I'd also like to point out that problems such as this would be moot if city planners did the intelligent thing and designed cities so that bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists never encountered each other. It's as simple as designing distinct lanes for each mode of transport that never encounter each other due to tiering, tunnels, ramps, etc.
Police trend towards being big-ego corrupt pricks. Then they waste their time with something like this because they have too much of a chip on their shoulder to understand that Internet posts are not to be considered truth or reality. You know, the 'all the women are men, all the kids are FBI agents,' &etc...
The way police operate, some cop could post the truth ('Hey guys, I extorted $50 bucks from this spic I pulled over for no reason and then threatened with arrest and a ticket, what a moron...') and Big Chief Cop could see it and have it rub him the wrong way. Goes against his egotistical image of all cops being angelic supermen keeping everyone safe.
The reality of cops is that there are a few good ones, but that doesn't mean they'll be there when you actually need them.
If someone gives you a username and password for a intranet website, particularly if the source is one of your bosses, it makes complete sense to assume that they've granted you authorization to whatever that website is. Even if it says in large letters "do not access without proper auth" I'm sure that will make it completely clear that the credentials the boss sent are bad.....
The analogy about using same username and password on multiple websites doesn't hold water. First of all, websites you use should be hoped to keep credentials in a way that the site itself can't determine the password. And the username/password combos used should at least establish bands of security. Maybe you don't care about using the same uname/pw in a few forums, but you have unique uname/pw combos for banking, etc.
This is more reason why access itself is not the crime, it's what you do with the access or how you obtained the access. And more reason why the federal government can be assumed to be among the most moronic large IT operations around.
At a minimum, Google must fight all court motions an orders in such a way that they NEVER reveal or produce anything UNTIL the party being investigated/subpoenaed/etc has been informed and has adequate opportunity to take contravening legal action.
Otherwise spurious legal claims are too heavy a of a cudgel in violating the anonymity of those who need it.
It's not illegal to 'download anything' to a DoD computer. Let's see. In the DoD people check their email, visit websites for their jobs, etc. Using a network for anything besides sending-only involves downloading. Quit with the gross exaggeration.
The truth is that Government IT runs about 3 or 4 or 5 or more years behind the normal world in terms of adopted technology because of fear, laziness, stupid vendor contracts, required training, and deployment testing. Not too long ago DoI was still defaulting to IE 6, long after IE 7 and 8 had been out, with users only allowed to use one of the new browsers by request, no FF allowed. Why? No good reason.
And the basis of all government IT presentations like this basically always amounts to the generalized, but false, line of approximated by the statement 'government employees doing anything but government business is illegal because the bureaucracy owns you, thus bye extension any technology that the we haven't adopted after years of internal testing and stupid arguments, and which some guy in some office somewhere does not have complete control is also illegal. And remember, just because we gave you a laptop or cell phone doesn't mean you can use for anything personal, either. If you plan on replying to your wife's email while on a business trip, you better take 2 laptops.
Of course most stretch these policies as much as they can.
These days it seems like having 1 line or a paragraph that is even substantially similar to anything someone else has written, regardless of difference in context, in what are probably the trillions of pages of written work produced by man so far, will gets the label of plagiarism.
While the cases cited hear clearly have some degree of validity, I bet if anyone was interested they could come up with a paragraph about some generically named guy catching a cab, vomiting, talking, or some other relatively mundane activity and find general paraphrases of it in a huge number of books and written works that happen to have a character with the same name. OMG... who was the original, you plagiarists? This seems like it'd especially be the case with arch-typical minor characters who represent a lot of stereotypes.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by _skhn.