Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 222

How does that make GP wrong?

The fact that Cox has not yet lost this case does not mean "they have lost nothing".

The judge has set a precedent that, unless overturned by an appeal, has damaged Cox's ability to conduct business as they have been, and has now opened them up to a substantial liability, so yes, they have already lost something. It also means that Cox will now have to spend more time and money to appeal this ruling. And this precedent remains valid even if Cox wins this case. What this article was about was how that same precedent can cause harm to more than just Cox since it can now be cited in other lawsuits, putting other judges in the uncomfortable position of either accepting this ruling as valid, or giving a different ruling which would require them to state why they came to a different conclusion, and judges try very hard to avoid that.

So Cox and other ISPs, and by consequence also their customers, have already lost something.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 1) 222

Well, the hypothetical penalty was written by the same people who paid for the law ... it basically allows them to say "ooops, we really believed that but we were wrong".

The "hypothetical penalty" in the DMCA may be toothless, but there are other things the subscriber could sue for. There is libel, where the takedown was sent to a third party causing harm to the subscriber's reputation. Depending on what the takedown was for, there could be tortious interference with contract or business expectancy, if the takedown was for anything affecting the financial condition of the subscriber. There is civil extortion, AKA fraud, if the subscriber can show the takedown was issued with the intent of generating revenue even though the issuer knew or should have known it was invalid. And so on. And remember civil cases are based on preponderance, so you only have to make your side seem more likely to be true than the other side in order to win. As always, please check with your lawyer about which laws are applicable in your particular case if you are faced with this.

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 222

Actually they have lost nothing yet as this has not gone to trial. I am sure this judge's comments will be used either to force his recusal or to get a pretty instantaneous appeal.

Wrong. I haven't looked at the actual case, but based on the summary, the judge must have issued a ruling overriding a request for dismissal of one or more counts that were predicated on the protections of the DMCA, and to do this, the judge would have to state his reasoning why. This ruling and its reasoning can then be used by other litigants in their lawsuits as precedent. The problem with this ruling is that judges don't like making new case law so they always prefer to find some other judge who has already ruled on a similar situation and use that judge's decision to then justify theirs, since it would then be the other judge who was wrong if that point is later overturned on appeal. Judges really don't like being overturned and told THEIR decision was wrong, but it is OK, or at least better, if it was the other judge that made a bad ruling.

Comment Re:Iran does not keep a database of Christians (Score 2) 588

In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament.

Your description (and the linked Wikipedia article) are misleading. The Iranian constitution grants 5 seats (out of 270) to four groups: two for the Armenian community (mostly Christian), one for the Assyrian community (mostly Catholic), and one each for the Jewish and Zoroastrian communities. This indirectly gives three seats to Christians, but not because they are Christian, so technically Christians are not guaranteed representation in the parliament, it just works out that way.

Further, some of your other "special rights under the law" in Iran: Christians are legally barred from holding senior government positions, Christian schools (and other non-Muslim schools) by law must have Muslim principals and overseen by a Muslim group, converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death, if a parent dies and there are two siblings, one Christian and one Muslim, the Muslim inherits everything, ...

Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?

One thing we are not trying to become is a country like Iran!!

Comment Re: George Orwell lacked vision (Score 1) 187

So, let me be clear; you're saying it's alright for the government to deny one the natural right to protect ones body and life from mortal danger, if they don't like some activity you engage in?

He is saying that if you are engaged in illegal activity, not just an activity "they don't like", then any harm that results from your illegal actions that is a reasonably foreseeable consequence, including the death of a person who attacks you trying to steal your contraband, is considered your fault since it wouldn't have happened if you weren't breaking the law. The law is the same in the United States. You can defend yourself, but you will still be considered guilty of causing the other person's death.

Comment Re:Biased summary (Score 1) 121

You pick examples from the middle east

I don't think Putin would consider Russia part of the Middle East. And to add to the anonymous coward's list, try living in North Korea, or in Somalia, or Sudan if you aren't Muslim, or Zimbabwe, or Burma, or Eritrea, or China if you are not wealthy or like to speak your mind, or ...

Comment Re: Time to encrypt ALL traffic then (Score 1) 161

You miss the point. To use a car analogy, if the rules said people driving a 1973 Pinto are allowed to use the carpool lane with only one occupant, would some people choose to drive that (arguably) PoS just so they could go faster during commute? Some people will prioritize speed and convenience over quality and safety.

Comment Re:Hows is this a net neutrality bill? (Score 1) 161

Throttling all VPNs is net neutrality. Throttling all VPNs except those provided by the ISP isn't. Net neutrality is about being neutral as to the source/destination/provider, not the protocol. It's to stop the ISPs abusing their service provider positions to make their versions of services better than everyone else's by artificially damaging other people's.

OK, picture this. The ISP comes out with their own proprietary protocol to stream their video service, maybe just a special data format within HTTP packets - after all, a different protocol could technically be at any level of the protocol stack. Their protocol gets prioritized, while the competitors' protocol gets de-prioritized. The ISP is technically only throttling based on protocol, not source/destination.

The ISP version of Murphy's Law: If it can be abused, they will find a way.

Comment Re:Can Apple push extra software on the device? (Score 1) 225

On iOS you have to unlock your phone before you sync with iTunes, so I don't think you can push an app over WIFI without knowing the passcode.

Unless the computer it is syncing with has previously synced with that iPhone. During the first access of the phone by a computer, the phone pops up a box asking if this computer should be trusted, and if the person selects yes, a cookie is exchanged. At a later time, if the phone is hooked to the same computer, because of the cookie it will automatically be allowed to access the phone's contents. This is one of the ways law enforcement uses to access seized phones, by also seizing the computer it syncs with, then using the computer to get into the phone.

As far as pushing apps, as far as I know a new app can only be pushed onto an iOS device by the computer with which it is synced. What is possible however is if the phone is set for auto-updates of apps, then it could be told by the app store that an app needs updating and it would pull and install the "updated" app.

Comment Re:Can Apple push extra software on the device? (Score 1) 225

Then I see the need for an app that will automatically wipe the device if it has not been accessed by passcode within some user-configurable period of time. The user sets it for three days or seven days, and if it is kept powered on or if it is booted after that time, poof, no more data. A delay of 30 seconds or a minute can be user enabled so the user could get in if he hadn't used the phone, but law enforcement wouldn't know the app was there so would power it up to see if they could access it, or take it to the user and say "open it", then watch it blank.

And it would be difficult to charge the person with destruction of evidence since such an app has legitimate purposes other than avoiding law enforcement, like to make sure if the phone is lost, stolen by a crook or a competitor, or seized by a border patrol of another country (though not the US of course), the data is permanently made inaccessible.

Comment Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu (Score 3, Informative) 216

I know the poster pulled it from the article, but Americium is a by-product from the radioactive decay of Plutonium, not an isotope of Plutonium. Isotopes have the same number of protons, and Pu has 94 while Am has 95. Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.

Comment Re:US forcing their laws on Europe AGAIN (Score 1) 81

Your list is obviously slanted to push an agenda, but here goes.

2) The US laws are more restrictive than the rest of the world

This is backwards. You can only be extradited if the act is a crime in both the US and the other country, and if the punishment in the requesting country is not extremely out of line compared to the requested country's, so if the US laws were more restrictive it wouldn't increase the number of extraditions. On the other hand, many countries would like to extradite people from the US for crimes that are not a crime in the US, like for insulting the king, and for others the potential penalty is considered too harsh, such as flogging, have a hand cut off, or even execution, for crimes like theft or drug offenses.

1) US criminals are so smart they never get caught

I think this missed the mark some. More likely, the investigative ability by US authorities is better than most other countries, so the US is more likely to be able to determine who committed the crime, and to where they fled. You can't request extradition unless you know whom to extradite, and from where. You can then add in that US criminals may be better educated than the world average for crooks, so are better at not being caught.

And a few more potential factors you missed:

4) If a criminal flees from a non-US country, due to extradition treaties they are much more likely to flee to a country other than the US.

5) A lot of the recent extraditions are for cyber activities (like this one), but there is a disproportionate cyber presence between the US and most other countries, both in terms of number, and in terms of wealth that makes it more likely for a Ukrainian crook to commit fraud against a US person or company than it is for a US crook to commit fraud against a Ukrainian.

6) For similar reasons, namely wealth and wealth disparity, US entities get targeted more than many other countries. For example, people from South Africa are much more likely to come to the US to steal than a US person is to go to South Africa to steal. If they flee back home, who is going to asking for extradition from whom, and in what kind of numbers?

There are more, but I think that gets the point across.

God is real, unless declared integer.