I was thinking of bringing this up to you, but you beat me to it. I'm in Hawaii, so I got wind of it through Coconut Wireless.
There is a change.org petition to get Aloha Poke Co. to change THEIR name, but it seems to me that's the wrong approach. Businesses in Hawaii have been sharing the word "Aloha" in business without issues for all these years. That's probably why this case is particularly irksome. There was no need for them to do this. No one in Hawaii would have cared if Aloha Poke Co. of Chicago was using the word. It wasn't until the C&D's started rolling in that people got upset.
It would seem the more appropriate thing to do would be to get that trademark invalidated. So many poke shops, in Hawaii and elsewhere, predate the Chicago company by a lot. I would think any of those business owners could take steps to get it invalidated, right?
Mime format? Because silently acting out their defense in whiteface from within an invisible, slowly shrinking box doesn't count as "discussing" classified information?
Anyone working at your $40k a year censorship job would be totally ruined if they accidentally let a potentially offensive post through their screen. The law allows for a penalty of 5 million Euros ($5.7 million) to the individual responsible for failing to catch it. We all screw up at work on occasion, but that's just silly. You can take that job and shove it.
Amen. It's a "Do Not Call" registry. Do Not Call. Those are three small words, and their meaning isn't particularly difficult for even small children to grasp. If we wanted a "Do Not RING" registry, we would have called it that. Do we have to create a "Do Not Contact, not-by-any-means-at-all-this-means-you" registry now?
Exactly. It's called parenting. Your 15 year old stepdaughter is not entitled to her smartphone. Since she has obviously abused the privilege, take it away. If she must have a means of communication, believe it or not they still make cell phones with no camera, and they're cheaper than dirt.
Since it takes two to tango, go talk to the boyfriend and his parents, to fully explain why you won't be allowing your stepdaughter to see him anymore.
Horny teenagers will be horny teenagers. That's a problem for the parents, not the police.
Just a layperson's $0.02 (IANAL). I can't help but compare this to the Kim Dotcom case. He had to know his users were uploading infringing files, just as LeadClick knew its affiliates were creating fake news sites. But knowing users are up to no good doesn't mean ALL of them are. It's not reasonable to expect a site operator to police millions of users, so section 230 protection would seem appropriate.
Kim Dotcom is off the hook in my book, and I'd be firmly in your camp on LeadClick, if awareness of the bad actors was the extent of their involvement. The minute they started "suggesting substantive edits to fake news pages, and purchasing banner space for fake news sites on legitimate news sources" I think they crossed the line. 230 protects them from the actions of their users, not their own actions.
Well hello there Ms. Feinstein! I'm so glad to see you're reading BestNetTech!
Gold in this case is just a metaphor. It's really just another password, known only to the good guys. They will probably choose something like "password" for their "golden" key, because, you know, the bad guys would never think to try that.
No silly! Lions are animals, and as such do not get a share. Thus the lion's share is zero. He does not spend the lion's share (0%) of his time lobbying, so therefore he's not a lobbyist.
This is pretty much the most disgusting comment I've ever read on BestNetTech. What colossal ignorance! No one is advocating sex with animals. Gay marriage is a union between consenting adult HUMANS. Animals can't give consent. Humans can.
The point of this whole monkey selfie debacle is that animals don't have the same rights as people. So how about you stick to that, rather than spout your homophobic bilge?
Next step?
I was thinking of bringing this up to you, but you beat me to it. I'm in Hawaii, so I got wind of it through Coconut Wireless.
There is a change.org petition to get Aloha Poke Co. to change THEIR name, but it seems to me that's the wrong approach. Businesses in Hawaii have been sharing the word "Aloha" in business without issues for all these years. That's probably why this case is particularly irksome. There was no need for them to do this. No one in Hawaii would have cared if Aloha Poke Co. of Chicago was using the word. It wasn't until the C&D's started rolling in that people got upset.
It would seem the more appropriate thing to do would be to get that trademark invalidated. So many poke shops, in Hawaii and elsewhere, predate the Chicago company by a lot. I would think any of those business owners could take steps to get it invalidated, right?
Re:
This happened at an airport, so it was inside that pesky "Constitution free zone"-- a 100 mile radius around any border or international airport.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mime format? Because silently acting out their defense in whiteface from within an invisible, slowly shrinking box doesn't count as "discussing" classified information?
Re: You keep omitting that statute is "mere statute", not the whole of the law.
And yet the judge granted the motion to dismiss. I think that pretty much sums up what your "common law" b.s. amounts to.
Re: Re: Re: The tool argument
Anyone working at your $40k a year censorship job would be totally ruined if they accidentally let a potentially offensive post through their screen. The law allows for a penalty of 5 million Euros ($5.7 million) to the individual responsible for failing to catch it. We all screw up at work on occasion, but that's just silly. You can take that job and shove it.
Re: macaques vs lawyers
"Isn't it time for Naruto to file a class action against PETA?"
Are you talking about the monkey, or the cast of the cartoon?
Re: Re: Re: How about no?
Amen. It's a "Do Not Call" registry. Do Not Call. Those are three small words, and their meaning isn't particularly difficult for even small children to grasp. If we wanted a "Do Not RING" registry, we would have called it that. Do we have to create a "Do Not Contact, not-by-any-means-at-all-this-means-you" registry now?
Re:
Exactly. It's called parenting. Your 15 year old stepdaughter is not entitled to her smartphone. Since she has obviously abused the privilege, take it away. If she must have a means of communication, believe it or not they still make cell phones with no camera, and they're cheaper than dirt. Since it takes two to tango, go talk to the boyfriend and his parents, to fully explain why you won't be allowing your stepdaughter to see him anymore. Horny teenagers will be horny teenagers. That's a problem for the parents, not the police.
Not sure I'm with you on this one
Just a layperson's $0.02 (IANAL). I can't help but compare this to the Kim Dotcom case. He had to know his users were uploading infringing files, just as LeadClick knew its affiliates were creating fake news sites. But knowing users are up to no good doesn't mean ALL of them are. It's not reasonable to expect a site operator to police millions of users, so section 230 protection would seem appropriate.
Kim Dotcom is off the hook in my book, and I'd be firmly in your camp on LeadClick, if awareness of the bad actors was the extent of their involvement. The minute they started "suggesting substantive edits to fake news pages, and purchasing banner space for fake news sites on legitimate news sources" I think they crossed the line. 230 protects them from the actions of their users, not their own actions.
Look out, Hawaii
Here in Hawaii, this gesture is everywhere. It's about as common as waving hello/goodbye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka_sign
On a side-note, those doughnuts look awesome. If Texas proves to be too litigious, that bakery should come here.
Re: Consent
What exactly is so dang difficult about getting a warrant? Seriously, is it really such an impossible hurdle?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same could be said of Christianity.
Re:
I know, right? If Telcos and tobacco companies can buy politicians, why can't Apple/Microsoft/Google, etc.?
Re:
Oh, I'm sure she listens. She just doesn't comprehend, or doesn't even remember because she's OLD.
Re: golden key
Well hello there Ms. Feinstein! I'm so glad to see you're reading BestNetTech!
Gold in this case is just a metaphor. It's really just another password, known only to the good guys. They will probably choose something like "password" for their "golden" key, because, you know, the bad guys would never think to try that.
Re: Re: To be a lobbyist he HAS to be in DC?
No silly! Lions are animals, and as such do not get a share. Thus the lion's share is zero. He does not spend the lion's share (0%) of his time lobbying, so therefore he's not a lobbyist.
Re: Re: (law of unintended consequences)
This is pretty much the most disgusting comment I've ever read on BestNetTech. What colossal ignorance! No one is advocating sex with animals. Gay marriage is a union between consenting adult HUMANS. Animals can't give consent. Humans can.
The point of this whole monkey selfie debacle is that animals don't have the same rights as people. So how about you stick to that, rather than spout your homophobic bilge?
Re: Re: Not the law as such doing harm, it's Google refusing to pay the pittance.
"Google is a for profit business. What you're advocating is that Google operate for free. That makes you a freetard."
Hoisted by your own Freeetrd!" I love it!
On the bright side...
Isn't it nice to see a government agency trying to save taxpayers money for a change?
Re: Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
No, but I bet you could patent the process.