unfortunately that's rarely how it works. bad laws based on bad philosophy almost never get repealed - they just get "refined" to not apply to this one hyperspecific circumstance, or they get broadened and create the potential for much more collateral damage. it reduces to trying to force the legislative body that they made a mistake (or acted maliciously).
I believe it's already been decided that FOIA requests are themselves not subject to FOIA - otherwise you could request all the documents relating to the strategy notes of how they planned to foil your FOIA.
> The crime is not failing to get a warrant. The crime is lying about the situation on the stand, or to the judge when you give a sworn statement to ask for a warrant.
As this act was carried out by a member of the law enforcement community, I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that it is, technically, by definition, not a crime. At least that's the only justification I can think of for charges not being immediately filed against this fine upstanding officer of the law.
> But that could easily be solved by posting the same document in its original format at the agency's website.
They don't even have to go that far. All they need to do is sign the damn thing. You would think (if you are a sane, rational being) that there should be a government agency charged with the mandate of improving safe and effective information technology practices (perhaps some sort of national cybersecurity division headed by some sort of national security agency), and could easily train other government agencies on how to use strong encrypti--- oh, I think I see the problem.
no, because there's nothing stopping those particular "good guys" from using their super secret "good guy encryption" to set up a service that other people can use to communicate. The only "good guys" allowed to use "good guy encryption" will be the military, the NSA, the FBI, and the DHS.
What, you mean like Ted Kennedy was 10 years ago? Does anyone know if he (maybe "still") supports the no-fly-list? Or is he a stereotypical politician, not concerned because he isn't one of the little people who have no recourse for getting themselves off the list?
RE: The Right to be Forgotten should be called The Right to Make Forget.
Damn good point, wish I had seen that earlier in the week. I still maintain the position that your "right to be forgotten" infringes on my "right to not be lobotomized".
I understand the privacy and reputation damage concerns, and it is a problem. I think the law should be rewritten to force actual publishers to amend errors and call attention to updates in a conspicuous way. Get that, and I will fully support forcing the search engines to giving precedence to the same, or calling . Because then we aren't talking about shoving stuff down a memory hole, but amending the index to correct errors.
> > The EC should establish actionable responsibilities for foreign investors by allowing a host country or affected third party, such as a trade union or a local community, to bring a claim (or, more modestly, a counter-claim) against a foreign investor in the very same process that is used to enforce foreign investor protections.
I don't think we should settle for half measures here. The state should be allowed to bring a claim, not just a counter-claim. If the state can only bring a counter claim, then the corporation can just drag that process out and bleed the state's coffers dry, which would be happening during or after the corporation *already* sucking up resources in the original claim.
Furthermore, if it shouldn't be the exact same process; it should be a process similar in arrangement. That means when the state brings a claim against a corporation, the state gets to put its own judge, lawyer, or lawmaker in the position of arbiter.
Oh, what's that, dear corporations? You admit that the ISDS process is unfair to begin with?
If I abandon a car on the street, someone eventually claims title. If I abandon a bank account, the state takes it. If I abandon real estate, and don't remedy trespass, adverse possession takes over. If I don't use my trademark, the rights go over to those who do. If I abandon my children, then everyone is taxed to remedy my actions. If I abandon a patent application it goes away. If I abandon a storage locker, it ends up on reality TV. You get the idea.
Apple Computers at 10.5 or less get no updates. Microsoft computers at XP or earlier get no updates. The end of security updates follows abandonment. It is certainly ironic that freshly pirated copies of Windows get security updates that older versions bought legitimately do not.
Stating to me what is the obvious policy stance:
If Company X abandons the codebase, then that codebase must become open source.
I highly recommend the whole video. Although I hotly disagree with his stance on the right to be forgotten, he at least presents a well reasoned argument.
Either that, or someone released disinformation in response to a FOIA request/lawsuit.
I've always wondered what's stopping the government from just fabricating documents in response to these things... and wasting a lot of black ink to make us think we're actually on to something. I would hope there's enough honest souls in there that someone would brave the treason/espionage charges and say something. Besides, what's the worst that could happen to the government for lying to the public? They have to spend taxpayer dollars to pay off a fine?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it's not up to the DOJ. If the court says the gag order is no longer in force, then the guy can talk, regardless of the legal pressure the DOJ might want to apply.
> The (FCC's) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters.
The problem with *this* wording is that the capability *does* exist in the hardware. Software defined radios are about all that exist any more, and what's legal in one jurisdiction is illegal in another. Japan's "channel 14" for WiFi is a great example.
So at best it still seems like overbroad, sloppy thinking. Another case of trying to ban a tool that has legitimate uses, instead of addressing the instances of bad behavior.