue their investigation maybe leading to a [doubtful] trial.
The interesting part is what he was arrested for when to be a lawful arrest they have to believe he has committed a crime. We don't know the full details of course but from what we can publicly see he did nothing unlawful.
The core problem in the United States is that people tolerate failure in their public officials. This stems from the President downwards with like "I messed up but I am the one in charge here so suck it up".
I only hope this aspect is never exported to the United Kingdom when they are famed for firing those officials caught with their pants down. Even PM Cameron can be easily replaced by his own party should they simply believe that someone else can do the job better.
Even the UK Police are held to high regard. Those who show bad behaviour or fail to follow the rules get suspended or reprimanded while those seen to break the law are fired. They don't allow criminals on both sides of the law here for obvious reasons. So had this been the UK that officer would be fired without doubt when there are other people who can do his job better.
In a related fact UK Police shot dead 5 people in the last 4 years where each of these cases made major news headlines where many locals can name all 5 victims. Over in the USA Police officers shot dead 1600 people within this same time-frame. To adjust for population sizes then UK Police would have shot dead 25 people making US Police's 1600 fatality score as 6400% as deadly.
Sure though the USA will go on doing zero to fix these clear problems.
You know your history then. Some extra details about the Star Chamber...
"In 1641, the Long Parliament, led by John Pym and inflamed by the severe treatment of John Lilburne, as well as that of other religious dissenters such as William Prynne, Alexander Leighton, John Bastwick and Henry Burton, abolished the Star Chamber with an Act of Parliament: the Habeas Corpus Act 1640."
Over in the USA...
"The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821–22 (1975)."