macchina
Joined 14 years ago
Karma
539
Submissions
74
Member since
Aug 30
Recent submissions
Comment · 13 years ago
Comment · 13 years ago
Anonymous didn't solve anything by identifying the alleged rapists. Nothing I have read suggests that Canadian law enforcement didn't know who the suspects were. They simply did not file charges. We don't know why exactly they didn't file charges, but for some reason they determined there was no case.
Comment · 13 years ago
I think you've shifted the meaning of king in the parent comment to tyrant. After that you go on to give Google the benefit of the doubt. Google isn't a tyrant, but we are all beholden to Google. Due to cognitive dissonance, we have the tendency to minimize or excuse any instances of abuse on the part of our benevolent data custodian.
Comment · 13 years ago
I don't think it matters because Kerr is just arguing that the district court interpreted and applied the law incorrectly. An appeals court has full power in these areas. It would only be a problem if they wanted to introduce facts or procedural/evidentiary arguments not presented to the trial judge, or if they want to overturn the trial court's decision on procedural/evidentiary/factual matters.
Comment · 13 years ago
This is fantastic news. Hopefully this gets overturned and narrows the scope of the CFAA to where the government can't put people in prison for exposing security flaws on unrestricted areas of the web.
Comment · 13 years ago
Well, the name is very apt. I did manage to clear 1 line after quite a bit torment.
Comment · 13 years ago
Thanks for reminding me about the Harper's Index. I love reading these things.
Comment · 13 years ago
The producers of Warhammer 40k ought to take note.[1]
"Trademark Bullying" has totally gotten out of hand.[2] Brands have a duty to protect their rights, but a letter like this is really all that's necessary. Good on Jack Daniels. There is no reason to send indie publishers to the poorhouse over trifling infringement.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5176820
2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/stupid-lawyer-tricks-a...
Comment · 13 years ago
I think it actually started with (A) the DOJ filing a action to compel the company to comply with the national security letter. Then (B) the company replied requesting the letter be invalidated on First Amendment (compulsory non-disclosure of the NSL) and statutory grounds. Then (C) the DOJ files another motion showing why they need the information and asking for the court to force the company to comply with the NSL while the case is pending so they can pursue their investigation.
The court ended up ruling that the non-disclosure provision violated the First Amendment and invalidated the NSL law as a whole.
I think the only law the DOJ was accusing Credo of violating was 18 USC § 2709[1] which requires carriers to turn over subscriber information and prohibits certain disclosure.
But you're correct that the Government argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the law. This was because Credo brought its action under a statute that gives a court limited authority to modify or revoke the NSL. However, the court found the constitutional challenge was a necessary part of Credo's claim and allowed it.
Comment · 13 years ago
Yeah, Credo is sort of a bizarre little company. They created a Super PAC to oppose tea party candidates and to support public financing of campaigns, i.e., outlawing Super PACs (they were a total anomaly in this regard). In 2011, they received one of those so called "national security letters" and just completely stonewalled the FBI. Thank god for this one activist mobile carrier or this case would've probably never happened.
Comment · 13 years ago
Fair enough, but it's still a niche market that Apple has near plenary control over. Indeed, Apple essentially dictates what price other retailers may charge by keeping the wholesale price high. [1]
1. http://www.macworld.com/article/2024257/how-apple-sets-its-p...
Comment · 13 years ago
>Not discounting works for Apple because products become obsolete long before they stop working.
No. Not discounting works for Apple because it's the only store selling MacBooks. You can buy pants and underwear at dozens of places that are not JCPenny. The usual practice is deceptive to be sure, but JCPenny gave up their most effective means of advertising bargains short of relentlessly juxtaposing competitors' prices against their own.
Comment · 13 years ago
It's especially true with the FBI or any other person connected with the federal government in an investigation. Making false statements is a separate crime in itself. 18 USC § 1001 [1]
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
[Fascinating article published originally in WSJ] http://ourtaxdollarsatwork.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/federal-...
[How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents] http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoi...
Isn't it more plausible that they're intercepting data flowing in and out of Google servers?