"Confidential Information" means data that is protected from disclosure on a computer, computer program, computer system or computer network and that the computer, computer program, computer system or computer network does not transmit or disclose unless initiated by the owner of such computer, computer program, computer system or computer network.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems the google search example falls down because data is not confidential unless it's both protected from disclosure and not disclosed by the computer owner. Since the former condition is not met, anything publicly available would not be covered by this statute. Not that I think it's a good law or anything.
Booking.com also tries to skirt the very big issue that TLDs like ".com" are not considered in trademark analysis. The determination is made on "Booking" which at best is descriptive, if not generic when referring to a travel booking site.
This really should have been described and cited in the article. Tim made absolutely no mention of this fact and it's critically important in evaluating the claim.
Re: Re: "It's not my fault for stealing the cookies, it's your fault for catching me."
The idea is that the NSA had already accounted for all those other factors, and the Snowden revelations sped up the timetable putting us seven years ahead of where we would have been without them. Whether they actually successfully accounted for all the factors and their timeline is accurate I have no idea. Sounds like it would have a pretty large margin of error. Maybe plus or minus seven years?
Great another anti-patriot, that is police state mentality and in contravention of the 4th!
I think his statement could be rephrased as "if executing a search of the phone of someone you've already arrested, there's no reason not to seek a warrant first." You seem to have interpreted it as "there's no reason to ever deny a warrant to search someone who has already been arrested".
So I get the feeling when they try to repeal or ban that pesky 2nd amendment things will come to a head one way or another
They're not trying to repeal any amendments, just adding more and more exceptions to them. 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th, for example. The 3rd, 7th, and 9th seem to be in pretty good shape still.
Re: Re: Re: Would you like a border sham? Would you like it Sam-I-am?
What it does allow is things like check points on major highways after the border, say 20 or 30 miles inland. This is a pretty important part of trying to stop human smuggling and such, as these are points with few options for people to get around.
Why not put the check point... I don't know, at the border?
Customers shouldn't be giving their Comcast passwords to others
They don't, at least not with HBO Go, I assume Starz works the same way. There is a redirect to the web site of the TV provider, where the user authenticates, and then the provider sends an all clear back to the video streaming site.