rarw

A privacy pledge, how cute! The problem with stuff like this is not knowing the third, fouth, and fifth party uses. Granted most user's don't read these disclosure and even more don't have the technical aspects of how this works. But even if you're ok with one big evil company have access to your inbox, allowing two just seems crazy. What happens when LinkedIn think of a cool way to use your emails from five years ago? By cool I of course mean horrifying.

Which is why I said "articles like this" and not "this article." Your quote is correct. My comment was on the general scope of anti-surveillance writing.

Articles like this pop up all the time. The problem is that they never address (1) the legitimate need for surveillance; (2) dangers of an internet (or other communications networks) which law enforcement or government cannot access at all; (3) the problems with arguing that government (or anyone for that matter) should be banned from collecting and reading data sent across the web.

I understand the concern. As someone who has advocated for stronger electronic privacy regulation, no one likes someone having the ability to look through their stuff. However, the answer is more likely a balance than a denunciation of all surveillance in any form. Surveillance with restriction is fine and probably a good thing. It helps prevent crime and can help catch criminals once crimes happen. Just as it's easy to argue that a government with information will misuse it, bad people with a closed communication network will use it to commit crime. Sure not everyone is going to plan a terrorist strike, or organize a gang online but some will. Is it worth enabling that kind of behavior?

Also what should and should not be private also has to do with where/when the information is collected. If the government were hacking into all of our computers and keeping back ups of our hard drives that's very different from collecting things that are sent on the internet. Legally there is currently a big debate about how to treat something that is taken from a stored medium - like a hard drive - vs one that is captured in transmission - like an email being sent. As it currently stands the government would have a hard time justifying accessing your computer remotely without a warrant but an easy time reading emails once they left your computer. Why? Because the sent email is akin to yelling something in a public place. Once it leaves your computer, it's not private while its being transmitted. If this sounds like a stupid distinction, that's because it is.

#1 bugs me the most. False urgency is the name of the game everywhere I've ever worked. From my experience it's a problem of how the company is structured. When everyone thinks what they are working on or assigning is top priority it's because (a) they really don't have a sense of what is actually important (b) managment is fragmented such that each person's individual most important task seems like a global most important task.

In a law firm, which is basicly 1000 separate practices trying to exist simultaneously, this happens all the time, usually because of option b. When a "team" is really a group of people who happen to be in the same place instead of a collaborative unit, what is imporant is up to each person. It's a bad way a run a business and totally messes with your employees.

You're right. The comment that you should buy stock with legal income and pay back a mortgage with the illegal income misses the point completely. Buying stock was just one example of how transfering illegaly acquired funds into something that increases in value does not protect your initial investment. Anything you do with illegal income would be seizable property.

Paying into a mortgage as the same effect. As you pay back a mortgage you acquire equity in the property. The government would then be able to seize your equity in the house, meaning they could sell the property and after paying back the remainder of the mortgage keep the difference.

I think the seizure of Silk Road absolutly had an impact on the value of BitCoins. The benefit of using BitCoins is that they provide a way to operate outside of traditional currency structures. Once BitCoins becomes something that can be seized, regulated, tracked, it becomes just like regular cash. That makes them a whole lot less valuable.

The more interesting question regarding this seizure is whether the FBI can compell the creators of BitCoin to assist in decrypting what they have just seized. For example, there are a number of statutes that require those operating communications networks maintain the ability for the governemnt to access them regardless of the encryption or other security features being used. I don't know the corresponding baking law as well but it would not surprise me if the same laws that require banks to comply with seizing fund, blocking wire transfers, and tracking where money goes in the course of a criminal investigation could kick in here.

Certainly something like this would have a big effect on the BitCoin market. I'm interested to see what happens in the future.

The current valuation is irrelivant. Federal seizure laws allow the government to seize any property, money or bitcoins included, that were used in or generated from some illegal activity.

If my illegal activity generates 1 bitcoin which, 2.5 years later is worth 10 bitcoins, all 10 bitcoins can be seized since they all originated from the original seizable piece of property.

Were this not the case and only the orignial result of an illegal transaction could be seized those running illegal operations would be able to profit from their crimes by simply converting one type of property into another that could increase in value. For example, if you sold 20,000,000 in drugs and purchased 20,000,000 in stock, it does not make sense that, once your property is seized, you can keep the increase in value between when you broke the law and when you got caught. This would make crime much more profitable which is the opposite goal of the seizure laws.

Turning one's passion into a job almost always has this result. Work is never as exciting as doing something for the sake of doing it because work always has a finite list of things that must be done even if you don't want to. It doesn't matter if you're a programmer or a rock star. The routine of having to do something you don't want to do, whether that be write tests or perform the same hit song every day for 20 years, sucks. The trick is to try and find a balance. Do the boring stuff to pay the bills but find/make time to work on something that you actually enjoy. Sure it's not exactly easy to do but once you get out of school/your parents house - that's life.

You could almost certainly find a away to pierce the corporate veil in this case so that's not really a concern.

Good luck finding a cheap patent attorney. All those admitted to the patent bar must have a technical background. That only raises the price.

Just wanted to note that there are frivolous litigation rules that allow for sanctions against the party bringing a bogus suit and allow the target of the suit to recover attorneys fees. It would be standard practice to include within the motion to dismiss a section also moving for these remedies. Thus it is likley that the cost to fight back against the troll would not have been 200k - with or without the pro bono.

Sure in some cases. Don't forget that patents cover a diverse array of innovations. What exactly is being infringed upon is not always that obvious.

Sure, there are always risks with litigation but in general it is not as unpredictable as outsiders think.

That's not really how things work. Not only is that sanctionable but extremely unethical and would result in diciplinary action if reported.