I run fairly heavy security on my browser, and when I encounter a site that will not load, I just move on.
I mean, really, if the only way to access content is to turn off all my security, I have to wonder what sort of malware ridden crapsack that site is. Good sites that are worth reading have good security and are compatible with the security of others.
Given how the editor in question went IMMEDIATELY to the use of recording devices to prove breach of promise, I have to wonder how many promises that editor breached, and how many lawsuits he successfully defended despite being guilty as charged.
There are two components of theft -- without both the act is not theft at all.
The first component is unlawfully acquiring something for yourself. The second component is denying the rightful owner the use of his/her own property.
Unlawful copying only fulfills one component and is therefore not theft, since the owner retains the full use of their property. A good example of the difference is downloading a copy of an unreleased movie is not theft but stealing the movie master and then making copies would be theft, since it would prevent the studio from publishing the movie.
Even if the act of copying denies the owner profits, it's still not theft of those profits, since the money itself is not stolen. Potential earnings are just that -- they do not exist yet.
If someone does not buy a copy of whatever from the owner, it might represent lost profits, but equally likely it might not -- many people download illegal copies but would never spend money on a copy (or refuse to buy overpriced stuff). No one is entitled to make a profit.
It's EXTREMELY common for police who realize they went too far in assaulting/battering someone (arrest optional) to arrest that person for assaulting/battering the police -- apparently on the theory that repeatedly involuntarily contacting someone's knuckles vigorously with your face is entirely your fault.
So you're saying that if I were to find out where you live, and park a sound system van outside your house at 3 am, you'd be totally in favor of me bombarding you with speech you dislike because you are in favor of ZERO censorship?
There's a critical difference between stopping someone from speaking and being able to opt out of listening.
Especially absurd when the threat Google supposedly made to the city council was more or less "we can't install the fiber you want us to without access to the poles, and we're being denied access by the law."
Plus, removing the malware -- even if you don't know who put it there -- would be construed as evidence tampering, possibly even invoking the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Depending on how the charges go, that's either 3-5 years, 5-10 years or 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentences if convicted. Note that conviction does not require any knowledge or intent to commit a crime, the Act is strict liability.
In other words, if you even suspect you might have information the government wants for any purpose, you need to file a federal lawsuit at least once a year, possibly even as much as once a month, to challenge any warrants that may or may not have been served on your data with a third party.
Most of the resulting lawsuits will effectively be frivolous, but discovery is the only way to acquire standing to sue to receive notice, if the DoJ's view of how the law works is correct.
If you think the courts are congested now, wait until every major corporation needs at least twelve lawsuits in continuous operation in order to generate standing to challenge a warrant.
The definition of 'deliberately failing' to stop terrorism these people are operating off of is insane.
By their standards, succeeding at stopping terrorism would require the electronic equivalent of randomly firing hellfire missiles into downtown London -- no actual target, just random direction, trajectory and velocity.
Re: Re: 'we all know how loathe they are to return money.'
The seized money and property is still in New Zealand, the US government isn't holding it.
The US court ruling forfeiting his property on the grounds of him being a fugitive sets a very unfortunate precedent in international law -- one that could be used to great effect against US interests -- but has no legal weight in NZ, which is where Dotcom's money is.
I'm not all that familiar with NZ laws, but if Dotcom wins his case in the NZ courts, he'll probably get it all returned. After all, if he's not guilty then the seizure of his property during his arrest isn't any different than the storage of a wallet incidental to an arrest.