Course? Why? They already know what their legal standing is. That's the best part of being a $4 billion/year plus law university: you know what your legal standing is.
They also know that the student is not going to be able pony up $500,000 to fight for his rights.
All it cost the university to shut the student down is a couple of $150 hours of one of university's retained law firm's paralegals to threaten to crush the student. Why should that waste of time bother the university? It's worth it to get rid of the nuisance.
No, like any major rights holder, they know full well what the score is: them, $300; nuisance student, silenced, unwelcome idea crushed, rights immaterial.
Compare the cell phone market. In order to sell cell phones for a particular network, such as AT&T, the cell phone has to meet certain gatekeeper requirements. It is not the customer that decides those, but the manufacturer.
This proposed cable box market would be similar: the cable boxes will meet gatekeeper requirements or they can't run on a particular cable system at all. The customer will not get to decide those requirements. But in that market, the customer gets a choice of cable boxes, and where to actually buy them, and the available features, and the price they pay.
Right now, the cable company provides this crappy 100 Watt round-the-clock box that has damn few features. They probably pay $10-$30 for the box, but they charge me $5-$10 a month to have it.
A market more like the cell phone market is much to my advantage, as a consumer, and the security aspect is way overblown.
Let's see...doing it forensic evidence right versus doing a cakewalk to conviction. How do we think real-world CSI's will decide?
Forensic scientists can debate until they're blue, but nothing is changing until their testimony starts sinking cases. And since forensic scientists are "free" for testimony at $400/hour or so, guess how much testimony they'll be giving for average man.
To me, this seems a reasonable change--mostly. The primary purpose of the existing rule 41 under discussion is to prevent venue shopping for warrants, not to prevent warrants entirely when the FBI has no idea where someone resides.
Where it falls down is "particularity"; with respect to the Fourth Amendment clause, "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As I see it, the problem isn't that a warrant was used to access a computer at an unknown location, the problem was that a single warrant was used to access every computer at every location.
Warrants under a new rule 41 should serve only for technical identification of a computer. Once a computer has been identified particularly, the FBI should have to obtain a specific warrant to search that computer particularly.
Suppose the government gained control of a drug distribution point, and decided to continue to ship drugs...along with a free tracker in every bag. A single NIT-equivalent warrant should be good for that, even though the government has no idea where the bags are going (could be going to another state).
But once a particular bag has been delivered to a particular warehouse, for example, the government should have to obtain a warrant particular to that warehouse.
Rule 41 did fall down, I just disagree as to the extent of the breakdown and the flaws of the proposed correction.
EFF, ACLU And Public Records Laws teamed up? Unfair, unfair: it's three against one! Ganging up against the might of the entire Milwaukee Police Department!
If there were even a tiny bit of accountability within the Minooka Police Department--if the officers of the department only violated procedure a tiny bit of the time--maybe there would have been fewer people asking for body camera footage.
What's quite obvious is that, now that Microsoft has successfully delegated the lawsuits to the government, it no longer needs to sue itself and can save all that money.
It's the same thing the insurance companies do now. They take premiums, take 15% off the top for profit, pay another 35% to an administrative services company, then pay the rest to an underwriter for services. The underwriter takes 50% off the top (underwriters aren't regulated by the insurance board) and then pays the rest to a secondary underwriter. The secondary underwriter takes 50% off the top...
50%*50%*50%*50% leaves 6% or so for claims...is it any surprise the insurance company files bankruptcy at the drop of a hurricane rumor? All perfectly legal; you can audit the daylights out of them and no one is "taking more than they're legally entitled to take."
The state of Florida offered to underwrite the insurance companies for free, and the insurance companies snubbed it because it would mean less profit for the stockholders.
They gave value (support for TPP) in exchange for value (right to compete). The right to compete was supposed to be unconditional (even though winning was conditional) and one party was official, so that's a bribe.
No, it's not "better than nothing," it is nothing.
She's demonstrated she's completely earnest about her position, but the court has demonstrated all the interest they would have in a buzzing fly. "Go away, insect."
The car salesman doesn't want to give you time to look under the hood, sit in the seat, or kick the tires. He demands you sign on the dotted line, right this second.
We all would know what that means, and it probably means the same in the case of TPP.
And the proper solution to an untrustworthy salesman? Walk away.
On the post: University Educates Student On How Everyone Will Abuse Trademark Law
Re:
They also know that the student is not going to be able pony up $500,000 to fight for his rights.
All it cost the university to shut the student down is a couple of $150 hours of one of university's retained law firm's paralegals to threaten to crush the student. Why should that waste of time bother the university? It's worth it to get rid of the nuisance.
No, like any major rights holder, they know full well what the score is: them, $300; nuisance student, silenced, unwelcome idea crushed, rights immaterial.
On the post: The Cable Industry Threatens To Sue If FCC Tries To Bring Competition To Cable Set Top Boxes
Re:
Compare the cell phone market. In order to sell cell phones for a particular network, such as AT&T, the cell phone has to meet certain gatekeeper requirements. It is not the customer that decides those, but the manufacturer.
This proposed cable box market would be similar: the cable boxes will meet gatekeeper requirements or they can't run on a particular cable system at all. The customer will not get to decide those requirements. But in that market, the customer gets a choice of cable boxes, and where to actually buy them, and the available features, and the price they pay.
Right now, the cable company provides this crappy 100 Watt round-the-clock box that has damn few features. They probably pay $10-$30 for the box, but they charge me $5-$10 a month to have it.
A market more like the cell phone market is much to my advantage, as a consumer, and the security aspect is way overblown.
On the post: FBI Spent $1.3 Million To Not Even Learn The Details Of The iPhone Hack... So Now It Says It Can't Tell Apple
Re:
On the post: Scientists Looking To Fix The Many Problems With Forensic Evidence
Hard vs cakewalk
Forensic scientists can debate until they're blue, but nothing is changing until their testimony starts sinking cases. And since forensic scientists are "free" for testimony at $400/hour or so, guess how much testimony they'll be giving for average man.
On the post: Supreme Court Approves Rule 41 Changes, Putting FBI Closer To Searching Any Computer Anywhere With A Single Warrant
The problem: particularity
Where it falls down is "particularity"; with respect to the Fourth Amendment clause, "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As I see it, the problem isn't that a warrant was used to access a computer at an unknown location, the problem was that a single warrant was used to access every computer at every location.
Warrants under a new rule 41 should serve only for technical identification of a computer. Once a computer has been identified particularly, the FBI should have to obtain a specific warrant to search that computer particularly.
Suppose the government gained control of a drug distribution point, and decided to continue to ship drugs...along with a free tracker in every bag. A single NIT-equivalent warrant should be good for that, even though the government has no idea where the bags are going (could be going to another state).
But once a particular bag has been delivered to a particular warehouse, for example, the government should have to obtain a warrant particular to that warehouse.
Rule 41 did fall down, I just disagree as to the extent of the breakdown and the flaws of the proposed correction.
On the post: Reputation Management Revolution: Fake News Sites And Even Faker DMCA Notices
Outright copytheft
On the post: The Cable Industry Threatens To Sue If FCC Tries To Bring Competition To Cable Set Top Boxes
Re:
On the post: Blizzard Pretends IP Made It Kill Fan Server
Whiners
Blizzard has millions of fans. Why would we worry about a few thousand whiners?
On the post: Roku CEO Kisses Up To Comcast, Supports Opposition To Cable Set Top Box Competition
Re:
On the post: EFF, ACLU And Public Records Laws Team Up To Expose Hidden Stingray Use By The Milwaukee Police Department
Unfair
On the post: FCC To Ban Charter Communications From Imposing Usage Caps If It Wants Merger Approval
Re:
Arbitrarily selected cable company: "S'easy! more profit for us!"
On the post: NBC Smells Cord Cutting On The Wind, Will Reduce 'SNL' Ad Load By 30% Next Season
What's 70% of 145%?
On the post: Daily Deal: Munitio NINES Tactical Earbuds
Not TSA approved I bet
On the post: FCC To Ban Charter Communications From Imposing Usage Caps If It Wants Merger Approval
Out with "usage caps"
abuse prevention
excess retrieval filter
customer access assurance
overage limits
customer allowance
more?
On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'
Tiny suggestion
On the post: Just After EU Goes After Google For Antitrust, Microsoft Agrees To Drop All Antitrust Complaints About Google
Re: Quite Obvious - Nepotism - No, Delegation
On the post: The FCC Is Pushing A 'Nutrition Label' For Broadband Connections
Re: Re: Re:
It's the same thing the insurance companies do now. They take premiums, take 15% off the top for profit, pay another 35% to an administrative services company, then pay the rest to an underwriter for services. The underwriter takes 50% off the top (underwriters aren't regulated by the insurance board) and then pays the rest to a secondary underwriter. The secondary underwriter takes 50% off the top...
50%*50%*50%*50% leaves 6% or so for claims...is it any surprise the insurance company files bankruptcy at the drop of a hurricane rumor? All perfectly legal; you can audit the daylights out of them and no one is "taking more than they're legally entitled to take."
The state of Florida offered to underwrite the insurance companies for free, and the insurance companies snubbed it because it would mean less profit for the stockholders.
On the post: Shoe Company New Balance Says US Gov't Basically Offered It A Bribe To Support TPP
Re: Re: Hard to feel sorry for New Balance
On the post: FISA Court Rejects Arguments By First Public Advocate To Argue NSA PRISM Backdoor Searches Are Unconstitutional
Re: Public advocate is no fix
She's demonstrated she's completely earnest about her position, but the court has demonstrated all the interest they would have in a buzzing fly. "Go away, insect."
On the post: New Zealand Government Trying To Streamroller TPP Through Ratification Without Proper Scrutiny Or Public Input
Untrustworthy car salesman
We all would know what that means, and it probably means the same in the case of TPP.
And the proper solution to an untrustworthy salesman? Walk away.
Next >>