That's a false equivalency you propose. Assuming one would find it funny to catch some one in the act (I personally wouldn't), walking in at the wrong time is not the same as setting up cameras in the room so one can keep a record of each and every time it happens.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with your "bought credentials", you referring to a diploma? With any decent school, that's not something you simply buy, but something you must work for, and earn. You not only need to know the information being presented, but must be able to demonstrate the ability to use it. Even so, I'm not sure what this has to do with the mass surveillance state.
Not turning down information about a competitor, once again, isn't the actively looking for the information, or worse, following them, and copying down their every activity.
The things you describe aren't even remotely similar to the spying going on, so I'm not sure why you thought to compare coming across information to actively seeking to remove privacy in order to obtain it.
That's not necessarily true. If the officers are coming with a warrant for specific information, and not one from the secret courts, it means the request was subject to actual oversight, and deemed worthy of obtaining the information because law enforcement was able to prove there's just cause to have that information revealed.
I forgot to mention, the keys aren't really interacted with by the user, merely saved then used automatically as needed. Aside from your public key acting as an email address, you don't need to see the keys at all. The public key is also just text, so one can copy/paste the one line as a key quite easily. This gets rid of the hassle for the casual user, while still providing the protection you're after.
BitMessage is an attempt at a completely distributed email service using public/private key pairs. Your public key also acts as your email address with this system. They're currently looking for security experts to test the current cryptography, so there is a question as to the degree of security, but there has been at least one person to answer the call, break the crypto, and send the creators of the program a fix for the issue.
With that quote, you've got to take the context into consideration. The "eye of the needle" was a term that referred to the archway entering into certain larger cities. It was too small for the camel to just walk through. Getting the camel through required a fairly significant amount of work, it wasn't an easy task, but it was possible.
With a startup loan, the bank is hoping to get paid back. They will filter things through a very different lense (how much money can we possibly make, how likely are we to make money). This is different from a business or consumer who isn't expecting a monetary return on a product, and just wants to have their own copy of the finished product. On top of that, you're expected to pay back a loan, with a crowdfunded item, it's hoped you'll be capable of delivering on the promises.
Many are not opposed to it at all, some even welcome this. Others feel it's not quite THAT bad, etc. Even for those opposed, a protest is too much of a hassle, and too much work, for people to actually get off their lazy butts.
It sounds as though you don't understand communism. Communism is the government people were to implement after overthrowing the existing establishment in order to prevent the exploitation of the lower classes by the upper classes. It would do this by means of total control so that businesses couldn't push or force the government to give them excessive power over the lesser classes. Nothing about our current government is trying to do this. It's a police state for sure, and is exercising more and more power all the time, claiming it's in our interest, even though it isn't, but it's most definitely not communist.
I'll try to explain the purpose of the site for you. Basically, Techdirt is about how new technologies can disrupt established industries, resulting in something that is overall good for the industry as a whole, yet seem harmful to the established players in those industries. In particular, the attempts by those established players to try to block the new innovations and advancements in technologies.
Due to regulatory capture causing copyright, as well as patent law, to go far beyond anything reasonable, copyright and the DMCA are frequent topics here. The reason for this article is specifically the abuse of the takedown provisions of the DMCA, rather than the fight itself. This is a clear and obvious attempt to silence free speech using the DMCA is the method, despite defenders of the takedown provisions claiming that nothing about copyright can or will harm free speech.
If, as you suggest, this email is *not* the original email, the defendant could subpoena a copy of the original email from the provider of the email service, or from the hosting provider, to prove the plaintiff is lying. This would be a very easy tactic to undermine all credibility the plaintiff may have, making a victory in this regard that much easier. I'm not really seeing that here, so chances are this email is indeed the original email.
That's a grey area, not sure if the 5th amendment covers that, though it might. Realistically, you can plead the 5th for any reason at all, even if you aren't technically guilty. The reason for this is that probing into the reasons for pleading the 5th would be trying to force the person to incriminate themselves. You'd have to provide solid evidence that the answer to the question could not possibly have incriminated the person giving testimony to be able to levy any form of punishment.
For example, a person could testify in court in defense of some one who was definitely guilty of a crime, then plead the 5th when asked certain questions in order to deflect suspicion from the accused, onto them. You could try and question them as to why they plead the 5th, but they would respond by just pleading the 5th some more. How are you going to prove the answers to the questions can't possibly be seen as incriminating? That would be a hard thing to do, and I don't see it happening. The end result would be that a person can plead the 5th for any reason they want with out fear of any form of punishment.
What patents are these? A while back Oracle lost a lawsuit it filed against Google for infringing on its Java Copyright (specifically claiming the API is covered by copyright) on the Android OS. If they had patents on Java, why wouldn't they have also filed for infringement of the patents in question?
For putting the logo on the uniforms yes, but not for things like a documentary which happens to show the logo they put on the uniforms. Same with the pictures on the stadium wall, as that's showing their history (even if it is one that includes copyright infringement). I could certainly see a potential argument regarding the video game though, as that isn't about documenting anything historically, but rather just a "retro" uniform that isn't needed to play the game.