The comments on those two WP posts explain it somewhat better.
The kicker is that the court drew an analogy to where an accused person has a locked safe or lockbox that may contain evidence. Existing precedents say that prosecutors may demand you turn over the key -- but they may not demand you turn over the combination if it's a combination lock.
And the password on your phone is more like that combination.
It looks like 8% of rape cases are "unfounded" accusations according to the DoJ in 1997. I'm too tired at the moment to look up more recent stats, but I don't suspect that they'd have cause to change much unless something really dramatic happened since then, such as an internet revelation of a massive police cover-up or something. Feel free to look for more recent numbers, or numbers based on a better statistic than investigated police reports.
I can believe that only 8% of cases investigated by police are unfounded, only because 2/3 of the time the police know better than to bother.
The US's puritan-descendant culture still takes its courtship cues from the pursuit / evasion model of the age of courtly romance. I (for example) was taught in a California public high-school by teachers that a woman saying no or otherwise expressed disinterest in a man was supposed to be pursued and persuaded with bribes and deeds to change her mind. Yes. I was (along with all the boys in my school) instructed by the public education system to stalk and harass women.
That's not stalking and harassing, it's how the normal "making out" process is supposed to work. No one is going to stop and ask verbal permission between steps because it would spoil the atmosphere and your partner would walk out.
Oh, and adult women who drink or get high at parties do it to lower their own inhibitions. Part of being an adult is to own the responsibility if you do something stupid while drunk or high. You're not entitled to a pass just because you're female.
DOE now requires all colleges receiving federal money to investigate all accusations, and to expel the accused upon a "preponderance of the evidence".
But now that at least three universities have had to pay out large settlements to the men railroaded that way, I predict that many schools will soon stop accepting federal money because it costs them more in payouts than they receive.
I also expect the federal government to be successfully sued directly over the lack of due process, since the government is imposing that wrongful standard on the schools.
The EU countries and Switzerland always put treaties this important to a vote of the people (in addition to legislative approval, not instead of it). We should too, even though it will require constitutional change here.
There are always going to be physical limits on the capacity of any data service. The only question is how the company deals with that fact.
If they promise "unlimited" service, then they have a duty to keep it unmetered and unthrottled, even though it will likely result in a few big users hogging most of the capacity. So I'd much rather they not use that word, but instead set a specific limit and tell us what it is and exactly what will happen to people who go over it, whether that's an extra usage charge, throttling, or even termination of service. Then we can make our choices intelligently.
Even better would be a way for us to find out (perhaps on the router's control panel IP address) how close we are to hitting that limit at any given time. Maybe even an app to show it in a corner of the screen.
So I'd say this new ComCast policy is a step in the right direction, and I hope the other ISPs will be made to follow suit.
All monitoring is "abuse" when you don't own the system you're monitoring. No one except the system owner (or a person paying him to use it) has any business monitoring the use of any computer. Period.
It's high time for the open source community to publish a "FreeWindows" that promises never to butt into its users' private behavior. This is bound to be more productive than the lawsuit method of stopping M$.
If you're looking for some additional bright side, Windows 10 at least blocks some of the more obnoxious, invasive flavors of DRM that have made the rounds over the last few years, including SecureROM and SafeDisc. Unfortunately, that means titles that used this DRM simply won't work on the new OS without a patch.
Where can I get these patches? They have no right to disable any functionality without our informed consent.
I believe the test for whether the features are important comes from the original (Sony) case in the '70s in which the Supreme Court created the "fair use" doctrine. They decided that because VCRs have "substantial non-infringing uses," it was OK to make them.
... where we have to replace our perfectly good printers after one or two Windows updates, because the manufacturer doesn't want to bother updating his drivers any longer and won't release the code so someone else can do so!
The big thing wrong with copyright is that it lasts so long that new works which reuse existing works (and they all do) are prevented from appearing for close to a century, unless the owner of the old work okays it (which approximately never happens). Under a more sensible copyright scheme, not only could works of music be remixed within a few years of their first release, but things like computer software -- which typically go obsolete or get replaced by new versions in 2 to 5 years -- could be improved on by third parties as soon as they are taken off the market by the original publisher.
What I'm proposing is that after a short initial period, depending on the medium but no longer than 5 years, copyright should be narrowed to only the right to collect a standard royalty (like the mechanical licensing scheme that used to exist for music), and neither the artist nor a publisher should have any veto power over its use, including derived works. Furthermore, I'd allow the user to make that standard payment to the copyright office, thus eliminating the orphaned works problem.
Citizens United was decided on First Amendment grounds. Any new law similar to McCain-Feingold would obviously fall to the same principles. Therefore, a constitutional amendment would be necessary to achieve the "reform" Lessig wants.
Which is fine with me. The SJWs already have far too much power to make their opponents shut up as things are now.
This sounds like the kind of guy who installs a loud alarm on his car, parks it in a city, and never responds to the alarm. He deserves to have it vandalized, just for creating a nuisance with his alarm -- and so does the IP owner who does likewise.
Please print the name of the "rogue chemist." Because it sounds like there are 10,000 people wrongly in prison because of him -- and going after his ill-gotten personal life savings in a court of law is the best way to encourage the next guy to do his job honestly.