Sony's problems reflect badly on the movie industry to a degree but the movie industry has an image problem from before. Hollywood accounting is well known. Disney is in the movie/entertainment industry and I doubt they are clean.
The problem is with this is the disable almost always get the shaft. Part of the problem is the disable are disparate group with all sorts of medical issues. So there is often a fix for one group that could cause problems for others.
People can be divided into 4 groups on computer security: 1. White hats who try find flaws and alert the appropriate people about them so the flaws can be fixed (Roberts). This is relatively small group because of the skills needed to find the flaws. 2. The security aware who try keep up with the field but lack the deep technical knowledge to routinely find flaws. The is not a particularly large group but an important because they often provide a link to educate others about best practices. Readers of Techdirt and similar blogs are in this group. 3. The average user who does not keep up with most security issues and may not understand their implications. They are heavily reliant on their technically aware friends and family members for advice, training, and support. This by far the largest group of users. Often they confuse the white hats with the black hats, especially by the technical illiterates in the criminal injustice system. 4. The black hats who use flaws to harm others usually financially but occasionally in other ways. Many black hats are script kiddies who do not have the technical skill to find the flaws. They are reliant on more skill black hats to find them and determine how to exploit. This is a very small but dangerous group.
Fiber evidence and similar evidence is used to exclude not to prove. Say you find there are 30 sort of viable suspects for a crime. Fiber evidence proves that 25 could not have done the crime, you are now left with 5 good suspects to investigate.
Now multiple different types of fibers (hair, carpet, clothing) combined could narrow the list done to 1 or 2 people. But you should have other evidence to tie the case together.
The real scandal is not the dodgy fiber evidence but how much of the other evidence is equally dodgy.
Juries can only decide based on the evidence and testimony they have. If these are flawed the jurors are liable to convict an innocent person because, essentially, they were lied to and had no point of reference to prove the lie. If OJ Simpson did not have money he would have convicted because "minor" issues like improper sample chain of custody would never have come out. In science, the analysis is only as good as the sample it is provenance.
The tables remind me, as an old chemist, of the periodic table that hangs in many classrooms. To me the obvious inspiration for both is that classic from about 1910 or so. So who is going rise out of the grave literally and sue the witch?
The underlying problem with phishing attacks is that many legitimate emails will arrive with attachments in one's corporate email over the course of a week. Some may be from people who are outside the company.
While my position is one were almost all my company email is internal and the few outsiders are well, many sales and technical support people deal with outsiders mostly. Many of these outsiders may legitimately need to send an attachment.
Re: Re: Re: Good web site design makes a lot of this moot
To me the basic problem with the ADA is the fact that what is a reasonable accommodation for one type of disability may often be harmful to another type of disability. Think of the wheel chair ramps on sidewalks; the blind used to use the 4" curb as a warning they were about to step into a street.
Re: Re: (1)(A)(ii) kicks the props from under pirate sites.
The real problem for an ISP or host service is they are not privy to any agreements with the copyright holders and the user/website. The DMCA actually tries to distinguish between the user, who may be infringing, and the service who is ignorant of the precise situation until notified. Common sense says there is a certain amount of infringement (deliberate and accidental) occurring.
"Many people may not realize that a lot of "pirates" were much less interested in getting (or giving) stuff for free than they were in reaping the satisfaction of sticking it to these greedy, vindictive corporations."
Also, they never grasped that "pirates" could be used as free advertising. iTunes showed that most people would pay a reasonable price to download music and videos.
The vindictive part is all too true. Many have hard the horror stories of the music and film industry accounting practices that deny royalties to the artists. Many, who have some sense of ethics and morality, despise both industries and only weep crocodile tears over industry laments.
I knew a couple of musicians who told me the actual economics of producing a recording (~2000). If they could self publish the recording, a $10 cd at that time had a break even point somewhere around 3 to 5,000 units for a production lot of 10,000 cds.
With the judge staying in the middle, the troll will have a harder time recouping their money. The judge may require the troll to put a more realistic damage figure one might pay if one loses the case.