we need [technology companies'] support in making sure that they're doing everything possible to stop their technology being exploited by terrorists. I'm saying that needs to be front and centre of their thinking and for some it is and some it isn't.
I hope he will tell us which companies fall into each category.
Imagine, for example, if he had claimed that stopping "terrorists" from exploiting the news should be "front and center" of the New York Times editorial staff. I think even he would see that this would lead to blatant censorship.
Which is not to say that he would be opposed to it...
it would be rather difficult for them to do that, since even though they are able to see the documents, they aren't allowed to make copies or even take notes, and they aren't allowed to have any aides with them when they view it either.
So we need one civic-minded rep with an eidetic memory...
"May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances.
I think you're reading way too much into that word. If you see the word "may" in a contract you're signing, it would be foolish to assume that it means what you say absent any other specifics. Rather, it means this is something that the contract permits - nothing more. Informal usage may (ha!) be a different story, but this context is a terms of service document.
The hotel could reduce criminal activity by simply advertising their site-specific policy.
Yeah, but they didn't.
Alerting motel guests that local police know their whereabouts "is not a normal process of our check-in,” said Victor Glover, a vice president of safety and security for G6 Hospitality, the parent company for Motel 6. “I don’t know that we have any plans of instituting that as we move forward.”
If we were to implement such a system, would the rightsholders agree to changing copyright to an registration required system instead of the "everything gets copyright" system we have now. That is the only way I could see your plan working.
That wouldn't really solve it. Just because something is in the copyright database doesn't mean any particular upload is infringing and should be blocked.
Take two piles of hundreds, put them next to one another and tell me which one is the proceeds of a drug deal and which is cash Grandma's been stashing under the mattress for decades. You can't.
Why do you keep comparing a video upload to a huge pile of hundred dollar bills? One happens so much it's hard to count - 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, and that's just YouTube - the other is a very, very rare occurrence. Out of the ocean of financial transactions that occur every day, how many do you think are someone depositing a duffel bag full of hundred dollar bills? How well do you think the banking system would work if someone had to thoroughly inspect every transaction to make sure the money didn't come from somewhere illegal? After all, that is what you're suggesting for the content web sites.
isn't that against my civil rights isn't that defimation of character
It may be a violation of recording laws (depends on your state), but truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the US. In other words, someone circulating a true recording cannot be defamation. I'm not a lawyer, this is a lay person's understanding of the law.
Tim has to blatantly misrepresent the facts (i.e., leaving out the fact that the resident was observed engaging in criminal activity, and acting as if locked doors and the size of the apartment were the only relevant facts)
4) the fact that the defendant sold drugs to the informant only after arrangements were made by telephone, and 5) the officer's assessment that, given the retail nature of the defendant's operation and the fragile nature of the illegal drugs involved, "it would not be difficult for [the defendant] to destroy the narcotics if given the forewarning."