Funny enough, I seem to recall a similar conversation happening when people started abandoning local news broadcasts for The Weather Channel, saying that the weather information would be too general, or incorrect for their region and it would cause lots of issues.
Fact is, TWC is far less valuable a service than it was even pre-smartphone (let alone pre-internet).
Also, they should be VERY careful about saying how calamitous the result of them not being on air would be. If they are so critical to the survival of the nation they should be nationalized and turned into a utility. Good thing for their shareholders they really aren't that important....
I always thought when someone has a restraining order against you, it details that you cannot be within X feet physically, or directly contact the person. You can, however, use a 3rd party to contact that person (such as a lawyer, accountant etc) otherwise a restraining order would be a license to steal from someone. It seems to me that Google is a 3rd party, and as long as the Circles invite were a standard form (ie, he did not customize the invitation) it should be open and shut.
Isn't it a felony to entice a 3rd party to point a gun at someone with whom you have a civil disagreement? If they had hired private security to do this, the RIAA would be guilty of a number of serious crimes, but when they get the feds to do it its totally OK? You guys have a weird 'justice' system down there, yankee doodles!
First off, I'm a super heavy internet user at several TB a month, and strongly in favor of separating infrastructure management from service delivery on the internet.
That being said, there is some truth to the ISP claims that caps keep the network better for everyone as switching equipment running near peak capacity tends to increase latency at every step. But, as any network infrastructure business analyst will tell you, the cost of managing your traffic is greater than the cost of increasing bandwidth. Just measuring and logging usage puts more strain on equipment than routing packets does and eats up more capacity the larger the managed network gets (inverse economies of scale). That is except on services that provide fixed divisions of bandwidth, like business fibre.
Basically its a money grab, because ISPs hire guys just like me to tell the same thing. Or I should have a bigger paycheck.
The corporate veil should not protect the asshole's responsible for this. If administrators began going to prison for doing things like this, it would happen a lot less often and companies would have an incentive to correct problems before they get this far.
So, a MAC address can indeed tell you that you're looking for an Apple computer, as the first octet is the Vendor information. I can personally identify lots of component manufacturers's based on the MAC address of the device.
However, I'm not convinced this is what happened, although a simple spell check could screw up the affidavit and turn MAC into Mac.
Mike, the problem here is that is that if you offer a service to the public you MUST offer it to the entire public, and not discriminate who you chose. A store can't hang a 'no negros' sign on it, and a photographer can't have a 'no gays' policy.
This is basically exactly the same as the B&B not allowing gay couples to stay. If you don't want to take pictures of everyone, don't take pictures of anyone.
I'm willing to bet that the MPAA/RIAA products count in that $356 billion line. The danger is using information like this is that it cuts both ways, they will say that because the digital economy is such a large part of trade it must be protected at all costs.
Its a talking point that writes itself, unfortunately.
Unless they can prove that someone outside their organization (that they are not paying for the service) shipped those goods without their knowledge, the shipping of them was a deliberate act (no matter how accidental) and the customers are 100% legally entitled to their Vitas.