Course? Why? They already know what their legal standing is. That's the best part of being a $4 billion/year plus law university: you know what your legal standing is.
They also know that the student is not going to be able pony up $500,000 to fight for his rights.
All it cost the university to shut the student down is a couple of $150 hours of one of university's retained law firm's paralegals to threaten to crush the student. Why should that waste of time bother the university? It's worth it to get rid of the nuisance.
No, like any major rights holder, they know full well what the score is: them, $300; nuisance student, silenced, unwelcome idea crushed, rights immaterial.
Compare the cell phone market. In order to sell cell phones for a particular network, such as AT&T, the cell phone has to meet certain gatekeeper requirements. It is not the customer that decides those, but the manufacturer.
This proposed cable box market would be similar: the cable boxes will meet gatekeeper requirements or they can't run on a particular cable system at all. The customer will not get to decide those requirements. But in that market, the customer gets a choice of cable boxes, and where to actually buy them, and the available features, and the price they pay.
Right now, the cable company provides this crappy 100 Watt round-the-clock box that has damn few features. They probably pay $10-$30 for the box, but they charge me $5-$10 a month to have it.
A market more like the cell phone market is much to my advantage, as a consumer, and the security aspect is way overblown.
Let's see...doing it forensic evidence right versus doing a cakewalk to conviction. How do we think real-world CSI's will decide?
Forensic scientists can debate until they're blue, but nothing is changing until their testimony starts sinking cases. And since forensic scientists are "free" for testimony at $400/hour or so, guess how much testimony they'll be giving for average man.
To me, this seems a reasonable change--mostly. The primary purpose of the existing rule 41 under discussion is to prevent venue shopping for warrants, not to prevent warrants entirely when the FBI has no idea where someone resides.
Where it falls down is "particularity"; with respect to the Fourth Amendment clause, "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As I see it, the problem isn't that a warrant was used to access a computer at an unknown location, the problem was that a single warrant was used to access every computer at every location.
Warrants under a new rule 41 should serve only for technical identification of a computer. Once a computer has been identified particularly, the FBI should have to obtain a specific warrant to search that computer particularly.
Suppose the government gained control of a drug distribution point, and decided to continue to ship drugs...along with a free tracker in every bag. A single NIT-equivalent warrant should be good for that, even though the government has no idea where the bags are going (could be going to another state).
But once a particular bag has been delivered to a particular warehouse, for example, the government should have to obtain a warrant particular to that warehouse.
Rule 41 did fall down, I just disagree as to the extent of the breakdown and the flaws of the proposed correction.
If there were even a tiny bit of accountability within the Minooka Police Department--if the officers of the department only violated procedure a tiny bit of the time--maybe there would have been fewer people asking for body camera footage.
It's the same thing the insurance companies do now. They take premiums, take 15% off the top for profit, pay another 35% to an administrative services company, then pay the rest to an underwriter for services. The underwriter takes 50% off the top (underwriters aren't regulated by the insurance board) and then pays the rest to a secondary underwriter. The secondary underwriter takes 50% off the top...
50%*50%*50%*50% leaves 6% or so for claims...is it any surprise the insurance company files bankruptcy at the drop of a hurricane rumor? All perfectly legal; you can audit the daylights out of them and no one is "taking more than they're legally entitled to take."
The state of Florida offered to underwrite the insurance companies for free, and the insurance companies snubbed it because it would mean less profit for the stockholders.
They gave value (support for TPP) in exchange for value (right to compete). The right to compete was supposed to be unconditional (even though winning was conditional) and one party was official, so that's a bribe.