down below in reply to another of your posts I explained why this is wrongful in both a criminal and civil case.
The search was not authorised in any way whatsoever, it wasn't even authorised under MS's own WRITTEN policy and therefore is at minimum forfeiture of contract by themselves.
The reason why people want LEO's searching through things for criminal and civil tort purposes is called due process. It is designed to allow transparency and the use of un-biased parties that have no axe to grind.
Or do you in your practice as a Sys engineer go searching all logs for pertinent passwords and other identifiers of all clients that use your systems because your feelings might be hurt or you somehow assume that something wrongful might of occurred? If so you should be sacked and criminally prosecuted if not.. well why are you so aghast at people questioning MS doing nearly exactly the same thing.
What a sham[e]. This is what passes off for anonymous trolling in Techdirt? It's posts like this that make it hard to take the art of trolling seriously anymore.
If the information is going to be used in a criminal matter where you are classified as the victim then THE ONLY way to do this is to allow LEO's the ability to run the whole thing.
That's what criminal investigations are for. That's why Victims and witness's play no part in investigations other than giving statements and facts that are requested. If they give information on their own behest then that information if it is to become evidence has to be verified as correct. The informant (in this regard the victim) has too much of a bias for this to not occur.
A warrant/subpoena is not just to obtain evidence. It is the procedural correct way of allowing that evidence to be properly obtained by the appropriate parties for ALL sides. Otherwise anarchy reigns and rules of evidence goes out the window and hearsay is fully allowed in criminal matters.
Civil cases on the other hand are different though the same problems of bias, relevance, authenticity and probity also crop up with discovery. This is why it is always best practice to allow outside third parties that have no other interests in analysing, obtaining, and preserving this sort of volatile data.
Microsoft were trying to enact a criminal investigation internally being judge, jury and executioner. That's wrong both legally and ethically anywhere.
As for their statement of "While our own search was clearly within our legal rights", that is blatantly false in the context of what they were planning to use that evidence from the search for.
Microsoft don't require the warrant if they send it to law enforcement.. LEO's require the warrant to comply with all legal and evidential procedure and allow that evidence (if any) to be obtained via legal, unbiased and appropriate means.
The warrant is handed to the company but it is actually a warrant to AUTHORISE the acquirement of the evidence by the LEO's not by the company.
Maybe the debacle has gotten to the point where letting them 'practice' (and I use that word very loosely in context with the Prenda attorneys) is doing the work for them since they would be, I'm guessing based on my own jurisdictions policies (not USA), teetering on criminality situations now.
Also it's gotten to the point that it will be a HUGE PR disaster for any bars since the question will be now asked by a huge amount of areas (main stream media is but one) of "WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE THIS LONG". So maybe its a matter of "if we do nothing they will hang themselves for us"
>>>First part of 2 is wrong. They think they know all the tricks. They aren't very bright if you ask me.
This!!! a thousand times this!
Though they now have by submitting that CPA attached letter of non-endorsement on their own case ammunition in any mental competency hearing that they will probably plead next. Ah to be a fly on the wall in the judge's chambers if that sort of gem of a defense ever gets submitted.
You mean the same author wrote very well known and best selling B&D incestuous porn under a pseudonym and then wrote a very good series of very well written books (the Vampire Lestat, Memnoch, Queen of the damned etc - that were 1 zillion times better and more relevant to the mythology than Twilight) and then 'sees the light' to become a Born Again Invisible space zombie worshiper???
Surely you're mistaken.. That would mean she's a hypocritical person who though can write extremely well has no freakin clue about anything else (and has major personality issues)
Yes but if one of the persons (the cop) is only dumb enough to think the fake product is drugs (even after testing it) and the other person in the conspiracy is actually stating that it is NOT drugs the two person test for conspiracy fails.
Though the one person test for "is this LEO a complete moron in a hurry" absolutely checks all the boxes.
Intent is the mens rea of the action yes but it still requires the actus reus for a crime to have either occurred or for a REASONABLE person to believe that a crime is IMMINENTLY about to occur (and even then it is fraught with problems)
Though possession does come into your (USA) criminal laws (nowhere else in the common law world though) as a voluntary act so meets the actus element in some instances. Though only as a possession charge NOT as anything else.
Though in the above instance INTENT has to be proved and that's going to be hard especially if it was a non common obvious substance (ie: wax) they are trying to prove was being passed off as an illegal substance like crack cocaine.
Re: Re: So, is a "personal" blog on the WWW also "commercial"?
probably not since 'Registration' of a copyright is automatic and not needed most laces in thew world if you intend to take action under that copyright. Only America does it really require physical and separate registration of the work for statutory or otherwise damages to be obtained
In Australia we have had Redskin's for ages... I remember many a day as a young grommet when I would head up to the corner store my hand tightly clutching a 20cent piece and buy at least 5 of the things so I could enjoy the rasberry goodness of pure sugar and gooeyness when they become long stringy things. Then trying to wash off all the evidence of my indulgence since my whole mouth (skin on my face) was a bright red.
We have had Nestle REDSKINS in Australia for at least the last 5 decades though admittedly due to sensitive Americans (we call them pussies) Nestle changed the wrapper in the 1990's to remove the American Indian on them and replaced it with just the word, oh and it's trademarked Worldwide.
On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So...
did the big bad techdirt man make you look like a complete moron with his facts.
awwwwwwwwwwww
On the post: Kudos: Microsoft Changes Policy, Promises Not To Inspect Customers' Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Recheck facts
The search was not authorised in any way whatsoever, it wasn't even authorised under MS's own WRITTEN policy and therefore is at minimum forfeiture of contract by themselves.
The reason why people want LEO's searching through things for criminal and civil tort purposes is called due process. It is designed to allow transparency and the use of un-biased parties that have no axe to grind.
Or do you in your practice as a Sys engineer go searching all logs for pertinent passwords and other identifiers of all clients that use your systems because your feelings might be hurt or you somehow assume that something wrongful might of occurred? If so you should be sacked and criminally prosecuted if not.. well why are you so aghast at people questioning MS doing nearly exactly the same thing.
On the post: Team Prenda Slammed Again, Found In Contempt; Judge Blasts Their Attempts To Plead Poverty
Re:
There Fixed it for ya
On the post: Kudos: Microsoft Changes Policy, Promises Not To Inspect Customers' Content
Re: Re: Re: Recheck facts
That's what criminal investigations are for. That's why Victims and witness's play no part in investigations other than giving statements and facts that are requested. If they give information on their own behest then that information if it is to become evidence has to be verified as correct. The informant (in this regard the victim) has too much of a bias for this to not occur.
A warrant/subpoena is not just to obtain evidence. It is the procedural correct way of allowing that evidence to be properly obtained by the appropriate parties for ALL sides. Otherwise anarchy reigns and rules of evidence goes out the window and hearsay is fully allowed in criminal matters.
Civil cases on the other hand are different though the same problems of bias, relevance, authenticity and probity also crop up with discovery. This is why it is always best practice to allow outside third parties that have no other interests in analysing, obtaining, and preserving this sort of volatile data.
Microsoft were trying to enact a criminal investigation internally being judge, jury and executioner. That's wrong both legally and ethically anywhere.
As for their statement of "While our own search was clearly within our legal rights", that is blatantly false in the context of what they were planning to use that evidence from the search for.
On the post: Kudos: Microsoft Changes Policy, Promises Not To Inspect Customers' Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Recheck facts
The warrant is handed to the company but it is actually a warrant to AUTHORISE the acquirement of the evidence by the LEO's not by the company.
On the post: Team Prenda Slammed Again, Found In Contempt; Judge Blasts Their Attempts To Plead Poverty
Re:
Good one John *facepalm*
On the post: Team Prenda Slammed Again, Found In Contempt; Judge Blasts Their Attempts To Plead Poverty
Re:
Also it's gotten to the point that it will be a HUGE PR disaster for any bars since the question will be now asked by a huge amount of areas (main stream media is but one) of "WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE THIS LONG". So maybe its a matter of "if we do nothing they will hang themselves for us"
On the post: Team Prenda Slammed Again, Found In Contempt; Judge Blasts Their Attempts To Plead Poverty
Re: Re: Two reasons:
This!!! a thousand times this!
Though they now have by submitting that CPA attached letter of non-endorsement on their own case ammunition in any mental competency hearing that they will probably plead next. Ah to be a fly on the wall in the judge's chambers if that sort of gem of a defense ever gets submitted.
On the post: Anne Rice Battles Mean Anonymous Amazon Trolls, Ignores Fact Many Anonymous Users Add Great Value
Re:
Surely you're mistaken.. That would mean she's a hypocritical person who though can write extremely well has no freakin clue about anything else (and has major personality issues)
On the post: Sheriff's Dept. Charges Man With No Drugs With 'Intent To Distribute Counterfeit Controlled Substances'
Re:
Though the one person test for "is this LEO a complete moron in a hurry" absolutely checks all the boxes.
On the post: Sheriff's Dept. Charges Man With No Drugs With 'Intent To Distribute Counterfeit Controlled Substances'
Re: the law
Though possession does come into your (USA) criminal laws (nowhere else in the common law world though) as a voluntary act so meets the actus element in some instances. Though only as a possession charge NOT as anything else.
Though in the above instance INTENT has to be proved and that's going to be hard especially if it was a non common obvious substance (ie: wax) they are trying to prove was being passed off as an illegal substance like crack cocaine.
On the post: Sheriff's Dept. Charges Man With No Drugs With 'Intent To Distribute Counterfeit Controlled Substances'
Re: Re: Imitation Drugs
oh wait...
On the post: Sheriff's Dept. Charges Man With No Drugs With 'Intent To Distribute Counterfeit Controlled Substances'
Re:
uhuh...
Advertising.. a tax on stupid people!
On the post: Sheriff's Dept. Charges Man With No Drugs With 'Intent To Distribute Counterfeit Controlled Substances'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh
and you are 'baked'?
right! that's enough.. your done for
On the post: Rap Artists Wu-Tang Clan Fight Infinite Goods By Selling One Copy Of Their Next Album... For $1 Million
On the post: UK Lawmakers Seeking Harsher Sentences For The Crime Of Being A Jerk Online
Re:
On the post: German Court Says Creative Commons 'Non-Commercial' Licenses Must Be Purely For Personal Use
Re: Re: Re: So, is a "personal" blog on the WWW also "commercial"?
On the post: German Court Says Creative Commons 'Non-Commercial' Licenses Must Be Purely For Personal Use
Re: Re: So, is a "personal" blog on the WWW also "commercial"?
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
Redskins are Yummy sugary goodness downunder
We have had Nestle REDSKINS in Australia for at least the last 5 decades though admittedly due to sensitive Americans (we call them pussies) Nestle changed the wrapper in the 1990's to remove the American Indian on them and replaced it with just the word, oh and it's trademarked Worldwide.
Before the change.. [image]
After the 'sensitivity' change [image]
On the post: USPTO: Again, Redskin Can't Be Trademarked Because It's A Racist Term
Re: Re: Re: But...
Well each to their own.. though I prefer mine in their own armour that way it's not such a tight fit
:)
Next >>