If ever there were a "Wink Wink" statement in a court ruling, it is the following:
"We make no comment on what type of contempt Smith may wish to seek, whether the court might re‐consider the possibility of civil contempt, or whether criminal contempt could be justified once the proper procedures are followed. We are confident that the district court will take a fresh look at these questions in light of this opinion."
Translation: Mr. Steele get ready to defend yourself against Criminal Contempt.
I'm sure the company making these and taking a cut, did not just make 16 of them. While Oklahoma is taking the abuse here, the question is how many other states have and use them, but just are keeping their mouths closed about it.
The government's problem here is that they admitted that some of the money was non-tainted. They won't make that mistake again. Now instead of trying to defend yourself against the crime with a public defender, you will be trying to get a ruling that a portion of the money wasn't tainted without being able to pay for a lawyer.
While the usage caps need to be spelled out, the thing that riles most people is the below the line charges. It would be easy to fix that by just making a rule that only taxes and fees actually charged by government agencies could go below the line.
That rule should not be just for broadband service, but also for TV and Telephone, where (at least in my area) the practice is even more abused.
LucyP, you are obviously a big PETA supporter, but a copyright expert you are not. The law does in fact hinge on the species, If you actually want to see why instead of clinging to your opinion, click on the link in the article near the end of the first paragraph (highlighted "There is None").
It is a sad state of affairs when then most accurate reporting you can get on the important issues is on the satire shows. Granted they only do one show a week and dig deep into a few stories. Still "The Daily Show" "This Week Tonight", etc do more accurate reporting than any of the "True" news outlets with their repetitive sound bites and willingness to pass on press releases with almost no research into what are in them.
The only thing that any telephone/Cable/internet company should be able to place "Below the line" is actual government taxes or government mandated charges. All this crap that they try to name to make it sound like a tax or government charge, should have to be in their advertised prices.
I just got a new commercial firewall for work from a respected security company that had the admin admin defaults. The other problems that ASUS routers have, I blame on them, but the leaving the admin password at the default is a user problem, as is not turn of the management access on the WAN link.
While the new firewall does not make you change the default password, it does nag you until you do.
My definition of a "Backdoor" is a way around the built in security features (i.e. the front door). Obviously the definition you are using is what the government is using, when they say they are not asking for a back door.
I'm willing to admit that you could say they are asking for a backdoor with a less secure lock, rather than asking for an unlocked backdoor.
I don't think in the previous cases Apple above and beyond what they legally had to do. They received either a subpoena, warrant or a court ordered "All writs" request and had the information and provided it. Those were legal, reasonable requests.
What they didn't do was write a back door to their phones. There is a vast difference between providing information you have, and creating something that doesn't exist.