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?
I guess my question to the NYT would be why even leave the article up? It's not like there was a mistake in reporting on the story or some fact slip up, or that the story was super relevant to anything going on. It was a fluff piece that was, for all intents and purposes, totally made up. Dump it. Especially if they knew in advance and posted it anyway.
I hope if they paid Cohen for the piece they politely (and forcefully) asked for their money back.
Really? They must hire some "special" folk at the patent office if they granted a patent on "announcing x on social medium y." I'd have to assume something like wedding announcements in a newspaper would be prior art, but maybe not since they're not domain name registrations and not "on the internet." Totally different, I guess.
Obviously, as an elected representative with the responsibility to make laws, what better way to understand the greatly-in-need-of-being-legislated moral degradations facing society than to experience them first hand?
What kind of representative would they be if they tried to outlaw giant boobs in your face without having first had said giant boobs in their face?
As (somewhat) common as the language is today, it would be kind of rough for the little kids and would probably not be acceptable for casual Friday. Though I admit, I am grossly tempted to pick one up anyway.
Perhaps a future/alternate version could replace "Motherfucking" with "[REDACTED]", or just an asterisked version of the word?