Quotulatiousness

July 12, 2011

An amusing copyright tale (for a change)

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 16:06

Jesse Brown has the most entertaining copyright story I’ve read in quite a while:

But some of the hooligans exposed on Youtube found a clever way to get the video removed—copyright claims. Under Youtube’s “Notice and Takedown” policy, all you need to do is claim you own the rights to a video and demand that it be removed, and Youtube will remove it. The video’s uploader will be informed of the allegation and then have a chance to challenge it.

But here’s the rub: in order to claim ownership of a video’s copyright, you have to identify yourself. And when Youtube informs the uploader that they’re being accused of a copyright violation, they have to tell them who their accuser is. So rioters are indirectly handing their names over to the very people who were trying to identify them.

Dealing with irritations: two varieties

Filed under: Books, Education, Media, Randomness, Technology — Tags: — Nicholas @ 14:38

First up, Charles Stross is questioned about his “credentials” by a budding scholar:

From: numpty#@gmail.com

     Hello, I’m citing your work for a debate article I’m using about space colonization and how it is improbable. I do need credentials however, and I’ve yet to find them online. If you could reply with your credentials that’d be great.

     (I assume he’s talking about this; it’s all over the internet, triggered a firestorm, and I keep getting gimme emails from content farms asking to reprint it.)

From: me

     I’m a novelist, not an academic. If you want credentials, go look me up in wikipedia.

From: numpty#@gmail.com

     Your time is clearly very valuable, as you would rather argue with me over this than simply take a minute or two to state your credentials. Furthermore, I have no need to know the extent of your writings, I simply need to know if you are indeed certified to be considered a credible source on the topic. For instance, if your credible knowledge is on the topic of slaads and borrowing from George R. R. Martin, you are not considered a credible source on space colonization. So let me just ask you this, why should I believe your article has any rational basis, when for all I know now is your true expertise lies in the githyanki.

And in another instance, Dark Water Muse has to deal with a clueless telephone solicitation:

I had the privilege today of being phoned by fraudsters phishing for access to my computer. This is the second time I’ve received this type of call and I’ve used the same response in both cases. Try it, it’s fun.

[The phone rings. callee answers the phone.]

Callee: Hello?

[several seconds pass before the background noises of a busy call centre can be heard]

Caller [affected by a thick South Asian accent]: Hello?

Callee: Hello??

Caller: can I speak to Mr…uhhh…Goon…please?

Another end-run around privacy expectations

Filed under: Law, Liberty, Technology, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:44

Julian Sanchez thinks the government has stopped caring whether you are innocent or guilty online:

Thanks to an unwise Supreme Court decision dating from the 70s, information about your private activites loses its Fourth Amendment protection when its held by a “third party” corporation, like a phone company or Internet provider. As many legal scholars have noted, however, this allows constitutional privacy safeguards to be circumvented via a clever two-step process. Step one: The government forces private businesses (ideally the kind a citizen in the modern world can’t easily avoid dealing with) to collect and store certain kinds of information about everyone — anyone might turn out to be a criminal, after all. No Fourth Amendment issue there, because it’s not the government gathering it! Step two: The government gets a subpoena or court order to obtain that information, quite possibly without your knowledge. No Fourth Amendment problem here either, according to the Supreme Court, because now they’re just getting a corporation’s business records, not your private records. It makes no difference that they’re only keeping those records because the government said they had to.

Current law already allows law enforcement to require retention of data about specific suspects — including e-mails and other information as well as IP addresses — to ensure that evidence isn’t erased while they build up enough evidence for a court order. But why spearfish when you can lower a dragnet? Blanket data requirements ensure easy access to a year-and-a-half snapshot of the online activities of millions of Americans — every one a potential criminal.

Settling the Caledonia issue . . . in time for the provincial election

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:12

Christie Blatchford finds the timing of the settlement to be “arguably suspicious”:

The last page of the Caledonia class action settlement is the one that tells the shameful truth of what happened five years ago in that lovely small southwestern Ontario town.

The settlement was the result of a lawsuit against the government and the Ontario Provincial Police filed by 440 residents, 400 businesses and a handful of sub-contractors affected by the native occupation there five years ago.

The deal has been repeatedly portrayed purely as a “compensation” package since it was formally announced by the Ontario government last Friday.

The government’s brief press release used carefully neutral language: The settlement is called an “agreement” which “provides compensation” for those who suffered “direct losses” during the course of “the protest.”

It is, in a word, bunk.

Have the markets already “priced in” the risk of a US government default?

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:48

Along with everyone else, I’ve been watching the US government’s fiscal game of “chicken” with some alarm. What is puzzling is that the opposition in congress doesn’t seem to be all that scared by the risk of default:

The facts, in fact, are plain enough. In the unlikely event that the U.S. government would hit the real ceiling on August 2 as advertised, the federal government would still be on track to collect about $2.2 trillion in the fiscal year. That wouldn’t change. And net interest for the year would still be about $205 billion, or less than a tenth of incoming revenues. And in light of the consequences, there is no doubt that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary would ensure that the interest payments are made on time and in full.

Thus it should not be surprising, as Fox Business News senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino wrote in a New York Post piece some days ago that “just about every private-sector economist I speak to says that Treasury could simply use its ample cash on hand to pay off our creditors first—then begin to prioritize payments for the military and various social programs.”

This view appears to be shared in spades by the credit markets, which so far have reacted to the Obama-media scare tactics with a big yawn. When the markets fear real default, they respond by jacking up interest rates, as we’ve seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc. It’s happening right now in those countries.

In sharp contrast, U.S. long-term rates are actually falling. The 10-year Treasury bond rate, which only a few days ago was around 3.15 percent, has dropped 20 basis points to 2.95 percent. Maybe the markets just aren’t paying attention. Or maybe they know Obama and Company are blowing smoke. Whether the debt ceiling is raised on time or not, markets are confident that the interest will be paid.

Powered by WordPress