highly politically explosive as well, though I think for them to say anything would be counter productive. Let the Spanish themselves figure out why Google has no Spanish Government sites listed and why Spanish Govt cannot access Google itself.
For Google to state reasons due to their problems with Spanish Law makes them seem too biased. Silence would be better I suspect in this matter and makes the Spanish legislature explain and be on the back foot.
"That like law the DNA database and rule set is available online for EVERYONE to peruse. This is because like laws DNA is a public resource open to all and owned by all.
This does not mean that every layperson understands or can practice law nor specifically give advice without specific ethical and legal guidelines to follow. BUt this does in no way mean that the layperson cannot research, analyse and come to their own conclusion (however wrong that might be) on the law."
To state that people are not equipped to handle the ramifications of what their DNA might or not tell them is to make out that people are inherently stupid and need your (or whatever nanny state you pick) guidance and authority to know what is good for them.
Comparing it to the manufacture of a weapon of mass destruction is telling not on how bad your analogies are but on how you think the rest of humanity should bow down to YOUR wishes because of reasons! *eyeroll*
O and nowhere in the article did it state that the whole of the human genome has been explored, it stated it was sequenced! A major difference, but then again lets not let facts get in the way of FUD shall we.
Victor Peter Robert Three Six DASH Tango Wally Four Seven Harry DASH [..] etc
Filtering will not work.. been tried before and again the only way to stop this is to have ONE Keycode one access ability. Though it will make problems if people figure out the algorithm though that's always the prob as you stated with DRM
No it isn't.. all they have to do is make sure the Keys in question can only be used ONCE. This is easy and should be a standard security protocol in their DRM structure.
Also classifying it as an extreme is justifying the action MS took no matter what. It's either wrong or not.. No in between. This was flat out wrong and fraudulent usage of the DCMA since they hold NO copyright whatsoever over the keys.
The non-copyrightability of a string of letters and numbers used for this and similar purposes is long established case law.
A key is only violating once it has been used.. Otherwise knowing someone's PIN to their bank would be an offense. It isn't
It's ONLY an offense and actionable once the PIN (or key in this instance) has actually been used fraudulently.
Microsoft have the wherewithal to absolutely make sure that Keys can ONLY be used once. For them to show that they are concerned about a single key being used over and over again shows how screwed up their own DRM system actually is.
As an Australian, who actually has had to deal with this organisation a fair few times, I am just going to sit here in the corner slowly rocking back and forth trying not to go totally insane by the constant giggling coming out of my mouth.
Learn the difference between CRIMINAL and CIVIL harm.. Also the difference between illegal and unlawful (tortuous) behaviour and why responsibility structures are held to a higher standard would be good too!
Each one of those cases deals with other cases that are all about criminal activity. Defamation is NOT criminal and was NEVER proven either (it was just assumed by the plaintiffs).
The judge should only have held that the parents were liable if it was proven criminal behaviour or PROVEN upon balance tortuous behaviour that caused and CONTINUES to cause significant harm. Otherwise the responsibility ends and again as I stated previously the school should also be held liable even if via a nominal percentage.
Also defining 'dangerous activity' is VERY arbitrary in this case and does not rely on the factors present in the cases the judge and yourself cited
You either believe in free speech at all times or you don't.. you cannot have it both ways when your feelings are hurt or you think "Oh but this is different because of [insert some psych mumbo jumbo marshmallowness here]".
using this logic the school would be ultimately liable for this since they actually suspended the child and should of made it a condition of that suspension that the page in question was removed.
Parents can no more be held liable for the actions or inactions of what their child may or may not have done (whether the child has done it 1 or x times) then a friend who knows there other friend was doing something and they didn't stop them.
There is no Duty, there is NO Neighbourhood duty either. If there is a duty or the court claims there is then the whole system then becomes unequitable since then Parents should be absolutely immune from anything they need to do to stop this or any other behaviour once 'known' about.
Oh and until a court determines (not the school) that the page in question was defamatory then there is NO foreknowledge of a defamatory statement, only an alleged defamatory statement. Therefore your s230 should absolutely be a defense as well.