This is something that needs to be addressed higher up.
What the tattoo artist is arguing is silly. He's saying he owns the copyright on any depiction of a person that shows his tattoo. This is wrong. According to copyright law as it stands now, the only person who can own the copyright on any image of a person is the person that created it (most images depicting people would be illegal if this were not the case). This can not change. If the tattoo artist wins, he can also make the claim that he owns the copyright of any image that shows one of his tattoos. That would mean he had some copyright claims on the filming and broadcasting of the games that depict his work plus any other image showing his work. This would make the filming or photographing of anyone that is visibly showing a tattoo a nightmare, because I guarantee you if he wins it will open the floodgates for all kinds of copyright claims by tattoo artists.
No they can't. Doing so would allow the prosecution or the court to decide what expert witnesses the defense could show the information to, which would be an abrogation of the defendants right to a fair trial.
but the government has a justifiable right not to turn the information over to the defense?
How so? In my understanding, if a judge orders any documentation to be revealed during discovery--it must be revealed, especially if not revealing it leaves any amount of doubt of possible innocence. Which is a point you could raise against not revealing it--the FBI either knows or is concerned that the software they used has some non-trivial margin of error which could or would raise reasonable doubt suspicions.
So, how could a judge possibly compel someone to release information during discovery? I don't know--possibly, maybe filing contempt of court charges against the person responsible, and indefinitely jailing them until they comply. Do you think that could work? Nah, we only use that option against defendants, it'd be bad form to do that to a prosecutor or the FBI.
Yep, which is the most likely reason that the charges got dropped. i'm quite sure any halfway decent defense attorney would have pointed out that the student was at best only guilty of the indecent exposure, it was the photographer who was guilty of manufacturing the image, the yearbook company of publishing it, and the school of distributing it--plus adding in the crime of exploitation of a minor. So, of course they are dropping it--we wouldn't want to ruin the lives and careers of a bunch of adults now would we? We only like to do that to the kids.
The NSA already has or can easily get an exact number of purely domestic communications that they have intercepted under the Section 702 surveillance program. There has to be a database of all the identifying markers of any intercepted communications in order for any of them to be searchable (or not searchable if wholly domestic). So, if they are following the law (ha!), every communication that is intercepted would have to be first scanned for origin and destination, and if both of those are domestic the scan would stop, flag the record as domestic communication in the database, and move on to the next one. They would only have to run a simple database search (if origin=domestic+destination=domestic is yes, add 1 to the numerical result) to give us an exact number of domestic communications intercepted. they would not even have to scan the intercepted communications themselves--just the database, which they have to already do every time they do any kind of search through it.
So, the NSA saying that to give us this number they would have to violate US citizens privacy by scanning these communications is a lie. They have already violated our privacy in the way they are claiming calculating this number would do.
Knowing this database exists--it has to, or all the collected communications would be useless (it would take to long to search for anything useful if it didn't); you can only come to two conclusions. The first is the NSA is actually searching domestic communications in violation of the law. The second is that they are skirting the law in keeping them in the hopes that someday they will be allowed to search them. If either of those were not the case, they would have deleted the domestic communications already.
The original US NES (1985) had a lockout chip which was designed to block unlicensed games from playing on the system, but also caused problems with legitimate game playback. On PC The Secret of Monkey Island (1990) had the "Dial a Pirate" wheel, and Night Hawk: F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0 (1991) had an aircraft identification system so you could not play without the manual. So, DRM systems since 1985? 30+ years ago? Not very recent.
This lawsuit has nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with publicity. Google his name--the entire first page is nothing but his website and social media links, links to his book, some random dentist who shares his last name (who has the 2nd link), and this story on Techdirt. Sounds like someone is sad 'cause his get rich quick self-help scheme isn't taking off
Why do citizens in these continue to allow ignorant scared people to make such blatantly bad rules?
Because the vast majority of these citizens are just as ignorant about why strong encryption is important to a technological society as the politicians trying to pass these laws--and like these politicians they have no desire to learn anything about it--so like these politicians they are easily exploited by those who want to undermine these systems--who for the most part are probably just as ignorant as to why this is a bad idea as everyone else.
I know it's very cynical of me, but in my view the world is run with a recursive cluster---- of ignorance and stupidity.
Seeing that only 7 states charge sales tax on internet access (I happen to live in one of them), I don't think this is a really big issue--it only adds less than three bucks to my bill every month and does actually fund the state you are living in (although it would be nice if they could force that revenue into subsidizing rural broadband).
What I wish they would tackle is the ridiculous equipment rental fees that get charged to everyone, and do nothing but line the providers pocket after about 6-12 months when the actual cost of the equipment has been covered.
Almost every piece of electronics I've seen has had some form of anti-tamper system used in its manufacture, specifically designed to stop people from mucking about with its intended functionality. do the manufacturers of these devices employ none of these in their designs? That would be a huge design flaw in a product that is supposed to protect both the people that the police come into contact with and the police themselves.
Apple is powerful enough to quickly set up factories elsewhere.
Nope, setting up new tech factories is not something that can be done quickly or cheaply. Apple would be looking at about 5 years just to get all the paperwork,picking a site with a large population of tech savvy workforce , getting infrastructure built, plant design, permits, and all the other stuff they need to do before they could even break ground and start building (which could add another 5 or more years to the project depending on any delays). So about 10 years to bring their manufacturing in-house. And none of this addresses the fact that their products could be (or are) infringing on someone's patents in China, which is very quickly becoming a market you need to cater to.
Each "cover page" lists a "criminal case #": "Criminal Case #15-172076FLPD."
All that means is that he called the cops about this. I'm assuming that the "FLPD" at the end of that case number stands for the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, which of course has to file a case number for every complaint they get (even if it's some nut-job who thinks aliens have implanted him with mind controlling devices). Any real criminal charges would come from a District Attorney's office.
Yes it does. But unless you're on a ridiculously high latency connection the transmission and cpu overhead is trivial. I would rather wait the extra 60 to 80 milliseconds that https requires to gain the extra security.