First, my 9/11 story, which is quite simple: I arrived in Las Vegas about 1am or so (4am east coast) on 9/11, on a flight from New York. I got woken up by my business partner who said I probably would want to see this, and got up just in time to see the second plane hit. I got trapped in Vegas, which turned into a major ghost town. Nobody had money, nobody had a way to leave...
My opinion of the fall out of 9/11 is pretty simple: American lost it's innocence, and now faces a long battle to come to the realization that freedom as defined in the US is both amazing and a loaded weapon. The undoing of the US will likely be as a result of someone exploiting your "freedom" to hide their activities. The surveillance and spying and what not is a weight on the other side from freedom, and hopefully some balance will come that Americans can tolerate - but that is safer.
It's not that the homeless shouldn't use WiFi - it's just that wifi delivered in this manner is causing unforeseen results that are not good for the overall society.
Moreover, read my comments: It's not just about homeless. Others are congregating to enjoy free unlimited Wifi - to the point of dragging out seats and such and turning the sidewalk into a living room - again to the determent of the neighborhood as a whole.
But hey, thanks for playing "I'm a crappy troll", your score isn't high enough to win a prize.
Karl, I knew you would punt the story into the weeds. Too busy trying to get a headline and too little time spent trying to understand the problem.
To start with, the WiFi kioskes have a built in tablet (explaining how the homeless have tablets). While the original intention was for a tourist or whatever to be able to check a map or quickly pick up their hotmail, it instead turned into a place where people would stay for hours, playing games, watching videos, movies, and yes... porn. A side problem of course is that some people like to enjoy porn as an immersive experience, so they were pleasuring themselves in full public view.
The more significant issue is that with powerful and relatively quick wifi, people would gather around the immediate area to surf the web. Sort of the original intention, until they are dragging out benches, old sofas, chairs, and the like to sit in the middle of the sidewalk for hours enjoying the internet. Add in people illegally parking their cars (to get close enough for wifi) and the like, and you have significant neighborhood disruption.
Oh yeah, don't forget that you can add in loud voices, yelling, drug and alcohol consumption, fighting, and all the other stuff that comes when you get a lot of people in one place being themselves with no consideration for anyone else.
In some areas, homeless were moving in and setting up camp around the wifi spots so they could use them continuously... and use the charging features and such as well. Let's just say a really good idea instead was most appealing to the wrong people and they way the wifi kioskes were used was not to the benefit of the neighborhoods in question.
Based on his already expressed opinions, you can already pre-write the report for him. That's not an investigation, that's just a witch hunt. Probably a good one, considering there are plenty of (what he considers to be) witches out there.
I can't imagine how much you guys would be losing your shit if a supporter of these devices was "investigating".
No, "could" as in "I didn't click on the link because I don't want to deal with viruses, which is always a possibility on a shady pirate site". I went further than most of you (perhaps all of you) by actually going to look at the site in question to see how their pages are laid out and such. I could see the box cover images and the links.
Your view seems to be that if every page started with a Ubuntu distribution, that there could NEVER EVER EVER EVER be anything else on the page that would be bad. They could put up the pictures that are rumors to exist of what your Father did with you when you were young, and that would be okay, because Ubuntu?
"So? The image would be on the target page, not the page with a link. Unless the link is embedded in an image, but that's usally not the case and in any case the copyright claim should then be against the use of the image, not the content being linked to."
Actually, if you had bothered to look (like, research a bit) you would discover that in fact, the site in question uses boxcover images to link to their torrents, and has a 2 x 5 or so list twice on the left hand side of every page.
Reality. Damn, it sucks when you go on and on and it turns out you didn't even bother to check!
I love how stories like this bring out the true looney fringe types. At least one of these posts makes me think of a guy in a wood cabin in a rocking chair polishing his AK and making rude gestures at the door...
Anyway, that said, comment on the story:
The courts seem to be pretty reasonable here. They didn't give a carte blanche, rather they said in basic terms that the police can't magically "unhear" something that is said while executing a listen warrant on someone else.
There may be discussion of the continued listening if they did not get a warrant based on what they had heard. There is a point (that must be decided as a fact of law) where too much was gathered while knowing they were listening to the wrong person.
It's seems to be a pretty fair ruling and lets the lower court back into the game to take a swing at it.
Hey Paul, seriously, fuck off. I have a life, I don't spend my time hiding out from the tax man shivering in front of my computer. Sorry to disappoint you!
"DMCA notices are generally *takedown* notices. They're not "erm, we saw a dodgy link, can you remove it". They're usually "remove this entire page/file or face further action"."
Since a torrent site generally is proving a link to allow people to download the material, it follows that it could be a page with the content on it. That would include the COPYRIGHT image of the box cover that the site happens to use (oh, darn, there is that reality crap again ruining your rant!).
"Whether our usual clown knows this and is playing ignorant, "
So the images on the page are not copyright? The links to the pirated torrents are not invalid?
Come on Paul, stop being a twit. You use to be way smarter in your comebacks, now it's just pure baiting bullshit.
Of course, countries passing laws or adding restrictions on companies to protect local companies from multinationals is an ongoing story here at Techdirt. The whole "EU is being bad to Google" story seems to come up fairly regularly.
If you look at the exceptional cases, you will always find bad. In the same manner that trademarks, copyright, and patents generally work well in most cases, there are extreme cases that do in fact break the system, or twist it to evil ends. You can always find bad, and if you are willing to work from that and that alone, you become the Matt Drudge of tech.
I have other work in life, I don't have time to knock out t-shirts as a one off. You guys outsourced it to a company that will only do runs if you push enough (hence the repeated begging for buyers, otherwise you won't hit the goal and nobody will get them).
I can produce them locally (it's pretty easy) but slightly time consuming. I don't want to spend the time just to prove you wrong. The t-shirts aren't scarce, the printing on the t-shirts isn't scarce, and they aren't particularly special. Artificial scarcity is created by saying "limited time" or "get them before they are gone" when in fact, they are not scarce at all.
If someone wants to order 100 (mixed sizes) I will gladly process an order for them and run the shirts. It's not a big deal. Given distribution, I could run tens of thousands of them. Doesn't matter. The point is that they are not scarce, except if you try to put artificial limits on them (won't do this again!).
If you want to send me the money, I am sure I can knock you out a special shirt, girls small should fit you nicely.
Actually, if you took the time to look, you would notice that the site has links to movie downloads on the lower left hand side of every page. There is the potential that the link to their movie was on that page at the time they pulled it.
Univisions lawyers figured out the basic concept that if they left the posts up, they would become liable too.
See, Univision bought the properties but not the liabilities including the legal ones. Those people suing are going after Gawker Media, which is now effectively an empty shell. Univision is NOT part of those lawsuits.
Removing a small number of stories (7, if I understand correctly) from the Univision sites means that they cannot be held liable for them. It's not about giving into people filing lawsuits, it's about getting away from a losing battle that they don't have to be part of.
It's just logical, and has nothing to do with caving in or backing down, just being smart.
Part of the problem here is the person who wrote the article (and the Techdirt writer who copied from it) pretty much moved the goal posts on what is a partial release. Sometimes people ask for stuff that cannot be released without serious redaction (including blanking out all of the 200 pages in question). It's just one of those things.
Now, if the goal post is "the request totally matched everything the person asked for without any redaction", then the 7% figure is quite reasonable. Almost every document will have redactions (such as who wrote it, inspectors or officers involved, etc). Thus the partial count is very high.
If you think 90% is high, perhaps you should just figure out what the goal posts are, rather than complaining that they don't match up to your desire for complete data dumping on request.