While your points are valid, they are not relevant in a legal sense (at least in the United States).
An electronic signature is as good as a paper signature under the ESign Act of 2000 if they follow this definition:
`electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.`
Hell, even sending the words "I accept" via Morse code over telegraph was considered a legal signature in the 19th century.
However, if there a dispute over the authenticity of the signature and found to be fraudulant, the courts have ruled that it's not a signature then.
The problem is not disputes over the authenticity of the signature. The problem is disputes over what that signature is connected to, i.e. disputes of the form: "Yes, that is my signature, but that is not the document I signed, this over here is the document that I signed." That is the reason that when you sign a physical document you sign the actual document, and not a blank piece of paper that you then attach to the document with a paper clip.
That's what cryptographic signatures are for ("digital signature" vs "electronic signature"). Hash the document and then sign the hash, to establish probabilistic certainty as to exactly what they signed.
Sigh. If you bothered to read the article, then you'd know that it doesn't say anything about donating to the EFF. There isn't even a link in the article to donate.
All last point asks is people to support Stop Watching Us rally and other campaigns against bulk spying, run a Tor node, or hold a cryptoparty.
Your comments on surveillance tactics/hunger/climate change is just bringing up irrelevant arguments, so I won't address them.
P.S. Sorry to go on a rant, but I miss the days when people actually RTFA. (aka never gonna happen).
Minnesota DOT probably recommends zipper merging because they are taking into account that it's likely a safer (and easier) method for drivers in denser traffic.
That might be true, but it certainly sounds like a behavioral, not absolute, position. If it is behavioral, you have no guarantee that what works in Minnesota will work in Illinois, let alone a different country.
A 25% recidivism rate is pretty good considering that many might have gone to the "battlefield" as payback for their improper imprisonment. Also, it is disingenuous to conflate terrorism with insurgency as both have different motivations and "scope of battlefield."
So-called insurgents were only a threat to local presence of Americans and not interested in sticking overseas or be a part of a broader movement against America. Just because they are fighting for their country from their perspective doesn't make it right to say they are the same as terrorists.
You also have to take into account for the loss of goodwill and reputation across the world for hosting Gitmo; particularly when it has possibly radicalized more people simply by having something to point to when a terrorist recruiter propagandizes about the 'evilness of the US' and the merits of attacking us.
Just to compare, a quick google search shows that the U.S. recidivism was around 70%. It might have improved or not since the study period, but it does perspective on the issue.
A 25% recidivism rate is miniscule considering we have been told for forever that these prisoners, all of them, were the "worst of the worst".
But your general point is a good one: Is someone who joins a not-very-nice local militia really a terrorist just because US troops or lackeys happen to be nearby? The US gov't is playing too many words games IMO.
It was an idea from a reddit thread. I getting hammered in this thread, and I don't if anyone can see this. but the Backupify thing was a misunderstanding. It's okay to use World Backup Day!
I had some trouble with scammy companies and I wanted to protect people from thinking we were endorsing them. That's all
I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is. Didn't you issue a trademark on a community created idea and then hire a lawyer to enforce it? even if that lawyer made moves not authorized directly by you, this whole incident has a bad taste to it.
It was just supposed to be monitoring for some scammy companies and she got overzealous and sent a letter to Backupify (they are awesome and definitely not scammy). The lawyer said the best way to stop scammy companies would be to trademark it, I'm just a college student so I (unwisely) let them take care of it. Plus it was just an unnecessarily scary letter-not an legal action.
I just didn't want people to mess up their computer because they downloaded something that seemed to be endorsed us (fyi, we don't endorse anyone). That's all.
The original post said that they contacted you through the site you put up, and that you requested sponsorship ranging between $40k and $400k to be associated with this "holiday". That doesn't sound like you were just trying to protect public interest (which is not clear why you would think it is you who should say who can use that name or not).
from the sound of it, it is over, gone in the past. Mistakes happen, lets not publicly rip his clothes (lol). Sounds like he is sorry and its over. I hope so at least.
ah then its okay, don't worry if someone says BS about you. As long as you are right in your place, stay confident. It will only hurt, if you take it that way, just don't.
I can freaking declare this as the 'LOVE RIKA DAY' :P who cares about it anyway? if someone does, then good!
Thanks! I really appreciate that. It's just difficult to see the reaction here compared to happy reaction on Twitter and facebook. :) Your comment was nice to hear.
I can explain. It was just a misunderstanding with Backupify! Backupify is cool. The name was trademarked because some shady companies were creating ransomware/shitty software and using World Backup Day to promote it. The lawyer was just overzealous with the stupid notices. :( I apologized to Rob about the other day.
But anyone can use the name! We just wanted to protect our visitors. I am just a college student and the site was hand-coded & designed by this awesome redditor who just graduated highschool.
That was for a proposed advertising package for reddit.com. That definitely isn't coming to me.
Why doesn't anyone believe me? I live in my parent's house and I got a broken car. I love HN because it helped inspire me to do something. That's all. I'm almost crying here. :'(
Please call me at [redacted] if you don't believe me.
I'd imagine that you're suffering because the community in general is a bit skeptical about trademark enforcement issues, and the pump was primed with that Backupify snafu.
I just wanted to protect my visitors. Companies wouldn't listen to me when they found out I was student.
I hope everyone understands that. I'm just a guy in [redacted] who wanted to do something for the community. The designer/coder is just a kid who graduated from highschool. I want people to think our their data. Not to be the center of things. :(
The reason is that people are mad at you is that you took something that was an impromptu community thing and trademarked it[1], then seemingly ask a lot of money for sponsorship. Given that the site exists for promotion only, people are going to think you've co-opted the ideas of others to make a lot of money for yourself.
The "right" way to have done this would be to form a non-profit and then be accountable for the money raised, however I don't really see the need for raising money where the only cost is a simple website. The commercialization is what leaves a bad taste.
I'm really sorry about everything, but I do want to say the virtually all of the work and promotion was done by me and my friend in the beginning three years ago. (I'm hesitant to bring my friend's name in this thread even though he is an awesome designer/dev who just graduated from highschool and deserves to be recognized. Email me if you like his stuff!)
I learned my lesson. I don't know too much about legal stuff so I'll look into making non-profit. I didn't want to ask for money from people and companies were asking for sponsor World Backup Day. I thought was a nice gesture. Last year, I had a link to bone marrow registry and even had tied the message of being a "backup for a human" to get people to sign up for the registry. I wanted to do something this year, but we ran out of time to settle & create graphics for another cause.
I just wanted it to be a happy and helpful event before April Fool's Day. That is all.
An electronic signature is as good as a paper signature under the ESign Act of 2000 if they follow this definition:
`electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.`
Hell, even sending the words "I accept" via Morse code over telegraph was considered a legal signature in the 19th century.
However, if there a dispute over the authenticity of the signature and found to be fraudulant, the courts have ruled that it's not a signature then.