Why concentrate on a company like Apple rather than, say, software like PGP? Is it just because everyone will recognize Apple, or is it something else?
Some at Denton's has a little devil sitting on their shoulder, whispering in their ear "That hole isn't nearly deep enough. Dig faster. Faster!"
The article that was published on my blog together with the layout and design features of my blogMaybe she thinks that DMCA notices can be used for look-and-feel "voilations"?
The EFF has a warrant canary FAQ. On being forced to lie:
Have courts upheld compelled speech?
Rarely. In a few instances, the courts have upheld compelled speech in the commercial context, where the government shows that the compelled statements convey important truthful information to consumers. For example, warnings on cigarette packs are a form of compelled commercial speech that have sometimes been upheld, and sometimes struck down, depending on whether the government shows there is a rational basis for the warning.
Have courts upheld compelled false speech?
No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. For example, Planned Parenthood challenged a requirement that physicians tell patients seeking abortions of an increased risk of suicidal ideation. The court found that Planned Parenthood did not meet its burden of showing that the disclosure was untruthful, misleading, or not relevant to the patient’s decision to have an abortion.
Also: 1) don't completely block the tweet, just have it not show up the the recipient or the recipient's followers, 2) do this quietly, so the sender isn't aware of it thus receives no feedback to use to try to get around the recipient's personalized filters.
Surely there's some law, either statutory or caselaw, which prevents lawsuits and/or contracts from being used to prevent people from providing testimony for a court case?
C'mon, Roca, you can do it! Dig that hole deeper! Throw away your shovel and get a backhoe!
No self defense against women by men? Yeah, bullshit. I haven't watched the video of the incident in question, so I don't know what he did in this particular instance was justified, but as a general principle it's absolutely fine.
They seem to be implicitly admitting that they think the State Secrets privilege depends only upon their say-so, and that the contents of the document are completely irrelevant.
It's possible that they've already spent all that money, and they really can't afford to pay any of the fines.
Of course, the manner in which they were moving the money around could still bite them in the ass, even if the money is actually all gone.
No, see, by leaving a clue that they were successful, the police will put in more cameras. Then the terrorists put bombs into the cameras! Mwuahahahaha! twirls mustache
Well, it is a constructed/artificial language, so making a copyright claim on it isn't nearly as absurd as would an attempt to claim copyright on, say, English.
Somehow, the first time around I'd missed Prenda claiming that it was illegal for the ISPs to try to get the subpoena quashed. I mean, wow.
But for that they could have used a subpoena to get copies of the records after the lawsuit started, rather than taking the records before it ever starts.
The cops have to first detain you before a "stop and identify" statute applies. And if they have an excuse to detain you, then they don't need to ask your name to keep you detained.
In a significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force.Wait, so the drafts will be classified but the final version will be open? What's the point?
This is a secret interpretation of what the government is allowed to do. There hasn't (yet) been any (documented) instances of secret interpretations of laws about what private citizens are prohibited from doing.
Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology.The linked article didn't have much details on this. Did a defense attorney attempt to challenge the use of the cell tower spoofer, but to do so would need details about the spoofer, and the DA refused to hand over the info on grounds of national security?
Confused? Let me explain.... No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
Re: shame on you techdirt
I have to wonder if this is someone impersonating a paid Russian shill in order to make them look bad.