As far as I'm aware when the issue of past presidents owning businesses and whatnot came up they did what they could to sever connections between themselves and said businesses to avoid a conflict of interest. Trump... didn't really do this. He handed the reigns of his business to his two sons, and still has a financial stake in it.
With him still involved to that extent it's hardly surprising that he would get extra scrutiny over anything related to it, and while some of the motivation might be partisan a good chunk of the blame would seem to rest right on his shoulders for what he didn't do and could have.
That was... wow. Gotta admit though, some good schadenfreude from some parts of that, and the comment section seemed pretty split between what I hope were paid shills(seriously, including the link in every comment? Who does that in an actual comment?) and people gleefully tearing the claims to pieces.
Those main points being what again? That you don't think TD is that important? That you think that the 'financial models' aren't working for whatever reason, something which has absolutely squat to do with the lawsuit? Some third 'point' that I missed? What points did I provide additional evidence for?
I don't care if you donate or not, I was merely pointing out that your reasoning was short-sighted at best, if not outright irrelevant to the matter at hand.
TD may not 'matter that much' to you but the precedent of 'Say something mean about someone with money and they'll use the courts to crush you' this lawsuit will further entrench into the law will affect far more than one site and service, and given your complaints about 'disaster porn' and 'propaganda-for-rich-fanatics' reporting the chilling effect from this sort of lawsuit is likely to lead to even more of that.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
If I'm reading that right then yes to an extent, though more direct means like TD Insider and gear would probably result in more money getting to TD, though I could be wrong.
A 'significant legal hurdle'? Not really, just requires more money than the other side and a willingness to spend it, which is especially easy when someone else is paying.
If you meant that the judge is less likely to dismiss it at this stage because the other side was forced to settle, then while that may be the case it most certainly shouldn't be. That he was able to take advantage of another lawsuit which drove the shared opposition into the ground most certainly shouldn't be counted in his favor.
All potentially because someone found a way into my router without my knowledge.
Oh it's even more absurd than that. It doesn't even need to reach the level of 'Someone else used your connection to infringe on copyrights', a third-party merely needs to assert that it happened and far too many judges will just take them at their word.
Less 'Someone else drove your car and broke the law, so you're going to be held responsible' and more 'Someone else claims that a car that looks like the one they claim is yours broke the law, and we're not going to check whether or not you even own a car, and if so whether or not it was your car, we're just going to make you responsible for the crime anyway'.
That still strikes me as a 'cost/time saving measure', as well as a cheap dodge around the prohibition against self-incrimination.
'We know X is there' isn't going to hold up in court I would think, whereas 'The prosecution would like to submit X as Exhibit A' is.
The first isn't likely to be treated a legally admissible evidence, the second is, so while it may seem nit-picky it still strikes me as an important difference, and one that forced decryption makes the accused cross, if in no other way that someone decrypting a device and/or providing a password are, in that very act, providing evidence that can be used against them.
Being able to unlock the device demonstrates that the one doing so can, which means they can be linked to whatever the password was protecting.
The most incriminating evidence in existence doesn't do the prosecutors any good if they can't link it to the accused, and being able to provide the password creates that link by establishing that the accused had access to the evidence.
Taking the padlock example it would be more along the lines of 'Go get the key and then use it to unlock this safe', an act that both provides the contents and demonstrates that the one who is being ordered knew where the key was.
As always, this could be easily demonstrated by demanding a legally binding agreement of immunity for anything that the act of decryption provided, an agreement that would not be granted you can be sure, as it would undermine the entire purpose of demanding someone provide the password.
Absolutely right, I mean it's not like politics affects anyone but politicians!
So, couldn't find any examples then?
Actually, let's lower the bar shall we, how about you define 'fake news' before you present any examples, because like I said above I still have no gorram clue what that term is supposed to mean given how often it's thrown around.
Yes, of course, clearly TD is facing the problems it currently is not because someone doesn't like what's been said on it and decided to attempt to destroy it via a lawsuit, but because of it's flawed financial model.
If you don't think that supporting a site that's being sued not because it broke a law or did something wrong but because someone doesn't like what it said is important then enjoy your muzzled sites who only report on puff pieces that don't cover anything important for fear of being sued into oblivion.
In fact reading your comment it's even funnier, because the very things you complain about in your final paragraph is the kind of thing you can expect from every site thanks to the chilling effects from lawsuits like the one TD is currently facing. No digging into important stuff, certainly no coverage that might anger anyone with the power to sue, just tame coverage of the most trivial of topics.
If you have a story you want TD to cover, go to either the top or the bottom of the page and click on the 'Submit a story' link. TD can't cover every story however, and the lawsuit against them certainly isn't helping that matter.
Have you ever considered entering any strong-man contests, or other contests of bodily strength? You spend so much time beating up on strawmen your arms have got to be seriously bulky at this point, might as well put it to good use.
What next, shall we have a judge who doesn't see what the big deal is with those newfangled 'cars'('If walking is good enough for me, it's good enough for anyone!') ruling on whether or not people can have a licence revoked from mere accusations of wrongdoing by third-parties?
I didn't agree with that argument when I first ran across it, and I still don't, and the 'forgone conclusion doctrine' is a pile of rot as far as I'm concerned.
The fifth prohibits forced self-incrimination, and forcing someone to decrypt someone is forcing them to provide evidence that will be used against them, even if that's limited solely to the fact that they can unlock the device/account, and therefore can be tied to the contents of it.
(Something which can be easily demonstrated by the accused simply requesting a legally binding grant of immunity regarding anything found in exchange for decrypting the device. Any guess on how quick they'd be to reject that deal?)
As for the forgone conclusion doctrine if it's actually a 'forgone conclusion' that they'll get access to something then great, they can do it themselves. If they have to force someone else to provide the evidence then it's pretty obviously not a 'forgone conclusion', as they didn't have it, and couldn't get it without compelling someone else to give it to them.