Yes, you turn over they keys to the safe and inside they find sheets of paper with what appears to be random letters and numbers written on them. Can the court compel you to disclose the "meaning" of what is written on those documents?
As do territorial rights/restrictions - you cannot access this information because of where you are (or where geolocation of your IP address thinks you are). Or "we do not support the browser/OS you are using.
Why should ISPs not be regulated the same as phones? They both do basically the same thing - provide the infrastructure for party A to connect to party B and exchange information. The only real difference is that a phone line only (normally) allows communication with a single peer at one time but communication to multiple peers can be multiplexed over the connection to an ISP.
The agreement protects google against legal action arising from hosting copywriter content.
Do not forget that someone owns the copyright on every video posted on YouTube, whether it is a private individual posting a video of their cat playing with a ball of string or a TV company posting a complete TV show.
The same as if any other vehicle (whether it is car you are driving or a vehicle in which you are a passenger) breaks down. You (or someone else) calls for assistance and either the vehicle is towed, a mechanic does a roadside repair or another vehicle is dispatched for you to continue your journey.
Yes, but we can do that without restricting them from providing other services.
Why not? It seems to work for the landline and mobile telecom companies. Basically you can dial any number from any phone, including one which connects to a competitors service. The way they handle it is in the charging structure. If they provide service X then access to this is included in the basic charge. If you want to connect to service X provided by a competitor then you will have to pay the call charges. Translating this to ISPs would mean that access to the service provided by the ISP would either not be metered or would not count towards any data caps or allowances.
So maybe there needs to be legislation which requires these ISPs to operate a "Chinese Wall" between their content provider and customer connectivity operations.
What is the purpose of restricting it to US only? Do they think that people outside the US would not be interested in seeing what could be mined about them from Facebook?
So they would ban the use of Perfect Forward Secrecy. Using PFS it is impossible to decrypt the intercepted content even with the Certificate's private key.
Chrome 33 was in Beta for a while before being released as stable. So these issues should have been picked up/highlighted then. How much negative feedback on the new 'new tab' page was there during the beta cycle? I am using Chromium beta cycle and soon got used to the new 'new tags' page.
You will have to ask Brains of International Rescue.
This type of thing predates the internet. Back in the days when hobbyist electronics/radio construction was reasonably popular and 8-bit (6502, Z80, 6809 etc based) were becoming available, most of the magazines were pretty 'light' on the technical/theoretical side of the hobby. Then a new magazine was launched with a much higher technical level. This high technical level did not last long as lots of people wrote in asking for it to be dumbed down and despite other letters pointing out there were a number of other magazines catering for the less technical reader the published 'caved in' and lowered the technical level to that of the existing magazines. It folded soon afterwards.
Slashdot is one of the very few sites on which I have clicked on an advertisement and actually followed through and purchased what was being advertised.
And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.
Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.
What will you do now?
Reply, "so sign me up to the filter which ONLY blocks child pornography."
Surely in this internet age, anyone writing a blog or publishing a web page is the equivalent of 'The Press' in the days these precedents were set. In those days, there were no large multi-national media conglomerations, most of the 'Press' was local to a town or district and the editorial reflected the views of the (local) editor. "The Press" was anyone who could set up a printing press, employ some journalists (though some were one-man bands), print a paper and get people to buy it. So modern day blogs are just as much (or even more) in the spirit of what the drafters of the First Amendment to the US Constitution considered "The Press" as the current TV news and newspaper conglomerates.