Yeah it's resident not home owner. The issue is that there have been a couple decisions before, one that if only one resident is there and they give permission, it's fine, but if both are there and one gives permission and the other refuses it's not fine. This case is where the one guy refused a search previously, but was no longer there and the other resident, being the only one home at the time, allowed the search.
increasing security is a completely separate thing, which is measurable only by results in a private company like Google. Increasing the number of passwords you keep track of passwords only gives the perception of security. Using the same password for multiple accounts is not at all the same thing as using the same account for multiple things.
Well, thats why god gave us the gift of choosing which services we patronize I guess :) If there are more than the two of you, maybe it will be enough to support some service that doesn't use single sign on and caters to the crowd that loves to fiddle with passwords.
I don't know if I would call his girlfriend an asshole for not protecting her boyfriend who beats her up in this particular case, but yeah, they have to have permission to search your place from someone who lives there. I would have naturally assumed they could search the place under these conditions.
They need to whoever is actually residing at the place tell them they can search your shared place. It's pretty ridiculous to say that an abused girlfriend doesn't have the authority to let the cops into her house her boyfriend said he doesn't want her to let them in.
Sounds like your memory is flawed. No one ever asked for stupidity. There may have been some pointing out that putting people in jail without evidence of actual wrongdoing may have been stupid.. There may have been some pointing out that it was a stupid idea and wasn't working. There may have been some pointing out that the way they are measuring the impact of piracy is smoke and mirrors with no substance.. but no one asked to pile on more idiocy based on speculation and lies.. It's always been requests for honesty and actual analysis of what we know.
However, having your internet cut off on an "guilty until proven innocent" basis is better than going to jail on that basis imho.. So I guess it's a step forward? It's hard to tell, I think the stepper is drunk.
Re: OK, so there is/was s a Canadian tax on blank media..
Nope. We have anti circumvention here now as well (C-32), We can't legally decrypt anything. If there are any other horrible laws that the US hasn't forced on us yet, we will have them as well soon. The Media tax was intended as a cash grab and resulted in being nothing. The epic result of that tax is that we now labels that say "data CD" and "music CD" and no one buys the music ones.