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Unfortunately, the law is still outdated (30 years old this month!)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?
Just off the top of my head... how about the automotive industry?
Time and time again, setting higher standards for safety, for fuel efficiency, and for low emissions has spurred innovation in developing ways to safer, more efficient, less polluting cars less expensive and more available to the mass market.
Really? Coulda fooled me; virtually every single article on here is about laws, politics, and public policy in one way or another, presented in such a way as to attempt to persuade readers to hold specific, well-defined opinions on various politically relevant topics.
1) We paid for it. 2) We're not getting it. 3) They're actively enforcing us not getting it, despite the fact that we paid for it. 4) It's critical infrastructure, as necessary to the smooth functioning of our modern society as roads or power lines.
Considering that Verizon has apparently settled on an official policy of fraud, (that's what it's called when you get someone to pay for something and then don't give it to them,) and considering that Verizon's apathy is specifically the result of maintaining this critical infrastructure being unprofitable, are there any good reasons why it shouldn't be nationalized at this point and run by a public agency?
One, the United States effectively wrote the book on hacking other countries causing all manner of harm (hello, Stuxnet),
What kind of "all manner of harm" did Stuxnet cause? AFAIK it harmed exactly what it was meant to harm (centrifuges designed to produce fuel for illegal nuclear weapons) with no collateral damage to unrelated systems.
Oh, these guys aren't even the worst of it, even in the opioid addiction realm.
Suboxone is one way to treat opioid addiction, but a more common treatment is Methadone. The primary producer and vendor of Methadone is Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. Among Mallinckrodt's portfolio is a handful of opioid pain pills, including Roxicodone™, made from the same active ingredient as the notoriously addictive OxyContin.
In other words, they're actively profiting off both sides of the addiction equation.
Yeah, this is what I've been saying for a long time now. We need a law to address this specifically.
Since laws all seem to need a catchy title, call this one "The Crime Does Not Pay Act:" Any business found guilty of violating the law in a way that increases revenue must face a mandatory minimum fine of 100% of the gross revenue received through their illegal dealings.
I understand Rabbi Sacks' dual concerns about the growing use of technology threatening both our jobs and our connections with one other.
I don't. Admittedly, as a computer programmer I may have a bit of a skewed perspective on the first "threat," but the second one is just plain wrong. I use modern technology on a daily basis to keep in touch with friends and colleagues in locale as far-flung as Boston, California, Pakistan, France and Australia. When my brother was living in Russia for a time, I was able to use Skype to have real-time, face-to-face conversations with him. In any earlier age, the rabbi's counterparts would have considered that a miracle. Now that we have it as a reliable part of everyday life, what possible reason could he have to call it a threat?