I'm inclined to agree with this. The reaction seems a bit too much like "Oh lawdie lawd, every other law is overreaching, this one must be too!"
It seems like the law is set up to specifically address trying to view naughty bits through or around clothing in secret. Standing in public with your phone out taking pictures isn't very secretive. The worst I can see where this might be misused would be the people who take the "hidden" video of girls wearing yoga pants and stuff like that. But even then, they're not trying to put their camera in some position to see around those yoga pants, they're just being oglers/perverts/[your label here].
The nanny/babysitter example is also pretty bad. Unless your nanny cam is in the bathroom (which probably violates other existing laws), one doesn't usually anticipate a nanny/sitter getting fully or partially naked randomly in their house while they're out. I'd be more concerned about why this person was traipsing about my home in their birthday suit when they should be supervising my kids.
Ultimately, even if the law is attempted to be used for unscrupulous suits, a judge and jury should have enough common sense (I know, these days it's so rare it's considered a super power) to realize what the intent of the law is and judge accordingly.
So while I can appreciate the reasoning behind the lawsuit, I have a couple of probably dumb questions that maybe someone can answer:
1) If a member of the Legislative branch believe a member of the Executive has violated the law, is that not what impeachment proceedings are for? Or is the reason for the lawsuit outside of impeachment to include people beyond the president? Or because there's a snowball's chance of the Senate confirming an impeachment?
2) Should there not be more people involved in this lawsuit? The laws that are being operated under were approved by Congress. The Patriot Act, NDAA, and all the other pieces of legislation have come up several times now for renewal and been readily OK'd.
3) I've seen comments elsewhere that this is pretty much farting in the wind (or grandstanding, depending on how you want to phrase it) as there's enough precedent that a "no standing" ruling is all that will come of this. What is the actual likelihood of this going anywhere?
The court does leave open the possibility that the FCC could use other aspects of its mandate to establish net neutrality rules -- where it has a much more firm legal footing. In other words, the court is telling the FCC basically: you can establish net neutrality rules if you do it correctly.
I'm curious as to what their suggestion was, but I'm a bit overwhelmed by 81 pages of legal jargon (and maybe I'm lazy, so what?). Can someone point out what the court's explanations were regarding how the FCC could still accomplish the regulations within the confines of the current law?
This phrase bothers me, especially the follow up "I backed off" part. To me, trying to portray a called out BS response as a "gotcha moment" with the facts of the situation is a crappy attempt at deflecting the BS response you just threw out. If that was your legitimate answer, it's not "gotcha", it's your stupid answer. If that wasn't your legitimate answer, why did you answer it in the first place?
To me, the caller should have called out the staffer for their comment, though their response is understandable since most people don't like confrontations.
I'm sure this has probably been addressed somewhere before, but I'm a lazy internet user and expect things spoon fed to me:
What is the reason behind East Texas being so patent holder friendly? Has anyone looked into why juries there so often side with the patent holder, even when, as with this case, its blatantly obvious the patent is invalid? Are there a lot of patent holders who end up on the juries there, so they're pretty obviously going to side with the patent holder (which would seem like a conflict to me)? Is it just a "screw the big guy, save the little guy" mentality? Are we seeing the same handful of people on each jury that sway the rest of the jury (not necessarily saying they're a plant, but if the jury pool is small enough...)? There has to be something special about the people there or the water or something that makes this place such an obvious patent haven that everybody wants to file there, but what is it?
Friends? Relatives? The owner of the apartment he was living?
I guess I can see an argument for an expectation of privacy when one of these applies, but in this case, none of those examples fit. He rented the apartment using the identity of a dead person, so obviously not someone who can vouch for this person's legitimate use of the apartment.
What about the 4th Amendment of the owner?
Again, in this instance, the registered owner of these effects is totally entitled to 4th amendment protections. Rigmaiden, however, was not the registered owner and the original article states that the identity was stolen. I suppose this is assumed, so maybe there's some wiggle room in terms of the use of the Aircard.
That shouldn't even be an issue.
I believe there are "reasonable suspicion" laws that allow police to do things without a warrant based on the premise they think something illegal is occurring. If I'm driving a "borrowed" car, and get pulled over, does the police officer need to get a warrant to search the vehicle if he suspects its stolen? Or at least a warrant after the fact? I don't know what the limitations are on laws like this.
While I agree that the Constitution and its personal protections (are supposed to, but it seems more and more don't) trump most anything, I guess I'm still missing something from the argument. Is the argument more that he is entitled to these protections because it has not been proven yet that he fraudulently acquired these items? So the issue is since the dead apartment owner hasn't been proven dead yet, he should still be treated as if he was just borrowing somebody else's apartment and Aircard until such time as fraud is proven?
The last thing I'll throw in here, since it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the summary and is probably worth noting, is the judge making the decision also cited "a number of precedent-setting cases to support his decision, including a Ninth Circuit decision that a defendant can have no expectation of privacy in a computer that is obtained through fraud." So in this case, he's not the first judge to disregard this protection. However, the ACLU makes the argument that this instance is not fraud, but the use of aliases. I guess I'm not sure legally when lying about who you are (and making purchases as such) moves from using an alias to fraud (kind of like how important do you have to be such that murder becomes assassination).
I was actually about to post something along these lines.
As far as the using Stingrays and lying to the judge, it's pretty crap that the judge lets that go. However I'm somewhat confused as to how this is an incorrect ruling regarding the privacy aspect.
I'm pretty sure for an Aircard and apartment, you have to provide (in most instances) more information than just a name, so if he provided the alias' social security number or other identifying information, that would seem more like identity fraud versus using an alias. If it falls under identity fraud, could you then make the argument that the equipment/room did not legally belong to him, therefore the 4th amendment doesn't apply because technically those weren't his "effects?" Does one have to prove that it's actually identity fraud before excluding 4th amendment protections? Or is "Your name is John Doe, this property is registered to John Smith, therefore you are not the legal owner" sufficient cause to assume identity fraud?
I'm most assuredly not a lawyer (and in most instances that seems to be a good thing), so some of the finer details may not be apparent to me, but if someone can explain why the judge here is 100% in the wrong instead of just 50%, I would be interested to understand better.
but what is the deal lately with people misusing defused/diffused? And yes, I know it's not Tim misusing it, it's the blotter. Probably should include a [sic] though.
Administration working hand in hand with the Methuen Police Department, diffused the situation maintaining the best possible professional attitude.
So they spread the situation out? Sound like that would make it worse!
I'm not sure if I've just started noticing it, or if people have been doing it to try and avoid using the term "defused" since it's somewhat associated with bombs (Note: I am not threatening to bomb anything by including the word "bomb" in my post.)(Note 2: Same thing about the other 2 uses in the first note.)
It's slowly approaching lose/loose levels of annoyance.
Given the tripe that passes for programming MTV, I actually prefer MTV Hits (which *gasp* plays music videos most of the time) and VH1 Classic (because I have a minor addiction to old episodes of Pop-Up Video) to MTV or even MTV2, the channel created to play videos 24/7 when MTV gave it up...that turned into MTV Jr.
While I'm sure this is a reference to doing business in Colorado, for the rest of the country it seems like this probably wasn't the best choice of business names...especially if one is going to litigate for a porn company.
Or perhaps it's the perfect name and that was the plan all along...
It portrays Disney as a megalomaniac with McCarthyite, racist and misogynist tendencies
If the play is already not portraying Disney in the greatest of lights, would it not make sense to then use pariodied, exaggerated versions of the characters in question? Leave them unnamed, so you don't have to worry about actually using the words "Mickey Mouse." It's been done before in a South Park episode.
Or would that be too much of a risk that somebody with more money would decide to challenge parody use?