To make matters worse, as a die-hard Luddite, he seemed uniquely unqualified for his new position.
This is tricky. While I agree that he's probably not the best guy for the job, it's dangerous to take a principled stand on that particular principle, because of the way it can come back and bite you in the end: you're essentially saying that nobody who is against X has any business setting policy for X. (Abortion and the drilling of new oil wells immediately come to mind, to drive the point home on both sides of the political spectrum.)
Federal law and FBI policy prohibit employees from using the power of the department to attempt to influence elections.
Odd. It would appear James Comey is unfamiliar with these laws and policies.
Last I heard, Comey was perfectly content to let status quo ante sit as it was, until things got out of his hands. Over 100 agents were so disgusted by the whole "yeah, she totally broke the law but no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for totally breaking the law" stunt that they threatened to resign en masse unless he actually did his job, so he reopened the investigation.
"Abject authoritarian..." What does that even mean? That I believe in the institutions of society that keep things running in a civilized, orderly fashion? Guilty as charged, I guess.
What you call "fear" I call "wisdom," preferring to learn from the lessons of the past instead of constantly saying "this time will be different" and constantly being wrong.
So you're a kid who never grew up. Gotcha.
A court of law makes a ruling. I say the ruling of the court of law was right. You say that this is proof that I don't care about the rule of law. Did you order your dictionary from Bizarro Land or something?!?
It's a distinct possibility. You never can tell, on the Internet.
Of course, it's also possible that I know, from direct, personal experience, that the kind of man who would make threats like that--particularly against his own family--is the kind of man who isn't likely to stop at threats.
It's possible that I live in Eastern Pennsylvania and don't want a dangerous thug like this man walking free anywhere near me.
It's possible that you're an idealistic kid (would I be correct in guessing you're under 30?) who's been fed a steady stream of nonsense like the sort of stuff Tim Cushing regularly writes all your life, who has lived a relatively comfortable life with no exposure to the sorts of conditions that are the reason that these laws exist, and therefore you are literally not capable of seeing the other side of the issue.
It's good to see that the appeals court has their heads on straight, that they realize that just because there was some minor technicality that was problematic with the earlier ruling, it doesn't actually do anything to show that Mr. Elonis wasn't exactly what he appeared to be: a violent thug trying to intimidate people, then making up a completely transparent excuse when called on it.
A violent thug who, by the way, doesn't even listen to rap according to his wife.
> Yes, of course, we're at the very peak of the political silly season and lots of people are looking for big breaking stories. But it would be nice if we could keep them in the realm of reality.
It's not about reality; it's about influencing perception. With all the trouble Hillary's in for her abysmal email mishandling, it suddenly makes her look a lot less bad by comparison if her opponent was also doing bad things with email. (Nevermind the fact that Trump's email didn't contain any classified information; we can just neglect to mention that little detail.)
Hersch (I think; I'm not 100% clear which cohost voice belongs with which name) was absolutely right about Yelp. When your business model involves literally running a protection racket, you have no moral high ground from which to launch attacks on Google.
As for Apple, IMO there is no question that they need to be smacked down. Their iOS "walled garden" is prima facie an abusive business practice. It's not a question of whether you can uninstall Apple apps, but of whether you can install other apps in the first place. There's nothing stopping anyone from putting a different app store on an Android device, but when Apple gets to decide what you can and cannot do with your own property, that's a violation of your rights and it needs to stop, or to be stopped.
This is why for years we've posted messages reminding anyone who has a blog to just go and register with the Copyright Office to get basic DMCA protections (especially after a copyright troll went after some smaller blogs who had not done so).
Since the DMCA’s enactment in 1998, online service providers have designated agents with the Copyright Office via paper filings, and the Office has made scanned copies of these filings available to the public by posting them on the Office’s website.
Reading these two things together appears to suggest that the author of an anonymous blog is legally required to dox himself in order to avoid legal liability.
But the definition of "unauthorized access" isn't explored adequately in the legal memo, leaving this to be answered on a case-by-bad case basis. The prosecutions of Aaron Swartz and Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer suggest the DOJ allows this definition to be set by the complainant rather than by policy.
Which is exactly how it should be. Or do you somehow think that the DOJ has a better idea than the owner of private property regarding who is and who is not trespassing on that property without the authorization of the owner?
Unfortunately, the law is still outdated (30 years old this month!)
Are you seriously suggesting that laws wear out from old age and need to be done away with? How about throwing these ones out, then? They're even older!
According to the court, L’Avenir had not been able to demonstrate that it had no knowledge of the unlicensed character of the video embedded on its website. Hence, L’Avenir was found to have infringed the claimant’s copyright by linking to the YouTube video without Ms Jonsson’s permission.
Wait. Are these guys seriously in trouble, in a court of law, for literally failing to prove a negative?!?
She added that the change “is 100% optional–if users do not opt-in to these changes, their Google experience will remain unchanged.”
To opt-out of Google’s identified tracking, visit the Activity controls on Google’s My Account page, and uncheck the box next to “Include Chrome browsing history and activity from websites and apps that use Google services."
Wait, so is this opt-in or opt-out? That's kind of a huge difference...
I don't know how any court can possibly consider EULAs valid, as that is literally exactly what the First Sale Doctrine prohibits. The case that established it was about a publisher putting a EULA (not called that back then, but easily recognizable as such today) inside the cover of books they sold restricting what buyers could do with it, and the court said, no, you can't do that.
First off, what happened in Ferguson was hardly "a few rioters." But either way, that's irrelevant, because what is actually being discussed is not the rioting, but the marketing.
As the article reports, they pitched their software as a way to keep ahead of rioters. (This is even cited as a direct quote, not a paraphrase.) Tim distorts this into "its sales team highlighted its usefulness in monitoring protestors and other First Amendment activity."
Since when are riots First Amendment-protected activity?
Records obtained by the ACLU show the private company pitched its "firehose" connection to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram as a way to monitor the situation in Ferguson (during the 2014 protests) and "stay one step ahead of the rioters."
Geofeedia itself didn't do anything illegal. It simply provided a one-stop shop for social media monitoring of public posts. It's the way it was pitched that was a problem. Rather than sell it as a way to keep law enforcement informed of criminal activity, its sales team highlighted its usefulness in monitoring protestors and other First Amendment activity.
Since when are riots First Amendment-protected activity?