The Whois Accuracy Program Specification Review remains open for public comment on the ICANN website through the 3rd of July 2015. This topic, and other topics open for comment can be found here. In order to leave a comment with ICANN, you will need to register with their site.
A summary of the review process ICANN is conducting with respect to their Whois Accuracy Program can be found here. Note that this is actually a review of the program that was proposed in 2013.
You apparently didn't read the linked story. Yes, the money had been in a bank, and it was still in the Michigan bank envelope when seized. The original news report by Joline Gutierrez Krueger in the Albuquerque Journal can be read here.
1) This traveller’s bank was required to submit a record of his cash withdrawal. 2) He was required to produce valid photo ID when he purchased his Amtrak ticket. 3) DHS believes any large cash transaction is potentially evidence of drug-money laundering and/or tax-evasion until proven otherwise.
In view of the above, there is no reason I can think of to discount the possibility that the bank and travel information might have been pulled together by DHS software, and an alert triggered to send the DEA to investigate. If you think that is paranoia, consider that "monitoring of suspicious activity" is exactly what the government has been saying they are trying to do when they spend millions of our tax dollars on 'big data' tracking programs like Palantir.
The possibility for unethical and unconstitutional targeted abuse is exactly why I get concerned when government, and in particular law enforcement, starts talking about the benefits of big data.
It's a given that the detective and the district attorney may be unfit for their jobs given such behaviour, but where is the judge's name and conduct in this discussion? Doesn't the willingness to sign such a warrant call into question one's fitness to be a judge? Isn't the reason we call them judge is because they are expected to be able to exercise good judgement?
The WSJ article would have us believe there are between 30,000 and 40,000 illegal online pharmacy websites in the world, although no standard of what constitutes an illegal pharmacy is given. The WSJ then drops clues to who is behind this supposed FDA initiative to get rid of "illegal" online pharmacies. The article quotes the opinion of legal counsel to the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly, and also the Portland firm LegitScript which consists of former drug prosecutor John Horton, who is a consultant to pharmaceutical companies regarding "illegal" distribution of medications online.
A quick browse to LegitScripts' website reveals that there are exactly 35,610 illegal online pharmacies in the world, but only 212 legal pharmacies. Wow! Who knew that 99.4% of the entire online world was so completely over-run with crooks? LegitScript tells us that only online pharmacies who have pledged to follow the regulations issued by the FDA and the DEA are legal.
If you read a bit more about LegitScript you find that its chief reason for existence is to help pharmaceutical companies keep inexpensive medications out of the mailboxes of US consumers, and thereby ensure that the US drug pricing scheme is maintained. Dubious made-up scare-mongering statistics - they're not just for media copyrights and trademarks anymore, they work for pharmaceutical patents too.
Congress created asset forfeiture law, and Congress has proceeded to make it worse time after time. Members of Congress need to be held responsible - individually, and by name.
The IRS lost a forfeiture case at the Supreme Court in 1994 (Ratzlaf v. US) when a defendant was able to successfully make the case that he hadn't known he was "structuring" deposits in a way that could be considered illegal. The execrable federal prosecutors then complained to Congress who shamefully obliged them and changed to law to remove the requirement that the offence be "willful". I haven't done the research to see exactly which members of Congress sponsored that legislation, but this information should be sought, and they should be exposed as being responsible for this nonsense. Any time legislators seek to remove Mens Rea (intent) from the law, they are weakening respect for the law, because eventually such a law will be unjustly abused by regulators, law enforcement and prosecutors. See the discussion of the IRS and Ratzlaf v. US at the Volokh Conspiracy.
"The SC's ruling basically made it impossible for Aereo to exist, and now the lower court judge is just following their instructions."
...however, one gets the impression that this outcome may not actually be what the Supreme Court expected. If Aereo believes that to be the case, and if Barry Diller is stubborn enough to keep paying lawyers, then this battle might yet go on for a while.
Mozilla is dependent on the Google money that supports them.
Some things in Firefox that would be safer for the user are off or unconfigured by default. For example Do Not Track is not active by default. I suspect (of course I have no proof) it's because Google prefers it that way.
Most likely Google is willing to drop this policy because they are now so sophisticated at tracking users across the web that they believe they will be able to identify users as unique individuals, even when a user displays a pseudonym on Google+. This is an improvement - so long as you aren't afraid of what Google itself does with your personal information, or what a government agency might do with it after extracting the information from Google, but at least a person can now discuss issues, and express an opinion without everyone else knowing who they are in the rest of their life. Even in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech, professionals who want to keep their career persona separate from their political expressions have stayed away from Google+, and have curtailed their Facebook activity precisely for this reason. Note that Twitter, which does allow anonymity, has certainly benefited from this dynamic.