Yes, but said customer would still be liable for any kind of judgment of the court, if, for example, the court found that the case was so frivolous that it wanted to award the other side's legal fees. Not very likely in the US, but still possible.
IANAL, but I suspect that US law disallows any kind of indemnification by a third party for such fees or other monetary liabilities.
> It's the conclusions that are wrong. So they should be.
Well, to be perfectly honest, the paper's main recommendation is that "scientists should learn more about statistics" --- one of the main causes is that research results concentrated on achieving the wrong statistical result ("p value").
Still, another reason behind the result was bias --- and this includes "publication bias" --- caused by journal publications accepting less papers with negative or merely replicative results because they are "less sexy" and worse for marketing. The move to (presumably less profit-driven) open access should actually cause this bias to decrease --- another, less talked about advantage to open access.
> And if it hasn't, it will just hold the data until
> it can crack it.
Unfortunately for the NSA, most modern ciphers are secure enough that it is unlikely that this kind of waiting is worthwhile. The only justification is that they might be able to later hack into an active suspect's computer(s) in order to discover the encryption key (or possibly use a side-channel attack like TEMPEST).
Ioannidis's well-accepted paper, if you actually read it, makes it clear that the reason for the conclusions he came to are not because 80% of research is executed by researchers who are intentionally committing fraud or academic misconduct of any kind. He doesn't even mention fraud as a significant cause.
Nice way to misrepresent the ramifications of an interesting piece of research.
If anyone had previously been considering running a darknet node, but was concerned over inadvertently aiding activities they did not approve of (whatever your personal "bete noir" is), these kinds of national initiatives (bans like Russia and China, fishing/snooping like US) may make it easier for them to decide in favor of the benefits of the darknet vs. whatever detriments they see in it.
I know it's for sure pushing me in that direction.
Hey, everyone, just think... if enough of us reply to this guy, we might manage to overload his self-admittedly minuscule brain capacity... and we would finally succeed in shutting up a troll merely by feeding him!
Widespread encryption versus current business models
If this revelation would cause people to adopt encryption widely (for example, browser plugins for encrypting and decrypting webmail), lots of companies (e.g., Google) would end up losing access to a lot of data.
OTOH, let's face the reality, it's probably not going to happen.
It's "law" enforcement, not "non-bitchiness" enforcement
One of the job requirements for a law enforcement officer is the ability to know the difference between bitchiness and illegality. Another requirement is the ability to control one's anger --- especially since a lot of their job is arresting people who don't.
The discussion here suffers greatly because of inexact language: people using the word "privacy" when what is actually meant is "anonymity".
People in public places (should) have no expectation of privacy. What some people do have is an expectation of anonymity. This is because, even 10 years ago, it was not practical for an average person to identify a stranger, even given a photograph of him or her.
This is no longer true, and therefore older people's expectations are out of phase with reality. Unfortunately, (some) people believe this can be "fixed" via legislating a new reality.
I predict this will work just as well as legislating in order to fix broken business models.
Although the expressive aspect of the conduct alleged here – the posting of copyrighted movies to BitTorrent – is somewhat minimal, that does not mean that discovery to identify the anonymous user without adequate initial evidence that individual Doe Defendants committed the alleged infringement.
Methinks a verb went missing there, although from context it's pretty clear what they meant.