Too bad a computer screen isn't big enough to hold all the apologist articles you've written in favor of Google...
Sure it is. And I don't deny that I've defended Google plenty of times. I do so when I think they're in the right. And I've criticized Google plenty of times as well. When I think they're wrong.
Frankly, I think the company is right more often than it's wrong. That may not be the case in the future, and I'm certainly aware of that.
But your original argument was that my views in support of Google here had no merit because you falsely believed I was paid only to post pro-Google stories. I have proven that false.
Rather than admitting it's false, you come back with a response that I've also written lots of articles in support of Google -- something that is true and that I don't deny. But that is kind of meaningless. Your original point was flat out wrong.
I write my opinion. Sometimes that aligns with Google. Sometimes it does not. The fact that it does this time is because I think Google is in the right and I provided my explanation for why. People can judge that on the merits. What was false was your attempt to pretend that my argument is meaningless because I'd never criticize Google. The fact is I do frequently criticize Google, just like I also frequently praise it.
I recognize that you're just angry and dislike me so none of this matters, but I'm assuming that your brain does work and it might be aided by seeing the logical contradiction you're in here. I proved you wrong. You should apologize. Instead, you tried to ignore that and make a completely different point which no one has argued.
That's a huge stretch. Can you point to any language in the opinion to support your claim that the Fifth Circuit thinks the subpoena is "bogus"? I sincerely doubt it. Why the need to jump to conclusions and make stuff up?
Did you read the opinion? It starts out praising Section 230 and the importance of protecting free speech online with it. Over and over again they smack down Hood as being wrong, and then finally at the end say basically "despite the fact that Hood is wrong about everything, on a procedural basis, it's not yet ripe to have a case on this." Let's begin the quoting:
This lawsuit, like others of late, reminds us of the importance of preserving free speech on the internet, even though that medium serves as a conduit for much that is distasteful or unlawful. See Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding unconstitutional a sheriff’s threats to credit card companies to stop doing business with a website that hosts classified ads for prostitution). Also like other recent litigation, this case implicates section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—Congress’s grant of “broad immunity” to internet service providers “for all claims stemming from their publication of information created by third parties,” which we and other circuits have consistently given a wide scope. Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Doe v. Backpage.com, LLC, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 963848, at *3–9, 14 (1st Cir. Mar. 14, 2016) (affirming dismissal based on section 230 despite appellants’ “persuasive case” that the defendant “tailored its website to make sex trafficking easier” and stating: “If the evils that the appellants have identified are deemed to outweigh the First Amendment values that drive the CDA, the remedy is through legislation, not through litigation.”).
We first reject Hood’s contention that we can resolve this case on the simple ground that the district court lacked federal-question jurisdiction.
Hood protests that Google really presents only artfully pleaded anticipated defenses to a future state-law action—but he is wrong...
Here, we cannot agree with Hood that an executive official’s service of a non-self-executing subpoena creates an “ongoing state judicial proceeding.”
Despite the foregoing, our precedents lead us to conclude that this administrative subpoena was not ripe for adjudication by the district court.
You kind have to be willfully blind... or working for a Hollywood funded think tank... to think that the court isn't ready to smack Hood down.
Sometimes. I followed a link from Twitter and it was not. I later followed another link from Twitter and it was.
If, however, you go to news.google.com, type "The Encryption Farce" into the search bar, and click on the story link from there, it will work fine. (Note: it's the same link, but the referrer page of google news will get you in).
Sometimes. For whatever reason, this well known "trick" only works about 80% of the time. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it does not.
Look, feel free to criticize our opinions on things. We're totally open to that. But to argue that we uncritically support Google is pretty easy to prove wrong and just makes you look somewhat ridiculous.
How is that possible? Without censoring all coverage of politicians... and that would be a massive First Amendment problem.
If any company wants to influence the election a cash value must be attached to that influence and it must fall within FEC rules.
Again, how does that work with the 1st amendment?
Heck, media news coverage should be balanced between candidates and not in a "we ran 10 (positive) stories about candidate A and 10 (negative) stories about candidate B so that's equal coverage, right?"
How do you define "balance" here then?
Didn't SNL recently get in trouble for featuring Trump as a guest?
You can deny that patent protection stimulates innovation and promotes the creation of new products all you want. You have the right to be wrong.
I see. So now all you're left with arguing is "nyah, nyah, nyah"?
The evidence is on my side. I pointed to studies showing most tech transfer is an economic loss. There is evidence showing that patents are rarely an incentive for building products.
And when we're talking about publicly funded technology, the "businesses" you name have mostly been patent trolls, rather than useful services. Yes, there are some exceptions, but few and far between. And none of them required the patents.
The fact that businesses have been built based on university patents is not an argument in your favor. It just means that someone's figured out a way to skim money off the inefficiencies in the system, not that it's created overall economic benefit.
Inventions aren't used. Products are used. Why would a private company spend its resources to turn an invention into a product if any other could freely do so as well? None will.
This is ridiculously ignorant. History has shown time and time again that there is massive innovation and product development with a LACK of patents. It's when patents enter the space that the pace of product development slows down, because it limits competition.
The reason people make products -- even when they can be copied -- is to sell them or to serve their own needs. The idea that no one will invest in making products because others will copy makes no sense. You have tremendous advantages in making actual products, especially if you're first to market, can build a brand and can better serve customers.
The idea that you can't compete against a knockoff product suggests only a company that doesn't belong in business.
Your knowledge of how business works is severely lacking.
The University of California collected $118M in patent licensing fees in 2014 alone. And spun off 86 startups [all who will employ people and pay taxes]. University technology transfer throughout the country -- from public schools alone -- is very lucrative and beneficial to the economics of our society. Those benefits are just rewards from taxpayer investment in public universities.
This is wrong. Yes, Cal made a ton of money being a patent troll, but the "benefits" to the public are unproven. And the VAST majority of tech transfer offices have lost money. A very small number (Stanford, MIT, Cal) make money, but most do not.
And unfortunately, of the few that do make money, like Cal, they've mostly focused purely on trolling -- using broad patents to shake down actual innovators, rather than actually transfering inventions into the commercial sector.
You know what? In a big organization, it sometimes takes days or even weeks before HR gets around to actually spreading the news. OFten enough, they never spread the news and users get removed when you do a username audit (not often enough, apparently).
I don't know any medium to big organization that does not have a fairly complete and comprehensive termination procedure set up that shuts down all such access. The idea that the Tribune Company would not have that is corporate malpractice. That's stunning.
Seriously. Why do you promote a Java language course? It is a security nightmare and being in the IT business for more than 30 years, I can't think of a single company that utilizes java except for some old Cisco apps.
Java applets in webpages are a security nightmare. But java is still widely used in developing software. I just did a quick search for job openings in a 30 mile radius around here and there are over 2000 java developer positions open:
Brian, thanks for responding. I can let Tim respond himself, but on a few points I think your argument is unfair as well:
No one is blaming Apple for a wrongful arrest. It is quite the opposite. As the story explains, Apple's help was essential in finding the actual killer. The point of my piece is to show how Apple has typically been part of the investigative procedure, and ask what will be lost as Apple reduces that help, not only by being unable to unlock phones but perhaps by also cutting off access to data in the cloud.
You're basically saying "if Apple doesn't help there will be wrongful arrests." It seems perfectly bizarre to suggest that bad police work is somehow Apple's fault.
All I'm asking is, what will the effects on the criminal justice system be? Shouldn't we at least hear the cops and prosecutors out rather than merely dismissing them out of hand?
That suggests that no one is taking the concerns seriously or going through them. But that's not true. Every time the police or others in law enforcement have raised concerns, people HAVE looked closely at them, and basically every time they've been massively exaggerated.
The idea that "going dark" is a real problem doesn't seem supported by reality. Giving it credence based purely on anecdotes seems like a weak response, which is why Tim wrote his article.
So far a very small percentage of cases have been held up by the inability to carry out search warrants on phones. But isn't it possible that at some point some threshold will be crossed where we look up and find that has changed quickly--especially if the cloud access is cut off?
That seems far fetched based on the simple fact that most of the information from mobile phones that is now available WASN'T available just a few years ago... and police did just fine using other detective and investigation work. To argue that this will magically create some dark crime wave doesn't make much sense.
Every day I read computer security people blowing off the idea that the cops are affected very much in their ability to pursue serious crimes. All I'm doing is showing you the argument for the costs. It's not surprising that you think the benefits outweigh them. But don't get into high dudgeon under preposterous headlines just because someone is reminding you that we should always revisit the trade-offs.
To be fair here, you can blame me for the headline. Cushing had a different one that I scrapped in favor of this headline.
We absolutely recognize the tradeoffs. Hell, I did a whole video discussing the tradeoffs (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160321/16175933972/mike-masnick-explains-apple-versus-fbi.shtml ). But our basic concern here is that if you're going to discuss the trade offs you should present them accurately, which I felt that article did not fairly do.