I suspect the prosecutors requested entire e-mail accounts so they could go on a fishing expedition to see who else those people had contacted regarding the type of activity under discussion. This doesn't sound like the proper method to use to get that information.
Is it possible that there were no responsive e-mails because they had been deleted by the account owner?
Great. Now I'm looking forward to Pais' next tirade about "Internet connection death panels" and how violent illegal immigrants will enter the country unimpeded via internet tubes under net neutrality.
Some questions raised by the article relating to lineups- So how was this lineup formed? How does that differ from the typical lineup process? If the police went to excessive lengths to rig this lineup it seems like this might blow up into a larger scandal. Could the police officers caught forming a rigged lineup be charged with any offenses?
Not sure if the threat of a lawsuit is the problem here, or if the real problem is that singers can trademark 3 specific words from a song but used in any context. Once such a seemingly ridiculous trademark is granted, this seems a trademark issue instead of an entertainment industry problem (not that there aren't plenty of those).
We actually do have Sprint for wireless, and although we're about a mile from a 4G tower according to their coverage map, we only get spotty 4G and decent 3G service at home. The other carriers probably use the same tower, so switching probably wouldn't provide any benefit. As much as I hate to admit it, Fios works well even if it is overpriced. And the cable company tombstone near our house is almost continuously left open exposing the interior to the elements, which probably doesn't have any positive effect on reliability. There's really no other good choice for now.
It seems like Verizon is trying to make me actually want to switch to Comcast (those being the two pathetic choices we have for internet/cable here). Seeing stuff like this actually makes me want to ditch cable and wired internet and go all wireless (i.e. no business with Verizon, but with another somewhat-less-evil corporation).
I'd probably save a lot of money by ditching cable, too- it's mostly used for my wife to watch QVC.
Given previous states of confusion evidenced by the NYPD, maybe their plan is not to treat protestors like terrorists, but to treat terrorists like protestors?
Should some terrorists appear in NYC, the NYPD SRG will set up some barriers, clear a bit of space around them, and then randomly beat, pepper spray, and arrest some of them. The rest of the terrorists will be told to leave the city. The SRG will then go back to trying to figure out how to remove their machine guns from their holsters, and wondering why they were each only given one bullet.
"Undoubtedly they could have been drafted rather more precisely,"
the justices said sheepishly...
Seriously, is there any precedent in NZ for police activity to be "close enough" to what's legal to be acceptable? Will this go the other way too? What about actions that are legal but "close enough" to illegal to be actionable? Seems like the type of ruling that will come back to haunt them.