they believe the use of encryption is only good for covertly conducting in criminal and terroristic activity but they use it anyway?
At least we give them the benefit of reasonable doubt by suggesting this is a contradiction. We believe it is because we know better, but the possibility it is not a contradiction to them is a far scarier notion.
What we think it means:It is embarrassing that only 3% of law enforcement agencies regularly report their shootings. Obviously we need to make more of them participate. What Comey and the FBI's response appears to really mean: It is embarrassing that 3% of law enforcement agencies regularly leak shooting data that put our officers in a bad light. Obviously we need to add more paperwork to the voluntary process.
If any country were to be allowed to dictate what search results can and cannot appear, they all must, and it only takes one of them to say "Do not show ANY sites not approved by our state." And then one country's propaganda would be the only message allowed anywhere.
Obviously the latter would be unacceptable to the rest of the world, so why would the former be? No, France, you cannot control what appears on the Internet. No country can.
Given the few degrees of separation between anything on the Internet, if you elevate linking to infringing materials to be the exact same thing as infringement you might as well declare the whole Internet illegal after about 6 hops.
If IMSI cell site simulators can not be used to lead to a conviction, they are useless to law enforcement. It is a waste of money better spent on more effective measures.
Remember, violent groups out to silence critics need only use an automated DMCA system to get their targets' contact information and issue targeted death threats. Laws that forcibly de-anonymize people on the internet are a boon for anyone wanting to deprive others of something far, far more serious than anything the publishing companies can even imagine to gain from it.
... if the DOJ didn't even need to open the envelope containing the CD because they had already read every version of the document n intercepted communications.
"If we make a mistake, you will hear about it."- just remember, to Adm. Rogers, "mistake" is defined here as "leak". Like a little boy facing his mom with chocolate sauce smeared all over his face, the only thing he considers a mistake is getting caught.
The courts are having a difficult time trying to draw a line between Cablevision and cable companies to find out which side of the line Aereo must be on. Maybe this dividing line does not belong anywhere between them at all. If Aereo wins this, cable would have no reason NOT to use the same model. Why? Because being charged fees to give free, over the air broadcasts to the people who could get them for free anyway just doesn't make much sense. It's convoluted, but it may be because the reasonable methods were already unfairly struck down.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Tavis.
Is it hypocricy if
they believe the use of encryption is only good for covertly conducting in criminal and terroristic activity but they use it anyway?
At least we give them the benefit of reasonable doubt by suggesting this is a contradiction. We believe it is because we know better, but the possibility it is not a contradiction to them is a far scarier notion.
"Embarrassment"?
What we think it means:It is embarrassing that only 3% of law enforcement agencies regularly report their shootings. Obviously we need to make more of them participate.
What Comey and the FBI's response appears to really mean: It is embarrassing that 3% of law enforcement agencies regularly leak shooting data that put our officers in a bad light. Obviously we need to add more paperwork to the voluntary process.
It only takes one.
If any country were to be allowed to dictate what search results can and cannot appear, they all must, and it only takes one of them to say "Do not show ANY sites not approved by our state." And then one country's propaganda would be the only message allowed anywhere.
Obviously the latter would be unacceptable to the rest of the world, so why would the former be? No, France, you cannot control what appears on the Internet. No country can.
It’s good to know
... that I too can have a top-tier, prestigious law school if I can throw some books in an auditorium.
Beat that, Harvard!
Can Kevin Bacon can be linked to infringement?
Given the few degrees of separation between anything on the Internet, if you elevate linking to infringing materials to be the exact same thing as infringement you might as well declare the whole Internet illegal after about 6 hops.
So....
If IMSI cell site simulators can not be used to lead to a conviction, they are useless to law enforcement. It is a waste of money better spent on more effective measures.
One way to know for sure...
... is to see when the automated ContentID system starts blocking Google's own ads for "infringing" on the MPAA's propaganda.
Just how bad can a real names policy be?
In a word, terrorism.
Remember, violent groups out to silence critics need only use an automated DMCA system to get their targets' contact information and issue targeted death threats. Laws that forcibly de-anonymize people on the internet are a boon for anyone wanting to deprive others of something far, far more serious than anything the publishing companies can even imagine to gain from it.
Both statements could still both be true...
... if the DOJ didn't even need to open the envelope containing the CD because they had already read every version of the document n intercepted communications.
"I'm not the real Dread Pirate Roberts", he said...
Time to look for someone who is retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.
Hey, NSA!
Don't know which emails you need to release in that request?
COLLECT THEM ALL.
"If we make a mistake, you will hear about it."- just remember, to Adm. Rogers, "mistake" is defined here as "leak". Like a little boy facing his mom with chocolate sauce smeared all over his face, the only thing he considers a mistake is getting caught.
Maybe we're all looking at this the wrong way...
The courts are having a difficult time trying to draw a line between Cablevision and cable companies to find out which side of the line Aereo must be on. Maybe this dividing line does not belong anywhere between them at all. If Aereo wins this, cable would have no reason NOT to use the same model. Why? Because being charged fees to give free, over the air broadcasts to the people who could get them for free anyway just doesn't make much sense. It's convoluted, but it may be because the reasonable methods were already unfairly struck down.