Slashdot Mirror

Code can only be created by intellectuals, like /. readers; therefore, it is Intellectual Property, not some ho-hum, run-of-the-mill property...

Seems like your attempt at snark was almost as successful as your spelling in the title.

But, perhaps by accident you've hit the nail on the head. This should have been charged with a copyright or trade secrets violation, or some security breach, not theft of property. Most states have laws covering criminal use of computers, as does the federal government. There was never a need to base these charges on the theft statutes.

In California (by way of example) there are specific laws concerning taking information from a computer in an unauthorized way. (Penal Code Section 499c 2.)

But the bigger question is how many others have been charged with simple Property Theft under federal law in the past for this same sort of breach (downloading source code) and paid the penalty or served the time?

To what extent does this change the landscape for computer break-ins?

Probably not many (given that the same ruling would have occurred before.) It was a stupid blunder to have prosecuted this as property theft since (as you pointed out correctly) there are effectives laws for this type of crime already.

Code can only be created by intellectuals, like /. readers; therefore, it is Intellectual Property, not some ho-hum, run-of-the-mill property...

Seems like your attempt at snark was almost as successful as your spelling in the title.

But, perhaps by accident you've hit the nail on the head. This should have been charged with a copyright or trade secrets violation, or some security breach, not theft of property. Most states have laws covering criminal use of computers, as does the federal government. There was never a need to base these charges on the theft statutes.

In California (by way of example) there are specific laws concerning taking information from a computer in an unauthorized way. (Penal Code Section 499c 2.)

But the bigger question is how many others have been charged with simple Property Theft under federal law in the past for this same sort of breach (downloading source code) and paid the penalty or served the time?

To what extent does this change the landscape for computer break-ins?

No, none of those things could apply to Martin. The closest is "aggravated stalking", but that is defined as:

Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.

Whether or not you think that the following was "malicious", by no accounts was it "repeated", and there were no "credible threats" for which Martin should have been in reasonable fear of his safety, as long as Zimmerman's weapon was holstered and concealed until Zimmerman was pressed to use it.

There's amendments with lower numbers they ignore all the time.

Why should the 10th be any different?

The actual problem, as generally seen on Slashdot, is that many people fail to understand how they get applied in practice as opposed to their actually being ignored. Prisoners of War, for example, have generally never been subject to Habeas corpus - a subject of perpetual confusion on Slashdot. German and Italian POWs in the UK, US, and Canada didn't have the right to Habeas Corpus in WW2, Al Qaeda members taken prisoner originally didn't either. (Perhaps they now wish Bin Laden hadn't declared War on the US. Of course it took 9/11 for the US to reply in kind, legally.)

Last I saw, the US and the UK are not at war, yet at least one of those gitmo prisoners whose Habeas Corpus requests were ignored was a British citizen.

There's amendments with lower numbers they ignore all the time.

Why should the 10th be any different?

The actual problem, as generally seen on Slashdot, is that many people fail to understand how they get applied in practice as opposed to their actually being ignored. Prisoners of War, for example, have generally never been subject to Habeas corpus - a subject of perpetual confusion on Slashdot. German and Italian POWs in the UK, US, and Canada didn't have the right to Habeas Corpus in WW2, Al Qaeda members taken prisoner originally didn't either. (Perhaps they now wish Bin Laden hadn't declared War on the US. Of course it took 9/11 for the US to reply in kind, legally.)

This isn't the first time SGI has sued over these type of patents, see Slashdot 2006, and the 2010 ruling in SILICON GRAPHICS V ATI TECHNOLOGIES

Complete horseshit.

Not at all. Your own personal desire for privacy on your property does not make law, regardless of how outraged you may be at the situation. I'll simply point to a few cases such as CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO which held it legal for police to fly an airplane over someone's yard to get a look above the privacy fences, and the similar case FLORIDA v. RILEY which held that a helicopter fly-over that allowed observation through the openings in a green house did not require a warrant. Perhaps the most instructive case would be US v. DUNN, which sets extremely narrow definition of "curtilage" of a home - the area where you may have an expectation of privacy. This is a US Supreme Court decision, so note that it applies to your state, too. In Dunn, even a perimeter fence and another interior fence were crossed by DEA agents, and the SCOTUS held that this intrusion was perfectly reasonable, and the owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas.

They can knock on the door if they have official business but they may not walk up to my door in order to conduct any kind of search or surveillance without cause

That is entirely the opposite of the findings of the SCOTUS. The 8th Circuit court stated it this way:

Whether a police officer has commenced a “search” turns not on his subjective intent to conduct a search and seizure, but rather whether he has in fact invaded an area which the defendant harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy (US v REED).

Your porch or approach to the front door is pretty much NEVER considered a private area, and it doesn't matter at all WHY an officer is there. He can be there for any reason or none at all. So your legal theory is not one that is accepted by the courts.

They have NO presumed right or "invitation" to come onto my property at any time, regardless of the presence of any drive or walkway, or even "open house" signs on the front lawn. NONE. It simply doesn't exist.

Sorry, but the courts don't care. Police and LEO are allowed to enter these areas at any time and for any purpose, the entire point being that you do not have any "expectation of privacy" in those areas. Your theory here that they require some "presumed right" to enter those areas is simply not recognized by any court or law enforcement anywhere in the entire country. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you - it seems you're going to be really upset about it.

At least you found out now, instead of when you tried to actually assert this idea in court or with the police.

Complete horseshit.

Not at all. Your own personal desire for privacy on your property does not make law, regardless of how outraged you may be at the situation. I'll simply point to a few cases such as CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO which held it legal for police to fly an airplane over someone's yard to get a look above the privacy fences, and the similar case FLORIDA v. RILEY which held that a helicopter fly-over that allowed observation through the openings in a green house did not require a warrant. Perhaps the most instructive case would be US v. DUNN, which sets extremely narrow definition of "curtilage" of a home - the area where you may have an expectation of privacy. This is a US Supreme Court decision, so note that it applies to your state, too. In Dunn, even a perimeter fence and another interior fence were crossed by DEA agents, and the SCOTUS held that this intrusion was perfectly reasonable, and the owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas.

They can knock on the door if they have official business but they may not walk up to my door in order to conduct any kind of search or surveillance without cause

That is entirely the opposite of the findings of the SCOTUS. The 8th Circuit court stated it this way:

Whether a police officer has commenced a “search” turns not on his subjective intent to conduct a search and seizure, but rather whether he has in fact invaded an area which the defendant harbors a reasonable expectation of privacy (US v REED).

Your porch or approach to the front door is pretty much NEVER considered a private area, and it doesn't matter at all WHY an officer is there. He can be there for any reason or none at all. So your legal theory is not one that is accepted by the courts.

They have NO presumed right or "invitation" to come onto my property at any time, regardless of the presence of any drive or walkway, or even "open house" signs on the front lawn. NONE. It simply doesn't exist.

Sorry, but the courts don't care. Police and LEO are allowed to enter these areas at any time and for any purpose, the entire point being that you do not have any "expectation of privacy" in those areas. Your theory here that they require some "presumed right" to enter those areas is simply not recognized by any court or law enforcement anywhere in the entire country. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you - it seems you're going to be really upset about it.

At least you found out now, instead of when you tried to actually assert this idea in court or with the police.

Apparently the power of metaphor eludes you. Why don't you read this to see whom the war is actually against?

Authorization for Use of Military Force

Either someone failed reading comprehension or that is the WORST troll I've seen in a while.

War on Terror.
War on Poverty.
War on Drugs.

I guess you never met a metaphor you didn't misunderstand.

I'll help you out - of those three, the only one that involves a real war is the War on Terror. It isn't against an abstraction, or a tactic, as the less insightful like to style it. The purpose is spelled out at the beginning:

Authorization for Use of Military Force

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not so hard to understand, is it?

I would beg to differ in the sense that according to the majority opinion in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905):

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted."

Therefore, please do not assume that the wordsmithing of the preamble means anything in a legal sense as to the duties of government. Please look into the Constitution proper to determine whether it defines a 'socialist' government.

It's vague. It depends on how that OR and and AND are grouped.

Here is more, from the state level:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/child-pornography-reporting-requirements-isps-and.aspx

Here is some stuff about ISPs:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/132/IV/13032

I guess my point was that you have to be careful, you might be in trouble for not reporting, if that fact is discovered.

There were several times that this was done by the ninth "circus" court - a few:
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc
TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY
Blizzard V MDY

The fact that it also covers up government wrong-doing, like spying on American citizens

It is hard to understand why the government would ever engage in surveillance of American citizens, isn't it? You've got to wonder, what are they thinking? Are they stepping over the line?

And that's not all - at times it's almost like they are guided and operating according to something other than criminal law, almost as if they had a body of law that nobody else knows about that lets them do things like shoot dead large numbers of people, en masse, legally, with neither trial nor warrant. How could that be? Does Congress know about this? Does Congress approve?

The recruiter: Anwar al-Awlaki, portrait of an American jihadist CNN: Al-Awlaki threatens Americans
40 Americans Have Joined Al Qaeda Group
U.S.-educated Misunderstander of Islam pleads guilty to jihad war crimes, turns government witness

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story

2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story

Not in this scenario.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200711

Without getting into technical details, in the general case, and under 2011 tax law, a married couple can waive paying federal tax on up to $500k($250k exclusion each) of realized gains on your house. Even if the parents had 0 basis on the house, the maximum realized gain would be $500k, so they don't have to pay anything on that.

Further, the son will take that property with a basis at fair market value(step-up in basis, see link below), i.e he'll have a full $500k basis in that house. It could appreciate to $750mil and he'd still pay no taxes when selling it.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126098.html

IAACPA. (Albeit, a financial accountant, not a tax accountant:P)

But will the son not be given a bill by the IRS for estate tax when the house is transferred into his name when his parents die? This was what I was thinking would force him to sell the house in order to pay.

Not in this scenario.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000200711

Without getting into technical details, in the general case, and under 2011 tax law, a married couple can waive paying federal tax on up to $500k($250k exclusion each) of realized gains on your house. Even if the parents had 0 basis on the house, the maximum realized gain would be $500k, so they don't have to pay anything on that.

Further, the son will take that property with a basis at fair market value(step-up in basis, see link below), i.e he'll have a full $500k basis in that house. It could appreciate to $750mil and he'd still pay no taxes when selling it.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/126098.html

IAACPA. (Albeit, a financial accountant, not a tax accountant:P)

Check your state laws about Time off to Vote.

The ones prohibiting import of products produced by forced labour:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/19/4/II/I/1307

Findlaw's Definition of Conspiracy to Commit

"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.

For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed."

Just FYI, it is also a crime to lie to federal agents whether you are under oath or not. Good to know! http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html

No.

A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

... and on that note, this is something you might want to look into then:
We the People, Not We the Corporations

The amendment:

Move to Amend 28th Amendment

Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Some background (because yes, corporations are made of people, but this does not make them people):

1. Corporate Personhood in a Nutshell

There are two conceptions of corporate personhood. The first simply bestows upon corporations the ability to engage in many legal actions (e.g. enter into contracts, sue, be sued, etc). This is widely accepted and we do not object to this. However, corporate personhood also commonly refers to the Supreme Court - created precedent of corporations enjoying constitutional rights that were intended solely for human beings. We believe this form of corporate personhood corrupts our Constitution and must be corrected by amending the Constitution. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution ever mention corporations, which were rare entities at our nation’s founding. But thanks to decades of rulings by Justices who molded the law to favor elite interests, corporations today are granted privileges that empower them to deny citizens the right to full self-governance. For example, the Supreme Court has:

• 
  prohibited routine inspections of corporate property without a warrant or prior permission, even though scheduling such visits may permit a company to hide threats to public health and safety. (Marshall v Barlow’s, 1978)
• 
  struck down state laws requiring companies to disclose product origins (International Dairy v. Amnestoy, [pdf] 1996), thus creating “negative free speech rights” for corporations and preventing us from knowing what’s in our food.
• 
  prohibited citizens wanting to defend their local businesses and community from corporate chains encroachment from enacting progressive taxes on chain stores. (Liggett v. Lee,

Technically, conscription is a crime. There's no authority in the constitution to force people into the military. The fifth amendment prohibits depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the thirteenth amendment abolishes involuntary servitude except for anyone who's been convicted of a crime.

Hmm. You'd think someone might've brought that up before.

Oh wait, Arver v. U.S., 245 U.S. 366 (1918).

"The possession of authority to enact the statute must be found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power 'to declare war; ... to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; ... to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' Article 1, 8. And of course the powers conferred by these provisions like all other powers given carry with them as provided by the Constitution the authority 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.' Article 1, 8."

War Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, bitches.

"It may not be doubted that the very sonception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it."

The case also goes on to analyze the history of conscription in England and in the Colonies and concludes that it is practically inconceivable that the forefathers did not intend for conscription to be part of the power to raise armies, instead only relying on voluntary service in them. It was explicitly in the state constitutions of 9 out of 13 colonies, and the failure of some stages to exercise that power in a timely fashion to fight the Revolutionary War was a point of major concern for the nation in its founding days. The War Clause was written to avoid that issue by putting the power of raising the army into the hands of the federal government.

At the end the case also dismisses the 13th Amendment argument outhand:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Legality.

You know, instead of just shooting off your mouth based on half-assed personal readings of the Constitution without any regard for the idea that people who actually study it for a living might have actually considered the question before. Seems like every idiot with a political opinion thinks he's fucking Constitutional scholar lately...

I guess I can see how you read it that way, but from looking at title 17 sec 101 it seems clear that this interpretation is mistaken.

From what I can tell, the relevant portion of the United States code defines only works created by the government itself as a "Work of the United States Government". The relevant passage reads

A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by
an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of
that person's official duties.

I could find no mention of federal funding making a work created by a non governmental organization a "Work of the United States Government".

Apparently this is a recurring problem for Google. On Sept 27, 2010, a French court convicted Google and Eric Schmidt of criminal defamation (discussion of it and why it wouldn't happen in the U.S. here) for Google's suggest function. The fact that over a year later they're facing this again means (a) they were expecting this to happen and have apparently decided it's part of the cost of doing business in France, and (b) the company suing them has many lawyers who were surely aware of this and saw a neat way to make some money and censor negative opinions.

Your insight and knowledge is appreciated.

17 USC 506 (d)

Pay day laws Mostly in New England.

Your claim for example was that A submission of GPLv2 code constitutes a violation of the kernel's license, programs don't have legal rights corporations and individuals do.

Sorry, perhaps you don't understand that "kernel's license" means the license that goes along with the kernel. Most people do.

The kernel can't have a license if all the individual copyright holders have full control.

Of course it can if every part added to it is added under the same license. Which is the case because you can't legally add code under any license but GPLv2 only without the permission of the kernel developers.

You are begging the question. F says no contract existed and he never accepted the contract. That's counter evidence.

Ok, good luck trying that defense against infringing any other license or contract. "No, sir, I didn't understand that the terms of the license mentioned all over the place applied to me. By the way, I don't understand why the traffic regulations apply to me either".

Maybe, maybe not. I think it might be a lot easier to take parts of the kernel and conjoin them with GPLv3 code. Taking the entire kernel is likely to grant Linus standing, despite his belief he doesn't have standing. In other words I think Linus is making two mistakes.

Blablablah. References on "We have kernel developers on record saying that's not their understanding". You state that, you prove it. Anything else is trying to distract me and it won't work, at least this time.

Nottage v. Jackson the author is the person most closely responsible for the work being produced.

Very nice. That actually supports my stand that you can't happily relicense something without the author's permission.

Feist -- facts are not copyrightable but compilations of facts are

As the kernel is neither facts nor a compilation of facts, this doesn't apply.

Wheaton v Peters -- A conjoined work has its own license

Wheaton vs. Peters is a case of failure in applying for copyright: defective in publication is the term used. AFAIK this hasn't happened with the Linux kernel and even if it had, current law may have different provisions than XIX century law. Please, try to provide references not earlier to the advent of software. Copyright law on software has some specifics that may make relying on previous sentences unsafe.

Yes. That's exactly what it takes. There need to be provable events which constitute signing the license. Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that everyone who contributed to the kernel explicitly agreed to the kernel license including the no upgrade policy collectively and thus individually they cannot do anything more than relicense their own contributions.

Oh dear, you really don't get it. If you create half a book and I create the other half we both have the right to restrict the publication of that book... and keep the right to publish our own parts. What's even more, in the case of the Linux kernel, everything added to it is based on earlier versions of the kernel which, going back, return you to the 0.12 version in which Linus Torvalds (AFAIK, the only developer then) chose GPLv2-only as license. So yes, there was an original entity (Linus Torvalds) who held the copyright. And everything else derives from it and is forced to follow the original copyright restrictions. If what you say was correct, just reading the ROM BIOS on IBM's first PC wouldn't have been enough to disallow any developer to create a clone. And yet Compaq and others had to go through the "clean room implementation" hassle in order not to infringe on IBM's copyright. No matter

To whom do these laws apply? All U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, entities and organizations located in or out of the United States (including any subsidiary or foreign offices overseas) must comply with the USA PATRIOT Act, Executive Order 13224, and Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations. Further, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373 and other resolutions have the force of international law binding on all member states.

http://www.mott.org/resources/patriotact/faqs.aspx#q6

Whether the Patriot Act could be used to compel a U.S. parent to disclose records held by a Canadian subsidiary remains a matter of debate. The B.C. Commissioner Report found that it is a “reasonable possibility” that the FISA Court would order production of documents that are within the custody or control of a U.S. company, such as a U.S. parent with access to records held by a Canadian subsidiary.[14] If a U.S.-linked company makes a disclosure to U.S. authorities without the consent of the Canadian individuals named, this could result in the Canadian organization that transferred the information breaching Canadian privacy legislation unless the disclosure meets an exception in the applicable Canadian privacy legislation. http://library.findlaw.com/2005/May/10/245866.html

Any company that is wholly-owned by a U.S.-based corporation cannot guarantee that the data will not leave its customer-designated datacenters or servers. Google would not budge from its first and final response, and Microsoft could not offer guarantees to not move data outside the EU under any circumstances. These subsidiary companies and their U.S.-parent corporations cannot provide the assurances that data is safe in the UK or the EEA, because the USA PATRIOT Act not only affects the U.S.-based corporations but also their worldwide wholly-owned subsidiary companies based within and outside the European Union.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/case-study-how-the-usa-patriot-act-can-be-used-to-access-eu-data/8805?pg=4&tag=content;siu-container

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001); text at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=533&page=27. The relevant quote: "We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U. S., at 512, constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." Scalia, J., writing for the court.

Note also that it was 5-4, so it's not the most solid caselaw around, especially with the strong-government crowd sitting on the court.

You are also aware that you can be prosecuted for creating child pornography for taking pictures of your baby.

No, that is wrong. The law says that child pornography is an image designed to be sexually provocative. There was a case years back when the law was brought in where an artist exhibited nude pictures of her children at the beach. The police looked into it and decided not to prosecute. Of course the definition of "sexually provocative" is fuzzy and basically boils down to a judgement call by a jury, but generally speaking photos of your children in the bath or whatever are fine.

Maybe I was fuzzy about the arrested / prosecuted angle, but still:
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/are-bathtime-photos-pornographic/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2010/11/naked-baby-photos-lead-to-parents-arrest.html
http://www.thelocal.se/32400/20110304/

Actually, there is precedent in case law that pepper-spraying nonviolent protesters is assault.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

The Ninth Circuit has already ruled on this sort of situation.. the courts will and must revoke the police's qualified immunity against claims of excessive force. Let the lawsuits begin: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

According to this article,

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple

The law says, "...under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner"

If you find a phone...any phone...there are several means inquiry that would allow you to find the owner:
1. Look in the contacts list for an owner name, or leave a message with a contact who would know the owner ("Home" or "Office" or "Mom")
2. Contact the cellular carrier
3. Leave your contact information with the owner of the business and wait for someone to claim and identify it sufficiently

Anybody finding any phone has those means of inquiry available to them; anyone who doesn't exercise at least one of them would be considered stealing under that law. The fact that the phone in fact belonged to Apple has no bearing on the matter.

It's not legal to find things in America? The article doesn't say what law he violated. I never would have thought the dude did anything illegal at all....

According to this article,

Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple. Lost phones don't automatically revert ownership to the company that originally sold them.

But, according to that article, precedent follows from a ruling where Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.

Ok. So having something that you know you did not have before, qualifies as theft, because knowing you did not have the thing and now you do have it, is tantamount to knowledge you have stolen it? Yeah, right! That seems just wrong. I can see that extending to countless cases it should not otherwise apply... I suppose the only thing preventing a slippery slope is the whim of the prosecutor/judge. does anyone know if California is the only state that has such bizarre property law? Are there more elucidating precedents I can read? Cause it's early in the morning and having trouble understanding how Hogan did anything wrong.

What I'd like to know is what, if any, effect 17 U.S.C 117 does have in reality. By face value, it should mean the owner of a copy of a computer program is allowed to use the copy without infringing copyright, i.e. installation and copying to RAM should not result in infringing copies as long as you bought a legal copy of the software (as Psystar did), but has anyone ever won a lawsuit based on that point?

Ownership is the issue. Most software is licensed (or so sayeth the EULAs, and while there's some disagreement in the authorities, the courts are generally agreeing; see, e.g., Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir., 2010) (en banc review declined; I don't believe there's been a decision yet on the petition for a writ of certiori to the Supreme Court). Opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1537762.html

The AUMF was authorized BY CONGRESS, not the fucking press:

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

        This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

        (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

        (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

                (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

                (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

Software isn't properly patentable subject matter, as it is symoblic data that's fed into a universal calculating machine. (the machine instruction cycle)

SCOTUS disagrees.

"Congress intended statutory subject matter to 'include anything under the sun that is made by man.'"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=303

If you legitimately own a copy on some medium, medium-shifting to another one is legal, just like you can rip your own music CDs to mp3s.

Incorrect, at least under U.S. copyright law. RIAA v. Diamond, 98-56727 (9th Cir., June 15, 1999) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054784.html), the seminal case on the issue, found a fair use in "space shifting" music to MP3 players, but did so under the auspices of the Audio Home Recording Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html), which carves out specific exemptions applicable to sound recordings. No such provision(s) exist for video game ROMs, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

So... there's an exemption for Music but not for everything else so you read the negative into it? Generally, in case law as I understand it (not a laywer) - the absence of a case proving a poiint can't be inferred to prove a point.

If you legitimately own a copy on some medium, medium-shifting to another one is legal, just like you can rip your own music CDs to mp3s.

Incorrect, at least under U.S. copyright law. RIAA v. Diamond, 98-56727 (9th Cir., June 15, 1999) (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054784.html), the seminal case on the issue, found a fair use in "space shifting" music to MP3 players, but did so under the auspices of the Audio Home Recording Act (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html), which carves out specific exemptions applicable to sound recordings. No such provision(s) exist for video game ROMs, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.

A jpg pasted into a document and emailed isn't legally binding in the United States.

My work requires real signatures.

And a fax of a signature is not a "real signature" either - the case law that gets sited for the validity of a faxed signature applies equally well to a typed name at the end of an email message - see http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241481.html . Anyone worried about the legality of a document of this nature would require the original which ends up being sent by post or courrier in any case - the fax just provides a nice quick way of saying "the document is in the mail" - a scan would do the same.

Perhaps, then you ought not look up the legal definition then, huh?
"The term 'rape' means a) the ... sexual assault with an object, or sexual fondling of a person, forcibly or against that person's will;"
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/147/15609
That seems to be regarding prisons, but was a quick federal search result. You may have to refer to your state for "common" circumstances but I suspect you'll find the same. Basically, any non consensual penetration of anything with anything. I believe this was largely spearheaded as the much older definition was sexist (i.e. man->woman only) and didn't cover as many cases as they wanted. So in most jurisdictions this would legally be considered rape.

The county says it made "substitute service" of its complaint by leaving a copy of the summons with "Jane Doe," who was identified as Navarro's "sister" and "co-tenant." Another copy was sent by first-class mail. ...

In July 2001, Navarro filed a motion to set aside the court's judgment because a blood test proved he was not the boys' father. Although both the federal and state "challenge periods" had long passed, he argued that the mother had committed fraud by naming him.

He also claimed to have never received the original complaint or default judgment. The court denied the motion.

Here's a PDF of the court ruling:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b155166.pdf

You're a lying asshole, so shut the fuck up.

There are plenty of other examples involving death that could be used if you find this one objectionable.

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Apr/310059.html

To me anyway the term nanny state should be reserved for use in cases where innocent bystanders are not dying.

Not exactly, no.

Nonobviousness means "sufficient difference from what has been used or described before that a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention would not find it obvious to make the change". Novelty just means there isn't prior art.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/patent/obtain-patent/useful-novel-nonobvious.html

So if a pizza chain decides that instead of calling you 10 minutes before the delivery guy arrives like their competition does, they'll have their delivery guy send you a text message, that isn't nonobvious enough to be patented. Texting is an obvious alternative to calling someone, even if nobody else has used it for that specific purpose.

Clear as a whirlpool in a mud puddle.

laws will vary from state to state

Okay. Since we're talking about New York, I searched for New York.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/TAX/9/203-a (very much summarized)

[C]orporations [which] have not filed reports ... during the period of two consecutive years [or] have been delinquent in the payment of taxes for any two years ... [shall be] dissolved and their charters forfeited ... Upon the publication of such proclamation ... each corporation named therein shall be deemed dissolved without further legal proceedings.

The names of all corporations so dissolved shall be reserved for a period of three months immediately following the publication of the proclamation, and during such period no corporation shall be formed under a name the same as any name so reserved or so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive

Any corporation so dissolved may file in the department of state ... if the commissioner of taxation and finance ascertains that all fees and taxes ... as well as penalties and interest charges ... have been paid. ... such certificate of consent shall have the effect of annulling all of the proceedings theretofore taken for the dissolution of such corporation ... if it is filed later than three months after the date of publication of the proclamation the secretary of state shall collect a further sum equal to one-fortieth of one percentum of all shares with par value and two and one-half cents for every share without par value which such corporation was authorized to have at the time of such publication.

As far as I can tell from that, the corporation is more or less in limbo. It doesn't legally exist, but if the taxes and penalties are paid, it's as if it never ceased to exist. Its name isn't protected any longer, which means that someone else could create a new corporation under the same name, but that would be a totally different corporation; if he wants to recreate the original corporation he needs to pay the taxes and penalties.

The question then appears to be: Did he ever pay the state and file to reincorporate? If not, the corporation still doesn't exist and he has no right to use its intellectual property for his own personal gain.

And it still doesn't do much to explain what happens to its assets in the interim, particularly intellectual property. It's basically in debtor's prison: the corporation can't exist until it pays its taxes, but it can't pay its taxes because it can't operate as a corporation in order to earn the money to pay.

The copyright either belongs to the state or to Dee & Herman, depending on whether their contract was legal. But I don't see any way Bizar could get away with thinking it was still his.

A quick look-over of the case ruling @ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=514&page=334, seems to show you are misrepresenting what they ruled. Not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken, but I think youll need to do a better job of defending your case.

The claimed informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the statute's disclosure requirement, since the speaker's identity is no different from other components of a document's contents that the author is free to include or exclude,

In other words, it appears that theyre ruling
A) that laws may not be passed abridging free speech, whether or not you are anonymous
B) that part of free speech is the freedom to not include your identification in your speech

It does NOT appear to be saying that you are guarenteed the right NOT to be identified-- that is, you may choose not to identify yourself, but there is no right to not be identified by others.

Assuming you designed the shed yourself, the designs are under your own copyright. Being employed does not preclude you from owning the copyrights to your own creations. According to "work for hire" your employer does not own the work you produce that is not part of the work you were hired for. That's why your shed designs are yours.

I am not a lawyer though and if the above is not true, our society is screwed up. Your employer has contracted hours for a reason. If I think about something at home that is directly to do with work, that belongs to my work because it is under "work for hire". Otherwise it's mine. This is why you should probably use your personal time wisely. Thinking about work just makes you even more of a slave.

If the author has not given the copyright to the company and surrendering his own copyright, he still retains copyright. Notice that we're using the word author.

If he released the code he authored in his spare time as GPL, the company cannot de-GPL that. By assumption he implicitly gave the company copyrights to use the work. That does not give them the power to suppress the other copyright owner.

This page talks about joint copyright ownership.

We can only assume there was no explicit agreement between the OP and his employer, hence he is the true copyright owner. In a joint copyright situation like this, I guess the company has the right to relicence its own GPL code as proprietary but it cannot suppress the GPL in the wild because that was under the author's copyright.

It's scary when we use the word author to describe an author who has no rights over what he has produced.

Obtaining an iris scan is probably invasive enough to require a compelling reason to perform it, and my guess is that under most circumstances that means that one is either 1) already being arrested, or 2) being served a warrant for the collection of it.

Sorry but you would be incorrect.

The Supreme Court has said that individuals do not possess an expectation of privacy in their personal characteristics (see United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 [1973]). Thus, the police may require individuals to give handwriting and voice exemplars, as well as hair, blood, DNA, and fingerprint samples, without complying with the Fourth Amendment's requirements.

Iris Scans fall into the same category.