The obvious solution is to base removal of negative reviews on defamation law. If someone sues the reviewer for libel and wins, the review should be removed by Yelp.
Since Yelp is in the business of publishing reviews, the ability of a company to silence someone they wronged simply by paying Yelp a fee presents a problem -- an honest company can wind up with a worse reputation on Yelp than a completely crooked one, simply because the honest one doesn't pay someone to lie for them.
Yes it does, but he wasn't concealing it if it was in his luggage. Concealed refers to how you carry it on your person, not merely failing to superglue it to your forehead while it is in your possession.
If use of a device or method would be illegal for a private citizen to use, then police use will require a warrant.
After all, there are no warrantless law enforcement exemptions to harassment, stalking, wiretapping, trespassing, burglary, computer hacking or peeping tom laws. Even the warrantless law enforcement exemption to breaking & entry laws requires that there actually be an on-going emergency.
Under current law, the company would be completely liable.
Unless Burr & Feinstein write some sort of liability shield into their bill, any company that complies with it would likely be out of business shortly after the black hats crack the backdoor. They'd go bankrupt trying to defend against all the lawsuits.
A further example of Feinstein's hypocrisy is that for many years she held one of the seldom-seen California concealed gun permits.
Yes, the woman who insists that guns have no legitimate use, that they exist solely to commit murders and are useless for any other purpose owned and carried a gun for self defense purposes.
When called on it, she got rid of it. But it's worth noting that her security detail IS still armed with items that are useless for defending people and can only be used to murder innocents. Or at least, that's what she claims about them regularly anyway.
...except that in the incident you alluded to, he didn't do anything of the sort.
He bought a small game hunting rifle that had purely cosmetic features that made it resemble a military rifle. A rifle that is illegal to use on human-size animals because it is so unlikely to kill them that using it on them constitutes animal cruelty.
If purely cosmetic looks can turn a weak hunting rifle into a high performance military weapon, then you really ought to be able to win a NASCAR race on your bicycle by covering it with sponsor stickers.
It would require that banks -- or more likely, the company they buy their security systems from -- to have a well known security flaw in their systems that completely bypasses all security measures.
The hardest part of building absolutely anything is knowing if it is possible or not. Building a hacking tool to break through security you know nothing about, not even whether it has any exploitable weaknesses, is really damned hard outside of a Hollywood action movie -- hard enough to be a daunting task even for the NSA. But if you know a flaw exists? It WILL be found, and probably not by the good guys (assuming government == good guys, they wouldn't even go looking, they already have a key).
For such a key to be useful, it would need to be a master key -- unlocking not just one lock, but all the locks the company makes. So once the bad guys crack into the system, it's game over for everyone using that system.
Last time I checked, the federal government didn't make its own encryption that it uses for national security purposes in house that often -- this bill, as written, would mandate security flaws in those systems as well.
I'd say you're right. They're bootlegging articles and reviews then trying to steal ownership of the rights from the true owner.
Normal copyright violations don't meet the legal definition of theft, but this is the closest I've ever seen a copyright violation get to theft -- if the fake owner wins over the real owner, it actually would be theft!
But since all it takes to trigger the $150,000 statutory penalty is illicit copying, this looks like it could get very expensive for whoever is behind the fraudulent business.
But since the odds favor them being structured like Prenda, good luck ever collecting.
What actual penalties? For those penalties to be enforced, a plaintiff must prove that the violation was both knowing and willful.
Since mind reading isn't possible yet and psychics reading crystal balls are not considered expert witnesses by the courts, it is generally easier to prove the existence of God in court than it is to prove that someone violated section 512(f) of the DMCA.
When people use robots that don't meet the legal requirements of the DMCA, should reasonably know that they don't, and use them anyway -- yet the courts rule that this is not willful or knowing violation? Yeah, 512(f) doesn't exist except on paper.
"This is why we have police detectives, who are supposed to piece together whatever evidence they do have and build a picture for a case. Burr and Feinstein are acting like in the past, law enforcement immediately was handed all evidence. That's never been the way it works."
This is one reason why courts operate on the evidence standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' -- prosecutors CANNOT prove guilt to the 'without doubt' standard because they've never had that amount of proof before.
And yet, they have rarely had problems convicting people, even when those people were later exonerated of the charges.
If the government requires that they be allowed to know all of the information, we the people must require that they must present evidence beyond any doubt to get a conviction in court -- after all, in the current privacy-rich environment, any competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. What will they be able to do when privacy no longer exists?
When they are able to meet the goal of 'beyond any doubt' evidence due to how much information they are able to gather on anyone they choose, then if the person is truly guilty, they really ought to be able to do it in order to convict that person.
The thing is, for it to be a Foregone Conclusion, they wouldn't NEED him to decrypt the drives in order to charge him or even convict him of possessing child pornography.
But they don't have anything beyond hearsay and a hunch that there is anything illegal on those drives.
If he decrypts them and there is something illegal on them, then he will have incriminated himself. Being compelled to incriminate himself would cause the resulting evidence to be tainted, and it would be inadmissible.