Thanks for this article. I wish the other media would pick up on these points, especially how the FBI should have their own forensic tools and experts, rather than just saying Apple should give in because they've helped the FBI before. Then again, this would be the same media that doesn't make a difference between unlocking a phone (which Apple has done) and writing new software (which will set a dangerous precedent). But when the media has 5 seconds to grab a Facebook user's attention, a lot of these details don't seem important enough to write about.
First, if the government buys non-encrypted phones, won't this make them a target for thieves? How many times have we read stories about how employees have taken company secrets home on their devices only to have the devices stolen? It's bad enough when credit card and SSN's get stolen, but what about government secrets? Or does his law imply that there are no government secrets on people's phones?
Second, can we have a moment of silence for the 14 American people that the FBI's investigation left dead? (I suppose it's important to mention that Americans were killed, not those pesky Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans or others.)
Why doesn't trump just gut the whole first amendment while he's at it? 1) Freedom of speech: sue for libel. 2) Freedom of religion: not if you're one of those "brown person" religions, including Sikh or Buddism, which kind-of looks like Islam. 3) Freedom of the press: watch how much freedom the press gets once there's not as much freedom of speech.
Technically speaking, there's precedence for this idea. During Desert Storm in the 1990's, didn't the Iraqi insurgents watch CNN to figure out the US troop movements?
Though, it's absurd that terrorists wouldn't know about encryption until they saw it on the media. It's even more absurd that Congress and the media aren't pushing the fact that the Paris terrorists didn't use encryption, which should make this argument irrelevant.
Just a point of correction: South Korea, whose governmental "media monitoring agency" has said it will release guidelines for people who wish to remove information from the internet: But the Right To Be Forgotten laws don't remove information from the internet: it removes information from Google's indexing, assuming Google approves the request. The information is still out there on the original publisher's site and anyone can still use Bing or any other search engine to find the information. Heck, they could even go to a newspaper's website and search for the information. Could you please be more precise with your wording so people don't confuse Google with the rest of the internet.
And to the poster who said people should be given a second chance: I completely agree. But the RTBF laws only stop the casual person using Google- they don't affect law enforcement. This means if someone really wants a second chance, they better hope their potential employer doesn't do a criminal background check.
Wait, are you saying you'll try to be a good parent by setting rules and checking up on your child to make sure he's following the rules? That's preposterous- this is 2016! Everyone knows parenting should be outsourced to government agencies and private monitoring companies.
Some people seem to think that's not too bad if the critical systems aren't vulernable. What about the other problems? - The hackers can get the owner's personal information, including home address. - The hackers can watch and see when the owners leave. - Then the hackers and their team can rob the house, while one of the hacker keeps an eye on the tracker to know when the car is heading home. - Then if the car getting too close, fire up the controls to drain the battery and keep the owner stranded.
But at least the hackers can't do anything to the car.
Re: Just treat it like booze during prohibition, because that worked great
Isn't this pretty much what happened in Washington and Colorado when they legalized marijuana? Government revenue is up due to drug taxes and incarceration rates are down since people with single doses of marijuana aren't getting thrown in jail.
Or did those states collapse into Mad Max-style wastelands now that everyone was free to smoke pot, the "gateway drug", that led to the entire population getting hooked on hardcore drugs?
Wait, you have to call them to find out that you're over the limit? Isn't this open for abuse when you can't check the usage yourself or have a running total every day or every week? What's to stop them from pulling a number out of their butt and charge you overage fees? It's not like the average customer will argue it... and we're back to the first point about how customers can't prove their own usage.
Thankfully, the Guardian quotes a lawyer who agrees that Mitchell has no legal basis to complain. Unthankfully, there's always a lawyer who will take a case like this to make a name for himself. Sure, they can't win, but look at all the people that will talk about him.
I think the bigger question is: since when is a R or TM required when doing a news story on a company? Isn't that the very definition of fair use? Or am I getting my copyright and trademark defenses mixed up? ;)
In any case, everyone knows that the word "Oscar" is referring to the Academy Awards, so why would that registration need "defending"? And I'm sure CNN used "Oscar" instead of "Academy Awards Ceremony" because it was less characters. Or would CNN need to put an R after "Academy Awards Ceremony"?
The other reason the traditional networks should be scared of Netflix is the scheduling aspect: On Netflix, I can watch all the episodes of a season over a weekend if I want.
On traditional networks, we (still) have to wait until September for new episodes. Then we get to see maybe 8 episodes, then a "mid season finale", then another 4 or 5 episodes in March, then the rest of the episodes in May and June.
Maybe after almost 60 years of watching TV like this, people want to watch episodes back-to-back.
Re: Re: Live by the DMCA notice, get de-listed by the DMCA notice
And how would this work? Would Google argue with the MPAA's lawyers that the MPAA itself asked that the sites be whitelisted? The problem still remains: the MPAA uses external companies and tools to issue takedowns and those companies are paid to find "bad links". If these companies cared about whether links are good or bad, they wouldn't issue takedowns to the MPAA's sites in the first place.