"We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."
I've said it once and I'll say it again. We need to stop trying to secure and protect the nation and focus on protecting the constitution. The government cannot protect a nation, only the citizens can protect a nation.
Want to know how all this secret organization, with secret rules, unlimited access, no oversight, etc. works out? Sounds like the entire Nakita series on TV a few years back. Maybe we can watch the last couple episodes and see what is going to happen.
?Everyone also understands,? he said, ?that if we give up a capability that is critical to the defense of this nation, people will die.?
Americans throughout history have been willing to die to protect our constitutional freedoms. We'll even die to help protect the freedom of others in foreign lands. I think the government is making a huge assumption (Ass U Me) that we are willing to give up those freedoms for safety.
Am I misunderstanding this? Did this judge just make man in the middle attacks legal? If there is no assumption of privacy, then can anyone perform man in the middle attacks? On the internet? Radio signals? Other technologies? As long as there is no assumption of privacy? WOW! I think the there are a bunch of ne'er-do-wells who are now rejoicing at this new turn in the law.
The DHS is just doing their job. They are providing security for those who feel "right at home" as officials in our government. They help protect those that wish to continue to live as they do, once they are elected. If I held a job with an equally poor performance rating and still be 85% - 98% assured I would continue to be employed in that job, no matter my performance, I would feel "right at home" too. I would also want to get something in place to help secure it. My gosh, it's the american dream. Stop picking on the DHS! It's their job.
My question is this;
Most phone firmware will ask for an unlock code if you insert a different carrier's SIM card. If you type in the correct code the phone will be unlocked. You have not altered the copyrighted software. You have not used the program in a way it was not designed. You have simply provided the key parameter the program requested. How can this be illegal?
"She does not believe the radical positions espoused in a recent so-called policy paper regarding copyright," Reynard said.
I wonder if Mike would publish the original document in total, the RSC would claim copyrights. It would be nice to see some acknowledgement that this was a published policy position that just happened to get squashed. It may have been a short lived policy position, but it was at least a viable position for a short time.
But you HAVE to think of the children! If we don't censor sensitive government and other documents all our children could be irreparably harmed in some unknown manner. OMG! Just think of all the damage that could be done if the children actually seen and read uncensored documents!
I have pretty much tired of the ease of suing in a court of law when you feel you have been cheated, slandered, or slighted in any way. There is just so little to lose if you fail. I want to bring back the old fashion duel. By using the duel, you have to really think if what you feel slighted, offended, or cheated over, is really that important. If it is, then go for it. If you win, Congratulations! If you lose, we don't have to worry about your issues any further. And all of this can be accomplished with very little cost to society at large.
They are not selling the rights to litigate. Only the rights to sell unix licenses. They have stated they will remain the owners of the existing litigation...they believe there has to be a pot of gold hidden in there somewhere.
If the proposed rules are unnecessary then CTIA shouldn't mind them going into place because it really wouldn't affect their practices at all. Hmm...
Be careful about the "If your not doing anything wrong" logic. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you won't mind if they place cameras throughout your home, office, car, etc.
The scary thing is that is is not a bill that will be voted on by our duly elected representatives. This is a trade agreement that is being negotiated by some politically appointed cronies the general electorate did not hire. No need to vote on this baby...just get each of the national negotiators to agree and it is a done deal. Who needs all the fuss of voters to get things done...regular citizens just get in the way of good government.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by shutslar.
Great American Rally Cry
Give me liberty or give me security!
"We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."
I've said it once and I'll say it again. We need to stop trying to secure and protect the nation and focus on protecting the constitution. The government cannot protect a nation, only the citizens can protect a nation.
Bankrupt the Organization sounds familiar
Want to know how all this secret organization, with secret rules, unlimited access, no oversight, etc. works out? Sounds like the entire Nakita series on TV a few years back. Maybe we can watch the last couple episodes and see what is going to happen.
Some things are worth dieing for.
?Everyone also understands,? he said, ?that if we give up a capability that is critical to the defense of this nation, people will die.?
Americans throughout history have been willing to die to protect our constitutional freedoms. We'll even die to help protect the freedom of others in foreign lands. I think the government is making a huge assumption (Ass U Me) that we are willing to give up those freedoms for safety.
...to create an effective man in the middle attack
Am I misunderstanding this? Did this judge just make man in the middle attacks legal? If there is no assumption of privacy, then can anyone perform man in the middle attacks? On the internet? Radio signals? Other technologies? As long as there is no assumption of privacy? WOW! I think the there are a bunch of ne'er-do-wells who are now rejoicing at this new turn in the law.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete
Give me liberty, or give me death!
The DHS is just doing their job. They are providing security for those who feel "right at home" as officials in our government. They help protect those that wish to continue to live as they do, once they are elected. If I held a job with an equally poor performance rating and still be 85% - 98% assured I would continue to be employed in that job, no matter my performance, I would feel "right at home" too. I would also want to get something in place to help secure it. My gosh, it's the american dream. Stop picking on the DHS! It's their job.
how?
My question is this;
Most phone firmware will ask for an unlock code if you insert a different carrier's SIM card. If you type in the correct code the phone will be unlocked. You have not altered the copyrighted software. You have not used the program in a way it was not designed. You have simply provided the key parameter the program requested. How can this be illegal?
My grand plan
If she can win this case I am going to sue Mike and Techdirt for publishing this comment. It's mine! I own it!
What so-called document
"She does not believe the radical positions espoused in a recent so-called policy paper regarding copyright," Reynard said.
I wonder if Mike would publish the original document in total, the RSC would claim copyrights. It would be nice to see some acknowledgement that this was a published policy position that just happened to get squashed. It may have been a short lived policy position, but it was at least a viable position for a short time.
managed by an organization that agreed not to censor anything
But you HAVE to think of the children! If we don't censor sensitive government and other documents all our children could be irreparably harmed in some unknown manner. OMG! Just think of all the damage that could be done if the children actually seen and read uncensored documents!
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Oh...just kidding..
Time for the old fashion process
I have pretty much tired of the ease of suing in a court of law when you feel you have been cheated, slandered, or slighted in any way. There is just so little to lose if you fail. I want to bring back the old fashion duel. By using the duel, you have to really think if what you feel slighted, offended, or cheated over, is really that important. If it is, then go for it. If you win, Congratulations! If you lose, we don't have to worry about your issues any further. And all of this can be accomplished with very little cost to society at large.
Not everything is for sale
They are not selling the rights to litigate. Only the rights to sell unix licenses. They have stated they will remain the owners of the existing litigation...they believe there has to be a pot of gold hidden in there somewhere.
Re: Nate
If the proposed rules are unnecessary then CTIA shouldn't mind them going into place because it really wouldn't affect their practices at all. Hmm...
Be careful about the "If your not doing anything wrong" logic. If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you won't mind if they place cameras throughout your home, office, car, etc.
"But you don't see us running to the government to force Google to do so."
Re: This is it
The scary thing is that is is not a bill that will be voted on by our duly elected representatives. This is a trade agreement that is being negotiated by some politically appointed cronies the general electorate did not hire. No need to vote on this baby...just get each of the national negotiators to agree and it is a done deal. Who needs all the fuss of voters to get things done...regular citizens just get in the way of good government.