Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Yeah, well, like, you know.

There's this thing... enemy combatant.

The trick is for the US Government to find a lawyer who can successfully argue to sanction the guy and that it wasn't illegal. (It had been done.)

The point is that its a bad argument on the point of DAM (Destroy All Monsters) .

Re: Recognise the voice?

No need.

There are other ways to identify the individual.

Re: The Green Brigade

RANGERS!!!

Re: No Shock Here...

Wow...

I guess commentards who down voted haven't looked at relevant case history.

It gets down to what is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Walking naked on to a bus in the middle of the day and they trying to sue someone for taking a snap... claiming that they violated your privacy? Sorry that's going to fall flat.

Fighting the charges that you got caught listening to your neighbor's 900mhz analog phone. (Again showing my age), claiming that since they were broadcasting over the open air between the handset and base station that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy? Good luck fighting that one.

It goes back to the SCOTUS case where a guy when in to a public payphone to place a call to his bookie in another state. What he didnt know was that the Feds had set up a wire tap, but failed to get a warrant.

SCOTUS tossed the conviction because the recording was obtained illegally. The suspect had a reasonable expectation of privacy by going in to a phone booth to place a call.

That was in the 60's and there are cases going forward that show how SCOTUS feels about protecting one's privacy.

WAR DRIVING, even done by a corporate giant. Is still illegal.

@Adrew ... Re: Good. Now it's time to end retransmission fees.

"There is a compulsory license regime for US cable companies - so they can use the free-to-air transmissions and TV companies can't stop them, but they must pay a statutory below-market rate."

This isn't exactly true.

Satellite provider Direct TV can't rebroadcast Over the Air channels like ABC, CBS, NBC in areas where the local affiliate doesn't grant them permission, if there is a local affiliate in the area. So even if you're unable to get the over the air signal from the local affiliate, if they say no, you don't get that channel on satellite.

Its not always a simple thing.

@Anatak Re: @Justin... Flip the coin

Suppose I want to take my over-the-air or any other broadcast that I receive at home and use my computer as a DVR. Then suppose I want to store that copy 'in the cloud'... I then want to play it back on my TV or PC, I should be able to do so. However, the moment you share it... you're going to be afoul of the law.

Yes, if 100's of people does this, then there are 100's copies and each of you are paying for the storage and costs of streaming. But it would be legal.

Re: Pyrrhic Victory

Nope.

That's pure bunk.

Most people in cities get their TV from either Sat or Cable.

In a condo, where do you hang your antenna? ;-)

(You know what I mean...)

So you get OtA tv already. You're not missing a thing.

@Justin... Re: Flip the coin

In some of the articles, the authors say that the courts saw through the sham.

That is to say that there are 'hundreds' of antennas and that there is one per 'customer'?

Ok and that suppose they all wanted to 'record' the US vs Germany in World Cup action.

How many copies does Aereo actually make and retain?

If you believe 1 per antenna... I've got some swampland in Florida you might be interested in.

The difference between you recording your own shows using hardware so that you can watch it anytime and virtually anywhere... (assuming you have the correct software) is that you're not providing the recording as a service and are charging for that service. Were you to do that, then you'd be on the hook like Aereo.

Note that if you look at what you want to do with 'over the air'... google hulu.

Re: Makes someone happy?

Sorry, but when you cut a single sentence taken out of context...

The point was that just because something brings enjoyment to someone doesn't mean it should be made legal or right.

In the UK there was a show on football hooligans. Those who love to go and get in to fights for the sake of fighting. They enjoy it. Should it be legal?

Uncontrolled/Unregulated prostitution. Should that be legal?

By the argument espoused by the company, it should when it shouldn't.

Then there's the city's side. Its illegal to try and profit from a public resource.

Suppose its a very hot day and you want to take a drink from a public drinking fountain. (Yes, I'm showing my age because today you'd buy a bottle of water.) But when you got to the drinking fountain there were a couple of tough guys who told you it would cost you a couple of bucks to take a drink...

You get the idea. So by the company's perspective... that would be legal.

To look at it a different way, under the law, the person who's selling a public spot doesn't own the public spot or rights to the public spot.

Re: >"where he will be persecuted for leaking thousands of American and British diplomatic cables"

Funny thing.

What apparently scared Assange is that in the Article 32 hearing the allegation was that Assange helped with the theft.

Small detail that has serious implications.

Re: oh but that's just the start...

Yes, there is an Ecuadorian embassy in Australia.

But Assange has to fly and land in Australia. That takes time.

He has to be processed in.

That takes time.

He could be held for a short period of time by the Aussie government. (He's a bad boy now..)

The Ecuadorian Embassy may not want him after 2 years as a guest.

Lots of things can happen.

Re: oh but that's just the start...

I suggest you go back and check out the charges. He would be charged where the one count carried a maximum of 4 years.

In the US that would be a felony and not a misdemeanor. You don't swear out an EAW for a charge that carries only a fine. (Seems you've been listening to Assange's spin.)

Again, the US hasn't filed any charges so he faces nothing in the US. Right now the threat of US is of a paranoid man child. But then again, only Julian knows what he did and maybe he has a guilty conscience?

And yes, he'll eventually end up in Australia. He's Australian and that probably should scare him the most.

Re: Why would Sweden send him when we haven't...?

They wouldn't send him.

He goes back to the UK and even the UK wouldnt send him.

They'd boot him back to Australia.

That's where the fun begins.

Re: Maybe he could get out by

Then he could try this...

get a ducted fan 'tub' attached to a helium balloon. In the dead of night, he could float silently away to a high enough altitude where the noise of a 'quiet' fan wouldn't be heard by the ground plods. He scoots away far enough... lands, changes with someone else and then high tails it to a ship waiting to take him to another ship off the coast. Then he can take a slow freighter to Ecuador before he's found out.

Hey! It would make a great spy novel escape. To add to it... the Ecuadorian Embassy could help by making an outdoor broadcast of the world cup (noise and all) and then use lighting to hide his escape. (Remember how magicians used lighting to make the Statue of Liberty disappear? Its an optical illusion that creates the blind spot and then the noise and distraction will give him his gap.

Just saying...

Re: Ecuadorian embassy

He wouldn't go to Gitmo.

Obama would have Holder try him in a NY Federal court.

Manning would come out in drag and testify.

(Say what you will, but Manning as weird as he is... still will tell the truth under oath.)

So no Gitmo.

Its the Federal prison system that probably scares Assange. There he will disappear in plain sight.

(He'll be a number in the prison system with no real connection to the outside. Depending on which prison, he'll probably become some guy Bubba's new 'girlfriend'.... ) To Assange, that's not a happy ending ...

oh but that's just the start...

First, had you read the papers lately? The US is in no position to do anything about Assange and could ill afford to interfere especially with ISIS and Iraq.

So he goes to Sweden.

Worst case... he's charged and faces 4 years in prison. (He's still on the hook for that. And under the law, I believe that's the max he would face for that offense.) But the odds are he would face much less than that if found guilty. He could even offer a plea deal where he serves no time.

So after Sweden he's returned to the UK.

He then faces the music.

He will most likely face a stiff penalty and may get jail time.

He is then put on a plane and tossed from the UK back to Australia.

Here's where it gets interesting.

He's probably going to lose his passport and his rights to leave the country.

The US if they decide to charge him, can then easily get an extradition from Australia. Remember he's a convict and he was charged and found guilty of hacking US Computers as a teen. IMHO its probably the best shot the US has of getting him, if they wanted him and of course it depends on who's in office at the time. (US and Aussie).

If he's lucky... he can slip through, get a Ecuador passport and leave Australia before this could happen.

That's the end game. Then he'll be in a country sized prison just like Snowden.

Re: Who cost the taxpayer £6M?

Nope he did commit a crime.

He jumped bail.

He should have been under arrest during his appeals hearing. He should have been in jail however he was given bail.

The minute he walks out of the embassy, he's going to jail with no chance for bail.

Re: Who cost the taxpayer £6M?

Actually if he walks out... he gets nabbed by the UK and then they decide what to do with him.

He could personally be on the hook for the expense of the police circle and at the end... he won't go to Ecuador but to Australia since he entered the country on an Aussie passport.

From Australia... he'll be fair game...

Re: Not subject to copyright laws?

Cute!

But the big difference is that the copyright holder is the one who posts the work to twitter... ;-)