It's long been the case that the most certain way to guarantee you get criminal charges is to be a victim of police brutality.
It's done to cover their asses. If the police beat someone, that person had better be doing something wrong. It also lets them attack the person's character in the media. Charge big, and pretend you've got a sure case. After the media furor dies down, you can drop the charges or reduce them to something reasonable.
The new twist is that merely witnessing police brutality can now be treated the same way by misapplying wiretap laws, or obstruction of justice laws, or whatever else they think they can make stick.
If your password is a random string of gibberish, it'd be pretty easy to forget it if you weren't regularly typing it in. It'd be even easier to forget it if you had to memorize new random strings of gibberish (like the encryption password on your new computer).
I have heard that you have decided to test your new subscription model here in Canada. I thought that you might be interested in my response as a Canadian.
I used to be a reader of the New York Times. That ends today, and for as long as your subscription model continues. I also frequently linked to NYT content, as it was both available to visitors and highly reputable. However, now when I am sharing news stories I shall not use the New York Times as I cannot know that those I would be sending to your page will be able to view the content. As my intention is to share the information, I shall instead find news articles elsewhere to link to. I will naturally encourage my friends (both actual and Facebook) to do likewise.
I am sure that your experiment with this model will, like all previous such experiments, be a glorious failure that is eventually withdrawn. On that day I will return as a reader, unless I find a site I like better in the meantime. I wasn't looking before, but I am now.
Twice I've been on the phone while driving... to call 911 to report drunk drivers. On both instances the police asked me to follow the car in question if I could do so safely, in order to provide them with details as to where it was going so that they could catch the car in question.
I'm sure blocking that signal would have made all drivers on the road much safer.
The new laws being proposed don't have anything to do with Craigslist. They are:
1) prohibiting the use of telecommunications to plan a sex offence
2) providing sexually-explicit material to a child to “groom” them for sexual purposes
Of course, they don't actually have anything to do with child porn, either.
The issue wasn't that she'd commented on Facebook, so much as the fact that she'd pre-decided the case, which destroys that "presumption of innocence" thing that our judicial system relies on. All Facebook did here was make it easier to find out/prove that she'd pre-decided.
It sounds like the concern is that a soldier might go and download classified (yet publicly available) information onto a computer, and then that computer will contain that information in the cache. This means that classified information is now on an additional unsecured computer.
Basically, just because something is freely available doesn't mean it's not classified, so they have to treat it as such. The military is a huge bureaucracy. They're not going to relax on enforcing a rule just because it's pointless in the particular situation. Moreover, the military mindset tends to focus on obeying all rules/laws/orders, even where they are pointless. It's not exactly a "think critically for yourself" sort of setup.
You know who are real villains? Master criminals? Serial thieves of the highest order?
I know you're thinking "Wait, blind people? They seem so harmless! And those dapper canes..." I know, I thought that too, but consider this. Blind people persistently ignore a huge amount of advertising. When they wait for a bus, they sit in the bus shelter or on the bench that is partially paid for by the advertising, and they don't see it. The same thing happens when they get on the bus. Like parasites, they take the benefits without paying the 'price' of investigating the ads. Would it kill them to ask a stranger to read out the advertisement in the bus shelter? Certainly not. These people are a menace and must be stopped.
And don't get me started on the illiterate... they're almost as bad as dead people.
The issue is not whether a moron in a hurry would confuse bourbon with tequila, the issue is whether they might see a similar marking on the tequila and think that they were made by the same company or otherwise related. I don't think it's a frivolous claim--particularly as trademarks (unless they are 'famous marks', which this wouldn't qualify as) are limited to the domain they are registered in (ie, liquors). Given that the dripping wax design was actually the most distinctive thing about the bottles, it seems sensible that it'd be covered. Also, keep in mind that the degree of similarity permitted does depend on the context in which buying decisions are made for these sorts of products--the fact that the moron might be drunk actually is relevant here. That said, I think the second suit goes too far
Sadly, it's his cash on the line, and with figures like in the millions on the line, even a 99% chance of winning is a poor gamble. This is especially true because after legal bills, even if he wins he loses.
If he quits, add it to the list of things you put in the letters you write your politicians. You guys do write letters, right?
It sounds like there were a lot of criminal actions going on, and that she had sought help about them long before the suicide. The suicide just got people to actually take her seriously. I agree that this is stupid, but not that they shouldn't take action--they should have been taking action long before this, and possibly preventing suicide.
But this is pretty common, generally. You can get someone who has rifles and is crazily threatening the people at his old workplace, and often they don't get around to doing anything about it until the bodies start hitting the floor.
Also note that in the first instance there's no freedom of speech issue at all. She's not being barred from calling him a flaming bag of monkey shit, but the fact she did so can be called in and used as evidence. In this case it looks like they're using it to try to impeach her credibility--ie, to show that she may have had motivation to lie or distort on the stand, because she hates his guts.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences for speech. If you go into the bar and tell everyone how much you want your ex-wife dead, you had better believe that evidence is going to be called if she later turns up dead. Complaining that it's a violation of your free speech will just give everyone else in the court a big laugh.
Basically, they found that the rapid rise in fakes sold over the internet was actually greatly limiting the plunder of real antiquities.
While that likely won't help with a lot of the animal trades, I can expect that some of the other examples cited (wine with tiger bones) are likely to be subject to a high degree of fakery.
That said, I agree that blaming the technology is a bit stupid. When people communicate, they may do bad things. They may also do good things. Still, this is the same thing as a catalogue and telephone system, just making it easier.
You already see this with police investigations into things like child porn. It used to be that if an investigation found any attempt to hide files (which were usually clumsy and easily-breached), it meant there was serious malfeasance going on. Often they could get confessions even where they couldn't get access to the actual data, simply on the basis that it was suspicious that there was hidden data. Now, when programs like TrueCrypt are common and used for a variety of innocent uses, an encrypted drive could contain anything or nothing, and you can't really draw any inference of criminal behaviour from it.
If they give large numbers of ordinary people reasons to hide that are relatively trivial or entirely innocent, you will get strong tools to do so with, and you won't be able to tell the terrorist from the child pornographer from the organized crime figure from the lawyer sending confidential data from the thirteen year old sharing mp3s from the college student... you get the idea.
When you make up numbers to support your point, it should not surprise you that the resulting numbers support your point. It's circular, but you haven't actually offered any new evidence or argument.
The note about rhyming is just bizarre. Downloader rhymes with freeloader, but also with muzzle-loader, front-loader, and various other random things. Rhymes don't imply connection.
My purchasing habits vary pretty much directly with my downloading. In fact, the peak of my purchasing was with services where I could freely explore new music. My personal tastes don't tend to be reflected by the local radio stations at all. When Napster was around, it was frequently my habit to type random terms into it to expose myself to new and unexpected things. This resulted in a lot of purchases, purely to support the musicians in question. I don't download much any more, as torrents give you an entire CD, which isn't really suited for exposing yourself to lots of varied content. I also don't buy any music, because I never hear new things I might want. In fact, the current state of things, which has resulted from direct pressures by the industry, is a lot less conducive to sampling things to get an idea of what you like, and a lot more conducive to avoiding buying a CD by just downloading it.
Prevent me from downloading and you don't turn me into a fan who is going to spend money instead. You mostly make me unaware of your product, and vaguely annoyed. Neither of these things translate into dollars for you. Even with bands I have liked in the past--yes, I may have liked your last album (or, say, three songs from it). That doesn't mean I'm going to like your next one. If I don't hear something that interests me before I buy it, I'm not buying it. Maybe I hear things at a concert... assuming I already liked your band enough to go to the concert, and assuming you play shows in my area, and assuming they're priced so that I can afford to go and scheduled so that I can go. Inefficient at best.
Lock down your music so only paying customers can hear it, and you'll find it hard to find new customers. You may also find it hard to sell to past customers, unless they were so enthralled they're willing to buy on reputation alone.