I don't know that you can assume that Type I and Type II error rates are necessarily identical. Correlated, maybe, but probably inversely and rarely identical.
The Freedom to Read Foundation fights good old-fashioned analog censorship around the USA as well.
The number of nonexistent account could very well be spelled out. If it was thousands, it would be very hard to refer to it as "several" (although the government's sense of scale is obviously unreliable); I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be "seven" or "eight".
Asserting that someone is unfit for public office and public scrutiny of government officials is so perfectly protected by the First Amendment that the biggest delay in dismissing the case is going to be waiting for the judge to stop laughing.
The president's statement called for an investigation of net neutrality violations at interconnection. Now that we've got Comcast's okay on that, I'm sure we'll be seeing the FCC launching one any day now. . . . 9_9
He also said the other magic word: "interconnection".
Well, it does give the FTC unambiguous grounds for future fines. Whether or not MPHJ would agree that the things it has agreed to stop doing were illegal or governable by the FTC, they have now consented to the FTC being able to fine them $16,000 per violation from this point forward. Including for threatening lawsuits that they don't intend. Given that a blizzard of threatened lawsuits that they have no interest in pursuing is part of the definition of trolling in this context, that seems significant to me.
It didn't help that he apparently allowed an undercover FBI agent to become pretty high up as a "support" staffer, giving him access to insider forums.So all that Tor and encryption and everything else I have to assume that they had going on and they were done in by . . . traditional police work. Gee, who could have seen that coming? (Not James Comey, apparently.)
I always like to see Professor McDonough quoted. (I went to the UofI library school and did an independent study with him.)
As far as I'm concerned, a "hostage work" is one where we know exactly who the copyright holder is and how to contact them because they're busy demanding a ransom before they'll let the work go.
If there's shared hardware with any kind of vulnerability, how much do you want to bet that we find out about it when someone hacks the CIA?
I should clarify: He shot up the Quebec parliament ("National Assembly of Quebec") and did 12 years (counting time served before conviction) before being paroled. Of course, he was active-duty Canadian military and not a terrorist in any technical sense of the word.
Here's some perspective for you: He's not the first guy to shoot up parliament in Canada. The last one killed three people, and you know what? He did his time and is out on parole.
The publishers can say whatever the fuck they want; every state in the country has library privacy laws and the good ones—mine included—cover this. Amazon took heat for similar activity with regards to OverDrive and Kindle ebook lending, and it worked. Why? Giant corporations accused of being untrustworthy vs. the one near-universally loved governmental function fronted by a profession that oozes public trust does not go well for the corporations.
Beat me to it. :) Of course, I'd argue for corporate authorship, which generally runs shorter.
If they'd made it clear that they were reporting what was said but IN NO WAY endorsed it, that would have been okay, Tweet-wise. The rest of it is, obviously, simply another expression of the ongoing domestic abuse problem in the NFL.
What's the legal standard for dismissals and refilings here? How often can he do this before it's automatically considered with prejudice or a ruling on the merits?
"Least restrictive method" screams "strict scrutiny" to me, which suggests the judge is setting the bar fatally high for the government.
If there were 100,000 fewer people with security clearance because they were reducing operations or unnecessary classification, that would be fine. Sadly, there is no reason to believe that that's the case.
I'm not sure we can argue without qualification that pre-cell-phone phone data didn't include location information; knowing that I'm calling from near tower X is a lot LESS specific than knowing that I'm calling from the pay phone on the NW corner of 5th and Park. The difference is that the cell phone roams everywhere with you (including on private property) and captures all calls (not just ones at specific locations being monitored).
That being said, if I'm going to commit a planned crime, I'm not going to be carrying a tracking device with me.