By being ordered to provide all files, they at least don't have the expense of filtering the files -- no expert needs to examine each file. Just a simple clerk and a scanner. I can't imagine that would cost "millions". Investment in a good high capacity scanner would get the job done in less than a month and would be a capital cost and not even be applicable to this one request.
More likely they'll invest in a low-quality copier and take the rest of the year.
It is cases like this which clearly indicate which lawyers you should not go to for handling trademark filings. The good lawyers would tell you that it can't be that generic and suggest other means, like font, or color, or something, to make it unique enough to serve as a mark.
Letting anyone sue for privacy violations when no one actually agrees what "privacy means" is a recipe for a ton of nuisance lawsuits.
Are "privacy means" the mechanisms by which privacy is afforded? I agree that what exactly is meant by "privacy" in a connected world is open to interpretation, but I have no clue as to what means are used to provide privacy. [e.g. I would never have thought that my license plate would be an example of a privacy issue, until LPRs became ubiquitous and connected to databases.]
Would a better mechanism than allowing use of the courts to sue a company for misuse of private information be to have the equivalent of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- a Consumer Privacy Protection Bureau?
Any conflict between a single consumer and a data collection business (whether it purports to be a search engine or a social media company) is entirely one-sided. Handing that task over to a government agency, such as the imagined 'CPPB' would at least allow for a leveling of the playing field. (insert meme for being wrong on so many levels...).
Considering the "police" (a) would not identify themselves as police and (b) would not show them a warrant, they could have been anyone. Taking the precaution of "saving" his digital data before they finished breaking down his door seems like a prudent thing to do.
I must admit, though, that it takes discipline to have all of your data easily extractable like that (and then having a drone ready and programmed to go to a "safe" location). Well played Boyko. Well played.
If you investigate the timing it is likely Ukraine.
This started in late July / early August with the G7 meeting where he asked for them to ignore the invasion of Crimea and include Russia again, followed by cutting off military aid to Ukraine. Pure speculation that any discussions with the newly elected President of Ukraine would probably include an offer to restore the aid if he did something for Trump (or even the US; I think either is likely).
Or not. I'd ask for popcorn, sit back and watch, but I've got this bad feeling in my stomach about this administration...
There needs to be a detailed "How To" workbook on setting up a community broadband network: Cost break downs on what equipment is needed, fixed infrastructure needs, and needs "per customer". Then maintenance and personnel costs over time.
This is something that would be necessary in order to present to a board of selectmen to say "this is what it will cost to set up, and it will be self supporting in X years" (along with other reasons to do it such as support for schools and other government entities (police, fire, dpw, and town hall))
I've looked and found nothing like that at all. There are of course other issues, such as possibly dealing with State-related legislation (like Colorado's), but those should be separable from the actual installation issues.
Ah, but the judge could require them to affirm under oath that the information is true to the best of their knowledge. Yes, it is "taking their word for it", but the judge ends up holding a rather large club in case they are found to be lying.
Nowhere in the linked NYT article does the word "treason" appear. The non-direct quote you included above (i.e. "To be blunt again ...") is the opinion of the writer (incorrectly I believe) summarizing Pellosi's statement.
As for the "state of war": one could argue that the US and Russia are once again in a cold war (Cold War II anyone?), although I don't think it has risen to that level (yet). I'm not even sure the "cold war" of the 50's to 90's constituted a "state of war" since it was as much a war as the "war on drugs", i.e. not.
"That’s why I did it, because I wouldn’t want anyone else to go through this. Other people don’t have the means to defend themselves in the same way."
And what would keep the next hash brown wielding driver to not be ticketed? The case centered entirely on the particulars. If the police are expected (or allowed) to enforce "no cellphone use while driving" laws, there is nothing in this case which stops them from misidentifying a breakfast treat: the driver would then need to appeal the ticket in exactly the same way.
I think the cost estimate is laughably too low. Considering some of the dreck posted to youtube, I would want considerably more than £20k/year to subject myself to screening it; possibly double (or more), especially if they don't want too many false negatives.
Wouldn't giving it to the public defenders officer act as a perverse incentive? If a person's cash (or other goods) were seized, and distribution was based on conviction, and they are defended by someone who benefits from losing, then there is a problem.
Assign it to education in some form (universal Pre-K?) and there should be no conflicts.