I* have absolutely no sympathy to this train passenger who was carrying $16,000 in cash. Every time I hear one of these stories about how Americans are getting their cash seized by law enforcement during some vacation while traveling in a vehicle or train, I just think how stupid Americans really are.
Talk to anyone and they will tell you to never carry a large amount of cash with you. Large amounts of cash signal only one thing: criminal enterprise.
You ask the bank for a cashier's check, money order or transfer the money either through Western Union or whatever. YOU DO NOT TRAVEL WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH.
Never mind that you could get robbed by someone who knows you're traveling with a lot of cash. MORONS.
I don't blame the DEA in this case for any reason. What are they going to do, just take your word for it. If any perfect sense, they would need to do their own investigation. So, train passenger who had his $16k confiscated, GET OVER IT.
Why did I say what I said? Because while Google takes down torrent links on their search engine, they are still be posting via Chilling Effects, which they post links to that website at the bottom of the search page when you conduct a search for a torrent.
No sight is obligated to have a DMCA agent. That's just a voluntary thing that website owners have established. But, I stand by what I said. CE, while they are correct in posting those DMCA letters, they could very well be liable for reposting those links.
I hate to point out the truly obvious here. But, if Chilling Effects posts DMCA takedown notices and they include links to torrent files to intellectual content owned by other people, then Chilling Effects becomes a torrent site that bypasses the efforts to take down pirated content.
Chilling Effects should be blacking out the torrent links but I suspect that CE may end up facing a lawsuit itself one day for reposting those torrent links.
The lady driver in this video is a freaking moron. First, "could you take your sunglasses off because I don't feel safe. I want to see your eyes." WTF? This is a true blonde lady. WTF. She needs to get a life. What's she trying to do, pick up this cop for a romantic date?
Second, when it says "no parking, fire lane" it means just that, it's a fire lane for emergency vehicles. Just because there isn't a fire doesn't mean you can park there. I bet this dumb lady parks in handicapped parking space because according to her, nobody was using it at the time she decided to park there.
LOLS Someone slapped that ignorant woman with a stupid stick.
Stupid people like her don't deserve to be let loose in public.
The thing that bothers me is that handshakes are not protected by copyright. It's like copyrighting the way you walk down the street or the way you cock your head to the side. Pardon me for saying this but this lawsuit is ridiculous and I hope the judge sees it as that and dismissed the lawsuit.
WTF? Handshakes protected by DMCA, copyright and trademark? Like I said: WTF. LOLS
Our country has survived for more than 200 years without the retention of ALPR data. So why all the rush to retain this data? If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that our ELECTED OFFICIALS don't trust Americans any more, those same American morons who keep electing the same American morons who are in favor of these kind of bills/laws.
Morons who support laws like The Patriot Act, ALPR data retentions, metadata retention and anything that compromises the privacy rights of any citizen in this country should not be voted into office.
We need a law that says that no American can run for elected office if they support any law, amendment or resolution that compromises any of our constitutional rights.
I'm no fan of our government and I'm also no fan of the politicians or agencies that are supposed to be managing our country. But, some courts, who routinely rule against the government find their decisions being overturned by other courts who are friendly to the Obama Administration. The U.S. Supreme Court is no different.
The U.S. Supreme Court are nothing more than lapdogs for President Obama and when ti concerns decisions that limit what the president can do, the Supreme Court routinely hands down decisions that benefit Obama and his corrupt organization.
I've rarely heard of an instance where the Supreme Court has ruled against Obama.
That didn't take long. Like I said in my comment above, the government is reviewing the court ruling and may end up appealing the decision:
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Thursday the Department of Justice was reviewing a court decision that revived a challenge to a controversial National Security Agency program that collected the records of millions of Americans' phone calls.
"We are reviewing that decision," Lynch said at a Senate budget hearing.
She said the collection was a "vital tool in our national security" and that she was not aware of any privacy violations under the revised program.
Yeah. I thought that techdirt does research on articles being written before they are published on the site. In this case, nobody at techdirt did any research on the article since the article was posted today.
All it took for me to find this information was less than five minutes to search Google. The article states that the vote hadn't happened yet when it actually has. Since the links in the article above were from April 23rd, it appears that nobody did any background on this new addition to Quebec's law before they published the article on the site.
I wasn't being mean when I posted, just stating that Techdirt could stand to research the articles it posts to ensure that the article has updated, factual information.
Much as I hope this ruling stands, I doubt that this ruling from the appeals court will stand. The ruling is going to end up getting struck down because the government will appeal the decision and a higher appellate court will either strike down that ruling or if it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, they'll undoubtedly rule in favor of the government, who, rarely, rules against President Obama.
I'm still trying to find that article but the only reason that Spain gave the AEDE that restrictive copyright law was only on the condition that news publishers capitulate to Spain's demands.
From what I had read, and I wish I had saved the link, Spain's news publishers had been hammering Spain's government of late and the bad press regarding the government corruption was taking its toll. They wanted the news media to fall in line and to stop the negative reporting. That's when this Faustian deal was struck and the media stopped their negative reporting, just like we have seen over the past six years in regards to Democrats and President Obama here in the United States.
AEDE got their Christmas wish and Spain intervened on AEDE's behalf and passed that law. However, Google called their bluff and shut down Google news and blacklisted news publishers from the Google News service. The AEDE certainly has some big balls to demand Spain intervene, AGAIN, and stop Google's withdrawal. But, one thing that got me to thinking, is that Google probably wasn't even hosting the servers to Google News (Spain) in the country itself. They probably just had the domain name registered with a Spanish registrar.
AEDE should have realized that Google would not capitulate to AEDE like the AEDE capitulated to Spain's government.
Even if AEDE and the news publishers wanted to revoke the law, other news publishers have been reporting on this and noted the futility of such a move. It was stated that it would takes weeks, if not months, to reschedule another vote in order to repeal or amend the new copyright law.
Not only that, but AEDE's instance that Spain authorities intervene and stop Google News from closing is also outside the purview of Spanish legislators or the government. Just like "The Independent" called it, it's not Google's responsibility to save the Spanish news media just as it's not the responsibility of Spanish authorities to force Google to continue operating in their country.
If the AEDE hadn't been so gung-ho about this new copyright law, this would never have gotten this far. One important view that techdirt never included in its article, and it took a lot of hard digging to find this information, that AEDE capitulated to the Spanish government in order to get their copyright law passed.
Apparently, Spanish authorities weren't happy about all of the negative press the government had been receiving from the Spanish media of late. Lawmakers agreed to give the AEDE their draconian copyright law if news publishers toned their criticism of the government down. When Spanish news publishers agreed, they gave the news media their restrictive copyright law. The corruption of the Spanish government was now applied to the Spanish news media who started publishing good news stories about the Spanish government and stopped publishing negative news articles about the government.
I don't remember what news publisher I saw the article on but I'll try to find it. But, Spain didn't agree to the new copyright law until the news publishers started falling in line with the Spanish government. This is the intended result.
What AEDE fails to realize is that nobody can force any business, corporation, entity or individual to keep their website operating or to keep their business from closing. Governments simply do not have the ability to do that.
If Google decides it wants to shut down its website in Spain, there is absolutely nothing Spain can do to prevent that.
I find it ridiculous that AEDE wants to keep the new copyright law but also wants to force it to keep operating its website in Spain. That's like a government forcing you to remain in their country and to keep paying taxes, even though you want to leave the country and move elsewhere.
Spain has no jurisdiction over Google and if Google wants to shut down its services, there is nothing anyone can do about it.