Of course the burden will still be on those wronged by the courts. They will have to file a lawsuit to point out to the courts that these were bogus cases ...
But who would have a cognizable claim? If the "defendant" was bogus as it appears, then he's not harmed (he may be the lawyer's nephew, who knows). Consumers would have a hard time showing standing to sue for not seeing bad reviews about the companies at issue. If consumers were harmed by bad behavior of these companies, they may have other issues to sue over. I don't see where Google would have much to claim over fraudulent delistings, or would bother. Pissed Consumer would have the same tough sell on whether it suffered any damages.
It's victimless fraud... except for, well, the public and the court system itself.
... the defamed party apparently knew the defamer (found him in one day!) but still chose to go through the court system, rather than have the defamer provide a notarized letter to Pissed Consumer directly to get the original review taken down, rather than just the Google search results.
I'm guessing the reason they go after Google rather than directly to the site is that Ripoff Report is in the mix as well. Ripoff Report famously does not remove posts, and has extensively litigated that issue. Since Ripoff Report is immune from liability for 3rd-party posts per §230, they are not a proper party to the defamation lawsuit, thus Courts have no way to force it to remove posts, even with a court Order against the "defamer."
So for consistency among the various gripe sites, it's off to Google for delisting instead.
The easy solution is not to tell anyone the animal took the pic (which of course tends to remove any critter-related value enhancement).
SnapCat is an Android app that has a red dot moving around on the screen, and when your cat tries to touch the dot, it takes a shot. I have bunches of terrible shots taken by my cat archived somewhere. Given the right motivations, it's not terribly hard to get cat to take pictures.
"Absence" ...and all I hear in my head is Catch-22
Maj. Major Major Major: Sergeant, from now on, I don't want anyone to come in and see me while I'm in my office. Is that clear? First Sgt. Towser: Yes, sir. What do I say to people who want to come in and see you while you're in your office? Maj. Major Major Major: Tell them I'm in and ask them to wait. First Sgt. Towser: For how long? Maj. Major Major Major: Until I've left. First Sgt. Towser: And then what do I do with them? Maj. Major Major Major: I don't care. First Sgt. Towser: May I send people in to see you after you've left? Maj. Major Major Major: Yes. First Sgt. Towser: You won't be here then, will you? Maj. Major Major Major: No. First Sgt. Towser: I see, sir. Will that be all? Maj. Major Major Major: Also, Sergeant, I don't want you coming in while I'm in my office asking me if there's anything you can do for me. Is that clear? First Sgt. Towser: Yes, sir. When should I come in your office and ask if there's anything I can do for you? Maj. Major Major Major: When I'm not there. First Sgt. Towser: What do I do then? Maj. Major Major Major: Whatever has to be done. First Sgt. Towser: Yes, sir.
... I believe the next level of review is de novo(?) by the district judge.
I don't know from criminal procedure, but did notice in Orenstein's (fabulous) Order that he was careful to point out, several times, that he was making discretionary calls on various elements. That would seem to indicate that his Order may be reviewed on the abuse of discretion standard. As the Magistrate basically works for the Article III District Court judge (taking the load off), I would hope that means the govt has to go to the appellate court, who can only overturn it for clear abuse of discretion, which is a tough standard to meet.
Re: Procedurally Bizarre Fallacious Preemptive Motion to Compel
... Point is there appears to have been no rational or legal reason for the DOJ to bring this motion to compel. It's premature.
So the real reason must be that DOJ wanted to get their version of the story into the press/public to counter Apple's statements (and it reads like it; and the press did eat it up). And if so, that's not a legit use of our tax dollars in my book.
Re: Re: or maybe it's more calculated than it appears...
I was presenting a somewhat cynical but pragmatic viewpoint. The judge must know it's a big-ticket issue, and that Apple is in the best position to answer it.
Obviously the order is troubling, and I agree that five business days to oppose is prohibitively short. But then, perhaps it doesn't take much to show that coding new software for one case is unduly burdensome.
I was going from the basic premise that I have never been before a magistrate who was truly an idiot (which I cannot say about Article III judges), so perhaps there was some calculation behind the otherwise frightening order. (AKA, trying to find reason and order amid the chaos.)
So, we have Judge Pym stuck between the US Attorneys and defense counsel arguing about what Apple can/cannot do, driving her mad. She's gotta do something to move this forward, or at least to shut counsel up, and the best way to find out what Apple can or cannot do is to ask Apple.
And she may well even understand the implications of asking Apple to undermine its own encryption. But the best way to get that in the record is to give Apple a chance to fully explain why it is a bad idea, or impossible. Notice and opportunity to be heard.
And Apple is not likely to say "Yeah, we can write this backdoor brute-force buddy software" because that would mean that someone else could write that software, which would mean that Apple's encryption now has a known point of potential compromise. So Apple will say it can't write that software. And then the US Attys will hopefully shut up about it already.
(It's not easy to become a federal magistrate ...)
... not to mention he was essentially 86'd from his "target"
Another fun bit is that the bar Lutchman was allegedly going to terrorize considered him an "aggressive panhandler" and had kicked him out more than once. He probably couldn't have gotten in the door as himself.
The last time I saw the Blue Book was in law school, mid-90s. I have never used it since. Because...
1. The Internet came around. 2. Most citable materials tell you exactly how to cite to them. 3. Many administrative bodies and courts have their own citation rules anyway. And of course, when you want a judge to go your way, you play by his/her rules. 4. Like language/communication in general, the goal of a citation is to relay the information clearly. Judges want to be able to locate the cite, and really don't care whether the date of the publication is in parentheses or before or after the cite, etc.
Sorry Blue Book, but your days are numbered (hence the attempts to maintain a tight grip on potential competition? ... i.e., dying industries start to threaten and sue to maintain status quo...).
Holding 51% of the hashing power may allow a bad player to alter some transactions in previous blocks on the chain, but not much beyond that. It would take much more mining power than everyone else combined to really wreak havoc. And since mining is done by huge farms full of dedicated ASIC machines (in China and elsewhere), or individuals in pools, a govt. intervenor would not be something that could really be kept secret, and measures could be taken at various levels down to the protocol.
Right now Bitcoin has $5.5 BILLION market cap. That's a lot of power to the people. The US gobment has shown no inclination to "shut down" Bitcoin -- a quixotic quest in any event. They'd rather regulate it and take some of that cash for themselves.
... yes, there is the investment vs. currency problem. This ties into the biggest threshold issue -- the "adoption" problem. I think the idea is that if adoption is more widespread, more stability will follow, and then it's just like any other currency whose value is always changing relative to different currencies. (e.g., USD is 'strong' right now.)
If I'm understanding this right, this doesn't do anything about the total supply of Bitcoins. That seems to me to be a serious limiting factor in its potential growth.
Bitcoin is a deflationary currency by design. The 21M total is hard-coded into the protocol. It is meant to emulate finite precious metals, which is why it is "mined." This is a good thing because nobody can just "print more money" and inflate it, causing the value to drop. It's also not a problem because it's divisible to 8 decimal points; and they already have names for fractionals (0.00000001 = 1 Satoshi).
So even if 1 BTC is worth $1M, it's not really a problem. (The hardcore anarchist fanboys think Bitcoin will supplant the banks and other currencies, but that's neither realistic nor desired. If it did, there might be deflation issues, but it won't. As long as there are governments, there will be government-backed currencies.)