I don't think Steven Bellovin -- a computer networking and security researcher at Columbia -- was shrugging off the CIA hacking Apple products. I think he was expressing a complete lack of surprise by it, because who would be surprised by the CIA's or NSA's tactics these days, but still condemning the CIA's activities as amoral.
Also I am sure this must be illegal, and netflix could sue the MPAA for encouraging them to not allow a legitimate company to have their movies in cinemas.
Theaters are owned by private companies, and it is perfectly legal for them to choose what they do and don't want to show. Plus, courts cannot compel theaters to show speech they don't wish to support - that's massively unconstitutional.
This is really quite an amazing comment. First you assume that the committee that commissioned the investigation didn't bother reading it, then you assume that it's both incorrect and motivated entirely by partisan politics, then you take your first assumption as a given and moralize about how much worse than Cheney not reading the report Feinstein not having read the report is.
(And, uh, why would a "political hackjob" about Bush reveal that the CIA lied to Bush about both the scope and the effectiveness of their torture? Why would the CIA hack into, lie about hacking into, and then eventually admit to hacking into the computers of the investigatory committee if the investigation was without merit and transparently political hackery?)
Looking through the torture report, there's an interesting euphemism for lying: "This statement is incongruent with internal CIA documents." Forty-two statements are said to be incongruent with internal CIA documents.
He stole intellectual property? You mean, the people who produced the movie don't have copies or masters of it anymore, and now they can't distribute it anywhere because their copies of it are gone? Because otherwise, "stole" is a word that doesn't seem like it could possibly apply to intellectual property.
It is remarkable how wrong you are. Public schools are not allowed to restrict the first amendment activities of their students, except for very narrowly tailored time and place restrictions. Many schools have been sued and lost over less than this curtailment of students' right to petition their government and to peaceably assemble.
Then you lack reading comprehension skills. The letter is from a FOIA denial officer to the tweeter, denying her request... and the letter notes, in its signature block, that the denial itself may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
My character appeared in my book The 0th Dimension, written in 2003 and published in 2007 by FurNation, and published again by Double Dragon Publishing in 2012. ... There appears to be a copyright notice dated year 2000
So he's suing for infringement on something published seven years before his own book?
It is not censorship when a private party removes posts on his own website. You have no inalienable right to be heard on a particular person's website, just as you have no right to shout anything you want in someone's living room, and they have every right to ask you (or force you) to leave.
Which is to say: Steam's policy is (maybe has always been; I'm not sure) that even if they ban your account you will still have access to all of the games you owned under it; you just won't be able to add new games you purchase to the account.