Samsung should seek to have the United States placed on the USTR's Special 301 Report.
While US copyright law is clear that works of the federal government are not covered by copyright, that's not the case for state or local governments.
We should at least be granted access to it. Why should we have to pay for services such as Dropbox or Mega when all those files are being stored in a taxpayer-funded facility? Why should foundations such as Archive.org have to spend millions hosting a few dozen terabytes of data when we've are paying for the government to store hundreds of millions times that amount?
Also, what law authorizes the government to make copies of all of the copyrighted works that invariably end up being stored on these servers?
What Congress should find insulting is that for the last twelve years, the White House has ignored the clear meaning of the legislation that Congress originally passed.
These bold "for the children" statements ignored the fact that both ISPs and search engines already actively block illegal images and supply info on these images to investigative agencies.The problem is that ISPs and search engines are currently doing this voluntarily. It would be much better (for overly repressive governments) if they were forced to do so by law; that way, when it is decided that other types of content should also be censored, the legal mechanism will be in place to do so.
One would think a better way to improve attendance would entail spending money on teachers and classrooms, not surveillance equipment.
I would define a real journalist as one who rejects the DOJ's definition.
I imagine Clapper "bluntly" told the House Intelligence Committee members about his knowledge of the dealers who provide them with cocaine once a month, about their weekly trysts with the nubile interns, and about the numbered, offshore accounts which receive semi-annual deposits from defense contractors.
I think he was referring to German Porn Sites. :)
"To the extent that you've aided and abetted" was the levying of a direct charge. There was no equivocation, it was not subjunctive, nor was there any attribution to a third party.
The question was akin to, "Since you have beaten and battered your wife, do you think it is time you stopped."
If all of the data collection that the government has been engaging in is on the up-and-up, why the need for secrecy?
The U.S. has never been in compliance with the WIPO Copyright Treaty as the U.S. does not recognize "moral rights" as laid out in Article 5.
It is possible for a switch/router to determine the length of a cable connected to one of its ports using time-domain reflectometry (I just bought a switch that does this to minimize power consumption). One might even call this TDR approach as measuring a "ping delay", though this would not be the same as an ICMP "ping".
Even still, the only way Wally's point would matter is if the intranet connecting to the Google router was itself a token ring. I don't see this as a likelihood -- why would Google require their customers run a token ring network (and purchase specialized hardware) when nearly all commodity hardware and software is designed for ethernet?
Why couldn't you have just one device, a multi-port switch, connected to the MAU box and thus (by connecting all of your intranet workstations to the switch) maintain full gigabit access to the internet?
I think the main problem is that the Attorney General views the Constitution as a "policy guideline".
I have to admit, I find the idea of authorizing the victims of illicit computer hacking -- who've for the most part demonstrated a lack of competence in matters of computer security -- to now go after those who've already outsmarted them to be somewhat amusing. Sort of like sending a bunch of hens out on a fox hunt.
Maybe layoff the "anti-piracy" team -- since clearly that's not working for you -- and hire a "new business model" or "innovation" team, and give them a shot to help your members.
EFF reports that Senator John Cornyn has introduced the "Patent Abuse Reduction Act".
Please stop calling them "intelligence agencies" -- they are not deserving of the moniker.