That the owner of a computer system and the owner of the data on it are different parties.
Who has the right to grant access? Clearly the owner of the system would control any technical access protections. But does that give them the right to deny access to others' data?
The courts haven't even recognized a distinction - one likely to be continuously exacerbated by new non-federal privacy laws - between these owners.
It's just going to get worse until this distinction is resolved. Imagine that Intech uses Initrode's cloud storage. Intech contracts a third party, Inipower, to perform operations on said data in the cloud. Initrode doesn't like Inipower and cuts off access. Do they have the right to do so? The law is unclear.
Tim, you're a writer with some seriously interesting viewpoints that are worth reading; why do you hide those behind the passive voice?
The passive voice is fucking hard to read.
Just... please stop using it. Learn what the active voice is and use it. In the meantime, I'm going to have to skip your pieces because, well, your writing sucks. It's not worth wading through your word soup to find the point.
As a longtime reader (10+ years now!) who mostly visits mobile, just want to say thank you!!! Been using the beta site since it was announced, and it's a MUCH improved experience over the previous version.
I think the most harmful effects of this will be the wave of trolling designed to get sites removed. Forget the Thiel strategy, if this passes, when you don't like critical coverage, just stage numerous trafficking posts in their comments.
Think you're missing the point... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Make the most of a bad situation. Two can play at that game. Anything you can do I can do better.
And obviously, my specifics are not backed by signed treaties. But it's not out of the realm of possibility for a tech company to claim it's being denied business - profit - due to censorious (or whatever) policies. And clearly the actual terms of any agreement would dictate reality, but again, if ISDS crap gets ratified, it could make for interesting tactics from non-traditional players.
Oh, and Apple may have been founded in - and has hq here - it most definitely is not a US company. They practically invented the "double irish" model. For more reading, start here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/30/apple-pay-back-taxes-eu-ruling-ireland-state-aid
I'd actually hope the whole cable box thing is just one of many "assaults" the FCC launches over the next couple years in a strategy to tie up the companies'resources on multiple costly fronts. A serial approach will never work.
At the beginning, Chaum did acknowledge that some controversy does surround this proposal, then waved his hand and said, "I have no idea why."
He then went on to completely omit the fact that there is this glaring security hole. Rather it's left to an exercise for the reader. What a cowardly cop-out.
Oh, and he also stated that the system would have to run "in a highly secure data center managed by someone in this room", ignoring the fact that most people in the room could also break in to such a "secure data center".
By banning cash, we can: 1. Prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail" 2. Prevent drug kingpins from amassing huge fortures 3. Prevent corrupt politicians from accepting bribes/campaign contributions
I'm sure there's others, including perhaps even some reasons for the children.