Sorry, you can't write that comment - it's copywritten. Now Mike's going to have to set up a comment filter for all these infringing phrases. Probably alter the terms of service... I'll pray he doesn't alter them further. :)
Samsung, to its credit, doesn't allow facial recognition to authorize Samsung purchases. If it's not good enough for that, why should it be good enough to serve as a locking mechanism for the phone at all? Other locks, including other biometric locks, perform far better. Maybe it would be best to table this security feature until it's, you know, secure.
While I agree that it's good that Samsung isn't allowing this sort of authentication for financial transactions, I'm not sure we should go so far as to say "don't use it".
Don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that fingerprint scanners were quite the joke. (and to a lesser extent, still can be)
It's going to take time in the real world to refine the techniques for these sorts of systems. You can only do so much in the controlled lab settings, and only a small bit more with in-house testing.
That said, you would think they would have known that someone was going to try the photo thing... it's not like that's a new workaround for facial recognition.
I was referring more to the seemingly uncoordinated efforts that Sony has sometimes undertaken - it makes a lot more sense if random employees and execs are running around filing what they think instead of that crazy idea of coordination.
I seem to recall a couple cases where one part of Sony issued take-downs on content uploaded by another part of Sony (*I could be thinking of a different company... memory's failing quick lately)
It makes you wonder if Sony Pictures lets any exec just file DMCA notices in its name.
... well, that would explain a few things.
The claim that the rally was a religious gathering and not connected to the Huckabee campaign reportedly fell apart because he had listed the rally as a campaign expense on his records. Interestingly, despite Huckabee's claim that it was not a campaign event, that it was so will allow him to use his campaign's warchest to pay off the settlement.
If it's a campaign expense, and ruled as a part of his campaign, would he not then be able to counter-claim that it is therefore covered under the blanket licencing he most likely had?
And thus comes to an end a politician's campaign infringing on copyright and trying to invoke religion to get out of it. Thy kingdom come...to a settlement with an 80s band, apparently.
If we're going to throw a bit of bible in there, I think the more appropriate one would be:
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
I'll meet you part way - even most of the way - because you do have a point that has been somewhat lost in this.
You're right in that there's nothing wrong with getting help funding a lawsuit. There have been many instances (even celebrated here) where the EFF has been able to help or where the Popehat signal goes out and some pro-bono help has been offered - all because the individual couldn't afford their due day in court.
You're also right in that a legal complaint was lodged by Hogan, due process was followed, and the end verdict was in Hogan's favor. Money is due Hogan from Gawker as a result, pending all the fun with appeals etc. Theil himself had nothing to do with the jury's verdict - it was all the lawyers, the arguments, and maybe even evidence. (that last part was indented to be be somewhat sarcastic for the sarcasm-impaired)
If Hogan needed help funding his efforts to seek legal recourse over a complaint, then he certainly wasn't wrong to accept said help.
We can quibble over the validity of Hogan's complaint, and if what Gawker did could be construed as an act of journalism of the lowest order (mistyped that as "oder"... almost left it like that). There's certainly enough weirdness in other aspects of this specific case to muddy the waters.
Where this comes back to for me - and where we may just have to agree to disagree - is not with Hogan, his suit, or the merits of one side or another. The main issue for me is with Theil and his behaviour.
I have not seen anywhere where Hogan sought help because he couldn't afford his due legal recourse. (Though I'm open to evidence that that was the case) I have seen where Theil has gone out of his way to find people with a beef with Gawker and support them - not because their case was good or their cause just, but because they had a beef with Gawker good enough to drag them into court.
It's the ruin-by-proxy and the precedent that it sets that has me concerned.
If it was just Hogan vs Gawker, I might go along with you. The problem is that this is signaling - if you have the money and can rustle up a mob then it's perfectly ok to go all scorched earth against a publication.
Will it still be ok if Rush Limbaugh funds every lawsuit he can stir up against the NY Times until they declare bankruptcy?
Would it still be ok if Duffy funds (well ... assuming he could) every lawsuit he could stir up against TechDirt and/or Popehat?
So when some billionaire funds enough lawsuits to put TechDirt in bankruptcy, because they were upset/hurt by what their coverage did to poor Prenda, you'll also cheer about how TechDirt deserves what it got?
Gawker is many things, and they earned their reputation one horrid post at a time - but it's this sort of mob-run pitchforks-and-torches retribution that has me worried.
Sure, this time it cut down someone few are happy to see go away ... but what about next time? You know, the point Mike was trying to make?
Never mind the question of if Lifehacker or IO9 should be spared the wrath earned by Denton and those most like him.
Never mind the question of what this is signaling as "ok".