ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

<< < (78/79) > >>

If we're so far down Rabbit Holes this is even about to be passed, what is a "mere" 9000 responses going to do? "First Name Last Name Email" ... Oh look! It's a list of people to "mysteriously" harass!


Copyrighting Weblinks!? Without reading the whole bill, to start with the three behemoths, what does that EVEN DO to Google, Facebook, and Twitter!?


Exactly what are they doing about it?
"Search for Wheat" (on Google).
"No responses found. Monsanto copyrighted them all. To view them, it's 0.1 cents per link."

And I have an eye for Chain Logic. In the US, "If it is created, it is copyrighted". So maybe Google has copyrighted them all if their link is the typical link garbage. Poof! The link has been created, therefore it has been copyrighted. You do *not* have to register stuff with the US Copyright Office. (And what are THEY saying!?)

What about the Fair Use clause as a loophole for at least the US (and other countries versions!?) to spite this? Lots of links are commercial, so THAT gets ugly ...

If we're so far down Rabbit Holes this is even about to be passed, what is a "mere" 9000 responses going to do?-TaoPhoenix (December 08, 2015, 09:44 AM)
--- End quote ---

* 9,000 is only a start
* it's not 'about to be passed', so it's a good time to kill it ;-)Try this link for more info:
According to a draft communication on copyright reform leaked yesterday (via IPKat), the Commission is considering putting the simple act of linking to content under copyright protection.
--- End quote ---


Oh, I'm starting to get tired, I saw on
"in 48 hours a plan is about to be published" and I thought that was the same as passing it.


This is one of the more strange and dangerous words in English vs Legalese.

In English we think it means "optional"". But in many legal contexts it means "you provide something, rather than us sending a representative to take it". (That's the answer to the famous '80 's junk scam 'taxes are voluntary!!'  No, they're not optional. However, you also don't get your very own rep at your door most times either.)
-TaoPhoenix (June 22, 2015, 02:04 AM)
--- End quote ---

That makes sense.

FWIW, "understand" in many legal contexts means "agree".

European nations lost millions of lives in WWII fighting to retain sovereignty, independence, freedom and liberty, and against Nazi totalitarianism and fascism. Within 60 years their governments would seem to have achieved national and legal subordination to an unelected totalitarian EU body that takes away their sovereignty and freedoms. Go figure.
-IainB (December 07, 2015, 10:13 PM)
--- End quote ---

It's pretty much mind boggling. And people just cheer it on... Sigh... I don't know whether to pity people, or callously watch them burn with a sneer on my face because they're getting what they asked for.

But I doubt that link thing will pass. It's way to stupid. While I have little faith in Brussels (actually nothing but contempt), I don't think that they've descended that far into madness quite yet. Give it another 10 years and they'll probably have degenerated enough to think it's a good idea.

So, Hillary Clinton wants a "Manhattan" project to break encryption?

Hillary Clinton wants “Manhattan-like project” to break encryption
US should be able to bypass encryption—but only for terrorists, candidate says.
--- End quote ---

Just a snippet:

"I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners," Clinton continued. "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology, Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts."
--- End quote ---

More at the link.

I'm not sure what part of that is the most disturbing.

That she is so fundamentally misinformed that she thinks strong encryption can be broken?

That she has so little value for privacy?

That she's willing to piss away billions chasing rainbow dragons?

Even if quantum computing can break current strong encryption, the research has already been done that shows that quantum encryption is unbreakable by quantum decryption.

There's just so much wrong.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version