Spying on foreigners is not a legal problem, it's a political problem.
I think it's both.
Firstly it's a legal issue if in Egypt it is illegal to tap telephones. Then the Egyptian version of the DoJ would be within their rights, nay, it would be their duty, to issue arrest warrants against the people tapping those phones.
It becomes a political issue when the Egyptian DoJ seeks extradition of those who have warrants out for them if they are not on Egyptian soil. It becomes a matter of political will ( or won't ) for them to see through the extradition.
pretty much every nation on earth has laws protecting intellectual property
Just because something is the law doesn't make it good or right.
Just because something is against the law doesn't make it bad or wrong.
I break the law all the time. I foccasionally speed. Sometimes (say, on a deserted country highway) I change lanes without indicating. If it's say 3am in the morning and i get a red light in a deserted industrial estate, i'll stop and if no traffic will go through the red light.
OMG all illgal, I am a horrible, bad person for breaking the law!
The law needs to be tempered with common sense. If its not hurting anyone else to 'break' the law, then whats wrong with it? Copyright infringement (not piracy, I don't cruise the high seas performing armed, forceful boardings of vessels and kidnap, murder, rob passengers) hurts no-one.
It seems to me law enforcement and government have twisted the meaning of 'no expectation to privacy' into, 'expect your privacy to be deliberately and continually broken'.
To me, no expectation of privacy means, if i'm walking down the street I might be inadvertantly caught by a tourist taking a photo/home video. Or if I'm having a conversation passersby may overhear. Or I'm having sex in the back seat of the car a passerby (or if I'm unlucky a cop, or even worset a family member) might catch me and take appropriate action. And so on.
Whereas the government (and often the courts!) seem to think it means expect to be followed, evasedropped on and all actions that you do or things that you say be collected, stored, correlated and data-mined.
Well, to me that is the opposite of privacy, not the lack of or 'no expectation' thereof.
Most organisations submitting patents also don't do patent searches before submitting a patent.
Because of a little thing called "Willful infringement'.
That is, if you are sued for breaching a patent, and that breach is found 'willful', it could treble damages.
One of the tests for willfullness is if someone had knowledge of previous patents. And one aspect of this is if you've seached the patent database. If they DID do patent searches, then they HAVE to have found (so the argument goes), known about, a previous patent. Therefore they have willfully breached a patent.
Therefore if you never do patent searches before embarking on new research or submitting your own patent, it's harder to prove willfullness.
And, as can be seen from the patent numbers, there are MILLIONS of patents. Which means you have to construct keyword searches. What if you got the wrong keywords? Or if your keywords returned 20,000 patents? Do you read every single one of those 20,000 matches to see if they cover what you are trying to patent? I doubt it.
Patent examiners have the same problem. With millions of patents, it's quite possible to return too many matches to practically go through them all. So you try to refine your terms a bit, but hey, the refined terms could actually exclude a previously matching patent that is relevant.
Coudn't the city just erect speed signage directly in front of the camera that blocks its line of sight?
Unless the contract includes a clause that specifically forbids the city (as opposed to private individuals) from blocking the camera or specifically requires the city to keep the line of sight clear from city raised signage/obstacles then they effectively get the cameras turned off it not literally.
that it depends on which point you choose to count the data from.
For example, if you have an ADSL modem plugged into a router, your usage statistics counted by your router probably don't include the PPPoE encapsulation overhead.
So when you transmit a 1KB packet, and receive a 1KB packet, while your router says you've sent 1KB and received 1KB, the ISPs devices at the exchange could see a different data amount. For example, if the PPPoE encapsulation requires 100bytes, the ISP could have you metered as having sent 1.1KB and received 1.1KB. Spread over several million packets, this could have a huge discrepancy when comparing your routers stats vs the ISP provided stats.
Also, your router probably doesn't count dropped/lost packets. If you are receiving more packets/second than your router can handle, it'll start dropping packets. These packets won't be counted by your router as data received, since it's dropped them. But whether your router accepts them or not, they WERE sent by the ISP down your pipe. It's not THEIR problem your hardware was unable to receive them. They sent 10 million 1KB packets down your pipe to you, it doesn't matter if your router accepted only half of them. As far as they are concerned, that's 10MB they've sent you, not the 5MB your router says it's received.
Other situations include the fact that usually a well configured firewall drops any packet sent to you that is not part of a session initiated by you. Unsolicited ping floods, someone probing your system for open ports, even a full on DoS attack could all be dropped by your firewall. If the packet is dropped by your firewall, again in all likelihood the data isn't counted by your router as being received. However since the ISP did send it down your pipe, again they would have counted the data as sent data to you, even if you've rejected it.
I'm not defending the ISPs or excusing deliberate miscalculations, or even those caused by buggy software.
However, there usually is a discrepancy due to where in the pipe the 'probe' is placed to count the data.
I'm in Australia, and here an unlimited plan is a rare beast. I think I've been on some sort of quota for the last 8 or 9 years now. Some good, some bad, some horribly overpriced. So I feel the pain of being quota'ed.
But you also have the opposite effect, of other circumstances leading to an unreasonable sentence.
If in a sate with a 3 strikes law, and convicting someone who was starving of stealing a loaf of bread would result in them being having a mandatory 15 year sentence because of 2 previous offenses, I would like to know this. This is a case where I'd support jury nullification.