This may be a somewhat unpopular opinion on TD, but I have to side with the FBI here. The court explicitly notes that getting a warrant without territorial restrictions was not possible for anything that isn't terrorism. Until the law changes, this ruling largely says the FBI would need to obtain a warrant for the data in every single jurisdiction that there is a user/creator of child porn, and they would need to do so simultaneously or under seal to prevent tipping the suspects off.
Some would argue that's a perfectly fine burden, but what happens if you have a major site with several thousand users spread across every state? I don't doubt the court is correct on the letter of the law, but the law should be changed to catch up to reality; until then, I think the FBI acted in good faith to catch people who really need to be caught.
I'm not for unlimited power to the FBI, and often find the "think of the children" argument overused and bland, but here we have an actual case where there are actual children at risk. How many of those caught in the sting were parents who had young children? Of all the cases you could pick to say the FBI is overreaching, I think this was the wrong one.
I have to say, while the lawsuit is questionable, and they certainly do exaggerate their suffering as a result of this, that doesn't mean they don't have a valid point. No one should be flipping through channels and see a picture of their loved ones corpse splashed on a screen so that someone somewhere can make money off of it.
In an age where we can easily make just as 'real' looking pictures using makeup and special effects, there is zero reason to include photos of real dead people despite their families wishes, other than to claim you have to draw attention to your show.
"Anonymous doesn't yet have the capability to run computers without a power source, officials say. But if the group's members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts who spend their time giving stupid quotes for stupid articles."
Well, they could run them on generators, but I think it'd be hard to connect to the internet during a blackout.
Hope everyone has a fun night and a great new year.
"The issue is whether it was subjective bad faith to do so. Considering that fair use is a defense and that the would-be plaintiff has a legitimate, nonfrivolous claim of infringement, I don't see how any would-be plaintiff could ever be in subjective bad faith so long as there's copying."
So you are basically admitting that there is no punishment for using the DMCA to censor people, so long as they use any scrap of material the would-be plaintiff could considering copying.
I "get it" just fine. NZ can't dictate the terms a U.S. hearing, correct, but you seem to be missing the point. The U.S. broke the law when they took the evidence out of NZ to begin with. That's obtaining it illegally, last I checked.
And "good faith", even in legal terms, means that the evidence was believed at the time to be legally obtained. The U.S. knowingly broke NZ law when they took the evidence offshore. And even assuming they did not know, ignorance of the law is just as bad, if not worse.
So, let me get this straight. The FTC is accusing Google of hurting it's rivals, when capitalism is about hurting your rivals.
And even assuming they are correct in their claims, what is the FTC doing about apple, who buys materials from suppliers who's employees are jumping off the roof of their factories because of working conditions.
Where is the FTC action against Telcos and wireless providers who are price gouging customers through agreements to artificially keep prices high because there is no real competition?
And what of the "too big to fail" banks? Where is the FTC there? Oh, wait, that's right. We're propping those guys up. Forgot about that.
Actually, not true. The failings in NZ do change the case in the U.S., since the evidence was gathered illegally by the NZ police. If the evidence is obtained illegally, it's still inadmissible in a U.S. court, which means that the DoJ would have no case.
No one should have to ask a judge if they can have the rights they are fundamentally entitled to, i.e. free speech. No matter how atrocious what she said was, the judge has no right to tell her she can't say it, especially when you stop and see people like the WBC being allowed to spew their vitriol all over the place.