No standing? Google was the plaintiff! Not a first amendment issue? Gag order. Copyright issue? It was a work for hire. The actress doesn't own the copyright, the film-maker does - at least until he decides to sell the film to someone else.
By arguing against the order, Google is saying that only the copyright owner has the right to order a takedown. Actors, actresses and artists that WORK FOR HIRE, have never had that power as they do not own the copyright.
So you are saying that people outside of the chain of command should have also be included in the lawsuit, just for supporting the spying? How would that work then?
I wonder how this jibes with the parliament/bus photo copyright fiasco?
IIRC, the original infringment was in using the original photo, but even after the photo was replaced with a newly taken photo, which was judged to still infringe due to the composition (different angle, but still grey image with a red bus).
This new judgement seems like the opposite of the photo judgement.
More than that, it appears that they can also give the data collected to whoever they like too.
I wonder if the Information Commissioner will be carrying out an investigation on that.
He further noted that the NSA is well aware that neither the Russians nor Chinese got access to the documents, meaning that when US officials are suggesting that he gave the docs to both (or that they got them from him) they're either ignorant or lying.
Or perhaps the oversight committee hasn't yet asked the right questions
A spokesman said: "He was referred to Sussex police by Border Force officials. He spoke with officers for around half an hour and was then free to continue his journey. We are satisfied that our actions were legitimate, justified and proportionate and were carried out in accordance with the act."
Dear spokesman for the Sussex Police, I think that you are a twat. I am satisfied that calling you a twat is legitimate, justified and proportionate and has been carried out in accordance with with all applicable speech laws within the UK and EU.
You have managed to ignore the point of the original post in a single step. Way to go!
That's -1 internets from you sir.
since it seems clear that the DOJ didn't use the most appropriate citations, twisted the citations it did use to mean more than they really do, and (most importantly) ignored much more relevant (and I mean that in the English sense, rather than the DOJ sense) citations and precedents
Well Duh! If they had used the correct citations and precedents then they wouldn't be secret any more!