Amber Rudd: viewers of online terrorist material face 15 years in jail

Found on The Guardian on Tuesday, 03 October 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd.

“I don’t need to understand how encryption works to understand how it’s helping the criminals,” she went on.

Yes, she does need to understand how it works if she wants to regulate it, because if she would even have the slightest clue, she would know that her efforts are pointless and will only cause harm. Nobody outside GB will care about her little bubble and by the time she has forced eg Whatsapp to create a backdoored swiss cheese, users will have moved on to the next better and more decentralized messenger (as long as it is convenient to use). People like Rudd are the problem in politics: filled with arrogance and ignorance.

Photographer settles 'monkey selfie' legal fight

Found on BBC News on Tuesday, 12 September 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

A photographer has settled a two-year legal fight against an animal rights group over a "monkey selfie" picture.

"Peta's groundbreaking case sparked a massive international discussion about the need to extend fundamental rights to animals for their own sake, not in relation to how they can be exploited by humans," said Peta lawyer Jeff Kerr.

This "groundbreaking case" only showed that some people have way too much time at their hands if they honestly believe a monkey could claim a copyright.

Amazon was tricked by a fake law firm into removing a hot product, costing this seller $200,000

Found on CNBC on Friday, 08 September 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

Shortly before Amazon Prime Day in July, the owner of the Brushes4Less store on Amazon's marketplace received a suspension notice for his best-selling product, a toothbrush head replacement.

"Just five minutes of detective work would have found this website is a fraud, but Amazon doesn't seem to want to do any of that," the owner said. "This is like the Wild Wild West of intellectual property complaints."

He said the issue with Amazon was finally resolved on Tuesday after two months of waiting. Losing his best-selling item — a particular type of toothbrush replacement head — resulted in at least $200,000 in lost sales, he estimates.

That gives you a really bad feeling when politicians demand that corporations take care of censoring postings and articles, instead of walking the normal legal path.

No, Google Should Not Have Fired the 'Anti-Diversity' Engineer

Found on Inc on Wednesday, 09 August 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

Eaton points out that employees are allowed to talk among themselves about working conditions. This is why your boss can't ban you from sharing your salary with your co-workers.

In most states, political views aren't protected in the workplace, but in California they are. Love his views or hate them, they are definitely political in nature.

California law prohibits employers from threatening employees in order to get them to change their political views.

What Google uses to enforce tolerance is intolerance.

Re-identifying folks from anonymised data will be a crime in the UK

Found on The Register on Monday, 07 August 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

The British government is planning to impose criminal sanctions on people who intentionally re-identify individuals from data that should have protected their identities.

In a statement of intent (PDF), published today, the government says "intentionally or recklessly re-identifying individuals from anonymised or pseudonymised data" will be an offence. Those who knowingly handle or process such data will also be committing a crime, it adds.

If you can re-identify someone from anonymised data, the data was not anonymised correctly in the first place. They should change the law to cause problems for those who fail to anonymise the data they release. If this law goes through, a company can release data without really caring about privacy and later put the blame on those who re-identified people. That's not how it should work.

Honolulu targets 'smartphone zombies' with crosswalk ban

Found on Reuters on Sunday, 30 July 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

The ban comes as cities around the world grapple with how to protect phone-obsessed "smartphone zombies" from injuring themselves by stepping into traffic or running into stationary objects.

"Scrap this intrusive bill, provide more education to citizens about responsible electronics usage, and allow law enforcement to focus on larger issues," resident Ben Robinson told the city council in written testimony.

Just let Darwin do the work.

Animal rights? Monkey selfie case may undo evolution of the Internet

Found on Ars Technica on Saturday, 15 July 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

To be sure, if Naruto is deemed the owner of these infamous selfies, the monkey has the right to sue the photographer for copyright infringement. That's because David Slater, the photographer, has self-published the photos in a book, Wildlife Personalities.

PETA, in a scorched Earth litigation approach, is also suing Blurb, the online publishing platform Slater chose to create his e-book and hard-cover book.

Would it be too far-fetched to assume that PETA, in case it wins, would volunteer to represent all those animals, act on their behalf, collect all the royalties and manage those funds? Of course you would have to take their word for it, because said animals cannot express their demands in front of a court; how convenient. Who knows, that monkey even might have put the images in question under a creative commons license, but that makes no money for PETA, who happily kills most of the animals that were given to them.

Walmart sued after teen steals machete and kills her Uber driver

Found on Ars Technica on Tuesday, 27 June 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

The family of an Uber driver murdered on the job in Illinois is taking Walmart to court. In a Cook County lawsuit, (PDF) the family of driver Grant T. Nelson alleges that the retail giant was negligent when it allowed the murder suspect to steal a machete and a knife before walking past security personnel without being stopped.

The girl has been charged with murder as an adult in connection to Nelson's death, and she remains jailed without bail.

Now you can get into legal trouble for not noticing a thief? It's in Walmart's interest to catch them all, but still enough slip through the monitoring. With a similar argumentation, you could sue police for not stopping her.

Does US have right to data on overseas servers? We’re about to find out

Found on Ars Technica on Sunday, 25 June 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

The Justice Department on Friday petitioned the US Supreme Court to step into an international legal thicket, one that asks whether US search warrants extend to data stored on foreign servers. The US government says it has the legal right, with a valid court warrant, to reach into the world's servers with the assistance of the tech sector, no matter where the data is stored.

In a nutshell, the US government claims it should not matter where the data is stored. What matters is whether the company can access that data in the US.

As long as the servers are within US borders, the government can have access. Outside the borders, it can not (unless they are maybe on embassy grounds). The US does no own the world.

NSA's alleged leaker got tripped up by a secret printer feature

Found on CNet News on Tuesday, 06 June 2017
Browse Legal-Issues

On Monday, the National Security Agency contractor was charged in a Georgia court with releasing classified material to a news outlet.

The pages from the NSA's printers came with invisible tracking dots. This is a common feature in modern printers for forensics investigations, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

That was pretty much it for The Intercept. No whistleblower will risk it ever again to contact them with important information after that. The tracking feature is no secret, and everybody involved into this should have known.