Were the leanings of the individuals self-identified ("Do you consider yourself a steadfast conservative?") or did they ferret that result from a spectrum of other questions (maybe starting with which party do they most identify with and maybe ending with questions on gun control and birth control -- or maybe both: "Do you believe in guns as a form of birth control?")?
I have no clue what some of those labels mean (having never heard of them before) and if there weren't nicely colored dots next to them to indicate what political bent they indicate, I wouldn't have known. Asking "Do you consider yourself a 'Young Outsider'?" would have left me stumped as to who that was supposed to be.
No people are just that arrogant that they don't think they should pay for the content of others.
No; it is the expectation that if someone gives you something for free (namely free, over the air broadcasts) that you should be able to do with it as you please. Like record it on a VCR (which the Supreme Court approved), or a DVR (which they also approved since they decided to let the appellate ruling stand), or a DVR with a really long cord connected to your TV (same ruling).
Aero did not break the rules, nor were they doing anything any private citizen could do -- set up an antenna; connect it to a DVR, then connect that DVR to a display device. Aero's business model was to do that for you, and charge you for that service not the content, because the content is/was free.
I can only presume that the reason for the gag order is to keep the people being investigated from deleting their information from Facebook. Couldn't the process just direct Facebook to make a copy of the relevant data so deletion would not be an issue? Once that is done (and note the data would be held by Facebook) the individuals could be notified and have recourse to fighting the subpoena. When that fight is done, the data can either be released to the AG or allowed to evaporate from wherever Facebook was holding it.
"a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties"
So, if a phone company simply added "by using our phone system you have a reasonable expectation that we will keep any information you provide us private" to your contract, this weaseling around the 4th Amendment might be stopped?
My father in law was a devout (5-7 times a week going to church, opus dei, etc) and he thought the song was hilarious and loved Tom Lehrer. One of my first dates with my wife was to a Tom Lehrer musical, so maybe it was just part of the family genes.
Poisoning Pigeons in the Park has always been one of my favorites, but I think it would be easier to list the songs I don't like by Tom Lehrer; the other list is too long.
The certificate is fine. If the site using the certificate used OpenSSL (the software with the "bug") THEN the site isn't secure. But the only way to re-secure the site is update the SSL software and revoke the old certificate then get a new one.
It's called plea deal to avoid bankrupting oneself to defend against an inappropriate charge. Jury nullification only works if the case gets to a jury, and even then you are betting on having a jury that is smarter than the one which labeled a white guy who shot and killed an unarmed black youth as guilty of attempted murder.