Why is it that grandstanding American politicians always want to blame the platforms for people doing bad stuff on those platforms, even when those platforms appear to provide all sorts of useful information that apparently help law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military do their jobs?
A fine question, to which the answer is "because morons". Whether it's actually true or not is another good question - probably not since surely they're not quite dumb enough to reveal an effective method of intel gathering? If it is true, though, it strikes me a better question might be: If public social media can produce more actionable intel than, for example, hoovering up every email, phonecall and internet log in the world seems to... Why are you invading everyone's privacy again, Uncle Sam?
So it's official? The US is a plutocracy? It must be if a law so blatantly aimed at preserving the wealth of a very few of Wyoming's 1/2 a million citizens at the expense of the health of the rest can even be contemplated seriously, much less enacted.
Further, it would be clear that this change would make "ripper" tools entirely legal (ie, they would not be against 1201 because there would be "non-infringing uses"). Yet clearly, people would use these tools to rip stuff and put it on torrents or otherwise "infringe".
One assumes you're in favour of repealing the 2nd amendment then?
The same argument applied even more so to firearms, which people use to kill and indeed are designed primarily for the purpose, or knives... or... well computers in general or really, pretty much anything at a stretch.
It's impossible to know who the next person will be that commits an evil act. So as opportunities come up to possibly stop some future act, I support eliminating the threat.
OK, let's pretend for a moment that this argument makes sense....
Where's the bar set? This guy apparently committed no criminal act (since there was in fact no actual bomb involved at any point in the "conspiracy") and it appears that he's pretty much all talk and seems too stupid to actually plan anything on his own.
So, that means it's OK to arrest people who: 1/ Are easily led and might be convinced by someone malicious to commit a violent crime if they happen to meet the wrong person. 2/ Are unthinking and at least borderline sociopathic enough to maybe commit some random act of violence if the right set of circumstances of anger/means/trigger/target happen to come their way at the wrong time.
So that leaves me two questions; Where are you going to put all the people that fall under that definition? How are you going to find enough people who don't to look after them?
To me, this is like setting a building on fire and handing some poor person the matches and running off.
No, it's not.... it's like making one of those fake fires with a fan, some silk and a light, handing some poor person a huge, plastic Swan Vesta match that wouldn't burn if you tried... and then having him arrested for killing hundreds of people by burning down a building that doesn't in fact exist.
No, Wikileaks has always been an Evil Cyberhacker.
Of course it has! In the "Democracy Dictionary" (Author, Mr. H. Nilats), "Evil Cyberhacker" is defined as "Anyone who shows, or might show, evidence of corruption in the Regime... uh... Democratically Elected Leadership, or anyone who depicts same in an unflattering light while using a computer"
In a sane world, intellectual property rights that a company can't be bothered to find out if they even have shouldn't be rights that can then be sued over.
THIS! This sooooo much!
This is possibly the most broken thing about copyright. It should be the case that you could challenge a copyright and if the challengee can't respond with proof of copyright within a fixed period, they are legally assumed NOT to own the copyright.
It wouldn't make copyright terms any less stupid, but it would make copyright as a whole a lot less the broken shambles it is now.
Netflix's choice to release seasons all at once is bad because it kills the "water cooler marketing buzz"
Given a choice between getting the whole thing at once and it taking almost a whole year to get round to showing a 20-week season... Well, I think I'd like to watch stuff at my pace, not yours, thanks!
If there's one thing the UK is good at in our post-empire decline it's coming up with and following really dumb rules. You thought the US was un-assailable in the top-spot of "democratic police state".. think again. We win! Bwa Ha ha haaaaaa
They claim that stealing a tiny sum of a large number of people doesn't result in any real victims.
Of course we all know this is wrong so maybe there is a chance
One can hope you're right, but the cynic says no.
It's easier to prove fraud when you can count the money, however small... it's harder to count "quantity" of freedom, especially when the people you need to prove the "count" to seem to have an almost pathological blindness to its loss.
many modern games dont want longevity. most of the cod releases for example could have just been community created free mods.
This is, of course, the problem with the theory that modding is "good for games". Certainly it's good for gamers, so yes, it's probably good for "games". On the other hand it's kryptonite for most game companies.
Let's face it, most of the major game companies prefer to recycle the same (usually) crap game as many times as they can possibly get away with, repeatedly polishing the same turd to squeeze out another £40 a time from it with "new" releases. Playing into the modding culture would not only kill that "money for old rope" business plan, but would require the games to have gameplay with an appeal lasting beyond a few 10's of hours, which is a pretty rare commodity in games. Can't see that happening somehow... be nice if a company gave a flying f*ck about it's customers, though, wouldn't it?