They have no standing and no case on which the courts can rule, only an injunction against what is a theoretical situation for the moment.
So it's possible to get an injunction against an abusive partner without them having been arrested for anything and on the basis of previous behaviour, but it's impossible to get an injunction against an abusive government agency until you're arrested? Gotta love the double standard...
One factor which may be used in determining whether a work is a work of artistic craftsmanship is assessing the extent to which the work’s artistic expression is unconstrained by functional considerations.
So a chair that's f***ing uncomfortable is artistic, and a comfortable one isn't... right? Damn, who knew my old school had the most artistic chairs ever?
However, we’re confident that the Smart Metering System strikes the best balance between security and business needs, whilst meeting broader policy and national security objectives.
Did anyone else read that as: " ...strikes the best balance between pretending it does what we say, whilst leaving a nice backdoor that we can use to gather more information about you and hope no-one else notices it."?
There is also the failure of the PD's to check to see if there is open WiFi when they get the location.
Or any WiFi for that matter. It's not like secured WiFi is particularly hard to break into and I would imagine a 1/2 tech-savvy criminal would prefer the police give them fair warning by breaking down a neighbour's door instead.
Totally a brilliant idea - assuming you're an Italian politician of course: Step 1 / Pass really stupid law outlawing mockey. Step 2 / Use really stupid law to sue anyone who points out it's a really stupid law because they're mocking your work. Step 3 / Profit!
"Because we, and many large corporations like us, all of whom have way more money than an entire nation full of you will make in a lifetime bought a law that says it is, that's why. You don't expect elected representatives to listen to people about laws, do you?"
He also doctored his performance evaluations and obtained new positions at NSA by exaggerating his resume and stealing the answers to an employment test. In May 2013, Snowden informed his supervisor that he would be out of the office to receive treatment for worsening epilepsy. In reality, he was on his way to Hong Kong with stolen secrets.
Sooooo, you claim you promoted the guy based on a forged resume? And he got away because he claimed he was ill? Sound like what you're really claiming is that, as an intelligence agency, your intelligence gathering and counter-espionage skills are so woefully inadequate as to be unable to spot ploys about as advanced as "I didn't hand in my homework 'coz the dog ate it", and "I'm sorry I can't come to work this Monday, I've got a 24 hour virus"
IAN(even slightly)AL, but that sounds to me like some intrepid litigator ought to gather together a bunch of people who have been screwed over by the CFAA and take a run at it. I imagine there's unlikely to be a shortage of candidates for plaintiffs...
An interesting counter-point, but I tihnk there's a distinction to be made in the state's exercise (read abuse, IMO) of its power.
Indeed. Possibly one of the hardest lines to draw - Logically, there has to be a line where stupid/assholish behaviour crosses into actual abuse worthy of punishment by law, but it's nothing you could ever point to, except on a case-by-case basis.
On the other hand, IMO the abuse of a position of power over someone to intimidate or harass is is good step towards crossing that line - especially by agents of the Government...
The reference and the use of assets in that manner seems futile and risky, unless of course you are hoping to get a whole bunch of exposure online for the results through sites like Techdirt and Torrent Freak.
Or maybe they were fans and there was something Mario-related that inspired them to create something new.... you know... like normal people.
Creation is always based on "someone else's work" and most normal people don't even consider the insane over-reach that has become "derivative works" until they run face-on into it.
we need to cut out the bad parts to save the system
I think you meant, "Cut out the bad parts and rebuild the entire system from first principles", there, but I agree with the sentiment. Courts ought to be essentially open and even-handed instead of covering up systemic corruption and biased in favour of the rich and powerful.
I am wondering which party figures it out first... that supporting a lying politician gets everyone no where.
Apart from getting everyone elected to office and/or in a position to negotiate favourable laws and "trade" deals to make themselves and cronies even more of the already ludicrous money they already control, you mean? Of course it doesn't get "normal" people anywhere, but they don't count, do they?
No, Edward Snowden had not sparked a global debate about privacy
Well he's sort of right, in that aware people in the UK knew privacy was being screwed long before Snowdon and attempted to debate it... but the UK Government response has always been similar to the rest of his tirade - i.e. sticking his fingers in his ears and going "La, la la la la! I'm not listening!"
Re: Would you like a border sham? Would you like it Sam-I-am?
Where "border" includes international airports, so by far the majority of the U.S., and particularly the majority of its citizens, are not under the protection of the Bill of Rights these days.
Doesn't even need to include airports to be outrageous... A quick look suggests that an area over 5x the size of the entire United Kingdom is encompassed by "100 miles from the actual border".
According to the ACLU, the "border" exemption applies to approx 2/3 of the US population! (~200 million people!)
From this side of the pond it increasinly looks like the US government is like: "Oh, yeah... the Constitution... fabulous document... in the abstract. Let's just not have it apply to actual people, right?"