Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: "Individually and Collectively" ? (Score 1) 513

by davecb (#48586501) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them
I don't know if you can do so in the US, but in Canadian law you can seem to be able to sue both an individual and the body of which he is a part. Strong unions or companies usually pay to defend their members and try to pay any fines, but if the offence is serious enough, the union or employer won't be able to afford it, and the individual will be punished despite their efforts. This can be use by good people against bad, or bad people against good, it doesn't matter: as an example, people sue city councillors and the city all the time.

Comment: Re:5th Admendment? (Score 1) 446

by davecb (#48510807) Attached to: 18th Century Law Dredged Up To Force Decryption of Devices
Yes: it's a so-called "writ of assistance" or "general warrant". They keep being outlawed, and keep coming back. The RCMP said they retired their last general warrant just a few years ago, but the government of the day seems to trying to recreate a subset for people who use the internet...

Comment: It has to be a crime in NZ, too (Score 1) 166

by davecb (#48492939) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Faces Jail At Bail Hearing

Countries will extradite their citizens if they've been charged with a crime, but it has to be a crime in both countries, and it needs to be of some severity. Parking tickets aren't enough to get me extradited from Canada, even though not paying them is a misdemanor. Similarly, charging me with blasphemy in Iran and asking for me to extradited won't work either.

NZ needs to have made copyright infringement an indictable offence, and they need to have done so before Mr Dotcom was charged.

If not, and if they wish to get rid of him, they need to ensure somehow that he doesn't have a lawyer, and then hope he can't defend himself adequately.

Comment: Re:The real reason? The ISPs want court orders (Score 3, Informative) 187

by davecb (#48487703) Attached to: Music Publishers Sue Cox Communications Over Piracy
Rightscorp is arguably afraid ISPs will refuse to cut off people under the DMCA unless a judge has ruled in a legitimate court proceeding that the person has infringed multiple times. They now propose to saddle ISPs with massive, expensive and interminable legal proceedings unless the ISP agrees to cut people off on mere accusation.

Comment: And as such, is actionable. (Score 1) 173

by davecb (#48427785) Attached to: US Gov't Seeks To Keep Megaupload Assets Because Kim Dotcom Is a Fugitive
Lawyers often study "conflict of laws", where law A says "X is a crime" and B says "do X". Good legal draftsmen will therefor say something like "not withstanding A, do X", but not everyone is a good draftsman(/woman/shark). It would be amusing and very embarassing to charge a district attorney with possession of stolen property (;-))

Comment: Re:And it won't be (Score 1) 144

by davecb (#48407395) Attached to: What the US Can Learn From Canada's Internet Policy
More correctly, they want to control the news. One man controlled roughly 1/3 of the news at one point, and pushed for his preferred party and leader. The leader face-planted on a seadoo and the party had to do an unfriendly takeover of another party (mine!) to get into power. The newspaper chain in question is barely alive any more.

Are you having fun yet?

Working...