rarw · HackerTrans

A privacy pledge, how cute! The problem with stuff like this is not knowing the third, fouth, and fifth party uses. Granted most user's don't read these disclosure and even more don't have the technical aspects of how this works. But even if you're ok with one big evil company have access to your inbox, allowing two just seems crazy. What happens when LinkedIn think of a cool way to use your emails from five years ago? By cool I of course mean horrifying.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Which is why I said "articles like this" and not "this article." Your quote is correct. My comment was on the general scope of anti-surveillance writing.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Articles like this pop up all the time. The problem is that they never address (1) the legitimate need for surveillance; (2) dangers of an internet (or other communications networks) which law enforcement or government cannot access at all; (3) the problems with arguing that government (or anyone for that matter) should be banned from collecting and reading data sent across the web.

I understand the concern. As someone who has advocated for stronger electronic privacy regulation, no one likes someone having the ability to look through their stuff. However, the answer is more likely a balance than a denunciation of all surveillance in any form. Surveillance with restriction is fine and probably a good thing. It helps prevent crime and can help catch criminals once crimes happen. Just as it's easy to argue that a government with information will misuse it, bad people with a closed communication network will use it to commit crime. Sure not everyone is going to plan a terrorist strike, or organize a gang online but some will. Is it worth enabling that kind of behavior?

Also what should and should not be private also has to do with where/when the information is collected. If the government were hacking into all of our computers and keeping back ups of our hard drives that's very different from collecting things that are sent on the internet. Legally there is currently a big debate about how to treat something that is taken from a stored medium - like a hard drive - vs one that is captured in transmission - like an email being sent. As it currently stands the government would have a hard time justifying accessing your computer remotely without a warrant but an easy time reading emails once they left your computer. Why? Because the sent email is akin to yelling something in a public place. Once it leaves your computer, it's not private while its being transmitted. If this sounds like a stupid distinction, that's because it is.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

#1 bugs me the most. False urgency is the name of the game everywhere I've ever worked. From my experience it's a problem of how the company is structured. When everyone thinks what they are working on or assigning is top priority it's because (a) they really don't have a sense of what is actually important (b) managment is fragmented such that each person's individual most important task seems like a global most important task.

In a law firm, which is basicly 1000 separate practices trying to exist simultaneously, this happens all the time, usually because of option b. When a "team" is really a group of people who happen to be in the same place instead of a collaborative unit, what is imporant is up to each person. It's a bad way a run a business and totally messes with your employees.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

You're right. The comment that you should buy stock with legal income and pay back a mortgage with the illegal income misses the point completely. Buying stock was just one example of how transfering illegaly acquired funds into something that increases in value does not protect your initial investment. Anything you do with illegal income would be seizable property.

Paying into a mortgage as the same effect. As you pay back a mortgage you acquire equity in the property. The government would then be able to seize your equity in the house, meaning they could sell the property and after paying back the remainder of the mortgage keep the difference.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

I think the seizure of Silk Road absolutly had an impact on the value of BitCoins. The benefit of using BitCoins is that they provide a way to operate outside of traditional currency structures. Once BitCoins becomes something that can be seized, regulated, tracked, it becomes just like regular cash. That makes them a whole lot less valuable.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

The more interesting question regarding this seizure is whether the FBI can compell the creators of BitCoin to assist in decrypting what they have just seized. For example, there are a number of statutes that require those operating communications networks maintain the ability for the governemnt to access them regardless of the encryption or other security features being used. I don't know the corresponding baking law as well but it would not surprise me if the same laws that require banks to comply with seizing fund, blocking wire transfers, and tracking where money goes in the course of a criminal investigation could kick in here.

Certainly something like this would have a big effect on the BitCoin market. I'm interested to see what happens in the future.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

The current valuation is irrelivant. Federal seizure laws allow the government to seize any property, money or bitcoins included, that were used in or generated from some illegal activity.

If my illegal activity generates 1 bitcoin which, 2.5 years later is worth 10 bitcoins, all 10 bitcoins can be seized since they all originated from the original seizable piece of property.

Were this not the case and only the orignial result of an illegal transaction could be seized those running illegal operations would be able to profit from their crimes by simply converting one type of property into another that could increase in value. For example, if you sold 20,000,000 in drugs and purchased 20,000,000 in stock, it does not make sense that, once your property is seized, you can keep the increase in value between when you broke the law and when you got caught. This would make crime much more profitable which is the opposite goal of the seizure laws.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Turning one's passion into a job almost always has this result. Work is never as exciting as doing something for the sake of doing it because work always has a finite list of things that must be done even if you don't want to. It doesn't matter if you're a programmer or a rock star. The routine of having to do something you don't want to do, whether that be write tests or perform the same hit song every day for 20 years, sucks. The trick is to try and find a balance. Do the boring stuff to pay the bills but find/make time to work on something that you actually enjoy. Sure it's not exactly easy to do but once you get out of school/your parents house - that's life.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

You could almost certainly find a away to pierce the corporate veil in this case so that's not really a concern.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Good luck finding a cheap patent attorney. All those admitted to the patent bar must have a technical background. That only raises the price.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Just wanted to note that there are frivolous litigation rules that allow for sanctions against the party bringing a bogus suit and allow the target of the suit to recover attorneys fees. It would be standard practice to include within the motion to dismiss a section also moving for these remedies. Thus it is likley that the cost to fight back against the troll would not have been 200k - with or without the pro bono.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Sure in some cases. Don't forget that patents cover a diverse array of innovations. What exactly is being infringed upon is not always that obvious.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Sure, there are always risks with litigation but in general it is not as unpredictable as outsiders think.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

That's not really how things work. Not only is that sanctionable but extremely unethical and would result in diciplinary action if reported.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

It actually happens all the time. The heightened pleading standard comes from two cases - Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1953 (2009). As the Twombly court described it - The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true." What this ends up requiring is that the plaintiff state specific factual allegations as to what the defendant is actually doing wrong. This sounds like a pretty good idea but in many cases is much more difficult than you'd think. Usually the difficultly arises because the information that supports your complaint, i.e. what the defendant is doing wrong, is totally within their control. You, as a plaintiff bringing an action, do not have access to this information until discovery starts, which is only after the complaint and an answer have been filed.

Think of it this way. You have a patent. You're pretty sure, but not positive, someone is infringing on it. Without the ability to inspect the supposed infringer's facilities, how do you plead with particularity factual allegations sufficient to support an infringment claim? If the infringment is blatent, sure this is easy. But in more nuanced cases (I can't think of a technical exmaple) it is possible to end up in a siuation where actual infringment is occuring but because of an inability to access the right information there is not enough available to sufficiently plead a claim.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

Probably not. Enforcing a patent is expensive (as most litigation is). If this law penalized trolls who filed worthless claims but rewarded those who were legitimately being infringed on then if anything it would make it less risky.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

As a lawyer I'm always concerned about changes designed to make it harder to sue someone. You almost always end up with unintended consequences. Take for example the heightened pleading standard. This standard has been used with other case types in which the allegations are considered dangerous to one's reputation, like fraud or discrimination. In many situations, people with legitimate claims have been unable to overcome the heightened pleading standard, not because their claim is weak, but because the evidence required to plead the claim is difficult to come by.

Many of the changes suggested by the article can already be accomplished using existing procedural devices. The only provision I see as having any teeth is the one that deals with fee shifting. Fee shifting provisons are a big deal as recoving attorneys fees is very rare in the American legal system. Generally fee shifting provisions allow the winner to collect legal fees even if nominal damages (e.g. $1) are awarded. This greatly increases the risk of trolling since any loss, no matter how small, could equal hundreds or thousands (probably millions) of dollars in legal fees owed to the other side.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

I think the point of the article is more that it's a problem when something that contains these drugs lables itself as a "natural supplement" when in fact it is not. The issue is not so much const control as it is deceptive marketing.

rarw

13 anni fadiscuss

I applaud the writer for his approach to making his own hub for his team. However, this is not a real 1-1 swap. In terms of pure functionality this may be an even exchange; his own platform might meet his needs just as well as GitHub. Yet it lacks major benefit - the community/public aspect of that environment. Duplicating that factor would take too much time an effort when you could just pay 7 bucks a month for the same thing.

Sometimes, while its fun to reinvent things, it just makes more sense to use what's there.

comments