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?
I guess my question would be is there any recourse after going to court to get the ticket dismissed? As someone else pointed out, you're out whatever your costs for that day were just to fight a ticket you shouldn't have gotten in the first place. If you win, can you counter-sue for harassment or something? Not that I'm a big proponent of encouraging lawsuits, but maybe getting slapped back harder a few times would make someone in power wake up and look for a solution.
Sadly, said solution would probably be to make it actually be illegal, raise the fine tenfold, and give any agent who gives out a ticket a $10K bonus for a job well done.
I read it that way too the first time. This is one of those instances where punctuation really comes in handy.
I'm assuming (ass, u, me, etc.) the line was intended to read:
To paraphrase George W(ashington)., "God and the [C]onstituition give us liberty, arms in the hands of the people are the teeth."
BTW, in the course of verifying it was Washington and not another George W, it appears the quote the paraphrase comes from is fake. Also there's no mention of God in any of the variations, so not sure where that came from. But enjoy some free enlightenment.
Re: Re:
I can't believe some of the despicable AO software on that list!
What kind of sick perverts developed "Power Chat for BlackBerry?"
Re: Re: Re:
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).
Re:
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.
Right once again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Not to be completely off topic...
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.
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.
(untitled comment)
Govern yourself accordingly.
I think I've just found my new favorite way to tell my kids to behave.
Sadly...
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.
Re:
Speed reader? I see you hiding there, Loch Ness Monster...
"Mile High" Law Office
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...
Probably a stupid question but...
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?
Why leave it?
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.
Fun (and not really relevant) Fact
The German word for the symbol @ is "die Klammeraffe", which roughly translates to "spider-monkey" or "bracket-monkey."
Re: I get knocked down...
I find that Whitney Houston's cover of "I Will Always Love You" tends to do a good job of drowning out just about any horrid song stuck in your head.
Now, the question of whether that's a good thing a bad thing is somewhat up for debate...
Holy Crap
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.
Good grief.
Re:
Oh Brazil, that poor, poor third world country. It's time 'Murica stepped in to help them out of the dark ages of rampant freedom.
/s
Re:
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?
Re: Kind of Like the Shirt
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?
(untitled comment)
I guess my question would be is there any recourse after going to court to get the ticket dismissed? As someone else pointed out, you're out whatever your costs for that day were just to fight a ticket you shouldn't have gotten in the first place. If you win, can you counter-sue for harassment or something? Not that I'm a big proponent of encouraging lawsuits, but maybe getting slapped back harder a few times would make someone in power wake up and look for a solution.
Sadly, said solution would probably be to make it actually be illegal, raise the fine tenfold, and give any agent who gives out a ticket a $10K bonus for a job well done.
Homefront
Wait, changing China to North Korea now makes this a movie version of the video game "Homefront," right?
So does that mean Hollywood gets sued? Or maybe they can market it as not a remake? I mean, come on, nobody really played that game anyway.
Genius!
Re: Re:
I read it that way too the first time. This is one of those instances where punctuation really comes in handy.
I'm assuming (ass, u, me, etc.) the line was intended to read:
To paraphrase George W(ashington)., "God and the [C]onstituition give us liberty, arms in the hands of the people are the teeth."
BTW, in the course of verifying it was Washington and not another George W, it appears the quote the paraphrase comes from is fake. Also there's no mention of God in any of the variations, so not sure where that came from. But enjoy some free enlightenment.
Remember kids, punctuation is important.
"Time to eat, kids!" vs "Time to eat kids!"