It seems more of a semantic argument. When they say "track" what they really mean is "keep track of" and it's not the USERS but the PHONE ITSELF that they are "keeping track of" via fingerprinting, which was against Apple's ToS and therefore most users assume that it was not being done, therefore it violated their privacy.
I think it goes beyond the semantic argument. There's a wide canyon of difference between "Uber was spying on ex-users" and "Uber had an anti-fraud technique that made sure people weren't gaming their system by deleting the app and reloading it." One looks a lot worse than the other.
But as you pointed out, there are many reasons to dislike them.
Yup. And thus it's completely fair to argue the company deserves no benefit of the doubt. But, silly me, I like to focus on a company's actual actions, rather than the hyped up versions that take things out of context. I understand the anti-fraud argument, though the company should have found a way to do that without violating Apple's ToS.
But the story here should just be Uber's anti-fraud efforts violated Apple's terms, not that it was "tracking users after they deleted the app" which sounds much worse.
Yes, I can see how those statements would come into play in discussing his intent in *these* statements at *this* rally, but he's not being sued over the statements at the other rally. And that's the point I was making.
Given the media coverage of those statements though(especially the legal fees one), couldn't a Trump supporter reasonably assume those statements still applied during this particular rally, assuming it came after those statements?
They could assume lots of stuff, but it doesn't make one lick of difference for the specific question here of whether or not Trump advocated for imminent lawless activity, which would be unprotected speech. General comments made at another time and in another place DO NOT COUNT for that.
Other courts have used Trump's past remarks as justification for scraping his travel ban(s), so it seems reasonable that they could look at them in this case as well.*
No. That's a totally different issue. The issue here is a specific First Amendment question, and the test here is whether or not the statements were inciting imminent lawless activity. Old comments in another place at another time are, by definition, not creating imminent lawless activity.
The issue of the previous statements impacting the travel ban are a red herring. That's not a free speech question with the same legal test. It's meaningless. Yes, for some legal questions your comments elsewhere and at another time matter. For this one, they do not.
One of the defendants has already made reference to Trump's previous "legal fees" statement as justification for his actions (and argued that, should he be convicted, Trump should be liable for said legal fees).
Yes, in reference to the cross claims that basically say, if he's found liable, the President should pay. I was at least somewhat surprised the plaintiffs don't raise those comments themselves, but they don't. Imminent means imminent and general support for violence has been ruled out over and over again. Trump's comments at other rallies almost certainly has no bearing on whether or not what he said at this rally was protected.
None of those statements were at this rally, but at others. Saying that those statements applied to this rally might make for an interesting question, but... would be very difficult for a court to buy. There's a recent "imminent" is in the test for the exception to the First Amendment. If people beat up at rallies where those other statements were made bring a case, the analysis might be different. I am just going on the specifics of what happened in this rally, and specifically what the plaintiffs claimed happened there. Bringing in other stuff, not even in the complaint seems... unnecessary.
Even if it is for a good cause, isn't this type of moneyed influence the kind of thing we should be wary of?
I'm not clear on how this is moneyed influence? Amicus briefs do not involve money. They are third parties weighing in with the court to provide outside perspective and lots of different groups have done so (in fact, it's probably more common for non-profit/civil society groups to file amicus briefs than businesses).
Bah. I caught that in editing, but somehow my fix didn't get saved. Fixed now. I also thought it was pretty funny that Tim thought it was a person's name. Thanks for pointing it out.
So, a bunch of people, who aren't Trump, say and do a bunch of things, yet "somehow", Trump did it. Talk about paranoid.
A lot of other people have responded to this to point out how silly it is, but they've missed another reason why your comment is particularly ridiculous. The post does not say "Trump" did anything. It says his administration did. And his cabinet is absolutely his administration.
Have you registered as a lobbyist? I believe it's the law if you are financially compensated, directly or indirectly, for your efforts at influencing lawmakers.
What...? Airbnb hasn't paid me directly or indirectly. I've paid them every time I've used them to book a room, just like every other user.
Why is it that some people assume that any time someone has an opinion different than their own, they must be paid off.
Can you give us an update on the Minaal Daily? Do you still like it? Was it a worthwhile purchase?
Yes! I still use it... daily. And I still think it's great. I can think of a few improvements they could make (more "quick access" pockets or space would be my main one), but overall, I still love the bag and recommend it to people. It depends on what you need it for, but for me it's great and fits my needs perfectly and just has a really nice feel. And, even though it's now got a year's worth of use, it honestly looks brand new. Zero signs of wear and tear.
Where's the responsibility, the accountability come in to play for Facebook then Mike?
As with all things, if Facebook's users dislike its actions, they will go elsehwere, and that's where Facebook's accountability and responsibilities lie.
If a broadcast news company were to let a rape occur live the gubernment would be there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines...
Yes, broadcast news. And that's only because broadcast news broadcasts over public spectrum, and thus they agreed to be under the authority of the FCC on things like "indecency." If it were cable, the government would not be able to hand out fines because there would be no legal way for it to do so. Facebook has no agreement with the government in which it get spectrum for certain broadcasting standards -- not to mention, as others pointed out, the massive world of difference between a professional broadcaster which chooses what will air and a platform that just allows anyone to broadcast.
Facebook needs to own their live broadcasting system, no one else implemented it, no one else is responsible for maintaining a level of conduct for content that streams via its tools.
Nor is Facebook responsible for how people use their tools. To argue otherwise is to present yourself as foolish and ignorant of the scale of what is being discussed.
Sony owned up when they found livestreams of a naughty nature using their tools and devices, don't see those anymore but Facebook is excused? Not in my book!
I don't know what this refers to so I can't comment on it.
Look Mike, I get the free speech position, a very tired and worn out excuse for allowing companies to hide inaction but live streaming comes with accountability - build the tools, own the tools and the content that flows through them.
I don't think you do get it. You don't get that what you are asking for is not just impossible, but dangerous. Not only would a tremendous amount of free speech and innovation get stomped out, but you'd effectively be making it impossible for any new entrant in this field.
The least I would expect, would be multi million dollar fines towards Facebook, heavy handed questioning IN COURT during the trial for those caught and changes in how they monitor their tools.
That would be because you are ignorant of both the law and the Constitution. What you describe is not possible. It reflects little knowledge of either the legal or technical realities.
But, feel good about yourself. You can blame a company for no good reason. You must be so proud.
We already know that Trump is a turd, and why this is news is questionable.
No offense, but to me the worst commenter we get is the one who pulls out the bullshit "why is this news?" savvy cynic line. It's news because it fucking matters. It doesn't matter if "all politicians are bad." It's news when someone does something bad that we can report on. I know, I know, you're so brilliant and above all this shit that you think it looks cool to pretend that everyone's equally bad and "it's not news" when one does something bad.
Except you're wrong. It is news. And you don't look cool and savvy. You look like a naive cynical jackass. It was news when Obama did bad stuff and it's news when Trump does bad stuff, and we're going to report on it either way.
Let's say, in addition to turning off anything 'smart' in the menu options, I block my tv at the router level from accessing the net - does this help anything?
Yes, that would stop many exploits that rely on hitting an exploit website over the network to get software. And would likely make it more difficult for any software that somehow did get on there to ever report back.
Masnick just hates Pallante--and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
What a weird statement. I have no hatred for Pallante at all. I was happy when she got the job, as I thought she was much better suited for it than her predecessor, and I applauded large parts of her call for a great new copyright act (others parts I disagreed with). But on the whole, I had always thought she was a step up from at least the previous two Copyright Registers.
I have no hatred for her at all.
What's shocking, though, are the revelations in these two stories. I find it odd that you seem to think that just because others ignore the scandal it means there is no scandal. What a weird concept. Objectively speaking, these two stories are a major scandal.
But I heard that "just use a VPN" wasn't a real solution!
It's not a real solution to your home ISP profiting off of your browsing history. It is a solution to lots of other issues. It's all about what threat you're dealing with.
There's a grand total of one whole position, Director of the FBI with a 10 year term.
That's not the only one. The Library of Congress is now also a 10 year appointment. It used to be "until stepped down or fired" but after the last LoC stepped down, it was changed so that it's now 10 year appointments.
I believe that the inclusion here is for the same reasons it was included for the LoC. Just some concerns about effective "lifetime" appointments to head agencies.
Mike's pissed that the copyright office will now not be able to be bought by Google.
What? First off, since when has Google "bought" the Copyright Office? Second, Google FAVORS moving the Copyright Office from what I've seen (they'd like to move it into the PTO, which is also a bad idea). So, uh, no.
Copyright is the only protection artists have. Naturally, he hates copyright.
Everything in those two sentences is wrong. It must be tough angrily yelling at a fake strawman that says stuff I don't actually believe.
On the post: That Story About Uber Tracking People After They Deleted The App? Yeah, That's Not Really Accurate
Re: I don't quite understand
It seems more of a semantic argument. When they say "track" what they really mean is "keep track of" and it's not the USERS but the PHONE ITSELF that they are "keeping track of" via fingerprinting, which was against Apple's ToS and therefore most users assume that it was not being done, therefore it violated their privacy.
I think it goes beyond the semantic argument. There's a wide canyon of difference between "Uber was spying on ex-users" and "Uber had an anti-fraud technique that made sure people weren't gaming their system by deleting the app and reloading it." One looks a lot worse than the other.
But as you pointed out, there are many reasons to dislike them.
Yup. And thus it's completely fair to argue the company deserves no benefit of the doubt. But, silly me, I like to focus on a company's actual actions, rather than the hyped up versions that take things out of context. I understand the anti-fraud argument, though the company should have found a way to do that without violating Apple's ToS.
But the story here should just be Uber's anti-fraud efforts violated Apple's terms, not that it was "tracking users after they deleted the app" which sounds much worse.
On the post: Stop It. Trump's Lawyers Did Not Say That Protestors Have No First Amendment Right To Dissent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about these quotes?
On the post: Stop It. Trump's Lawyers Did Not Say That Protestors Have No First Amendment Right To Dissent
Re: Re: Re: What about these quotes?
Given the media coverage of those statements though(especially the legal fees one), couldn't a Trump supporter reasonably assume those statements still applied during this particular rally, assuming it came after those statements?
They could assume lots of stuff, but it doesn't make one lick of difference for the specific question here of whether or not Trump advocated for imminent lawless activity, which would be unprotected speech. General comments made at another time and in another place DO NOT COUNT for that.
No. That's a totally different issue. The issue here is a specific First Amendment question, and the test here is whether or not the statements were inciting imminent lawless activity. Old comments in another place at another time are, by definition, not creating imminent lawless activity.
The issue of the previous statements impacting the travel ban are a red herring. That's not a free speech question with the same legal test. It's meaningless. Yes, for some legal questions your comments elsewhere and at another time matter. For this one, they do not.
On the post: Stop It. Trump's Lawyers Did Not Say That Protestors Have No First Amendment Right To Dissent
Re: Re: Re: What about these quotes?
One of the defendants has already made reference to Trump's previous "legal fees" statement as justification for his actions (and argued that, should he be convicted, Trump should be liable for said legal fees).
Yes, in reference to the cross claims that basically say, if he's found liable, the President should pay. I was at least somewhat surprised the plaintiffs don't raise those comments themselves, but they don't. Imminent means imminent and general support for violence has been ruled out over and over again. Trump's comments at other rallies almost certainly has no bearing on whether or not what he said at this rally was protected.
On the post: Stop It. Trump's Lawyers Did Not Say That Protestors Have No First Amendment Right To Dissent
Re: What about these quotes?
On the post: Tech Companies Continue To Tell Courts To Reject Trump Travel Exec Order
Re:
Even if it is for a good cause, isn't this type of moneyed influence the kind of thing we should be wary of?
I'm not clear on how this is moneyed influence? Amicus briefs do not involve money. They are third parties weighing in with the court to provide outside perspective and lots of different groups have done so (in fact, it's probably more common for non-profit/civil society groups to file amicus briefs than businesses).
On the post: NY Judge Says Prior Restraint Is America's Best Defense Against Internet 'Chaos'
Re: this read as if his name was Tikun Olam
On the post: DHS Boss Calls For More Fear, Less Encryption
Re:
So, a bunch of people, who aren't Trump, say and do a bunch of things, yet "somehow", Trump did it. Talk about paranoid.
A lot of other people have responded to this to point out how silly it is, but they've missed another reason why your comment is particularly ridiculous. The post does not say "Trump" did anything. It says his administration did. And his cabinet is absolutely his administration.
So, yeah.
On the post: Why Is The Hotel Industry More Focused On Harming Airbnb Than Improving Their Own Product?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He said he was in DC, he should answer the question. It's not a difficult one, is it?
Heh. I wasn't in DC to lobby. I'm not a lobbyist. I've never been a lobbyist. These accusations are cute, though.
On the post: Why Is The Hotel Industry More Focused On Harming Airbnb Than Improving Their Own Product?
Re:
Have you registered as a lobbyist? I believe it's the law if you are financially compensated, directly or indirectly, for your efforts at influencing lawmakers.
What...? Airbnb hasn't paid me directly or indirectly. I've paid them every time I've used them to book a room, just like every other user.
Why is it that some people assume that any time someone has an opinion different than their own, they must be paid off.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Masnick's Office In A Bag
Re: Minaal Daily
Can you give us an update on the Minaal Daily? Do you still like it? Was it a worthwhile purchase?
Yes! I still use it... daily. And I still think it's great. I can think of a few improvements they could make (more "quick access" pockets or space would be my main one), but overall, I still love the bag and recommend it to people. It depends on what you need it for, but for me it's great and fits my needs perfectly and just has a really nice feel. And, even though it's now got a year's worth of use, it honestly looks brand new. Zero signs of wear and tear.
On the post: Moral Panics: Don't Blame Facebook Because Some Guy Posted His Murder Video There
Re: Crimes broadcast, propaganda, alt news
Where's the responsibility, the accountability come in to play for Facebook then Mike?
As with all things, if Facebook's users dislike its actions, they will go elsehwere, and that's where Facebook's accountability and responsibilities lie.
If a broadcast news company were to let a rape occur live the gubernment would be there with their pen and paper in minutes handing out fines...
Yes, broadcast news. And that's only because broadcast news broadcasts over public spectrum, and thus they agreed to be under the authority of the FCC on things like "indecency." If it were cable, the government would not be able to hand out fines because there would be no legal way for it to do so. Facebook has no agreement with the government in which it get spectrum for certain broadcasting standards -- not to mention, as others pointed out, the massive world of difference between a professional broadcaster which chooses what will air and a platform that just allows anyone to broadcast.
Facebook needs to own their live broadcasting system, no one else implemented it, no one else is responsible for maintaining a level of conduct for content that streams via its tools.
Nor is Facebook responsible for how people use their tools. To argue otherwise is to present yourself as foolish and ignorant of the scale of what is being discussed.
Sony owned up when they found livestreams of a naughty nature using their tools and devices, don't see those anymore but Facebook is excused? Not in my book!
I don't know what this refers to so I can't comment on it.
Look Mike, I get the free speech position, a very tired and worn out excuse for allowing companies to hide inaction but live streaming comes with accountability - build the tools, own the tools and the content that flows through them.
I don't think you do get it. You don't get that what you are asking for is not just impossible, but dangerous. Not only would a tremendous amount of free speech and innovation get stomped out, but you'd effectively be making it impossible for any new entrant in this field.
The least I would expect, would be multi million dollar fines towards Facebook, heavy handed questioning IN COURT during the trial for those caught and changes in how they monitor their tools.
That would be because you are ignorant of both the law and the Constitution. What you describe is not possible. It reflects little knowledge of either the legal or technical realities.
But, feel good about yourself. You can blame a company for no good reason. You must be so proud.
On the post: Trump Administration Kills Open.Gov, Will Not Release White House Visitor Logs
Re:
We already know that Trump is a turd, and why this is news is questionable.
No offense, but to me the worst commenter we get is the one who pulls out the bullshit "why is this news?" savvy cynic line. It's news because it fucking matters. It doesn't matter if "all politicians are bad." It's news when someone does something bad that we can report on. I know, I know, you're so brilliant and above all this shit that you think it looks cool to pretend that everyone's equally bad and "it's not news" when one does something bad.
Except you're wrong. It is news. And you don't look cool and savvy. You look like a naive cynical jackass. It was news when Obama did bad stuff and it's news when Trump does bad stuff, and we're going to report on it either way.
On the post: Copyright Society's 'World IP Day' Lesson: Give Us Your Copyrights For Nothing
Re: Contest submission link
Thanks.
On the post: Researcher: 90% Of 'Smart' TVs Can Be Compromised Remotely
Re:
Let's say, in addition to turning off anything 'smart' in the menu options, I block my tv at the router level from accessing the net - does this help anything?
Yes, that would stop many exploits that rely on hitting an exploit website over the network to get software. And would likely make it more difficult for any software that somehow did get on there to ever report back.
On the post: Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
Do you think that's true of us at Techdirt? If so you'd be wrong. We'd criticize this kind of thing no matter who was doing it.
On the post: Another Major Scandal At The Copyright Office: $25 Million 'Fake Budget' Line Item
Re: Re: Re:
What a weird statement. I have no hatred for Pallante at all. I was happy when she got the job, as I thought she was much better suited for it than her predecessor, and I applauded large parts of her call for a great new copyright act (others parts I disagreed with). But on the whole, I had always thought she was a step up from at least the previous two Copyright Registers.
I have no hatred for her at all.
What's shocking, though, are the revelations in these two stories. I find it odd that you seem to think that just because others ignore the scandal it means there is no scandal. What a weird concept. Objectively speaking, these two stories are a major scandal.
On the post: Daily Deal: TigerVPN Subscription
Re:
But I heard that "just use a VPN" wasn't a real solution!
It's not a real solution to your home ISP profiting off of your browsing history. It is a solution to lots of other issues. It's all about what threat you're dealing with.
On the post: Congress Leaks Draft Bill To Move Copyright Office Out Of The Library Of Congress
Re: A 10 year term why?
That's not the only one. The Library of Congress is now also a 10 year appointment. It used to be "until stepped down or fired" but after the last LoC stepped down, it was changed so that it's now 10 year appointments.
I believe that the inclusion here is for the same reasons it was included for the LoC. Just some concerns about effective "lifetime" appointments to head agencies.
On the post: Congress Leaks Draft Bill To Move Copyright Office Out Of The Library Of Congress
Re:
What? First off, since when has Google "bought" the Copyright Office? Second, Google FAVORS moving the Copyright Office from what I've seen (they'd like to move it into the PTO, which is also a bad idea). So, uh, no.
Everything in those two sentences is wrong. It must be tough angrily yelling at a fake strawman that says stuff I don't actually believe.
Next >>