extrajudicial requests for content removal throughout the 2000s helped foster legal uncertainty and very little transparency and accountability from platforms"
How do you know what their intent is?
Maybe they plan to open there tomorrow; maybe five years from now. Why is it a bad thing for them to keep their options open when it relates to a brand that they've built themselves?
Alternately, what is the world losing because other people can't sell burgers under the "In 'N Out" name?
I haven't had cause to visit this dump in a while. I just wasn't being paid enough to correct MM's persistent stupidity. Anyways, it's good to be back and I see from the low quality article and the comments that no one here has gotten any smarter.
So let's start with the headline. DC opposes a mark that uses the phrase "Justice League" for "some reason." Yeah, it's a total mystery why they might care about those two words. Because those two words are just two random words that have no other meaning or association.
Now let's get to TG's premise. DC shouldn't have broad rights in the phrase "Justice League," but it's okay for some nobody to get exclusive rights to the phrase "Algorithmic Justice League" so they can stop others from using that phrase. I'd ask for an explanation, but I know I won't get one. DC baaaaaaad; SJW goooooood.
I'll make it simple for the people reading this post -- it's not fair to let her take advantage of all the goodwill that DC has associated with that phrase over the past 80 years, and you don't get to make exceptions because you like what she's doing. How would you feel if INS rebranded itself as the "Immigration Justice League"? Can Pornhub rebrand itself as the "TechDirt of Porn"?
The clearest sign that I'm right is that she didn't apply for a trademark that uses MIT's name. Why not? She's at MIT now, apparently works in the Media Lab as a digital poet. Why not the "MIT Media Lab Group for Algorithmic Fairness"? Because MIT would fire her ass in five seconds for the exact same thing that DC is complaining about now.
I'd tell you what I'm trying to say, but I wouldn't want to mansplain to you. Instead I'll just leave this here:
Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/equifax-is-said-to-suffer-a-hack-earlier-than-the-date-disclosed
I'm sure she's super-duper competent at computer security and stuff, despite her music composition degrees. If only she had a fourth month to secure her systems after she learned of the first breach.
I don't understand why you're all such Equifax haters. They've got diversity, which everyone knows is our strength.
In fact, their chief information security officer is a woman with a bachelor's AND a master's in music composition. https://www.boardroominsiders.com/executive-profiles/1006308/Equifax,-Inc./Susan-Mauldin
Thank Gaia the company didn't hire a white man with a background in computer security. I can't imagine how bad the breach would have been then.
As usual, Masnick defends Gawker despite, e.g., their well-documented harassment of rape victims using "muh First Amendment".
If the reporter covering R. Kelly was so concerned about him having a harem of adult women well over the age of consent, why didn't he just call the police? No lawsuit there, amirite?
It's because he's not concerned about the women, he's concerned about his ability to make money off clickbait by publicizing the activities of consenting adults. And if that's your primary motivation then, yes, you should be afraid of being sued.
Try harder, Mike. No chilling effects here worth worrying about.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Human beings aren't machines like your smartphone or your computer. You can't use one month of data to judge whether a given policy is good or bad. It took decades to change NYC from a cesspool to a place where you can live and work safely, and you'd need years to figure out whether any change in policing would have an effect one way or another.
Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the point: everyone in the world stops emitting CO2 today; atmosopheric CO2 levels remain unchanged for the next month; QED, human activity has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, right?
If he already knows his rights, then why is he harmed by not receiving the warning? I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a Supreme Court justice.
Let's be realistic - they're going to hold him for "enhanced interrogation." After they put him in a time machine, of course, because we know President Obama doesn't do that sort of thing.
Do you hear me, drone operators? Obama clearly doesn't do that sort of thing.
Nah, I'm not one to flame over spelling errors. I will, however, take you to task for bias.
Don't take it personally -- 99% of the people I meet "play favorites" with the Constitutional rights they personally approve of, while they happily sacrifice the ones they don't like.
For example, let's take your argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the 1st Amendment, almost word for word:
"Regardless of what your leaders and the [ACLU] tell you and you just blindly follow the constitution does guarantee you to own any and all [forms of speech]. It was written when the world had nothing but [printing presses], so until [the Internet/Television/Radio] have been limited to [300 hundred people that would have received your printed billets] no one is even coming close to infringing on your rights."
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please give a principled defense for the difference, besides your preference for the one right and your abhorrence of the other.
Let's try again. Please turn off the Colbert Report and pay attention.
The Department of Justice isn't part of the Senate. It's part of the Executive. The Executive is controlled by the President. Are you trying to tell me that the President is a neo-con? Or that being a closet neo-con, he's packed the DOJ with neo-cons?
In case you didn't notice, 48% of the country didn't vote for the President. What exactly is your theory here? That the 52% that support ObamaCare and abortion and Guantanamo are neo-cons, and they elected the neo-con president? Or the 48% percent that reject ObamaCare are neo-cons and they appointed a lousy candidate for the Presidency to trick people into voting for Obama?
Last point and then you can go back to parroting Jon Stewart's idiocy -- when someone disagrees with you, did you ever consider the possibility that you may not have thought these things through and you might be wrong?
It's your good friend, xoxo Anonymous. You might remember me, but it's been a while. I started out posting every time Mike M. said something stupid about patents and then tried to follow along as he branched out and said something stupid in other areas. It's hard to keep up with all the stupid though, having a job and family and all that.
Anonymous Coward comes close to spotting the mistake in your analysis, but it comes down to your assumption that just because you have an opinion, it's educated or worth posting. Guess again.
Miranda says that if you don't read them their rights, you can't use the statements that you collect while they're in your custody. Well, what happens if you don't need those statements for a conviction? What happens if the physical and other secondary evidence in your opinion supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you keep them in custody and interrogate them all you want for valuable intelligence.
Do you see how it's a strategic decision? And not a mistake?
Did it ever occur to you that the attorneys that work for the government might actually understand these issues better than you? Did it ever occur to you that if someone disagrees with you, that it's possible that you're the one that's wrong? I'd love to see an answer to those two questions but, in case you do the obvious thing and backpedal and say something like, "durrrr, freedom," then my follow up question is, "If you're so protective of freedom and Miranda, which doesn't even appear in the Constitution, then where can I find your spirited defense of 2nd Amendment rights, post-Sandy Hook?"
You can't discuss the terms of the agreement. That has nothing to do with the use of the actual data itself. And the licensor doesn't want you to embarrass them. Big whoop.
I expect this kind of stupidity and sensationalism from Masnick, but not you Glyn. Please do better next time.
Re:
extrajudicial requests for content removal throughout the 2000s helped foster legal uncertainty and very little transparency and accountability from platforms"
Re: Re: Frustration
How do you know what their intent is? Maybe they plan to open there tomorrow; maybe five years from now. Why is it a bad thing for them to keep their options open when it relates to a brand that they've built themselves? Alternately, what is the world losing because other people can't sell burgers under the "In 'N Out" name?
I haven't had cause to visit this dump in a while. I just wasn't being paid enough to correct MM's persistent stupidity. Anyways, it's good to be back and I see from the low quality article and the comments that no one here has gotten any smarter.
So let's start with the headline. DC opposes a mark that uses the phrase "Justice League" for "some reason." Yeah, it's a total mystery why they might care about those two words. Because those two words are just two random words that have no other meaning or association.
Now let's get to TG's premise. DC shouldn't have broad rights in the phrase "Justice League," but it's okay for some nobody to get exclusive rights to the phrase "Algorithmic Justice League" so they can stop others from using that phrase. I'd ask for an explanation, but I know I won't get one. DC baaaaaaad; SJW goooooood.
I'll make it simple for the people reading this post -- it's not fair to let her take advantage of all the goodwill that DC has associated with that phrase over the past 80 years, and you don't get to make exceptions because you like what she's doing. How would you feel if INS rebranded itself as the "Immigration Justice League"? Can Pornhub rebrand itself as the "TechDirt of Porn"?
The clearest sign that I'm right is that she didn't apply for a trademark that uses MIT's name. Why not? She's at MIT now, apparently works in the Media Lab as a digital poet. Why not the "MIT Media Lab Group for Algorithmic Fairness"? Because MIT would fire her ass in five seconds for the exact same thing that DC is complaining about now.
Re: Re: Diversity ftw!
I'd tell you what I'm trying to say, but I wouldn't want to mansplain to you. Instead I'll just leave this here:
Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/equifax-is-said-to-suffer-a-hack-earlier-than-the-date-disclosed
I'm sure she's super-duper competent at computer security and stuff, despite her music composition degrees. If only she had a fourth month to secure her systems after she learned of the first breach.
Obama's America
Need I say more?
Diversity ftw!
I don't understand why you're all such Equifax haters. They've got diversity, which everyone knows is our strength.
In fact, their chief information security officer is a woman with a bachelor's AND a master's in music composition. https://www.boardroominsiders.com/executive-profiles/1006308/Equifax,-Inc./Susan-Mauldin
Thank Gaia the company didn't hire a white man with a background in computer security. I can't imagine how bad the breach would have been then.
Re: No chilling effects.
As usual, Masnick defends Gawker despite, e.g., their well-documented harassment of rape victims using "muh First Amendment".
If the reporter covering R. Kelly was so concerned about him having a harem of adult women well over the age of consent, why didn't he just call the police? No lawsuit there, amirite?
It's because he's not concerned about the women, he's concerned about his ability to make money off clickbait by publicizing the activities of consenting adults. And if that's your primary motivation then, yes, you should be afraid of being sued.
Try harder, Mike. No chilling effects here worth worrying about.
Wrong again, Mike
Look up defamation per se.
Also, why are you applying U.S. law to a U.K. publication?
Re: Why this is an impossible request from the court
Except the 5c doesnt have a secure enclave only later devices?
Irony
I can't wait for the next Techdirt piece calling for the gov't to put "net neutrality" in place to save us all. Lol.
Re: Other Law Enforcement Truth
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Human beings aren't machines like your smartphone or your computer. You can't use one month of data to judge whether a given policy is good or bad. It took decades to change NYC from a cesspool to a place where you can live and work safely, and you'd need years to figure out whether any change in policing would have an effect one way or another.
Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the point: everyone in the world stops emitting CO2 today; atmosopheric CO2 levels remain unchanged for the next month; QED, human activity has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, right?
Useful TV Deals Daily
You can find daily TV deals easily here - https://www.facebook.com/TVDealsUSA
FBHO
Most transparent administration in History.
FBHO
Re: Re: Re:
If he already knows his rights, then why is he harmed by not receiving the warning? I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not a Supreme Court justice.
Let's be realistic - they're going to hold him for "enhanced interrogation." After they put him in a time machine, of course, because we know President Obama doesn't do that sort of thing.
Do you hear me, drone operators? Obama clearly doesn't do that sort of thing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, I'm not one to flame over spelling errors. I will, however, take you to task for bias.
Don't take it personally -- 99% of the people I meet "play favorites" with the Constitutional rights they personally approve of, while they happily sacrifice the ones they don't like.
For example, let's take your argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the 1st Amendment, almost word for word:
"Regardless of what your leaders and the [ACLU] tell you and you just blindly follow the constitution does guarantee you to own any and all [forms of speech]. It was written when the world had nothing but [printing presses], so until [the Internet/Television/Radio] have been limited to [300 hundred people that would have received your printed billets] no one is even coming close to infringing on your rights."
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please give a principled defense for the difference, besides your preference for the one right and your abhorrence of the other.
Re: Re: Re:
Let's try again. Please turn off the Colbert Report and pay attention.
The Department of Justice isn't part of the Senate. It's part of the Executive. The Executive is controlled by the President. Are you trying to tell me that the President is a neo-con? Or that being a closet neo-con, he's packed the DOJ with neo-cons?
In case you didn't notice, 48% of the country didn't vote for the President. What exactly is your theory here? That the 52% that support ObamaCare and abortion and Guantanamo are neo-cons, and they elected the neo-con president? Or the 48% percent that reject ObamaCare are neo-cons and they appointed a lousy candidate for the Presidency to trick people into voting for Obama?
Last point and then you can go back to parroting Jon Stewart's idiocy -- when someone disagrees with you, did you ever consider the possibility that you may not have thought these things through and you might be wrong?
xoxo, Anonymous
Re:
Hi Mike, Hi Anonymous Coward,
It's your good friend, xoxo Anonymous. You might remember me, but it's been a while. I started out posting every time Mike M. said something stupid about patents and then tried to follow along as he branched out and said something stupid in other areas. It's hard to keep up with all the stupid though, having a job and family and all that.
Anonymous Coward comes close to spotting the mistake in your analysis, but it comes down to your assumption that just because you have an opinion, it's educated or worth posting. Guess again.
Miranda says that if you don't read them their rights, you can't use the statements that you collect while they're in your custody. Well, what happens if you don't need those statements for a conviction? What happens if the physical and other secondary evidence in your opinion supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you keep them in custody and interrogate them all you want for valuable intelligence.
Do you see how it's a strategic decision? And not a mistake?
Did it ever occur to you that the attorneys that work for the government might actually understand these issues better than you? Did it ever occur to you that if someone disagrees with you, that it's possible that you're the one that's wrong? I'd love to see an answer to those two questions but, in case you do the obvious thing and backpedal and say something like, "durrrr, freedom," then my follow up question is, "If you're so protective of freedom and Miranda, which doesn't even appear in the Constitution, then where can I find your spirited defense of 2nd Amendment rights, post-Sandy Hook?"
As always I remain, xoxo Anonymous
Re:
So your theory is that neocons control the government right now and are making these decisions?
What color is the sky in the little world that you live in?
Vs. gun control
Well then, why is it that when some lunatic with a gun shoots up we have a "gun control" problem and not a "crazy person" problem?
I don't hear Techdirt advocating FOR 2nd Amendment rights and FOR increased institutionalization of the crazy.
Fake sensationalism on TechDirt. Surprised?
You can't discuss the terms of the agreement. That has nothing to do with the use of the actual data itself. And the licensor doesn't want you to embarrass them. Big whoop.
I expect this kind of stupidity and sensationalism from Masnick, but not you Glyn. Please do better next time.
xoxo, Anonymous