Thank you for reporting this objectively. Everybody deserves equal protection under the law.
I hope to see your further legal analysis of Project Veritas vs. New York Times. The Times is framing the as a simple, unconstitutional prior restraint case but it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas. The November 18 court decision seems to give that argument some weight.
The road in question is a poorly maintained dirt road that climbs over a mountain pass. It contains several tight switchbacks and poor road conditions. It generally requires a high clearance 4WD vehicle. There is a sign at the base telling people not to pull trailers over 35 feet long because they can't negotiate the switchbacks.
Travelers trying to bypass the I-90 closure in Glenwood canyon have routinely ignored the posted warnings. Recently, Grayhound bus attempted the ascent and was stopped when the driver ripped out the oil pan from under the engine. Passengers had to be rescued, baggage recovered, the oil spill cleaned up and the wrecked bus dealt with.
The road is not closed to local traffic because locals know that the road is for recreational use only. The problem was that phone apps were routing tourists on it to get around the Interstate-90 road closure in Glenwood canyon. The State of Colorado made a reasonable attempt to keep idiots from harming themselves.
I am Mr. Thomas Tables, father of little Bobby Tables. The cellular phone that he carries to school is mine. I own it, not Bobby. I have given little Bobby permision to use it; it was not given as a gift. I purchased it with my debit card, which is linked to my checking account. The cellular service contract is under my name and I pay the bill every month.
Please be advised that I absolutely deny the School District or any of its employees permission to inspect the contents of my cell phone. If law enforcement wants permission, tell them that I will be glad to comply as soon as they produce a search warrant.
Police have a duty to collect evidence of a crime. I'm not sure that they are required to generate evidence. Charging a drunk driver without making them blow into a tube is a cop's choice. Prosecuting a drug crime without dashcam footage weakens the prosecution case, but they're allowed to take that gamble.
Further, they are certainly not required to generate evidence of a non-crime - i.e., exculpatory evidence. IANAL, but I don't expect police to be extremely busy affirming a suspect's innocence. Police would say that's what juries are for.
Suppose you walked out your front door one morning and spotted a guy in a Fedora and trenchcoat who followed you around all day, taking notes. He followed you everywhere you went and continuously recorded your location. He recorded who you called, who you visited, the businesses you patronized and the charitable organizations you supported. He wrote down the names of all your friends and acquaintances and recorded what you had for lunch at the diner down the street. However, he didn't actually eavesdrop on any of the conversations.
HOW IS THAT NOT SURVEILLANCE?
If a police officer parks a car across the street from your house and watches your house all night through a pair of binoculars and logs your activities, ISN'T THAT SURVEILLANCE?
The difference between these examples and the NSA's activities is only in the means - not the end product.
I don't read all of the comments here, so forgive me if this thought isn't original:
They say... If you don't love the NSA and approve of its actions, then the terrorists have won.
I say... You're right - the terrorists won when the US government decided that it needed to protect itself *from us*, rather than protect us. It has apparently decided that any/all of us may be linked to a terrorist via our electronic footprints.
The parallels between this saga and the movie Firefly are troubling. The Powers That Be haven't yet learned that they can't stop the signal and are still trying to keep a lid on the story. They'll lose.
The big difference is that they're turning the entire world into Browncoats. Mal would be proud.
I predict that the US government's defense to legal challenges of it's surveillance systems will bear a striking resemblance to Prenda Law's legal strategies. It'll take decades to wade through the obfuscation.
When the government is given the means and power to broadly investigation, they will investigate broadly. We've recently learned that the IRS probably abused its power to investigate non-profit organization. Today, this activity is news. I think we'd better get ready for a deluge of similar revelations... and the government will wave the fig leaf of a criminal investigation and claim that it is all legal, if not completely ethical.
As a former track and cross-country runner, I see this whole patent problem like a footrace. Rather than putting all their effort and energy into crossing the finish line first, manufacturers are running the race backwards, focusing on the competition and trying to make the other runners stumble.
The whole race gets bogged down and risks becoming a stalemate, where nobody wants to move forward out of a fear that the minute they take their eyes off the other runners, one will race ahead.
Your quote is right on, "the history of innovation is the history of borrowing from others, adding it to something else, building on what works, and discarding what doesn't work."
It expresses the fact that technology is an evolutionary process, just like agriculture. When IP laws are used in the attempt to stop technological evolution, everybody loses.
Unfortunately, change is inevitable but progress is not.
My professional society (and its journal)has the same boilerplate regarding copyright assignment in its agreement to publish. In one case, I published a paper that was part of a Federal contract, and they had to waive copyright. My second paper was fully covered by copyright assignment.
In practice, my society really doesn't want authors posting copies of their papers prior to official release. They are, however, unofficially liberal about letting authors post copies.
As an aside, what really bugs me on the 'Net is Google's ability to crawl publishers like Elsevier, show a really good hit, and then let me discover that I need to pay $19 to download a PDF copy. What BS - I refuse to do that. I'll copy the citation and get the article free via my public library's network.
Isn't this how artists made money during the Renaissance? Find sponsors to finance you and then give your work to the public. It worked for Michelangelo...
I have to agree that this fair use. Once upon a time, I used to be a professional musician. The operating rule of thumb was that any performance of a musical excerpt 4 measures or shorter was not an infringement. Under these current rules, you can't even TEACH music.
I admit it. I live in western Wyoming, surrounded by mountains. Entertainment content is hard to come by here. I have satellite TV, but I really could care less about local content. That's because my local area has been determined to be Salt Lake City, Utah. I can't choose any of the TV stations airing from Casper, WY or Denver- which are much more relevent.
Also on topic, XM/Sirius is VERY popular around here, where it can be a challenge to pull in ANY fm station while driving.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the typical entertainment alternative, broadband, isn't really practical around here, when "broadband" is 256K dsl.
Unfortunately, I completely understand that these businesses can't cater to the few of us rural folk. You're right, it's my choice.
This isn't new or news. Verizon does this regularly. My V3m Razr had several features disabled by Verizon. The first disabled the ability to use Motorola Phone Tools to copy media to and from the phone. The second disabled several of the Bluetooth features.
More recently, I understand that Blackberries have been configured not to work with 3rd party GPS apps, so that you will be forced to use Verizon's paid services.
Verizon never gives anything away that can be unbundled and sold for an additional cost.
I can remember in the Windows DOS/Windows 3.1 days buying a copy of Quarterdeck's Desqview multitasking dos system. That license prohibited the transfer of ownership without permission. I went to the trouble of writing a letter and obtaining the necessary license transfer.
Adobe's just following software traditions handed down from the big iron era. Nobody running a mainframe or minicomputer would have ever *considered* selling their software license.
My IT manager here at *.gov (where we have substantial security concerns) has been sold counterfeit equipment. However, we bought it directly and saw it for what it was. A call to the U.S. Marshall's office straightened everything right out. IMHO, Federal acquisition regulations are partially responsible for taking the buying decisions out of the hands of people who might know what they're getting, and putting it in the hands of folks that want low bid. Procurement agents are notorious for using their own (uninformed) judgement when buying technology (e.g. "This item is NOT 'or equal' dammit!")
Thank you
Thank you for reporting this objectively. Everybody deserves equal protection under the law.
I hope to see your further legal analysis of Project Veritas vs. New York Times. The Times is framing the as a simple, unconstitutional prior restraint case but it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas. The November 18 court decision seems to give that argument some weight.
This road is not for casual use.
The road in question is a poorly maintained dirt road that climbs over a mountain pass. It contains several tight switchbacks and poor road conditions. It generally requires a high clearance 4WD vehicle. There is a sign at the base telling people not to pull trailers over 35 feet long because they can't negotiate the switchbacks.
Travelers trying to bypass the I-90 closure in Glenwood canyon have routinely ignored the posted warnings. Recently, Grayhound bus attempted the ascent and was stopped when the driver ripped out the oil pan from under the engine. Passengers had to be rescued, baggage recovered, the oil spill cleaned up and the wrecked bus dealt with.
The road is not closed to local traffic because locals know that the road is for recreational use only. The problem was that phone apps were routing tourists on it to get around the Interstate-90 road closure in Glenwood canyon. The State of Colorado made a reasonable attempt to keep idiots from harming themselves.
GETTR "takes cybersecurity seriously."
...But not seriously enough to design it into their web site.
I own the phone, not my child
Dear School District:
I am Mr. Thomas Tables, father of little Bobby Tables. The cellular phone that he carries to school is mine. I own it, not Bobby. I have given little Bobby permision to use it; it was not given as a gift. I purchased it with my debit card, which is linked to my checking account. The cellular service contract is under my name and I pay the bill every month.
Please be advised that I absolutely deny the School District or any of its employees permission to inspect the contents of my cell phone. If law enforcement wants permission, tell them that I will be glad to comply as soon as they produce a search warrant.
No duty to generate evidence
Police have a duty to collect evidence of a crime. I'm not sure that they are required to generate evidence. Charging a drunk driver without making them blow into a tube is a cop's choice. Prosecuting a drug crime without dashcam footage weakens the prosecution case, but they're allowed to take that gamble.
Further, they are certainly not required to generate evidence of a non-crime - i.e., exculpatory evidence. IANAL, but I don't expect police to be extremely busy affirming a suspect's innocence. Police would say that's what juries are for.
Don't get caught up in the technicalities - it's surveillance
Surveiller - (french) to watch [over].
Suppose you walked out your front door one morning and spotted a guy in a Fedora and trenchcoat who followed you around all day, taking notes. He followed you everywhere you went and continuously recorded your location. He recorded who you called, who you visited, the businesses you patronized and the charitable organizations you supported. He wrote down the names of all your friends and acquaintances and recorded what you had for lunch at the diner down the street. However, he didn't actually eavesdrop on any of the conversations.
HOW IS THAT NOT SURVEILLANCE?
If a police officer parks a car across the street from your house and watches your house all night through a pair of binoculars and logs your activities, ISN'T THAT SURVEILLANCE?
The difference between these examples and the NSA's activities is only in the means - not the end product.
Love the NSA or else!
I don't read all of the comments here, so forgive me if this thought isn't original:
They say...
If you don't love the NSA and approve of its actions, then the terrorists have won.
I say...
You're right - the terrorists won when the US government decided that it needed to protect itself *from us*, rather than protect us. It has apparently decided that any/all of us may be linked to a terrorist via our electronic footprints.
This is going to sound corny, but...
The parallels between this saga and the movie Firefly are troubling. The Powers That Be haven't yet learned that they can't stop the signal and are still trying to keep a lid on the story. They'll lose.
The big difference is that they're turning the entire world into Browncoats. Mal would be proud.
NSA defense will take several pages from Prenda Law
I predict that the US government's defense to legal challenges of it's surveillance systems will bear a striking resemblance to Prenda Law's legal strategies. It'll take decades to wade through the obfuscation.
Power corrupts
When the government is given the means and power to broadly investigation, they will investigate broadly. We've recently learned that the IRS probably abused its power to investigate non-profit organization. Today, this activity is news. I think we'd better get ready for a deluge of similar revelations... and the government will wave the fig leaf of a criminal investigation and claim that it is all legal, if not completely ethical.
She has to tow the public line...
But I hope she has trouble sleeping at night.
Running a race backwards
As a former track and cross-country runner, I see this whole patent problem like a footrace. Rather than putting all their effort and energy into crossing the finish line first, manufacturers are running the race backwards, focusing on the competition and trying to make the other runners stumble.
The whole race gets bogged down and risks becoming a stalemate, where nobody wants to move forward out of a fear that the minute they take their eyes off the other runners, one will race ahead.
Technology in evolution
Your quote is right on, "the history of innovation is the history of borrowing from others, adding it to something else, building on what works, and discarding what doesn't work."
It expresses the fact that technology is an evolutionary process, just like agriculture. When IP laws are used in the attempt to stop technological evolution, everybody loses.
Unfortunately, change is inevitable but progress is not.
Yep. This is a serious problem
My professional society (and its journal)has the same boilerplate regarding copyright assignment in its agreement to publish. In one case, I published a paper that was part of a Federal contract, and they had to waive copyright. My second paper was fully covered by copyright assignment.
In practice, my society really doesn't want authors posting copies of their papers prior to official release. They are, however, unofficially liberal about letting authors post copies.
As an aside, what really bugs me on the 'Net is Google's ability to crawl publishers like Elsevier, show a really good hit, and then let me discover that I need to pay $19 to download a PDF copy. What BS - I refuse to do that. I'll copy the citation and get the article free via my public library's network.
Isn't this the model that spurred the Renaissance?
Isn't this how artists made money during the Renaissance? Find sponsors to finance you and then give your work to the public. It worked for Michelangelo...
Re: Fair use
I have to agree that this fair use. Once upon a time, I used to be a professional musician. The operating rule of thumb was that any performance of a musical excerpt 4 measures or shorter was not an infringement. Under these current rules, you can't even TEACH music.
I agree with the article, even if I'm a "beneficiary"
I admit it. I live in western Wyoming, surrounded by mountains. Entertainment content is hard to come by here. I have satellite TV, but I really could care less about local content. That's because my local area has been determined to be Salt Lake City, Utah. I can't choose any of the TV stations airing from Casper, WY or Denver- which are much more relevent.
Also on topic, XM/Sirius is VERY popular around here, where it can be a challenge to pull in ANY fm station while driving.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the typical entertainment alternative, broadband, isn't really practical around here, when "broadband" is 256K dsl.
Unfortunately, I completely understand that these businesses can't cater to the few of us rural folk. You're right, it's my choice.
Commenting out features
This isn't new or news. Verizon does this regularly. My V3m Razr had several features disabled by Verizon. The first disabled the ability to use Motorola Phone Tools to copy media to and from the phone. The second disabled several of the Bluetooth features.
More recently, I understand that Blackberries have been configured not to work with 3rd party GPS apps, so that you will be forced to use Verizon's paid services.
Verizon never gives anything away that can be unbundled and sold for an additional cost.
Software re-sale restrictions are old news
I can remember in the Windows DOS/Windows 3.1 days buying a copy of Quarterdeck's Desqview multitasking dos system. That license prohibited the transfer of ownership without permission. I went to the trouble of writing a letter and obtaining the necessary license transfer.
Adobe's just following software traditions handed down from the big iron era. Nobody running a mainframe or minicomputer would have ever *considered* selling their software license.
Been there. Called the cops.
My IT manager here at *.gov (where we have substantial security concerns) has been sold counterfeit equipment. However, we bought it directly and saw it for what it was. A call to the U.S. Marshall's office straightened everything right out. IMHO, Federal acquisition regulations are partially responsible for taking the buying decisions out of the hands of people who might know what they're getting, and putting it in the hands of folks that want low bid. Procurement agents are notorious for using their own (uninformed) judgement when buying technology (e.g. "This item is NOT 'or equal' dammit!")