If someone at your police department has leaked a sensitive documents, how should you respond?
A. Conduct an internal investigation to find the source of the leak
B. Raid a journalist’s home
If you’re the San Francisco Police Department, you do both.
JOURNALISTS IN FRANCE are facing potential jail sentences in an unprecedented case over their handling of secret documents detailing the country’s involvement in the Yemen conflict.Earlier this week, a reporter from Radio France and the co-founders of Paris-based investigative news organization Disclose were called in for questioning at the offices of the General Directorate for Internal Security, known as the DGSI. The agency is tasked with fighting terrorism, espionage, and other domestic threats, similar in function to the FBI in the United States.The two news organizations published stories in April — together with The Intercept, Mediapart, ARTE Info, and Konbini News — that revealed the vast amount of French, British, and American military equipment sold to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and subsequently used by those nations to wage war in Yemen.
It’s the trademark story that simply won’t go away and in which the legal system appears to get everything wrong. The saga of the San Diego Comic-Con’s legal adventures against what was formerly the Salt Lake Comic Con (now rebranded as FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention) has been brutally frustrating. The whole thing started when the SDCC decided somewhat out of the blue to begin enforcing a trademark it had been granted for “Comic-Con” against the Utah production. The trademark original sin of this story began all the way back with the USPTO, which absurdly granted the SDCC its trademark for a purely descriptive term, one which is only unrecognizable as such due to the shortening of the second word from “convention” to “con.” Despite that, the trademark suit brought against the Salt Lake Comic Con somehow ended in a win by jury for the SDCC, which was awarded only $20k. In the trial, SLCC had pointed out several times that the term “comic-con” was both descriptive in nature and clearly had been abandoned by SDCC, evidenced by the long list of other comic conventions going by the term carried out throughout the country.
We have had the same here at IgnorantAndUnreasonable
Dear Google RTBF reviewer (who I’m sure will be reading this soon): Under the terms of the GDPR, you are only supposed to agree to a content removal if what we are publishing is “personal data” that is no longer necessary, and (importantly, please read this, guys) that is not “for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information” or “for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes….” This post, like the last few, are news stories that are in the public interest, specifically about how someone is abusing the GDPR’s “right to erasure” process to delete news reports about his abuse of the GDPR “right to erasure” process. This story is not about anything earlier that Thomas Goolnik may or may not have done. It is about what he did within the last few days. It is not old. It is not no longer relevant. It is directly relevant, and this post should not be subject to any GDPR right to erasure claims.Dear Thomas Goolnik: Seriously dude? How much longer is this going to go on? It is legal for a news report to mention your name. We’re not even talking about the original think you want forgotten. We’re talking about what you’ve been up to the past few years trying to get everyone to forget the thing you want forgotten. Maybe let it go.
Inadvertently highlights easy abuse of IP protection
Imagine getting shocked at work by an industrial electric current so severely that you fall backwards, urinate on yourself, and have pain, numbness, and balance problems. Third-party doctors subsequently confirm, yep, you were electrocuted. But then a manager from your employer steps in and says, no it was just minor static electric shock, like the kind you get when you touch a doorknob after walking on the rug, just so the company isn’t on the hook for the associated medical costs with your treatment and doesn’t have to report the workplace injury to regulators. That’s what apparently happened at Tesla’s Fremont factory, according to a new report from Reveal from the Center of Investigative Reporting.
In the past week, the Internet Archive has received a series of email notices from Europol’s European Union Internet Referral Unit (EU IRU) falsely identifying hundreds of URLs on archive.org as “terrorist propaganda”. At least one of these mistaken URLs was also identified as terrorist content in a separate take down notice from the French government’s L’Office Central de Lutte contre la Criminalité liée aux Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (OCLCTIC)
And just in case you think that maybe the requests are somehow legit, they are so obviously bogus that anyone with a browser would know they are bogus. Included in the list of takedown demands are a bunch of the Archive’s “collection pages” including the entire Project Gutenberg page of public domain texts, it’s collection of over 15 million freely downloadable texts, the famed Prelinger Archive of public domain films and the Archive’s massive Grateful Dead collection. Oh yeah, also a page of CSPAN recordings. So much terrorist content!
Nestled within the committee’s agenda was Senate Bill 614, which would require abortion providers to counsel patients seeking medication abortion that the process can be reversed. Under the proposed law, a doctor who fails to provide this counsel would be committing a felony and potentially facing lengthy prison time.
Remember Thomas Goolnik? Apparently, he doesn’t think you should. But let’s start this post off with some special notes for two specific parties, and then we’ll get into some more details:
Dear Thomas Goolnik: I’m assuming you’re reading this because you seem to come across every post we write about you and then file bullshit complaints in the EU about how they need to be forgotten. And, every time that happens, we write another post. Perhaps you should think about not trying to abuse the GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten, and recognize that it’s perfectly legal to mention your name. We won’t even mention the original original story you so badly want censored, even though I imagine lots of people will now go hunt that down.
Dear Google RTBF reviewers: this is not an article about some long ago no-longer-relevant event in Mr. Goolnik’s past. Even if we disagree about whether historical convictions should be disappeared down the memory hole, the right to be forgotten is supposed to apply only to past events that are no longer occurring. This article is not about Mr. Goolnik’s past. It is about his present: the fact that he repeatedly is abusing the Right to be Forgotten rules to try to delete our articles about him. This article is about this most recent attempt, and not his past, whatever that might include.
the German delegation had actually pushed back on the more extreme versions of Article 13 — and, in particular, had demanded that a final version have a clear carve-out for smaller companies, so as not to have them forced out of business by the onerous demands of the law. However, after some back and forth, Germany caved in to France’s demands, with many left scratching their heads as to why. However, some noted the “coincidence” in timing, that right after this, France also withdrew its objections to the pipeline which is very controversial in the EU (and the US, which is threatening sanctions).