Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
True. Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law as well.
It's general knowledge in typography that Helvetica is the most legible typeface.
The parents were notified of the defamation and took no action to close the FB account, which remained available for another 11 months. The parents were held directly liable for failing to act once notified, not for what was posted on the fake FB account.
And Facebook was notified of the defamation and took no action for 11 months. Why is Facebook not liable? After all, Facebook had the technical ability to delete the account; the parents did not. For all we know, the kid may have even forgotten the password.
If you read either the article or the judgment, Facebook refused when the girl's parents contacted them. They said that only the original creator of the account could delete it.
Then Facebook is lying, cause they delete fake profiles all the time. If Facebook knew they were hosting defamatory content and didn't subsequently take steps to delete it, then it is Facebook that should be sued here, not the parents of the kid who created the fake page. For all we know, the kid may have forgotten the password!
All those "Nothing to stop" scenarios you threw out there are irrrelevant. They are more work and the FBI doesn't want more work. Due process is more work and they don't want that! So why on Earth would they "discuss with Apple" or "plant a malicious app" or anything else?
But if that's the case, then the current speeches by the FBI director are counterproductive to those aims. The only people who would choose not to buy an iPhone as a result of his comments are honest people. If anything, his speeches would encourage criminals to buy iPhones. Surely that can't be what the FBI wants, if it really is as hard to get at their data as he claims.
Exactly. If they really couldn't break it, the last thing the FBI director would be telling the public is "Hey, here's a device that criminals could use and completely cover their tracks!" By persuading the public that these phones provide an impenetrable wall that law enforcement can't get past, they are hoping criminals will feel comfortable recording their secret activities on their phones. This could provide a treasure trove of information and evidence for law enforcement.
No matter how strong the encryption algorithms are themselves, there's nothing to stop the FBI from planting a malicious app (a keylogger for instance). They could even serve Apple with a warrant to require them to install this app as a software update. And there's nothing to stop them from serving a warrant to the user of the phone him or herself requiring them to unlock the device. And, of course, there's always the possibility of exploiting vulnerabilities in the OS or some poorly written app. It's hard to believe that the iOS operating system has perfect security.
So it seems pretty clear that this publicity campaign is really all about creating a false sense of security. Think about it: if the FBI were really concerned, they'd be having quiet discussions with Apple, not shouting their concerns to the public. Is anyone not going to buy the device because the encryption is to strong for the FBI's taste? So what would the purpose of this publicity campaign be?
Yea, how dare a city have any say in what goes on within the city!
I think the point is, it should be the consumers who get to decide, not the city government.
Actually, no there is not. There is no provision in law that makes obtaining copyrighted materials illegal if the copyright owner doesn't consent other than copying and distributing. If somehow I missed it, show me.
Downloading is copying. Before you download, there is one copy, on the server. After your download, there is still a copy on the server and there is also one on your computer which you directed your computer to write by initiating the download. It's pretty simple, really.
Things like end-to-end encryption (total encryption between the two users communicating like OTR, CryptoCat, Jitzi, etc., not only on each leg to/from the server like HTTPS), making GPG more userfriendly, making Tor more popular, etc.
then dragnet or not, user will be safer on the average, even from non-law abiding 3rd parties. (Not only safe from NSA, but safe from script kiddies too).
What makes you think those products will make you safe from the NSA when the NSA has been found to be intercepting PC shipments, installing their own hardware, and resealing the boxes, then shipping them to the end user?