Importantly, it was determined beforehand that they were in fact selling counterfeits. Likewise, the authority to seize was cabined by the fact that before seizure US authorities had to present competent and relevant evidence to the court, and then secure the court's order.
Huh??? Determined beforehand they were guilty? Do you have a transcript of the case because I was not aware of any trial. It seemed we had a guilty until proven innocent seizure here. It has been pointed out here and other places that a couple of the sites were search engines that didn't host any content, and a couple of the other sites were hosting content that definitely included legitimate content (maybe some illegitimate content too).
DHS has overstepped their bounds by a great deal and trampled free speech in the process. I for one hope that people get fired and the courts get involved.
Apparently you can file a complaint against a DOJ employee but it has to be in writing. Process is described at the link below to file a complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility. I am sure nothing will come of it however. Would be nice if they got a bunch of official complaints against the Attorney General for basing an entire speech on made up statistics and industry propaganda.
I browse torrent sites all the time. Sometimes I am looking for a particular file but other times it is to just see if anything peaks my interest. Most have RSS feeds that you can subscribe to which is akin to browsing.
Ian is exactly right and Mike you are off on your analysis of this. If you pull classified material onto an unclass computer you have a spillage. This requires the computer to be wiped and causes everyone a lot of headaches (paperwork, lost data, etc). The policy states no government computer on the Wikileaks site to avoid spillage and the associated issues that come along with it. Military and civilians are actually encouraged to check Wikileaks from home to check for leaks.
The checking from home ignores the rules for official government computers and all the issues that come with the potential for classified spillage.
They have already said it, but Mike is pro-competition as are most people in the USA which have at most 2 choices for high speed internet. So you can get raped by the cable company or Verizon or AT&T depending on where you are. That is if you are lucky. I am actually at the first place ever in my life where this exists. Up until now is has been cable, dialup, or satellite. How much do you think that Comcast or Cox care about the customer when they are the only game in town and you have no choice. So they have abysmal customer service, no incentive to provide better service, and plenty of incentive to keep jacking up rates even while the rest of the country is going through a recession.
So short answer is: if there is competition Net Neutrality is not an issue. If you have one choice for internet then Net Neutrality is a big deal.
I don't know how you have the patience to deal with this Mike. I guess running a blog gives you thick skin. Charlie Potatoes has found the smoking gun which blows all 'free' economics out of the water.
I saw Alice in 3D and thought it was not worth it. I therefor didn't get the DVD when it came out. I just thought it was the same movie done over again and the visual effects weren't that good. Maybe DVD sales are an indicator of it just being an 'average' movie.
Now Avatar in 3D was worth it and would love to see it again in IMAX.
I thought all fashion designers were making their money on TV now. I know my wife watches quite a few of those 'we need you to make a dress in 12 hours' shows. Reality TV at it's lowest bar if you ask me but I guess if people enjoy it.
Yep Google makes money. Did you mean obvious or 'oblivious' that Google would do anything to stay in China? What are they censoring? Did you RTFA? They are keeping the services that they don't have to censor (in China) and pushing the rest to the Hong Kong servers. Are you making a point or just arguing out of your nether regions?
What crime? Please list statutes where it is illegal to capture parts of the RF spectrum from public places? I really don't understand your argument at all. How is WiFi mapping illegal? There are a bunch of companies that do this for a living. Lots of times campuses and colleges will call them in to look for coverage.
Since you are in a Google is evil no matter what they do mode, you should mention the Google Buzz incident that they messed up on and later apologized for.
Your post borders on making no sense throughout it's entirety.
For example: Mr. Masnick effectively dismisses the possibility that Google could have monopoly power, even though the U.S. DOJ Antitrust Division determined Google is dominant in search advertising and was prepared to bring a Sherman Act monopolization case against Google in November 2008, if it did not drop the proposed Google-Yahoo ad Agreement.
Why would Mike every say anything like Google could never be a monopoly? That is stupid. Of course they could be a monopoly if they bought every other search engine out there. But if this theoretically did happen and they started producing results that people didn't perceive as the best Google could do, then another search engine would be stated to provide better results.
Last week I rebutted Mr. Masnick's Google antitrust apologia by explaining that even Google itself disagreed with Mr. Masnick's characterization and also by spotlighting the many pending current antitrust cases against Google for anti-competitively leveraging its monopoly power to favor Google-owned content over its competitors' content
What does a pending case have to do with fact? This is where you border on the nonsensical. How many 'anti-competitively leveraging' cases have gone through with Google being the loser?? Perhaps you can use Bing to find the answer to that question?
Mr. Masnick is assuming the role of Google's go to apologist again by declaring he is "almost certain" Google's three-year WiFi data collection in over thirty countries by retrofitting its entire StreetView vehicle fleet with special WiFi antennae was "accidental."
This is where you might have a small amount of truth in your post. Google probably knew they had a WiFi antenna on the StreetView vehicle. But the question to ask is 'why is driving around with a WiFi antenna on you car illegal?' Since when are you not allowed to drive down a public road capturing random parts of the RF spectrum? I wonder how many others are guilty of the heinous crime because they leave their smartphone or laptop WiFi transmitter on when they go somewhere. I leave my WiFi on my Droid all the time and drive to work and you know what I probably pick up some unencrypted data from all the houses that have WiFi networks. Google should not have done it, granted, but illegal? No! Hell most people have a RF receiver in their car that records satellite signals. We commonly refer to them as GPS units. Of my god!! Google had one of those too, they are doubly illegal by collecting parts of the RF spectrum.
BTW, nice putting your link into a blog that actually has a good search ranking and trying to increase your traffic. You aren't going to get it by thought provoking writing.