The Fourth Amendment literally says that the people shall "be secure in their persons, houses, papers...," which, in the context of computer intrusion is even more clear than concepts of expectations of privacy.
The standard of an "expectation of privacy" is also problematic in modern times in that depends of what judges think people should know about the operation of technology.
Quelle surprise. You'd think they would be glad there's a film out there spreading their message, but no. Instead the suit betrays what these films are really about, the same thing business has always been about -- money.
And it has First Amendments as well, particularly the right of association. Ubiquitous license plate readers can be used to essentially collect association information, which, the Supreme Court has ruled, can violate one's free association rights (when the government does/uses it).
The whole website is down right now. On Twitter she last fielded a complaint from someone about her website "burn[ing] up a lot of mobile bandwidth" (wut??) and she said she would fix it, so I don't know if it's down for that reason, or for... some other reason. Would seem like a silly thing to worry about when this story is blowing up.
And by "coordination and oversight in Washington" they mean to prosecute those they don't like and let off those they do. Coincidentally I'm sure, just in time for the disposition of Clinton's email problems.
Exactly. So the question, it seems to not-a-lawyer me, is whether the addition of .com can be considered transformative* in some way, making the merely descriptive "booking" into something more. Further complicating the question is that ".com" applies to millions of websites as a top-level domain, and that booking.com (the company) has no ownership claim or "IP" rights in whatsoever. It can reasonably be said booking.com (the domain name) isn't even something that the company owns in the usual sense, i.e. outright and in perpetuity, since they have to renew it periodically, and failure to do so means someone else can acquire it.
*in the common sense of the word, not the particular sense pertaining to fair use/copyright considerations
We have torts for trespass, and even criminal prosecution available for it in some cases, and for stalking should their behaviors have met the definition. But copyright is not for the enforcement or punishment of any of these things, nor for the purpose of suppressing the reporting of fact or opinion.
You have to love (read:abhor) the chutzpah it takes to suggest that the warranty term was all anyone could have hoped and predicted their product would useful for, as if people who plunked down good money for the devices understood and anticipated that they would only be good for a mere year or two and bought them on that basis. People assume the risk that a product might break after its warranty, but not that the maker will intentionally cause it to malfunction.
I hope the FTC lowers the boom on Google in a huge way here.
Also, we desperately need a law to negate all the BS terms of "service" that prohibit taking this sort of thing (and anything else, really) to the courts for redress.