I guess that's my question. Is there anybody organizing at the grass-root level people like those that are on this site.... if there is such an organization, then it could give people an outlet beyond writing a letter to a Congressional staffer... for example to target campaigns.... a few people showing up at political rallies with literature and cogent arguments against the campaign is something that politicians really don't like. If there isn't such a group, maybe it's time to start one, as these issues aren't going away and the Internet is only going to grow in influence on people's daily lives. EFF is the closest thing I know to this, but I consider it to be more of a think-tank/lobbying effort than a grass roots organization.
What citizen groups (if any) work to respond to things like this? If McMaster is doing this for political reasons, what do we do about it if we don't like it? If he was for gun control, people that didn't like it would go to the NRA, and they would let him know that he was going to have problems in the next election. Similarly, I know who to go to when someone steps on Vets... So who is organizing people against Internet Idiocy?
I ask because, I'm guessing that, like every other post on this subject, a bunch of people are going to complain about what a fool he is, but that really doesn't change much or stop him from being a fool (or at least an elected fool).
Just a note on phones in Court... many courts don't let cell phones in the building.... e.g., the Southern District of FL requires all non-lawyers to check them at the Ct. House door.
If I get more time today, (and no one else has done it) I'll address the very big problem raised by AC of allowing access to any/all information during a proceeding.
I agree the problem is using a work computer... since it was a gov't computer he clearly was beyond the "implied consent" that would allow most people to check their Yahoo accounts (or even access Techdirt) on the clock. Very disturbing that the big crime (soliciting prostitution) cost him 60 days, while the hacking and office theft (of time) cost him 15 months.
As to people's comments about the solicitation, here is an excerpt of what he said, "Obviously I would be with you for at least an hour, but I would prefer to be with you for at (sic) 2 hrs, contingent on your discount. Is it possible to spend the last half hour or so being your lover? Whatever is possible, please let me know." After the mistress said no sex he then went on to say, "Ok, no sex . . . but I do get to climax though, right? Rick.”
The court then found based on this:
When you take all these terms and place them in the context of the emails along with Appellant’s other online activities, such as the posting of nude photos of himself for the purpose of “online dating” and use of his computer to access pornographic websites, this Court finds jurors could reasonably conclude that Appellant was soliciting sex.
I had a number of cases like this in the military where this sort of thing was clearly a crime... this is stretching things in the civilian world though, and my biggest concerns are that 1. most people wouldn't know this was a crime, 2. using the computer for a crime got him more of a sentence than the crime itself did, and 3. this case does open up the door to turning a lot of non-criminal activity into criminal activity... if he had only looked at porn... he still would have been guilty of the unauthorized use charge....
Not sure that the court or legislature is wrong though... why should employees think as a matter of course that they can look at porn at work when they know that the employer does not approve (here he knew what he was doing was not allowed). When stuff like this gets out, as it sometimes does, the employer then ends up taking a huge PR hit (as the Army has on a number of occasions), worse an employer could get dragged into a criminal action based on the actions of an employee (for example looking at child porn on work computer). So maybe the answer is not to change the substance of the law but to change people's awareness of the law and their use of computers(still need to lower the sentence though.. a felony conviction is ridiculous for this).
That may be true... and if you were using it in Greece, a Greek community, or any other number of relevant places that would be a great argument.... but it is still a fact based argument. In this particular case, however, we would be looking to see if Google was recommending a greek digestive aid or a cola -- based off the keyword "Pepsi" -- in the case of a Greek digestive aid, Google should probably win because it will be tough to prove confusion(although even that is questionalbe as I don't know how much market saturation Pepsi Cola has in Greece). The law (at least as written -- if not always applied) has more than enough pragmatism built in to handle word use in multiple languages -- but the point is, such arguments are almost always going to be fact based -- not law based.
This is why trademark law also looks at a mark's uniqueness. "Canton" is not a very unique mark, but marks such Pepsi, Hertz, and intel are. It's a fact based question, and the 2nd Circuit's decision is on a motion to dismiss not a motion for summary judgment.
Not a big fan of either Microsoft or AT&T ... but ... seems like such a long article on Google might mention them selling out Chinese dissidents (especially when talking about privacy concerns and google).
From the face of the article, it looks like the advertisers have valid monopoly concerns... not sure why those are less valid just because lobbyists were involved... especially since lobbyists are involved in both sides of almost any action in Washington. These concerns only become more valid as more content comes through the internet.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mark Kerr.
Re: Re: Political Action
I guess that's my question. Is there anybody organizing at the grass-root level people like those that are on this site.... if there is such an organization, then it could give people an outlet beyond writing a letter to a Congressional staffer... for example to target campaigns.... a few people showing up at political rallies with literature and cogent arguments against the campaign is something that politicians really don't like. If there isn't such a group, maybe it's time to start one, as these issues aren't going away and the Internet is only going to grow in influence on people's daily lives. EFF is the closest thing I know to this, but I consider it to be more of a think-tank/lobbying effort than a grass roots organization.
Political Action
What citizen groups (if any) work to respond to things like this? If McMaster is doing this for political reasons, what do we do about it if we don't like it? If he was for gun control, people that didn't like it would go to the NRA, and they would let him know that he was going to have problems in the next election. Similarly, I know who to go to when someone steps on Vets... So who is organizing people against Internet Idiocy?
I ask because, I'm guessing that, like every other post on this subject, a bunch of people are going to complain about what a fool he is, but that really doesn't change much or stop him from being a fool (or at least an elected fool).
Re: Not too switf...
Just a note on phones in Court... many courts don't let cell phones in the building.... e.g., the Southern District of FL requires all non-lawyers to check them at the Ct. House door.
If I get more time today, (and no one else has done it) I'll address the very big problem raised by AC of allowing access to any/all information during a proceeding.
Re: Authorization
I agree the problem is using a work computer... since it was a gov't computer he clearly was beyond the "implied consent" that would allow most people to check their Yahoo accounts (or even access Techdirt) on the clock. Very disturbing that the big crime (soliciting prostitution) cost him 60 days, while the hacking and office theft (of time) cost him 15 months.
As to people's comments about the solicitation, here is an excerpt of what he said, "Obviously I would be with you for at least an hour, but I would prefer to be with you for at (sic) 2 hrs, contingent on your discount. Is it possible to spend the last half hour or so being your lover? Whatever is possible, please let me know." After the mistress said no sex he then went on to say, "Ok, no sex . . . but I do get to climax though, right? Rick.”
The court then found based on this: When you take all these terms and place them in the context of the emails along with Appellant’s other online activities, such as the posting of nude photos of himself for the purpose of “online dating” and use of his computer to access pornographic websites, this Court finds jurors could reasonably conclude that Appellant was soliciting sex.
I had a number of cases like this in the military where this sort of thing was clearly a crime... this is stretching things in the civilian world though, and my biggest concerns are that 1. most people wouldn't know this was a crime, 2. using the computer for a crime got him more of a sentence than the crime itself did, and 3. this case does open up the door to turning a lot of non-criminal activity into criminal activity... if he had only looked at porn... he still would have been guilty of the unauthorized use charge....
Not sure that the court or legislature is wrong though... why should employees think as a matter of course that they can look at porn at work when they know that the employer does not approve (here he knew what he was doing was not allowed). When stuff like this gets out, as it sometimes does, the employer then ends up taking a huge PR hit (as the Army has on a number of occasions), worse an employer could get dragged into a criminal action based on the actions of an employee (for example looking at child porn on work computer). So maybe the answer is not to change the substance of the law but to change people's awareness of the law and their use of computers(still need to lower the sentence though.. a felony conviction is ridiculous for this).
Re: mark pepsi in greek means digestion
That may be true... and if you were using it in Greece, a Greek community, or any other number of relevant places that would be a great argument.... but it is still a fact based argument. In this particular case, however, we would be looking to see if Google was recommending a greek digestive aid or a cola -- based off the keyword "Pepsi" -- in the case of a Greek digestive aid, Google should probably win because it will be tough to prove confusion(although even that is questionalbe as I don't know how much market saturation Pepsi Cola has in Greece). The law (at least as written -- if not always applied) has more than enough pragmatism built in to handle word use in multiple languages -- but the point is, such arguments are almost always going to be fact based -- not law based.
This is why trademark law also looks at a mark's uniqueness. "Canton" is not a very unique mark, but marks such Pepsi, Hertz, and intel are. It's a fact based question, and the 2nd Circuit's decision is on a motion to dismiss not a motion for summary judgment.
Not the full story
Not a big fan of either Microsoft or AT&T ... but ... seems like such a long article on Google might mention them selling out Chinese dissidents (especially when talking about privacy concerns and google).
From the face of the article, it looks like the advertisers have valid monopoly concerns... not sure why those are less valid just because lobbyists were involved... especially since lobbyists are involved in both sides of almost any action in Washington. These concerns only become more valid as more content comes through the internet.