If I abandon a car on the street, someone eventually claims title. If I abandon a bank account, the state takes it. If I abandon real estate, and don't remedy trespass, adverse possession takes over. If I don't use my trademark, the rights go over to those who do. If I abandon my children, then everyone is taxed to remedy my actions. If I abandon a patent application it goes away. If I abandon a storage locker, it ends up on reality TV. You get the idea.
Apple Computers at 10.5 or less get no updates. Microsoft computers at XP or earlier get no updates. The end of security updates follows abandonment. It is certainly ironic that freshly pirated copies of Windows get security updates that older versions bought legitimately do not.
Stating to me what is the obvious policy stance:
If Company X abandons the codebase, then that codebase must become open source.
I highly recommend the whole video. Although I hotly disagree with his stance on the right to be forgotten, he at least presents a well reasoned argument.
Either that, or someone released disinformation in response to a FOIA request/lawsuit.
I've always wondered what's stopping the government from just fabricating documents in response to these things... and wasting a lot of black ink to make us think we're actually on to something. I would hope there's enough honest souls in there that someone would brave the treason/espionage charges and say something. Besides, what's the worst that could happen to the government for lying to the public? They have to spend taxpayer dollars to pay off a fine?
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it's not up to the DOJ. If the court says the gag order is no longer in force, then the guy can talk, regardless of the legal pressure the DOJ might want to apply.
> The (FCC's) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters.
The problem with *this* wording is that the capability *does* exist in the hardware. Software defined radios are about all that exist any more, and what's legal in one jurisdiction is illegal in another. Japan's "channel 14" for WiFi is a great example.
So at best it still seems like overbroad, sloppy thinking. Another case of trying to ban a tool that has legitimate uses, instead of addressing the instances of bad behavior.
I think Machin Shin is trying to say that since weed is illegal, presumably honest cops won't have ingested any, and the cops at the raid ate some brownies, and presumably those brownies had pot in them.... ergo the cops that pop positive are the ones involved in the raid.
I don't agree with the assertion that those were pot brownies tho.
"We have determined that he really likes autoerotic asphyxiation, and tentacle hentai. He has a collection of animatronic tentacles. If we replace one of his tentacles with a killer robot that doesn't let up when ..."
"Stop. Seriously? I think you need to take a break."
I vaguely remember having an on online discussion with someone who does freelance programming work. They used the length of the contract they created as a measure of how much they distrusted the other party. Once the contract grew past a certain length, they felt there was no point in pursuing the business opportunity.
In the words of Edward Snowden: Twitter doesn't put warheads on foreheads. In the words of Michael Hayden: We kill people based on metadata.
It's monumentally stupid, disingenuous, or both, to compare or contrast corporate surveillance and government surveillance without acknowledging this very important point.
Once you acknowledge it, you have to contend with the fact that the government has the power (even if it doesn't have the right) to bridge the Snowden-Hayden Gap, coopting corporate surveillance for its own ends.