LucyP, you are obviously a big PETA supporter, but a copyright expert you are not. The law does in fact hinge on the species, If you actually want to see why instead of clinging to your opinion, click on the link in the article near the end of the first paragraph (highlighted "There is None").
It is a sad state of affairs when then most accurate reporting you can get on the important issues is on the satire shows. Granted they only do one show a week and dig deep into a few stories. Still "The Daily Show" "This Week Tonight", etc do more accurate reporting than any of the "True" news outlets with their repetitive sound bites and willingness to pass on press releases with almost no research into what are in them.
The only thing that any telephone/Cable/internet company should be able to place "Below the line" is actual government taxes or government mandated charges. All this crap that they try to name to make it sound like a tax or government charge, should have to be in their advertised prices.
I just got a new commercial firewall for work from a respected security company that had the admin admin defaults. The other problems that ASUS routers have, I blame on them, but the leaving the admin password at the default is a user problem, as is not turn of the management access on the WAN link.
While the new firewall does not make you change the default password, it does nag you until you do.
My definition of a "Backdoor" is a way around the built in security features (i.e. the front door). Obviously the definition you are using is what the government is using, when they say they are not asking for a back door.
I'm willing to admit that you could say they are asking for a backdoor with a less secure lock, rather than asking for an unlocked backdoor.
I don't think in the previous cases Apple above and beyond what they legally had to do. They received either a subpoena, warrant or a court ordered "All writs" request and had the information and provided it. Those were legal, reasonable requests.
What they didn't do was write a back door to their phones. There is a vast difference between providing information you have, and creating something that doesn't exist.
I'm pretty sure that the agreement that allowed them to put in the poles in the first place, had a stipulation that other utilities could also use the poles. Every city that I know of does. The only thing that Louisville is doing is expediting the process so that the incumbents can't cause unnecessary delay. I'm try to figure out how that is "allowing others to take possession of their property".
My DirecTV bill just went up another $8.00/month. For my HD DVR I paid them $200 up front. Monthly I then get to pay them $10.00 to use the HD portion of it, and $10.00 to use the DVR portion of it. There is also a $7.00 a month rental fee for the machine, but they give me a $7.00 credit for the first TV.
When DirecTV started you bought your receiver elsewhere and just got the service from them. You had your choice of RCA, Sony, or Hughes receivers. Somewhere along the line they looked at the Cable gravy train and decided to hop on board. I guess they didn't realize that many of their customers came because they were ticked off with cable. Those customers are now ticked off with DirecTV and looking to find a good alternative.
Linking if fundamental to the internet working. If they don't want someone to link to their work, then they don't want people coming to their work, which then begs the question, "Why did you put your work on the internet in the first place?"
I don't understand why the courts continue to allow MM to take entire hard drives with people personal things on them, when there is case president that says you don't have to turn over your entire database, just the relevant records.
I know the argument is "How do we know they turned over all the relevant records". I think the courts should be appointing their own experts to review the hard drives and just report back to MM on if their movies (I use the term loosely) were found and if their is evidence that they were there and deleted. Giving the trolls unfettered access is ridiculous.
So if I read the bill right, it is okay for me to have strong encryption on my iPad, but not my iPhone if I buy them new in New York. It is also okay to have a iPhone with strong encryption if I buy a "Previously Owned, Like New" unit from the local Pawn Shop.
Does his family by any chance own a chain of Pawn Shops?