I can just about understand (if not agree with) things like Skype. But E-mail and worse, even Word documents? Oh dear.
107 posts • joined 28 Dec 2009
Re: Company moral hazard....
>The ruling is straight forward. Company 'A' that has operations in Canada is told that they must not facilitate activity that is illegal and also detrimental to another Canadian company.
Actually, it isn't on two levels. For one thing, Google's action in itself is not illegal, nor are they specially doing something to this tiny company. They are doing their regular legal business of providing search services to any interested parties, and it is already questionable legally as it is to impose penalties for neutral actions that do not break the law, unless he actively desires the facilitation of the illegal and unworthy outcome.
Further, Googe's actions, broadly speaking, involve expression, which is beyond "neutral" and actually a right protected by constitution and treaty after many painful historical experiences as to the real consequences when it is compromised. The court willfully faked blindness so it did not have to weigh that. In doing so, it condones further abuses. I cannot believe the judges were so stupid as to be unaware of the danger, especially since it was pointed out to them.
And I just love that moronic court judgment. If you have been up on international news, you might notice China just "released" the nearly dead Liu Xiaobo in the name of medical treatment. I can easily see how that crummy judgment can be borrowed by a Chinese court in the future to convict yet more people for "subversion of the State". After all, to pick just one, Liu Xiaobo would not be "inconvenienced in any *material* (because the world is only material, implies the Canadian judge) way" and would not "incur any significant expense" in choosing to not publish his critical articles and Charter 08. Thus, in the face of it causing a certain amount of "irreparable" harm to the Chinese State, Liu Xiaobo's actions cannot be defended as free speech and he thus is correctly guilty of "subversion of the State".
This is a criminally stupid decision
The judges' decision is parochial and willfully fails to foresee the probable consequences of their reckless acts. Now that a Western court has decided that they can rule on search results on a global website, how long would it before the likes of China and Russia's Supreme Courts issuing rulings for choice pieces of information to be removed because they are "subversive", "extremist" or otherwise. Don't they realize that China is still citing Schenck v United States (1919) when defending their infamous "Incitement of subversion of State power?"
They didn't even do a balancing exercise, so in essence the only criteria required are someone being supposedly hurt and Google can do it. This ought be easy... And it is the Supreme Court so no one can get it out of the system. A stupid, no-name company simply is not worth it.
Germany to Facebook, Twitter: We are *this* close to fining you €50m unless you delete fake news within 24 hours
I live in China
Technically, it's Hong Kong, but China is increasingly assertive about us being part of them, and not just in a formal way.
Please, Germany, don't give China stupid ideas or grounds for rationalizing yet ANOTHER attack on freedom of speech. Do you realize every time one of you "free nations" makes any crimp on freedom of speech, China uses it as an excuse for another restriction?
Think about your effect on the world...
Re: Still no pity
>If this were the case then the GP acted professionally and escalated it.
OK, I shall pretend that is the case. The fact he mouthed off to the GP is a reason for the GP to refuse to see him, NOT for the police and court to impose the equivalent of a restrictive probation regime.
>They are open to legal action being individually raised against them, how much more concrete risk do you require?
They might be sued, but since they are doing it as part of their "powers", it is a State action. If somehow O' Neill wins a civil suit, they will not pay, the State will out of tax money.
As for judges, thanks to the judicial immunity doctrine, it's extremely unlikely it'll even go as far as that.
>You omitted to respond to that.
I wouldn't mind him coming to where I am. But really, are we supposed to deal with human rights abuses by suggesting people leave the country, rather than the country fixing its human rights abuses?
Though I don't live in the UK, I'm still concerned because such crap is contagious, especially if it comes from countries having a "good" reputation. For example, a few weeks ago, a Luzgin had his conviction affirmed by his Supreme Court. People complained about the Russian Supreme Court, but IMO they are wrong. The Courts acted correctly within the definitions of their law and the facts provided, and to criticize the Judiciary diverts attention away from the true problem, the presence of that Article. The reason that article exists is because people in "good" countries like Germany thought it is a good idea to restrict speech under certain circumstances, which gave Russia an excuse to create something similar!
(I'll also point out though Luzgin was fairly convicted, the Court only fined him. It's a heavy fine, especially for a Russian, but still a fine. His liberty wasn't so much as restricted. Remembering that both of their "crimes" can be characterized as mouthing off at the wrong place at the wrong people ... don't you think it is a problem when Britain sinks below Russia on a question of human rights?)
Re: Still no pity
>I have seen no published suggestion that he was trying to get 'help' in his consultations with his GP and the Mental Health Nurse, he also gave a detailed TV interview which I watched in full, there was no suggestion of an appeal for help. He appeared comfortable with his needs, his issue was with the restriction to his rights. Source please.
I'll say the fact he bothered to consult medical help is a sign he wanted help. However, now that he's being slapped with this ridiculous order, of course his emphasis is on his legitimate rights. I don't blame him.
BTW, please don't give me excuses regarding his demeanor. Rule of law and due process means that we can't impose restrictions of liberty because we don't like their attitude, only for solid things they have done which we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything, the fact his demeanor is bad means he's a vulnerable segment which requires protection.
>General Practitioner, Mental Health nurse ( who in the UK has the authority to 'section' (incarcerate) someone in an emergency if required)
Thankfully, they didn't. But the cops slapping the order on him apparently do.
>Law Courts are unable to assess risk or are persons or 'agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.'?
The vital part here is the aft section. I indeed don't live in the UK, so I could be wrong, but you might want to fill everyone in on what concrete risks or price either the police officer initially issuing the order, the solicitor that drafted it, or the judge that affirms and slightly trims it suffers.
Because as far as I can tell, the police officer's worst fate here is that his order gets reversed in its entirety. He will not, for example, be forced to eat a pay cut, much less suffer criminal liability. And even if we accept there is some legitimacy to this order, it is undeniable O' Neill here hasn't actually been convicted of any crime yet they gave him the substantive equivalent of a fairly tough probation, which is a significant infringement of his rights, and it can be done for free. A similar story runs for the judge.
Under these circumstances, what is really there to keep these responsible offers from excess? Nothing.
Re: Still no pity
@Still No Pity
>guy who admitted to two separate health professionals that he gets a sexual kick out of extreme violence and then tries to convince the court that he was misunderstood.
Back then, he was trying to get help, not self-incriminate.
>Where are the 'boundaries'? Having heard his admission, what if he acted out his fantasies and killed someone,? No amount of pre-agreed boundaries or safewords would help the submissive then would it?
There are *no* boundaries. If your contingency happens, we eat it. Concrete infringement of rights cannot be legitimized based on a vague assessment of risk, undertaken by a person or agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.
Even if we must permit such things in some form, we need to stop allowing it as a "power" (where the act of issuing the order starts off being right except in cases of abuse as assessed by a uselessly tight standard) and start treating it as a "justification" (where the act is prima facie criminal because it does infringe on people's rights without full due process of law, but may be justified). For example:
The order will be issued by a police officer (P) with no intervention by court (b/c they just rubber stamp). There should be no Act empowering it, thus it is by default Abuse/Excess of Authority (crime). But it will be considered justified (thus allowed to stand) if:
a) It does not exceed proportionality (risk & severity).
b) Recognizing its infringement, the State recompenses V (order recipient) with a percentage of his income proportionate to the restriction (risk is not taken into account, only the severity of restriction). Even a narrow restraining order concerning non-approach of 1 individual should be worth 10% of his income, and general restrictive regimes like the one here should be worth 100%.
c) Because it is a *justification*, not a *power*, the individual issuing orders must acknowledge his own personal responsibility as an infringer and contribute to the State compensation with a portion of his own income, up to 50%. Thus, a single officer can order 1 very restrictive regime or 10 minimal regimes in his name, or anything in between.
d) If unforeseen circumstances increasing the actual severity, the State must provide extra compensation.
Failure to achieve all four conditions, even marginally, will mean collapse of justification defense and incarceration for P.
If there are still Sexual Risk Orders under this kind of scheme, I might consider them justified.
Re: Orwell's alive & living in the Kremlin
It doesn't help that the Western media, when they can access it, also tends to be less than objective when reporting on Russian events, preferring Russophobic hyperbole to analysis, as is the web commentary. So far for example, this article failed to conduct any dispassionate analysis on the legal factors invoved, and the forum's commentary has reached away from the event at place all the way to Warsaw in 1944, Crimea in 2013, and so on.
Sometimes, people are writing without even thinking what their latest proposal means to the issue at hand. For example, Voland is pushing a broadly-Rezunist theory. For the purposes of this thread, it is sufficient to note that:
a) It is still possible to discuss Rezunist theory in Russia w/o getting into trouble, as evidenced by the Wikipedia article on same.
b) If we accept Rezunist theory as true, then Luzgin is STILL wrong (thus legally liable) because the idea of Stalin getting ready to backstab Hitler actually runs against the idea of them "closely collaborating".
With such "quality", suddenly the local media looks very warm to a Russian in comparison. I'm not saying don't criticize. I'm saying criticize after learning all the factors at play, so the criticism is reasoned and useful.
Re: Or the Russians haven't updated their website yet
Wow, Alfred. I never denied that technically speaking, an interpretation of it not being simultaneous is permissible. However, even while a phrase has multiple interpretations, it is undeniable that some interpretations are stronger than others when the sentence is interpreted.
For example, if I say "A is bigger than B", *technically* I'm still right if A is a billionth larger than B. But that's NOT the image that floats in your brain, is it? You'll probably be thinking A is actually substantively (say at least 25%) larger. Humans interpret wording heuristically, thus not every fringe literal-grammatical possibility will float; and even if it does it won't be dominant.
And I think it is intellectually dishonest to ignore such realities when analyzing what Luzgin chose to quote into his blog.
By itself, the secret pact will be an agreement, and even the substantive elements can hardly be called "close". They just agreed on some delineations and materials were sent. "Close"? So when the US and UK trade high-tech stuff to China which gets stuffed into a piece of military equipment this is evidence they are "close collaborating" with China in their plan to threaten the South/East China Sea?
The base problem of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty is simply that the Russians after the purges (a self-inflicted wound admittedly), weren't ready for a war and they needed to buy time to fix those problems. I'll also point out that the USSR did give Britain and France a chance to be allies, but those two can't even tell their ally (Poland) that if they expect to be protected, they have to actually let the ally's forces in before the war starts. It is simply infeasible to rush in after the war started and expect good results - as proven next year when the French and Brits rushed in after the attack had already started.
Or the Russians haven't updated their website yet
The hearing was on Sep 1 and now it is Sep 3. It is easily possible for the verdict to be handed down and the site not yet updated (it's not exactly Google Docs where each change is instantly reflected).
To the essence of the issue, like it or not, Luzgin did fulfill the formal indicia of Article 354.1. He wrote:
"The A and B jointly invaded C"
If you don't know what A, B and C are, would you conclude that A & B moved on the same day? At least I would yet in this case it would be a clear untruth.
"That is, A and B closely collaborated"
This would be an opinion, and indeed would be against the Nuremberg judgment. However just a statement along these lines is not instant prosecution. Certainly the much more comprehensive Russian Wikipedia articles on the Secret Protocol and invasion of Poland seem healthy as ever - I'll suggest why below.
"yet for some reason they blame E, who was in a B concentration camp, for declaring G independence."
From this, I get a picture of E declaring independence while IN the concentration camp, and that's not the truth at all. Bandera announced independence and even said he would help Germany. The Germans decide to transfer and then arrest him anyway, but that doesn't mean Bandera did not intend to help the Germans/Nazis at the moment of his statement.
So like it or not, the substantive problem here was not even its congruence with the Nuremberg trials, but that the statements simply were misleading. If they were congruent with contemporary theory or even well defended, even if it was a non-Nuremberg position, Luzgin could have claimed the statements were not socially dangerous (Article 14.2) OR if that failed he can claim that his actions were for the socially useful goal (Article 41) of either spreading correct history or inciting academic debate on same.
Vertinsky should not be blamed for making the correct statement that the above lines do not really represent the "position accepted at international level" unless you want to claim Germany and the USSR attacked Poland on Sep 1 together, as implied by the faulty statement.
I'm neither a comp tech or a lawyer but isn't this better resolved or justified as part of "consent" rather than just "routine activity"? The user implicitly consents to the router and other network equipment reading the parts of the message necessary to achieve his aim of transmitting said message to its recipient.
It seems not very different from the mail address on your paper mail - every time you mail something you are letting the post office know you are sending something to a particular address (and further inferences can be made from the mass and dimensions of the package), and no one seems to think whether that's a violation of privacy.
Re: Not a chance.
I agree. Right now, it doesn't really cost the legislative anything to propose these Anti-People measures and in practice it doesn't cost the Executive anything to overstep what laws have been created. The worst is that a court rolls them back, and even if they do levy a fine who cares its not coming from those people's pockets but from taxpayer's money. Nobody actually pays on a personal level.
Maybe what is necessary is an actual, personal cost to any Senator or administrative official trying for these anti-People measures.
Re: Bait and switch
Personally, I never noticed them giving me the unlimited, but they gave me 10TB when I started using it.
I'll admit I'm taking some advantage of that massive space but I'm only up to less than 500GB so far. I was planning to upload some more.
At least they could have kept their initial promise.
>Why over-complicate things? Just download LibreOffice & get on with writing.
To be fair, AFAIK Google Docs does have functionality that are very good for teachers - the best of which is constant revision control. No one can say they didn't save because as long as they are online every change is saved constantly.
Further, all those versions can give the teacher an insight as to the student's thought processes using the "view previous revisions" feature. You can see, for example, at one point the student tried to put Paragraph 3 first before deciding it fits better at the bottom. You can see though it is crap he at least pretended to work on his homework for 5 hours rather than 30 minutes which might be worth effort points. In fact, with special software you can in theory you can get data of every keystroke, since it is at base a keystroke logger and when you open your file, Google Docs actually reconstructs your file by stepping through all your keystrokes.
Re: Have we forgotten the Asus Transformer?
It was a bit too late for me to get a Transformer, so I got a Memopad which links up to the keyboard with Bluetooth. Not as elegant a solution Transformer but I can use it on my lap and best of all, I never have to remove the tablet from the keyboard folio - I can just fold the keyboard on the back and use it as extra armor. It makes it heavier and the leather (or fake leather whatever) is wearing out horribly after about 2 years, but is still comfortable to hold and protects the thing from falls.
>James Eadie QC claimed that the doctrine does not have force in law and cannot impose legal restraints on the agencies.
Eadle, I could have said that and I don't have lawyer training. It is not a law, BUT that agencies are not bound by it is a big question mark, because the Doctrine arguably constitutes a Cabinet or Prime Ministerial Order. Don't the Brit civil services have any laws saying they must be bound by their superior's orders?
>As reported by the Guardian, Eadie told the IPT that excluding politicians from GCHQ's mass surveillance wasn't even feasible.
Let me propose a "revolutionary" idea, Eadle. If, despite your position, we accept that the doctrine has a legal effect, and that you can't exclude politicians from a mass surveillance plan ... the only solution is to NOT DO MASS SURVEILLANCE!
Is that really hard?
Still, I must wonder when all the legislatures in the West will finally get fed up of this crap and just pass a act (an undeniable law with undeniable legal efect) banning intelligence agencies from doing anything while they review everything from zero, with all future activities under positive control only. We tried to believe them, listened to their arguments that positive control eliminates their needed flexibility, and look how they exploit it. Sometime, we have to put our foot down, even if it does mean one or two buses are exploded.
... but why not make it some kind of Alertness Tester. It seems we think any alcohol is a sin, but tolerate fatigue or any other number of conditions that make you less than a thinking driver with adequate reactions.
Perhaps a simple reaction test with a hard pass limit and also a soft limit (so if you are MUCH slower than you usually are, that's probably a bad sign). Or it can analyze driving inputs - if you are clearly weaving with no reason to be, the car can be stopped.
Re: Simple work-round?
As a consumer, I find this unreasonably infringing on my rights. The most common flaw on Ebooks is the over-usage of compression, causing graphics to degrade into non-legibility. Other flaws include poor OCR and sometimes weird layouts. All these cannot be spotted before buying, even if one is so dedicated due to the test-reading page limits.
Re: @John G Imrie + Titus Technophile
The read I got is that this is exactly how governments try to justify restrictive laws - starting with groups we find "icky" so we feel inclined to let the law past. Then we find that either the law actually includes us as well, or the government, having gotten one victory, pushes to revise the law to include another, and each time the bar to a new restriction gets lower.
I'll side with the Against but Sympathetic crowd
It is a nice feature, however it came to be included, but I can see how its functionality means it cannot be Foolproof and having dabbled in Customer Service myself I can understand what happens when you cannot Foolproof such features. So whatever else they were thinking there are valid reasons to pull the feature.
Re: Truth or consequences
I'm sure of course in theory you can make "honest references". It is just that you are running a big risk since your words do cause actual harm to someone else and thus you are liable to getting sued for defamation. Getting away with something like "He's late every day" would probably be easy if you've kept objective records. Saying something subjective like "He's lazy" would be a lot harder to prove and you run a significant chance he can make the judge agree your subjective assessment is not adequately substantiated and charge you the bill of his damages.
We think among similar lines - the problem is that what's doing it is an agency. Even if you do somehow catch them, they would blur the lines of responsibility enough that you won't be able to identify one or a few people to indict, or if that starts to fail in the best, best case they'll throw up some midrank guy senior enough to be vaguely plausible but not powerful enough to be resist or be the Real Culprit (he's following orders himself).
What do you think of my idea of making agencies truly accountable (as in actually making them bleed) for violations?
This kind of governmental cheating
by all parts of government won't stop because there no penalties are ever imposed. At best when caught the legislature passes the equivalent of a Cease and Desist, and if we are extremely lucky the involved government agency would even follow it for awhile. If it even gets to the point where the head resigns to "take responsibility" ... that's half a miracle (it happens more in Japan, seemingly less in the West).
What should be passed are new acts that say any governmental agency that gets caught breaking or abusing the rules are subject to decimation (as in 1/10th of the employees get fired, even split between top and bottom post), plus at least a 20% reduction in budget for the next 5 years. With real penalties should come improvements.
Re: Yeah, right.
Well, they might have skilled programmers, but they are dealing with technology a bit more advanced than what they have (otherwise they won't have to steal) and also the programmers are not mechanical specialists. It probably won't be impossible to insert a subtle error in the coefficients that will lead to a slow wearing out over time, leading to eventual destruction. They also don't have a lot of time because they want the complex working ASAP, not in debugging.
Inaccurate might be pushing it a little...
>On 25th October 2012, Apple Inc published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court Appeal of England and Wales. A correct statement can be found at this link.
There's a good case for calling it (for example) "misleading". That it did not comply with the spirit of the order is obvious. Whether it minimally complied with the letter is debatable (all the requested text was there I think). But IIRC nothing on it was actually "inaccurate". The judge did say those things. The US and Germany did rule against Samsung...
Maybe Apple's next move would be to put the page up as requested, but then add a link complaining about the tyranny of the British court. If the judge tries to block that one, now he is violating freedom of speech.
but I suspect this discrepancy:
>As of three days ago TEPCO held to the position it was all the tsunami's fault
can be explained by
1) The government has already agreed quietly to not find anyone criminally responsible.
2) With the legal threat gone, TEPCO's best interest is now in moving towards a mea culpa stance, without which it won't be allowed by the local populace to rebuild or even power back up any nuke power plants, even if it wins all the legal battles.
I thought they were doing that already
... these past couple of years, torrent links have become much less prominent in\ Google searches.
A reasonable measure, in any case, and I believe it will discourage casual piracy. Forcing people to have to join special file-sharing forums rather than just grabbing their torrents off Google scares off the squeamish, because forums means data being handed over.
Not a lot of thought as to why rape was chosen here...
It is not only emotional, but also especially vulnerable to politics. The victim can show no bruises and not even PTSD symptoms, but still potentially get her way if she can convince the judge, based on her testimony that she was unwilling. Even a logically inconsistent piece of testimony may be excused on "she was traumatized..."
If we are serious about reasonable doubt, such rape cases should never be heard in court - what's the point. Unless there are horrible injuries or PTSD, any objective evidence can only show that they indeed had sex, and the rest is up to testimony, hardly the normal composition of a "reasonable doubt" conviction.
Instead, they lower the standards. Necessarily, perhaps, b/c not every rape case leaves horrible injuries or PTSD. But it leaves a lot to the discretion of the judge. Given the politics, I can see why Assange is less interested about the nebulous hope of clearing his name.
It isn't like Samsung is not playing the same game with iPhone
Besides, they are being realistic. Most products DON'T have such a massive superiority as to overcome inertia. Once they buy a Samsung Tablet, even if they don't buy a Samsung next time they won't be buying iPads because of its different OS (unless of course they really hated Android).
the J-20 and T-50 feature less stealth partially because in the wake of high-powered fire control capable L-band and even VHF band radars, it has become less possible to hide anyway because stealth doesn't work nearly as well against those lower bands.
So not only could those two countries ill-afford a F-22 level stealth, that level of stealth isn't worth as much anymore in tactical terms.
I think the JSF program is actually in fairly dire straits
They are now trying to get Japan to buy it for their F-X program, even going to claim that the price will only be US$65 million a pop, which is clearly complete BS unless they are selling at a loss and then recouping it over 20 years by overpricing parts, support ... etc.
I guess the idea is to hook as many nations as possible to make it politically inexpedient to terminate this pork project.
What's so special about the RAF
... except that you can fly or maintain planes there?
Sure, some people may have started out joining due to the old stories of RAF valor or similar, but there are probably at least as many cadets who joined without thinking too much about history. Once they are actually in, I just don't see most of them resigning (those that were going to make a career rather than getting out to fly for the airlines) just because they have to change uniforms.
The WP command structure has its merits
but in the long run the Ground Forces dominance probably made the Soviet Armed Forces less efficient and flexible than it otherwise might have been. The worst offender being the B and C divisions, which consume resources and manpower (which was running low in the USSR, especially in the 80s), yet were so undermanned useful unit training is a joke. In practice, their military potential as mobilizable units is at best an inch over just making new divisions from scratch. As political tools they are a net negative because they give NATO an excuse to bleat and justify their clearly much more offensive Navy and Air Force!
If the Navy & Air Force had more power in the USSR, it is hard to believe that such wastage would have been allowed to continue.
If anything, the USSR experience says that it might be OK in the modern era to let the Army eat the Air Force, but not the Navy. Generals these days understand they need some air. If they don't buy enough Air their ground divisions would be wiped.
The Navy's role in national defense or even as support for the Army (except for carrier bombers) is a less familiar subject to them, so it'll be a very poor relationship - as the Soviet experience proved.