You make an excellent point here. Very well thought out response. I can see where you are going with the points now. Again very interesting.

This is an interesting point to be made.

Although I am not from the UK nor do I know if this applies but my question would be this. If you are the one making the comment how can you not own the statement? Isn't email seen just as a written letter that one has to answer for if something derogatory or defaming said?

correction... doesn't just state that they can't use the cell phone while driving.

Not to be a jerk here... But the memo doesn't state that they can't use the cell phone apps while driving (that line is at the end). The memo states that those type of apps like Uber are not allowed due to a contractual obligation that they (The commission) has made with payment processors. It also points out that it could also cause problems with the rules for prearranged rides provision in the law.

Sorry I disagree. The dispatcher is NOT law enforcement they have no legal grounds to give you an order to comply. I was involved in a hit and run accident. They went through and I was following the person. They told me to cease following the person. I couldn't get insurance to cover the repairs to my car for 30 days while they "looked" for the person who hit my car. If I get in the same situation I want something done about it.

You asked "WHY"...Contrary to popular belief (sorry Starbucks) money makes the world go round. Not java :-)

I respectfully disagree with your thoughts on this situation and use of the Times Ethics policy.

First off this wasn't a case where the reporter PURPOSELY went in and "tapped" the line, or even they pushed the button to enable the sound to be sent to that room. The fact is what happened is someone some place pushed the wrong button. When they pushed said button and sound was enabled in that room of the conversation then it became public. Though things sometimes are said in meetings because no one thinks you are being heard doesn't make it right. We all should take responsibility for the things we say.

I believe that it was newsworthy. Given what was said and in the response it was aimed at makes the US look bad. There is no need for such disrespect towards other countries officials at all. I am sorry but I do not BELIEVE that anyone person should have the right to deem something newsworthy or not.

I think we all as computer geeks, and various other geeks can all relate to the products and innovation that he helped (either personally or via collective of RnD) put a spin on for the general public. I wish I could have had the pleasure of meeting him one day. He will be extremely missed. It is because of Apple that I even learned to pursue computers to being with. It all started with a Macintosh at a school and ended up spending a life time learning.

To his family, friends, and the rest of the tech community I am sorry for our loss but I am glad for the accomplishments that were forever changed many of our lives.

RIP Mr. Jobs.

I have worked for an ISP Abuse department and routinely had to enforce DMCA.

You're section of stating you have an authorized right to act on behalf of the rights holder. The DMCA requires that you have looked at the file to determine that it in fact is a copyright to which you own. Thus you are saying you have the right to enforce the copyright in regards to that /file/ since it was your work or a work for which you have the right to enforce copyright action to. The fact is you HAVE to establish that you own the copyrights to the work in that file. Otherwise you mis-represent yourself. As you already said that 512(f) does give people the right to come after you.

Logmein! It's a trojan and someone just hacked my username and password.

Okay so you pull my internet. I refuse to have the MAFIAA state that in order for me to use a private/public network is based on maintaining their making sure their copyrights aren't violated. The end question becomes where do my rights end and theirs begin? In this case the Internet is used for other things that have nothing to do with violating copyrights. Though I guess we could say that in order to sell CD's you maintain a price range that allows all social classes of people easily afford it. I would say 10 cents a song is fair.

With what money?

They are welcome to knock on the door and request a mandatory security audit. However you need a court order to get in my house if I haven't invited you or you will face my friend Ann Ruger and her associates from L. Ead and Co.

The fact is that anyone that is using a computer yes should secure it but the fact is its too complicated for the typical AOL user. In this case I feel that they need to establish the fact that a person DID something (identify the actual responsible person) before doing something even remotely close to this.

Then you will make yourself a pizza because after all that you will be hungry!

I am just as old... I saw that and was like why is a provider in trouble over dots per inch...