Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Force of Law (Score 1) 353

by davecb (#47773045) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What To Do About Repeated Internet Overbilling?
Engage a lawyer familiar with class actions *before* speaking to the police. You're an individual engaging in trial by battle with a huge company, and you need someone with the same degree of hitting power on your side before you start. They can advise on what's most effective in your jurisdiction. In Canada, the fraud squad is effective against enemies of moderate size. I don't see case law from them going after companies the size of a small country (;-))

Comment: Re:Linux Cgroups are a good subset of this (Score 3, Informative) 161

by davecb (#47495245) Attached to: Linux Needs Resource Management For Complex Workloads
The only thing mainframes have that Unix/Linux Resource Managers lack is "goal mode". I can't set a TPS target and have resources automatically allocated to stay at or above the target. I *can* create minimum guarantees for CPU, memory and I/O bandwidth on Linux, BSD and the Unixes. I just have to manage the performance myself, by changing the minimums.

Comment: Re:Maybe, maybe not. (Score 4, Informative) 749

by davecb (#47453241) Attached to: Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours

The criteria is "the company that has the power to demand the data, has to do so if ordered by their country's courts". This probably dates back to the 16th century or earlier. Some time around the Hanseatic League...

A Canadian company with data in Outer Mongolia has to produce the data if it can. If the Outer Mongols prohibit the Canadian company from demanding it normally, the Canadians can't be ordered to produce it, because the data isn't in the Canadian company's control. If they allow it to be demanded normally, a Canadian court can get it. They have to do it via the Mongolian branch, they can't just issue court orders in Mongolia.

Your suspicion is correct: a Canadian company that controls data in the U.S. can indeed be ordered by a Canadian court to produce it .

--dave

Comment: Re:Stop throwing good money after bad. (Score 1) 364

by davecb (#47423377) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Canada's government of the day is using it as a money-sink. Our requirements are for a twin-engine, long-range, non-stealthy aircraft with a moderate ground-support capability, such as the F-18 Hornet we now use. They rejected the newer super hornet, and so I fear the entire programme exists only to soak up money they don't want to spend on the priorities of the other parties...

+ - Canadian Supreme Court Delivers Huge Win For Internet Privacy->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "For the past several months, many Canadians have been debating privacy reform, with the government moving forward on two bills involving Internet surveillance and expanded voluntary, warrantless disclosure of personal information. Today, the Supreme Court of Canada entered the debate and completely changed the discussion, issuing its long-awaited R. v. Spencer decision, which examined the legality of voluntary warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information to law enforcement. Michael Geist summarizes the findings, noting that the unanimous decision included a strong endorsement of Internet privacy, emphasizing the privacy importance of subscriber information, the right to anonymity, and the need for police to obtain a warrant for subscriber information except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Niggle: one polices one's monopolies and crooks (Score 1) 347

Actually one "polices" them rather than "regulating" them. It's called the "police power of the state", and refers to a lot more than the cops. Anything that gets you dragged in front of a magistrate or board who can punish you is policing

Regulation is a technical term for bylaw-like legislation, is misleading as heck, and historically is a term that lots of people in the 'States and Canada viscerally hate.

Comment: Re:Isn't this classic anti-trust fodder (Score 1) 211

by davecb (#47118637) Attached to: Amazon Confirms Hachette Spat Is To "Get a Better Deal"

My publisher has such a site and sells DAISY, ePub, Mobi and PDF directly. They cannot sell them via Amazon, however. The Amazon site sells only a kindle-specific variant.

The fact that someone as major as O'Reilly has to deal with Amazon, at a price disadvantage and with significant limitations on what they're allowed to sell is typical of a monopoly, or an oligopoly with one leading member and the others doing price- and policy-following.

Monopolies are barely legal in Canada (where I am), but oligopolies and price-following are winked at. Very occasionally the government or courts will whack a leading oligopolist, but only if they are enraging the whole cell-phone-using population. Arguably they're a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, but as they only communicate their evil plans with each via press releases, the "secret" part of conspiracy is technically absent (;-))

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...