The DOJ says: “We will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.” (NYT link below.) What about the shredded documents that the FBI left behind in the shooters' apartment?
The DOJ and FBI ignored possible critical evidence in the shooters' apartment when they released it to the landlord just two days after the shooting.
NYPD Detective Harry Houck said he was "shocked" the FBI released the apartment. Houck told Anderson Cooper on CNN: "This apartment clearly is full of evidence. I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected to these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place — you’ve got shredded documents that need to be taken out of there and put together to see what was shredded.” “You have passports, drivers licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene.” (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-killers-apartment-media/)
Yea, the victims' families should be angry that their loved ones are being used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties.
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html
The report states: "For the above reasons, were Apple and Google once again to give themselves the ability to decrypt data stored on their devices, there would not be a significant loss of security. This, in combination with the safeguards provided by the Fourth Amendment, means that personal privacy would be successfully protected."
The report is very confused: the devices belong to the end user, not to Google or Apple.
With respect to the second paragraph: "JPay owns all of the content, including any text, data, information, images, or other material, that you transmit through the Service."
Owning the content is different than owning the copyright to the content. Just like you can own a physical book (content) without owning the content. JPay would appear to be saying that you can't ask them for the stuff that you sent through the service - JPay is free to keep it and delete it.
With respect to the first paragraph, yes, JPay is claiming ownership of the copyright to the software and the system, not to the content. This is a great example of the wrong use of the term "intellectual property" when other terms would have been better.
UMG, the RIAA, MPAA, etc., misinterpret copyright law to protect their business model. They lobby for new laws and treaties (intended to be easily misinterpreted) to protect their business model. They are about destroying anything and everything in their way to protect their outdated business model.
They must die at all costs or they will take the Internet and all we love away in their efforts.
Remember, Lamar Smith (the same guy who introduced SOPA in the House) also introduced the same type of legislation in the US supposedly to fight child pornography. It was called the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011".
"It also means law enforcement officials won’t be able to look at the range of data stored on the device, even with a court-approved warrant. Had this technology been used by the conspirators in our case, our victim would be dead. The perpetrators would likely be freely plotting their next revenge attack."
This guy writing for the Washington Post doesn't understand Apple and Google's encryption or that it wouldn't have stopped him from solving a kidnapping:
I've seen the idea of Torcoin, a bitcoin-like protocol to reward those who provide bandwidth to a Tor network. Perhaps we need YaCyCoin to reward those who provide index and bandwidth to the distributed search engine.
The defendant's attorneys made a few mistakes here. First, they should not have objected at all, since allowing the copy in the deposition is consistent with their theory of the case. By raising the issue, they allowed the plaintiff's attorney to change course and proceed according to the plaintiff's theory of the case. The defendant's attorney should have raised this contradiction as persuasive evidence after the deposition.
Second, attorney babble is not evidence. What the witness says is evidence. The witness (Peter Hirtle) didn't say a thing in this portion of the transcript. Presumably Peter Hirtle would be aware of this contradiction and could mention it during his testimony.
Because the attorney was so happy he caught a contradiction, he opened his mouth to show how smart he is and blew it.
Although you are only joking (apparently) it is interesting to note that ACTA brought us from a "personal use" exception to only "commercial scale" infringement. This shift in language, although superficially minor, was very intentional and dangerous.
With personal devices capable of storing tens of thousands of songs and thousands of movies, now even personal copying can easily land you in the "commercial scale" territory for criminal prosecution. Heck, a physical commercial music store only carries thousands of songs - the same scale as our laptops and soon-to-be phones. The "commercial scale" language was added specifically to target personal copying on personal devices, despite its devious "commercial" language.
The Makerbot post claimed to have improved on the community design. I have not read everything, but it is possible that the Makerbot patent application is limited to the improvement on the community design, leaving the community design for anyone to implement (just not with the improvement).
Nonetheless, the inventors should have cited the community design as prior art, which they have not done to date.
In yet more words, the "terms and conditions" is saying that "our terms is not more restrictive than copyright law." That is what they are trying to say.
It appears that the museum is not trying to claim copyright on anything. They are simply importing "fair use" rules into their terms and conditions for using their website. In other words, they are saying that if (hypothetically) these images were copyrighted but your use would qualify as "fair use", then that use is okay under these terms and conditions too. (Although good luck with enforcing that.)
What is truly bizarre is that the "terms and conditions" could not really be legally binding - even if agreed to by the user - because it says: "By accessing the Websites, users agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, which the Museum may revise at any time. Users are encouraged to visit this page from time to time to review current terms and conditions."
You can't agree to a contract if all the terms are subject to change. That is not a contract, it is a promise, that is not enforceable.
And, using the site is by no measure an agreement to anything, which is necessary for the terms to be binding as well.
Yes, and a "terms of use" for the site could import established rules from the law to define the scope of the "terms of use" (such as "fair use") even while acknowledging that copyright does not apply.
But the "terms of use" here does not make it clear as to what it is trying to say - e.g., as to whether they are importing rules or just don't know what they are saying.
ACTA also has constitutional issues in the US, but Congress seems to ignore its power being usurped by the Executive branch. We should raise this as an issue going forward, and maybe even for ACTA in the US. Although ACTA seems dead, it was signed by the President of the US, binding the US under international law, without appropriate constitutional procedures.
Any full legal analysis in that respect? Educating Congress with respect to ACTA will prime them to get mad with the next treaty.
The only value Keith Alexander brings to the table necessarily includes national security secrets. That is, it is impossible for him to consult without revealing national security secrets (either directly or indirectly) to other parties (such as those banks).
No Stone Unturned?
The DOJ says: “We will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible. These victims and families deserve nothing less.” (NYT link below.) What about the shredded documents that the FBI left behind in the shooters' apartment?
The DOJ and FBI ignored possible critical evidence in the shooters' apartment when they released it to the landlord just two days after the shooting.
NYPD Detective Harry Houck said he was "shocked" the FBI released the apartment. Houck told Anderson Cooper on CNN: "This apartment clearly is full of evidence. I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected to these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place — you’ve got shredded documents that need to be taken out of there and put together to see what was shredded.” “You have passports, drivers licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene.” (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-killers-apartment-media/)
Yea, the victims' families should be angry that their loved ones are being used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties.
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html
Whose devices? Their devices.
The report states: "For the above reasons, were Apple and Google once again to give themselves the ability to decrypt data stored on their devices, there would not be a significant loss of security. This, in combination with the safeguards provided by the Fourth Amendment, means that personal privacy would be successfully protected."
The report is very confused: the devices belong to the end user, not to Google or Apple.
Re: Copyright violation -- Federal suit possible?
With respect to the second paragraph: "JPay owns all of the content, including any text, data, information, images, or other material, that you transmit through the Service."
Owning the content is different than owning the copyright to the content. Just like you can own a physical book (content) without owning the content. JPay would appear to be saying that you can't ask them for the stuff that you sent through the service - JPay is free to keep it and delete it.
With respect to the first paragraph, yes, JPay is claiming ownership of the copyright to the software and the system, not to the content. This is a great example of the wrong use of the term "intellectual property" when other terms would have been better.
UMG et al. must die
UMG, the RIAA, MPAA, etc., misinterpret copyright law to protect their business model. They lobby for new laws and treaties (intended to be easily misinterpreted) to protect their business model. They are about destroying anything and everything in their way to protect their outdated business model.
They must die at all costs or they will take the Internet and all we love away in their efforts.
We are already all criminals
One study estimates that every person in the US (who is not in bed all day) commits three felonies a day:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/booked/2010/07/16/booked-harvey-silverglate-on-three-felonies-a-day/
Lamar Smith introduced the same in the US
Remember, Lamar Smith (the same guy who introduced SOPA in the House) also introduced the same type of legislation in the US supposedly to fight child pornography. It was called the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Internet_Pornographers_Act_of_2011
Everyone thought at the time that it was really just creating data to go after pirates in the US. Didn't work in the US, but did in Australia.
Who needs cameras when a phone app will do?
Every cop just needs to download this smart app and let the cloud do the rest!
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nvlsmcclient.apis
That app is for law enforcement only. When will we get an app for law abiding citizens?
Former FBI Director Hosko still arguing "kidnapping"
Hosko is still promulgating the "kidnapping" story by failing to correct his opinion piece in the Bergen Record:
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-apple-android-privacy-moves-could-be-deadly-1.1094531
Of course, the Bergen Record should also do something about this known-to-be-false story. How long will it last?
Regards
Uncorrected Article still being published
The uncorrected article is being pushed in other places, and is still uncorrected at this news site:
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-apple-android-privacy-moves-could-be-deadly-1.1094531
"It also means law enforcement officials won’t be able to look at the range of data stored on the device, even with a court-approved warrant. Had this technology been used by the conspirators in our case, our victim would be dead. The perpetrators would likely be freely plotting their next revenge attack."
This guy is incredible
This guy writing for the Washington Post doesn't understand Apple and Google's encryption or that it wouldn't have stopped him from solving a kidnapping:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/23/i-helped-save-a-kidnapped-man-from-murder-with-apples-new-encryption-rules-we-never-wouldve-found-him/
Paying the peers
I've seen the idea of Torcoin, a bitcoin-like protocol to reward those who provide bandwidth to a Tor network. Perhaps we need YaCyCoin to reward those who provide index and bandwidth to the distributed search engine.
Of course, I have no idea on how to do that.
Evidence
The defendant's attorneys made a few mistakes here. First, they should not have objected at all, since allowing the copy in the deposition is consistent with their theory of the case. By raising the issue, they allowed the plaintiff's attorney to change course and proceed according to the plaintiff's theory of the case. The defendant's attorney should have raised this contradiction as persuasive evidence after the deposition.
Second, attorney babble is not evidence. What the witness says is evidence. The witness (Peter Hirtle) didn't say a thing in this portion of the transcript. Presumably Peter Hirtle would be aware of this contradiction and could mention it during his testimony.
Because the attorney was so happy he caught a contradiction, he opened his mouth to show how smart he is and blew it.
commercial scale
Although you are only joking (apparently) it is interesting to note that ACTA brought us from a "personal use" exception to only "commercial scale" infringement. This shift in language, although superficially minor, was very intentional and dangerous.
With personal devices capable of storing tens of thousands of songs and thousands of movies, now even personal copying can easily land you in the "commercial scale" territory for criminal prosecution. Heck, a physical commercial music store only carries thousands of songs - the same scale as our laptops and soon-to-be phones. The "commercial scale" language was added specifically to target personal copying on personal devices, despite its devious "commercial" language.
Plastic Surgery & Kerry
Kerry has had so much plastic surgery to make himself look pretty, I would hardly call him a "man" anymore.
Improvements
The Makerbot post claimed to have improved on the community design. I have not read everything, but it is possible that the Makerbot patent application is limited to the improvement on the community design, leaving the community design for anyone to implement (just not with the improvement).
Nonetheless, the inventors should have cited the community design as prior art, which they have not done to date.
Re: Terms and Conditions
In yet more words, the "terms and conditions" is saying that "our terms is not more restrictive than copyright law." That is what they are trying to say.
Terms and Conditions
It appears that the museum is not trying to claim copyright on anything. They are simply importing "fair use" rules into their terms and conditions for using their website. In other words, they are saying that if (hypothetically) these images were copyrighted but your use would qualify as "fair use", then that use is okay under these terms and conditions too. (Although good luck with enforcing that.)
What is truly bizarre is that the "terms and conditions" could not really be legally binding - even if agreed to by the user - because it says: "By accessing the Websites, users agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, which the Museum may revise at any time. Users are encouraged to visit this page from time to time to review current terms and conditions."
You can't agree to a contract if all the terms are subject to change. That is not a contract, it is a promise, that is not enforceable.
And, using the site is by no measure an agreement to anything, which is necessary for the terms to be binding as well.
Re: infringement, computer fraud, who cares...Let's sue!
Yes, and a "terms of use" for the site could import established rules from the law to define the scope of the "terms of use" (such as "fair use") even while acknowledging that copyright does not apply.
But the "terms of use" here does not make it clear as to what it is trying to say - e.g., as to whether they are importing rules or just don't know what they are saying.
US Constitution
ACTA also has constitutional issues in the US, but Congress seems to ignore its power being usurped by the Executive branch. We should raise this as an issue going forward, and maybe even for ACTA in the US. Although ACTA seems dead, it was signed by the President of the US, binding the US under international law, without appropriate constitutional procedures.
Any full legal analysis in that respect? Educating Congress with respect to ACTA will prime them to get mad with the next treaty.
National Security Secrets
The only value Keith Alexander brings to the table necessarily includes national security secrets. That is, it is impossible for him to consult without revealing national security secrets (either directly or indirectly) to other parties (such as those banks).