How do you have an expectation of privacy if you are in public? Especially if you are at a protest where you are trying to bring attention to an issue? I suppose he didn't mind journalist taking his picture?
50 posts • joined 24 Mar 2010
Does anyone think Apple's management (favorite punching bag here) is sitting around the boardroom going "You know we could be making an extra 0.0000345% more profit if we just got rid of those unauthorized repair manufacturers?"
Yes. Yes I do.
If a company is being investigated and there are physical records, i.e. words on paper documents stored in a vault on foreign soil, and a warrant is provided to that company to produce those documents, can the company simply refuse?
Is it just me or is this step backwards to secret bank accounts, tax havens, and countries that make a name for themselves as havens for outlaws.
Do not fool yourself, this is not microsoft fighting for the little guy or privacy. This is about microsoft refusing to turn over evidence of user's of their services criminal wrong doing so that they can keep them as customers.
Florida is open carry, he was not arrested for having the guns but for discharging them and disturbing the peace, which is a nice catch all for doing something the police or other citizens find annoying. Most states, if they allow the carrying of pistols in public have concealed carry, which you must be licensed for, and the pistol must be carried concealed on your person. Some states allow neither, some both, some one or the other.
Notice how it doesn't say how the information was collected or list the deals that were damaged? For all we know they could of been compiling public sources of information, like the CIA world fact book. Everyone has an agenda, until I see actual proof about what was used to do what by who I will reserve judgement. I am no fan of the NSA's but neither am I a fan of Wikileaks.
It seems to be a perennially favorite topic of the Europeans that America is stealing all of their intellectual property, especially here on the register. Not to say it's un-true, but I can't think of anything that airbus knows how to do that Boeing, for instance, doesn't. If it was a Russian or Chinese intrusion the espionage angle would make more since. Airbus is probably trying to make political points out of this with its lawsuit. All governments spy on all other governments. There is no trust in international relations. It really is a sad state of affairs.
I am curious. How can facebook be doing anything illegal? It is an optional service. You have to agree to it's policies in order to use it. If you don't agree then don't use it. If they change their policies and you don't agree, stop using it. Now if it is doing things with your information that it does not disclose, that is a different story.
Facebook is not a public service, you are not bound to it. I would really appreciate an article by a legal professional explaining how a voluntary service can be sued to change terms that the user agrees to.
Series 1 of sherlock was great. 2 was okay. But 3 was as nonsensical as Doctor Who. The Moff has become addicted to fast paced action, never giving his audience time to think. He doesn't want them to, otherwise all the plot holes and idiocies become readily apparent. He prefers being clever to telling a good, solid story.
If Nations and States would work together and set the same tax rates, not offer subsides or rebates then they wouldn't have these problems. But they don't. They all chase corporations, begging for them to set up shop.
Of course the multinationals will move the money around, everything they are doing is legal. If the politicians didn't like it they would change the laws.
Bastards are clever. Goverments should stop complaining about their broken business models and come up with taxation laws that prevent this. : )
The climate on earth is always changing. It is created by the interactions of the entire biosphere, plate tectonics, ocean currents, solar radiation, maybe even cosmic radiation and who knows what else.
And you say we understand this?
The climate on earth has always been in flux, it was long before humanity arrived and it will stay in flux until it is swallowed by the sun. Well okay, once the expanding sphere of gas blows away the atmosphere climate change will stop.
In other words wouldn't our energy be better spent not trying to control the climate but developing technologies to allow us to better deal with disaster and harsh conditions? And bonus, these technologies might be useful on other planets.
Should we invest in renewable energy and better and cheaper forms of energy? Hell yeah. Pollution in all it's forms should be limited as best we can. But we can't control the planet, it is far bigger than we are, and far older.
In other words stop talking shit and do something useful.
Yeah I really just felt like ranting.
Bankers that invest in a industry that actually produce physical goods or provide services are very necessary and good for the economy. Those that simply move money around from stock to stock as the market fluctuates generate money for their banks, but nothing for the rest of society.
Actually, it kinda does.
Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
If an activist would put forward a solution that takes into account the needs of all the parties of what ever cause they are protesting for or against, it would go a lot further to solving the issue than dressing up and marching with several thousand others. We get it, there is a problem. Now be realistic about what you can do to solve it and have a dialog with the opposition so that you can understand their concerns and they can understand yours.
But nobody with a strong opinion or belief is willing to do that. They are righteous and their opponents are monsters or loons, and that's the way all sides see whatever issue they are fighting about. For big content, the activist are all pirates looking to steal from them. For activists, big content want to invade their privacy and stifle free speech for the eviloz.
So they either like it. Or our to stupid to figure out the basics of conflict resolution.
There are a few cases where that's not the case, I remember a documentary where the EPA worked with fisherman to resolve problems of unwanted catches. How did they do it? They went on the boats, studied the methods of the fisherman and came up with solutions that improved their catch quality with out hurting the bottom line.
Neither side is willing to do that kind of work on issues like this. For both sides it's all or nothing. So the cycle will continue.
You know what would be nice? A civilized discussion on how to properly remunerate creative individuals so that they can earn a living. Without the theatrics from both sides. Maybe then we could actually solve the problem.
However I don't think most activist want to actually solve the problem. For then, what would they be? They would have to stop saving the world, stop pretending to be heroes, and be ordinary people again. There are definitely many problems in this world, and protesting can bring attention to them, but after that, you need to actually try and come up with a solution that is mostly equitable to all parties involved.
And the industry is no better, despite record profits they continue to claim the sky is falling. Unable to comprehend why people might not want to see the 500 million dollar piece of shit they just produced. They refuse to accept the reality presented to them.
The artist in the middle just wants to make a living and have people enjoy what they have created.
I'm tired of it all.
I think that part of the reason that the treaty is viewed as lopsided is that the two legal and political systems, while similar, have important differences that affect when and how an extradition request is made. An article comparing the two, written by someone with experience of both, would be much appreciated..
Grand Jury is investigating a supposed crime to see if charges should be filed. They go through the legal procedure of issuing a subpoena to a company for records of a user. Where's the problem? Any other case requesting records on any other user and this wouldn't be here. Until and IF charges are filed all we have is rumor and innuendo.
Oh, and just to make it clear Twitter would respond to any request from any country as long as that request is made however that countries laws require. They are a business first and foremost.
And this is not about Free Speech, no one is trying to censor her. The subpoena is to enter who she is and what she said in a public forum into the record of the court. In the US if you say or do something in public you have no expectation of privacy or anonymity.
So, please, WHAT IS THE STORY.
"If brought, charges against Assange would reflect a watershed event in the US, which has never successfully prosecuted a news organization for publishing classified information."
Until an actual verdict, nothing has changed from when the Times and Post reported on the Pentagon Papers.
Even then the First Amendment Protection will be tested against the usefulness to the public, and potential harm to the goverment and/or the public or persons referenced in the released information. The only serious way to get a conviction is to probe how the information was obtained, and to charge assange/wikkileaks for any applicable violations.
In cases like this, the motives of the person releasing the information can be more important than the actually info that was released. From what I can tell Wikileaks was more interested in hurting and embarrassing the goverment rather than informing the public, which is very different from the Pentagon Papers.
What does the Taliban or Afghanistan have to do with Oil? The only export from Afghanistan that I know of is Opium. Just to remind you of the flow of recent history, September 11 Attacks -> Osama, AQ claim responsibility -> Taliban will not hand Osama over to the U.S. -> CIA and local tribes overthrow Taliban -> Now we play Where's Osama..
I honestly don't know why I read these comments. If you have an opinion that's fine, but for gods sake base it on the facts of the matter and not pure hate, vitriol, fear, and speculation. I swear this place is worse then FOX news.
There are two ways to approach passwords. Assume the users password will be compromised every x number of days and force them to change it. Which usually results in the simpl pattern passwords. The other is to force the user to choose a complex password that they will not be forced to change, and works for multiple applications. This results in a password that the user will not need a note to remember and that is harder to break, but if it is broken the breach is much worse.
The reason other countries care is because of the WIPO and WTO. If countries start ignoring one another's patents it could very likely lead to a trade war. Suddenly people who want to sell to America can't. American companies won't be able to sell to other countries, and entire manufacturing and distribution channels would be destroyed. The world is simply to interconnected to through a hissy fit and take your ball home.
Not in Texas. Police chiefs are hired by the city council or mayors office (both elected), depending on how the municipal goverment is set up for that city. Sheriffs are elected. The Sheriff is the principal law enforcement officer within a county where the individual is elected. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, traffic enforcement, courtroom security, warrant execution, inmate housing, patrol of unincorporated areas.
Unlike municipal law-enforcement agencies, the Sheriff has jurisdiction in all areas of the county including cities.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022