This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Not everything in the PATRIOT Act is exclusively for use on terrorists.
47 USC 551(c):
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned and shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator.
(2) A cable operator may disclose such information if the disclosure is—
(d) to a government entity as authorized under chapters 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, except that such disclosure shall not include records revealing cable subscriber of video programming from a cable operator.
Unlike many state-level courts, Federal courts don't charge motion fees. Cases can last for years with tens or hundreds of motions and hearings and docket entries and all the court might get is that $350.
As far as fraudulent purchases go in the US, Federal law gives individual consumers pretty decent protection.
I will note, however, that many if not most fraudulent purchases are eaten by the retailer via the chargeback mechanism and not the banks. Even with chip cards, this will probably still continue to be the case as fraud will shift to card not present fraud and Verified by Visa and MasterCard SecureCode adoption continues to be weak in the US.
Searches are presumed to be unreasonable and the burden of proof to show that consent was given falls on the prosecution.
As the conditions are imposed by the individual giving consent, the officer must not claim to meet conditions imposed when he or she knows that claim to be false.
Giving permission to search is a waiver of the Fourth Amendment and such waivers are only valid when given voluntarily and it is generally not voluntary when the consent is gained through deception or coercion.
A search by conditional consent has been held to be invalid by state courts where the conditions were knowingly not met. Therefore, the intelligent thing to do would be to obtain a warrant.
As for the last question, a search undertaken by consent is generally revocable at any time for any reason and upon revocation the search must stop unless during the search probable cause has developed. A forcible removal would complicate things a bit though.
The law itself doesn't mention pen registers or any technology in general. The general intent of the law that a court may issue writs to achieve an end is what dates back.
The current actual language, as quoted above, dates to 1948 when multiple laws regarding writs were consolidated into 28 USC 1651.
I haven't reviewed the case in PACER, but from the standpoint of looking at this document and the complaint alone... I have to ask: What was the intended purpose of this?
It's not an agreement not to do things, merely an agreement as to the rights of parties involved. This paper is great for show, but of very little legal effect.
The same things were said about the last presidential election in the US. Many states on this side of the "pond" have laws against photographing ballots and/or recording in polling places. Go figure.
I've taken all your comments on board, and I'm not buying them because:
A. The declarant stated with quite particularity (though it's probably FBI copy pasta) the nature and significance of an IP address. The use of "a Mac address" vs "the MAC address X" is not meaningless in a legal declaration.
B. No statements were made that the MAC address of the device seized matched the MAC address in the logs. There is nothing in the affidavit that furthers a claim that they took Y device because it had X MAC address which showed the NIC was manufactured by Apple and thus probably belonged to an Apple computer.
C. The declarant has a pretty decent command of English grammar and punctuation, but the comma placement in the paragraph isn't correct.
For what it's worth, several Bitcoin exchanges were registered MSBs and made efforts toward anti-money laundering before this. I don't see this changing much of anything.
"Wouldn't that be something to bring up to that professor and his supervisors? That is, if they will actually listen."
Nah, once you find law that supports you, it's time to go straight to their general counsel and say: "It's either give me what I want now or have a court tell you to give me what I want AND pay me a few thousand later, your choice."
As the watches were made outside of the United States, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the watches are not covered under the right of first sale because the right of first sale only covers items lawfully made under the Copyright Act (i.e. the Ninth Circuit says that the Copyright Act right of first sale protection applies to those items made within the United States OR imported into the US with permission of the copyright holder).
Since there is a copyrighted insignia on the watch protected under US copyright law, and since the SCOTUS and Ninth Circuit says that Costco has no right to resell the item, this means that Omega can allege copyright infringement on the basis of unlawful distribution.
But did you read it?
This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Not everything in the PATRIOT Act is exclusively for use on terrorists.
47 USC 551(c):
Re: PACER charging at all is wrong....should be covered by filing fees
Unlike many state-level courts, Federal courts don't charge motion fees. Cases can last for years with tens or hundreds of motions and hearings and docket entries and all the court might get is that $350.
Re: Re:
If the author chooses to take to his website and complain, that is of course his prerogative.
Re:
I will note, however, that many if not most fraudulent purchases are eaten by the retailer via the chargeback mechanism and not the banks. Even with chip cards, this will probably still continue to be the case as fraud will shift to card not present fraud and Verified by Visa and MasterCard SecureCode adoption continues to be weak in the US.
Re:
Searches are presumed to be unreasonable and the burden of proof to show that consent was given falls on the prosecution.
As the conditions are imposed by the individual giving consent, the officer must not claim to meet conditions imposed when he or she knows that claim to be false.
Giving permission to search is a waiver of the Fourth Amendment and such waivers are only valid when given voluntarily and it is generally not voluntary when the consent is gained through deception or coercion.
Re: Caveats
As for the last question, a search undertaken by consent is generally revocable at any time for any reason and upon revocation the search must stop unless during the search probable cause has developed. A forcible removal would complicate things a bit though.
(untitled comment)
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-December/036084.html
Re: 1789 or 1911?
The current actual language, as quoted above, dates to 1948 when multiple laws regarding writs were consolidated into 28 USC 1651.
This "agreement"... so what?
It's not an agreement not to do things, merely an agreement as to the rights of parties involved. This paper is great for show, but of very little legal effect.
Not just a UK thing...
Re: How come TV shows have to blur license plates but these guys can collect and sell them?
Not Buying It...
A. The declarant stated with quite particularity (though it's probably FBI copy pasta) the nature and significance of an IP address. The use of "a Mac address" vs "the MAC address X" is not meaningless in a legal declaration.
B. No statements were made that the MAC address of the device seized matched the MAC address in the logs. There is nothing in the affidavit that furthers a claim that they took Y device because it had X MAC address which showed the NIC was manufactured by Apple and thus probably belonged to an Apple computer.
C. The declarant has a pretty decent command of English grammar and punctuation, but the comma placement in the paragraph isn't correct.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Nah, once you find law that supports you, it's time to go straight to their general counsel and say: "It's either give me what I want now or have a court tell you to give me what I want AND pay me a few thousand later, your choice."
Limewire vs. BitTorrent
The Cylons... they look like us now.
(untitled comment)
Give it back, and I can sit and watch western entertainment... rocks be damned.
Time to reconnect and become slaves to the 'net and lose interest in anti-social behavior.
Re:
Since there is a copyrighted insignia on the watch protected under US copyright law, and since the SCOTUS and Ninth Circuit says that Costco has no right to resell the item, this means that Omega can allege copyright infringement on the basis of unlawful distribution.
Justin Johnson (JJJJust)’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt