In my post, I was being sarcastic. Reading it in retrospect, I can see how that would fail to come across. I should have added a line about prostrating ourselves to be walked over by government hob-nailed boots, or something like that.
That's all anyone needs to do is cooperate with the government. Government shows up at your bank, the bank should just cooperate and give them any of your account information they want. At your email provider, same thing. Agent shows up at your door and asks to search your house, step aside and cooperate.
We have Fourth Amendment rights, yes, but that doesn't mean we should be uncooperative when the government wants in.
4. His clueless request asks for "https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails" to be removed. That's the front page for Wikileaks' archive of all the leaked Sony emails. That means that the actual email wouldn't even have been removed from Google's Index if Google had complied (which it did not).
You think that was the mistake, but it wasn't. As I'm sure he would tell you if you asked, he meant to leave off the "/sony/emails" part and only takedown "https://wikileaks.org/". Oops.
Many of those responding to Tuesday's opinion emphasised the main finding that "solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences and the smooth conduct of proceedings other than criminal proceedings are not."
Nice ruling. Translation: You can make them keep data for any serious crime--such as that "serious crime" of copyright infringement--but you can't make them keep data that might expose the inner (mis)workings of government or corporations.
The ruling so wonderfully expresses the difference between ruling and ruled.
Not true. What the government wants to do--at the bidding of big media--is line pirates up in front of a firing squad. But someone might object to that if the government just jumps in, so they're starting small and working up.
There's absolutely no reason that the airlines shouldn't be providing their own security at airports. Security was actually much better when that was the case and people weren't molested or worse every time they wanted to fly.
No, you're wrong, there's a very good reason. The taxpayers are paying for the TSA abuse. If the airlines did their own security, they would have to pay.
...nine purchases...three and a half months...purchase every two weeks...hardly lab-supporting frequency...if law enforcement officers are looking for a reason to search a vehicle/house, this level of activity is considered suspicious.
Somehow, I don't think "frequency" mattered here. What if he'd only bought it only once in three and a half months? I bet LCNA would have considered that suspicious, too.
In fact, I bet if NPLEx had shown zero purchases LCNA would have found that suspicious on the grounds that he was clearly buying pseudoephedrine under a false name.