Thanks all. I was not connecting why it was correct to invoke 1789 (prior to the telephone device) so prominently in the article & headline, instead of 1911 or 1948 when the law was updated within the context of the telephone device existing. Seems it's the underlying principle of the 1789 origin though, so I'll settle down.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I doubt the original All Writs Act contained language about pen-registers on technology not yet invented. 1789 may be the basis of the 1911-and-thereafter updates, but this language does not actually date back to "Antiquated 1789", right?
Finally, a case of what would seem to be actual trademark infringement, and it's coming from our friendly national-IP-enforcement agency. Maybe they can also sell their own Apple iPhones minus the encryption, or bottle their own Coca-cola so suspects ingest tracking devices.
So the guy holding a job that's subject to a constitutional framework which limits his intrusion into our lives without targeted purpose is arguing that the public for which that framework exists is the one that's "above the law" by using a tool which supports that constitutional framework. This isn't a pendulum swinging, it's a fire hose of bull excrement pushing everyone onto the No-Fly list.
"Does Mike Rogers think so little of the American public that he believes they won't actually read what Snowden wrote and realize that Rogers is flat out lying?" Yes, yes he does. And he's absolutely right.
There is no inequity. An author or musician only gets money once per copy upon that copy's first sale. If they sell the original manuscript, which is the equivalent of the artist's original painting, they would be paid for it once just like the artist.
Except you tried to change the original argument from banning bananas to banning brandishing them. That verb belongs to you, not the original argument. Yes, it may be illegal to use a banana to rob a bank. It is not illegal to own, possess, or consume or banana. Or carry one into a bank.
Isn't threatening someone if they don't do something outright blackmail? It's weird to bring that up here on a non-Copyright post, but it sure seems like "take down the stuff mentioning us or we'll have you arrested for stealing" is pretty blatant.
By that logic, there should be a shoe-size threshold as well. Proposal: US Mens size 10 or smaller, you're free to keep your foot odor to yourself (provided the blueshirts don't detect any anomalies such as a loose heel or an unfamiliar knot). Size 10 or greater, remove your shoes for screening. While the rule only applies to Men's sizes, profiling is wrong so if you have a women's size 10 or higher you may also be asked to remove your shoes for screening.
If your footwear is European sized, no matter what the size you must remove them for screening because you've clearly done business or traveled abroad and therefore are subject to enhanced screening. Once screened, said footwear will be turned over to ICE at the International Terminal to ensure it isn't counterfeit or infringing on a copyright. If it is, you will be subject to rendition to a secret holding cell at Disney headquarters. But if you're cleared after all this, you are free to continue to your gate where you'll have an unobstructed view of your plane taking off without you.
"However, I don't think I've ever heard the level of dislike towards an owner like the publicly expressed feelings many fans have towards Dan Snyder."
I think the hatred of Al Davis by Raiders fans (of which I am not) is worse, but he isn't suing them (just the league and former coaching staff). Kinda gives credence to the Streisand Effect point you made.