Interestingly, I can't access that GAO link in a secure manner. My browser automatically tries to connect to HTTPS first, but I get show a page which tries to direct me to the HTTP home page and says this:
No Secure Connection (https://) Required
You have reached the website for the Government Accountability Office. However, your browser is trying a secure connection (https). GAO's public website can be reached by following the link to http://www.gao.gov
Annoyingly it directs me to the home page, so I have to find the link again, after I decide to not browse securely.
I wonder what will happen if these end up on the news site's home page.
Imagine if a site wide sidebar said, "Stories the EU doesn't want you to know about" with a list of article names/keywords. The only option would be to remove the entire website. If that happened to a large national newspaper there would be a huge backlash.
The Streisand Effect isn't new. Authors used to use "Banned in Boston" as a selling point after all.
The worst thing is the photographer wasted a perfectly good opportunity. Instead of companies seeing that his work was good enough to be used commercially, they'll now see him as someone who is willing to frivolously attack anyone who does more than look at his work.
I'm saddened that these people can threaten businesses like this. The same thing happened with Wiki Leaks. The government knows it doesn't have a chance of winning in court, but still gets away with it because the companies know they'll be harassed otherwise.
The thing is, that when the supreme court says you can not make that law, they mean it. Different court might rule differently, but they tend to not like it when you try to sneak through things that they've already rejected.
The end result is that, once again, the US will just not follow through with their part of treaty obligations.
The most likely result is that the EU will prevent US companies from storing private data. AKA removing all US based internet companies from Europe. This would actually be a big win for the EU, since they've been trying to hammer successful American companies for some time now.
The problem isn't the legality of the actions. It's actually bringing a lawsuit. It's generally accepted and internalized in some industries and placed that talking about Unionizing is the fastest way to get fired. The big thing is the corporation won't do it immediately, and suing is more of a gamble than Vegas.
The issue is with Equifax and other "Credit Reporting" companies, along with collections companies. If you don't care about being harassed, or a bad credit score then you can just disconnect your TVs and stop paying.
Credit Scores are a banking regulation issue, so good luck getting that fixed. There are several ways of dealing with harassment. Some legal, and some very satisfying.
True, but courts have held that software that bypasses DVD CSS is illegal. They might rule that simple instructions are legal, but I wouldn't bet on it. Either way, that's going to be a lot of money going to lawyers.
There's a growing disconnect between what people believe is moral, and what is actually legal. Then you throw the US First Amendment into a case like this. Douglas MacArthur said "Never give an order that can't be obeyed." He new it did nothing but undermine his own authority to do so. If only everyone else in government would learn the same thing.
Do you know what the terms and conditions were for submitted comments?
I'm guessing it was probably something like "Grant the FCC a perpetual license to copy and display this comment." However, I don't know for sure. I figure you all would have picked up on it if there was a copyright assignment clause, though.
I hope none of the people analyzing this data work for places with legal departments who don't understand fair use. Especially since, that's the only way that anyone reporting on this can directly quote any of the comments.
Another little aside is that while it might be legal to download these huge files to your personal PC, it's almost certainly illegal to give a copy of them to anyone else. They have to go use up FCC bandwidth by obtaining the files from a "authorized source".
I personally prefer LUKS encrypted containers or drives. Sure they have a known signature at the beginning, but how likely do you think someone is going to have a multi-gigabyte file full of random data.
Best of all, the Linux cryptsetup program supports both these and truecrypt. For windows you can use a program called FreeOTFE.
Unfortunately, while LUKS is the standard way to do full disk encryption in Linux it doesn't do the fancy pre boot stuff so it can't encrypt your main windows drive.
Quoting part of it: "However, it doesn't take a PhD in teenagerology to suspect that Her Majesty's Wiretapping Crew are now sitting on one of the largest collections of illegal kiddie porn on the planet. And the kiddies are, on the whole, the unsuspecting children of the taxpayers of the UK."