Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • U.S. Supreme Court no warrant-less cell phone searches

    , evildictait​or wrote

    3) This doesn't relate in any way, shape or form to the NSA metadata program, because the NSA metadata program is about "data voluntarily given to a third party organisation to which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy" (Smith v. Maryland), whereas the Supreme Court has held that "Fourth Amendment protection afforded to closed computer files and hard drives is similar to the protection afforded to a person's closed containers and closed personal effects" (United States v. Peden), which is covered by the fourth Amendment.

    4) SCOTUS went out of their way to make clear that they are not doing an assessment of the constitutionality of metadata: "Because the United States and California agree that these cases involve searches incident to arrest, these cases do not implicate the question whether the collection or inspection of aggregated digital information amounts to a search under other circumstances."

    The question in this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA, or hacking. It is whether a police officer can search your phone as part of "search incident to a lawful arrest"."

    Today it doesn't, just as the Lawrence v. Texas majority didn't directly address same-sex marriage, but was used as a basis for Perry v. Brown and others.

    Why not? Because that wasn't the issue brought before the court. Courts tend to confine their rulings to the scope of the issue at hand... which is what we saw today in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning where they largely shot down recess appointments but did not vacate previous NLRB rulings since the unlawful recess appointments... rulings that will be subjects of separate cases whose eventual rulings will be based on todays ruling.

  • Italian spyware on all phones but Windows?

    @JohnAskew: What about the unmentioned option: Windows Phone is a lot harder to exploit via rootkit or app by someone who is not a phone manufacturer?

  • U.S. Supreme Court no warrant-less cell phone searches

    From the ruling, note this part of a paragraph (emphasis mine):

    Alternatively, the Government proposes that law enforcement agencies "develop protocols to address" concerns raised by cloud computing. Reply Brief in No. 13–212, pp. 14–15. Probably a good idea, but the Founders did not fight a revolution to gain the right to government agency protocols. The possibility that a search might extend well beyond papers and effects in the physical proximity of an arrestee is yet another reason that the privacy interests here dwarf those in Robinson.

    That could have implications if/when SCOTUS does eventually hear an 'NSA metadata' case.

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Police cannot hack your phone just because they have a gun and a badge. 

    No, but getting a warrant can be pretty easy... especially in a case like the one that was ruled on.

  • Should APIs be copyrighted?

    , Bass wrote

    You have a perfect example of when patents work, they are totally awesome. But lets say I "invent" something that is chances are, someone else would have come up with independently because it's much the most obvious way to solve a problem. IE. The disclosure of the patent isn't really all that beneficial to society. It's worth noting that the less useful or obvious a patent is to society, the more useful it is for suing people with and profiting handsomely from. The patent system actually ENCOURAGES crappy patents by the virtue of how it fundamentally works.

    Have we forgotten what the P in IP stands for? Property.

    Some property you have a paper title or deed to prove your ownership, other things a claim is established through simple possession and trade.

    You and I can both claim ownership of a given plot of land... but whoever can demonstrate a more substantive claim is likely to win the case through some kind of arbitration, granted even if you have a piece of paper that says you own it, if there is a pre-existing substantive claim... you can still lose... so goes for the patent system.

    I still don't get your point other than that no system is perfect... which I don't think anyone is going to argue with... but that it is better than the alternatives of not having a system that protects IP.

  • Should APIs be copyrighted?

    , ScanIAm wrote

    Why, then, should society be in the business of encouraging the advancement in technology, Mr. Galt?  Perhaps we should just drop all IP protections and let the invisible hands proceed with their thumb wresting over secret.

    Have you even read Adam Smith?

    If so... did you understand his writings on division of labor... or stop to consider their implications on the importance of IP protections?

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , cbae wrote

    Nice dodge.This is the second time you dismissed a hypothetical as "implausible" or "irrelevant".

    You have no leg to stand on when repeatedly you've simply dismissed counter arguments with even less of a response... but then this is typical behavior from a proven hypocrite who is on the record advocating for the removal of rights from some, but outraged about the attempted removal of rights from others.

    As I said before (notice how I keep citing things despite your refusals to do likewise?):

    , dahat wrote

    Unlike you though, I think through different aspects of hypotheticals to determine it's likelihood and quality of application to a given situation... this like others of yours here keep on failing for the same reason... poor planning.

    Understand yet? Or should I repeat myself even more about my supporting of free speech, including that which I disagree with?

    Yet you boasted several times about how you'd defend the KKK or NAMBLA's right to speak at some imaginary event you'd actually give a rat's * about.

    You forgot the Democrat party... and on my street no less:

    , dahat wrote

    I've long said that if the KKK, Democrat Party or NAMBLA want to march down my street... they are welcome to it, despite the fact I am vehemently against most of what they say.

    And boasted 'several times'? I'd referenced the first post later as you kept trying to justify your irrelevant hypotheticals which were along the lines of "Well if in another situation, if so and so had said something waaaay worse... then would it be ok to fire him?" sort.

    It's pretty damn easy to brag about how principled you are when you get to pick and choose when you apply your principles.

    You keep trying to find fault with my principals and their application (based on your limited understanding of both) and keep failing so miserably.

    Have I sought to deny someone the opportunity to speak or punish someone for something they said which I may have disagreed with or even found offensive?

    No?

    Next!

    Of course, much of this is moot as you continue to pick & choose which points to address and so ignore the rest, somehow pretending that if you can nit-pick one thing enough, the entire argument fails... as you just did here.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , ScanIAm wrote

    2000 years...

    So Islam & Mormonism are cults? ...just to name a couple more recent religions.

    , ScanIAm wrote

    How, again, was this a witch hunt?

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

    The term "witch-hunt" since the 1930s has also been in use as a metaphor to refer to moral panics in general (frantic persecution of perceived enemies). This usage is especially associated with the Second Red Scare of the 1950s, with the McCarthyist persecution of suspected communists in the United States.

    Yup, that definition does seem to apply to this case.

    What level of speech counter to the companies' values can be considered unacceptable?

    What level of speech are usually considered unacceptable?

    Nobody is stating that he can't say stupid things, and nobody is taking away his freedoms.

    I'm pretty sure that California labor law disagrees.

    He represented the public shareholder face of a company and the shareholders decided that their core values don't jibe with his.

    Public shareholders? Who? Are you even aware of how Mozilla is structured? Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation (a 501(c)3). If you can find shares on the open market... that'd be quite a surprise to many.

    If Steve Jobs rose from the grave and stated "I'm really not very happy with race mixing and Oh, BTW, Jews suck.", then the first thing that would happen is we'd all say "Whoa, Steve Jobs is a Zombie!", but the second thing we'd say is "Wow, that guy is a racist, and he can't come back and run Apple again"

    Unless Eich actually said something to the effect of what you described regarding... any group... your attempted analogy doesn't hold much relevance.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , magicalclick wrote

    @evildictaitor:

    Freedom of Speech includes the following right: everyone has the right to protest something or someone peacefully. I don't think there is much a debate to be had here.

    Only to a point (and no, I'm not going to cite the often misunderstood example of 'yelling fire in a crowded theater'), location, time & place restrictions often come into play... as does what one does in response to such protest can be unlawful... take this blurb of California law:

    No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

    And it's not me pointing that out, but even some lawyers.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , AndyC wrote

    Eich funded a campaign that attempted, and briefly succeeded, to deny American citizens a right bestowed upon them by the constitution.

    President Obama spoke out against sex marriage at the same time... and even later.

    Joe Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage act, which Bill Clinton signed it into law (not to mention implementing Don't Ask Don't Tell).

    Is not the United States a place built on the idea that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?

    Clearly then, all three are unfit for high position in such a land as this. Even if they did not donate a dollar to a Prop 8 like campaign, ALL (until their recanting) had far larger bullhorns with which to speak out against same-sex marriage and do more damage to the cause than a thousand Eich's could have done... which they also used.

    This is the double standard at work, at least have the honesty to admit it.

  • Brandan Eich Steps Down as CEO of Mozilla

    , AndyC wrote

    If Microsoft had been built around an ethic that had been instrumental in their success, *snip*

    The excuse of 'ethic' keeps being used as a justification, just the same way as someone on the other side might say "religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin... which is why it's ok to fire anyone I think is gay."

    Context is everything.

    Doubly so when one side purposely defines a context to suit their side of the debate and seek to prohibit counter arguments or evidence.