Slashdot Mirror

Unless you can point to an actual court case, I doubt if this is true.

Various Dallas Buyer's Club, LLC v. Does lawsuits. Here is one example: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2014cv01819/207565/

Mr. Nydam, along with several other defendants, is alleged to have participated in a peer-to-peer network using the BitTorrent protocol to download and share Dallas Buyers Club ... Plaintiff has alleged and presented evidence that the IP address assigned to Mr. Nydam copied and distributed pieces of the film.

The court ruling makes clear that the defendant is guilty not just of downloading the movie, but also of distributing it because he used BitTorrent.

LOL. I call you out for projection and for accusing your opponents of everything that you are guilty of - and your response is "With the right, it's always projection."

ZERO. SELF. AWARENESS. You literally can't stop yourself from acting on your obsolete and counterproductive world view.

Your understanding of Trump suffers from bubble disease. Since you understand neither yourself nor us, the best you can do is invent Just So Stories to explain things. In your imagination we are all ignorant racists, so Trump must be a xenophobic clown. You can't possibly imagine that we've been calling for someone like him for years, or that he's been planning this since at least 2012.

Police have a compliance model that goes "Ask, Tell, Make." We asked the Republican Party to fight for us with the dawn of the Tea Party movement. They didn't. We told them to by sacking House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Speaker of the House John Boehner. And we've finally arrived at make.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a felony...period. Go read the statute.

No, you have no idea what you're talking about. Statute is notwithstanding because case law stipulates that it must be a credible threat:

http://law.justia.com/constitu...

Section 17-130 of NY Code:

9. Having lawfully entered a voting booth with a voter, requests,
    persuades or induces such voter to vote any particular ballot or for any
    particular candidate, or makes or keeps any memorandum of anything
    occurring within the booth, or directly or indirectly, reveals to
    another the name of any candidate voted for by such voter; or,
        10. Shows his ballot after it is prepared for voting, to any person so
    as to reveal the contents, or solicits a voter to show the same; or,
        11. Places any mark upon his ballot, or does any other act in
    connection with his ballot with the intent that it may be identified as
    the one voted by him; or,

Sharing the photo violates 10-11. It's not "the press" if you take the photo home to show a friend or spouse or employer. Taking the photo holds an inherent risk of violating 10-11, because someday someone might see it.

Photography isn't explicitly mentioned at all. It's about sharing the direct contents of your marked ballot.

Maryland : Unauthorized Practice of Law: Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code 10-601 to 10-606
Fines and penalties of up to $5000 and 5 years in prison per instance.

Not to mention making intentional misrepresentations to a court (e.g., that a putative defendant existed who didn't, or that said defendant was the author of a post when no one actually believed he was). The contempt of court penalties for that will be a great deal swifter than the company's trial for practicing law without a license. No wonder the putative plaintiffs (clients) have lawyered up so fast and denied authorizing the suits. Judges do not like to be used.

Maryland : Unauthorized Practice of Law: Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code 10-601 to 10-606
Fines and penalties of up to $5000 and 5 years in prison per instance.

Not to mention making intentional misrepresentations to a court (e.g., that a putative defendant existed who didn't, or that said defendant was the author of a post when no one actually believed he was). The contempt of court penalties for that will be a great deal swifter than the company's trial for practicing law without a license. No wonder the putative plaintiffs (clients) have lawyered up so fast and denied authorizing the suits. Judges do not like to be used.

TL;DR version: The "dystopian future has really arrived" because the US Supreme court disagrees with you.

your own house and garden suddenly become public places where your asshole neighbor can film you and your children

It's not happening suddenly. It happened twenty years ago.

Annoying people is sometimes illegal, sometimes not, but the law doesn't (and shouldn't) consider using "shitty tech gadgets" any worse than lawnmowers, drums, or a ladder. At the same time, the US has strong legal protection for people who want to take pictures, videos or otherwise gather information. You can't make it generally illegal do those things without infringing on the freedom of the press.

All the discussion about drones specifically is due to the human tendency to see actions as being tied to tools. It is the same fallacy that drives laws to be disproportionate where a crime is done "with a computer." Even if you get laws to protect your privacy in your back yard "from drones," you will still have your privacy invaded completely legally by people with actual airplanes, or ladders, or model airplanes, or mini-blimps.

The core issue is defining what the law should treat as your right to privacy. (Not what tools people might use to infringe on it.) So far, the courts have determined that you have property rights extending about to shotgun height above your property and you have the right to privacy where you are not visible or try to keep yourself from being visible from public property. (The air above your backyard is public property at sufficient altitude.) For example, it's perfectly legal to take pictures of your neighbors if they're in front of an open window (or their backyard.) It's illegal to take the same picture if they have blinds on their windows which are failing to actually hide the people on the other side. (Indeed, you in some states, even being naked at home in front of an open window is illegal.

Except the law specifically labels that as theft.

Nowhere I know about actually specifies that, can you give an example to validate your claim?

This person seems to be in Virginia, but you can give an example for somewhere else if you like.

There is no law that says you can't receive internet access that you didn't pay for.

True. You can also receive other free stuff you didn't pay for, yet theft as a crime does fit.

If there was such a law, then it would be illegal to hop on any wifi network that you don't own, even if it's left open.

Actually, it is illegal to use a WiFi network that you aren't authorized to use, it's just that when someone leaves it open, that is usually their intent.

There has been some development of cases involving such, including a few arrests.

This, however, is also a circumvention method. That makes it unauthorized use of a network resource, and as for Virginia statute, well...it would be under Virginia Statutes, Title 18, the computer specific ones are under chapter 5, section 152.

The "McAfee" trademark is registered under various categories including the "Scientific and technological services" category (code 042), so trying to register "John McAfee Global Technologies Inc" is going to conflict with that.

And those people would be wrong in NY and FL. Your personal morals are irrelevant when determining if something is against the law or not.

http://law.justia.com/codes/ne...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/sta...

Of course you'd have to really piss someone in law enforcement/prosecution and be remarkably law abiding in all other areas for someone to try to get a conviction under those laws - but they do in fact exist as laws.

Maybe if you had read the Constitution you wouldn't be spouting such crap. The power starts in the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As noted repeatedly by the Supreme Court, the preamble of the Constitution does NOT grant any powers which are not explicitly already mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. See, for example, Jacobson v. 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."

In other words, Congress has been granted the power to pass legislation of any kind, which includes regulating things.

False. And there's nothing in Section 1 which implies that. Instead, Section 8 clearly enumerates the exact powers granted to Congress, while the 10th Amendment makes clear (which the Founders already intended, even without the Bill of Rights) that all others not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the states or to the people.

Again, Congress passes legislation and the President approves or vetoes it. This includes regulating things.

I don't see any mention of a plenary power to "regulate" anything, especially not in Section 7, which is just about legislative process. What are you talking about??

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The general welfare. In other words, the power to use taxes to inform people of the crap their ingesting or smoking to let them make an informed decision. It's also called regulation.

Uh, again, please note that this clause was significantly more restricted in interpretation before 1937 or so. It was generally accepted only as a power to tax, and there was great debate in the 1800s over whether it allowed taxation beyond the enumerated powers or only directly in relation to the enumerated powers. Eventually, it was interpreted more broadly, but still ONLY as an ability to TAX for "general welfare." Hence, for example, in the early 1900s alcohol couldn't be regulated or prohibited generally without a Constitutional amendment. But the federal government nevertheless attempted to tax it in various ways, e.g., the Harrison Act as a proxy for more general regulation. Anyhow, the "general welfare" clause here only relates to taxation (and has always been interpreted as such), not a broad power to regulate generally.

The last sentence of Section 8:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the go

Exactly.

The bill of rights is a limitation on the powers of Congress.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any matter dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Ah, but that's not a legal trick.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/693/case.html - it's still very much a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth.

Your property and possessions are protected against search and seizure, period. They're YOURS to begin with and the Fourth doesn't say just on your person.

Actually, they've NOT been upheld in at least some Courts. They're violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in almost all cases.

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

There's at least a few more outstanding in recent times in the varying states. But...the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled on the subject- and this is a swift path for Oklahoma to be facing Civil Rights suits and the State Troopers to find themselves facing the possibility of a Felony violation of 18 USC 242 (not that this DoJ would ever enforce it...) because they're an explicit deprivation of rights under law in a manner that uses threat of lethal force to enforce the same (YOU try telling them that they can't do that- they'll claim "resisting arrest" and put you in jail with the implied that they WILL shoot your ass if you resist at that point- which is kidnapping and assault...).

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

This authoritative statement and the holding by the Court in Boyd that the Government could not seize evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in a forfeiture proceeding would seem to be dispositive of this case. The Commonwealth, however, argues that Boyd is factually distinguishable, as it involved a subpoena sought by the Government for the production of evidence, whereas the issue here is the admissibility of illegally seized evidence already in the Government's possession. Although there is this factual difference between Boyd and the case at bar, nevertheless the basic holding of Boyd applies with equal, if not greater, force to the case before us. In both the Boyd situation and here, the essential question is whether evidence -- in Boyd, the books and records, here, the results of the search of the car -- the obtaining of which violates the Fourth Amendment may be relied upon to sustain a forfeiture. Boyd holds that it may not.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html

We think that the notice to produce the invoice in this case, the order by virtue of which it was issued, and the law which authorized the order were unconstitutional and void, and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice, when produced in obedience to said notice, and its admission in evidence by the court, were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings. We are of opinion, therefore, that

The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a new trial.

Simply put, the only reason they're doing this is that some States are getting ballsy because people (yourself included) haven't a fucking clue what their rights are, what the Law, including the bedrock one of the Constitution actually IS and they're doing things illegally because of stupid pricks like yourself.

Actually, they've NOT been upheld in at least some Courts. They're violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in almost all cases.

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

There's at least a few more outstanding in recent times in the varying states. But...the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled on the subject- and this is a swift path for Oklahoma to be facing Civil Rights suits and the State Troopers to find themselves facing the possibility of a Felony violation of 18 USC 242 (not that this DoJ would ever enforce it...) because they're an explicit deprivation of rights under law in a manner that uses threat of lethal force to enforce the same (YOU try telling them that they can't do that- they'll claim "resisting arrest" and put you in jail with the implied that they WILL shoot your ass if you resist at that point- which is kidnapping and assault...).

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

This authoritative statement and the holding by the Court in Boyd that the Government could not seize evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in a forfeiture proceeding would seem to be dispositive of this case. The Commonwealth, however, argues that Boyd is factually distinguishable, as it involved a subpoena sought by the Government for the production of evidence, whereas the issue here is the admissibility of illegally seized evidence already in the Government's possession. Although there is this factual difference between Boyd and the case at bar, nevertheless the basic holding of Boyd applies with equal, if not greater, force to the case before us. In both the Boyd situation and here, the essential question is whether evidence -- in Boyd, the books and records, here, the results of the search of the car -- the obtaining of which violates the Fourth Amendment may be relied upon to sustain a forfeiture. Boyd holds that it may not.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html

We think that the notice to produce the invoice in this case, the order by virtue of which it was issued, and the law which authorized the order were unconstitutional and void, and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice, when produced in obedience to said notice, and its admission in evidence by the court, were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings. We are of opinion, therefore, that

The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a new trial.

Simply put, the only reason they're doing this is that some States are getting ballsy because people (yourself included) haven't a fucking clue what their rights are, what the Law, including the bedrock one of the Constitution actually IS and they're doing things illegally because of stupid pricks like yourself.

Actually, they've NOT been upheld in at least some Courts. They're violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in almost all cases.

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

There's at least a few more outstanding in recent times in the varying states. But...the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled on the subject- and this is a swift path for Oklahoma to be facing Civil Rights suits and the State Troopers to find themselves facing the possibility of a Felony violation of 18 USC 242 (not that this DoJ would ever enforce it...) because they're an explicit deprivation of rights under law in a manner that uses threat of lethal force to enforce the same (YOU try telling them that they can't do that- they'll claim "resisting arrest" and put you in jail with the implied that they WILL shoot your ass if you resist at that point- which is kidnapping and assault...).

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

This authoritative statement and the holding by the Court in Boyd that the Government could not seize evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in a forfeiture proceeding would seem to be dispositive of this case. The Commonwealth, however, argues that Boyd is factually distinguishable, as it involved a subpoena sought by the Government for the production of evidence, whereas the issue here is the admissibility of illegally seized evidence already in the Government's possession. Although there is this factual difference between Boyd and the case at bar, nevertheless the basic holding of Boyd applies with equal, if not greater, force to the case before us. In both the Boyd situation and here, the essential question is whether evidence -- in Boyd, the books and records, here, the results of the search of the car -- the obtaining of which violates the Fourth Amendment may be relied upon to sustain a forfeiture. Boyd holds that it may not.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html

We think that the notice to produce the invoice in this case, the order by virtue of which it was issued, and the law which authorized the order were unconstitutional and void, and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice, when produced in obedience to said notice, and its admission in evidence by the court, were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings. We are of opinion, therefore, that

The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a new trial.

Simply put, the only reason they're doing this is that some States are getting ballsy because people (yourself included) haven't a fucking clue what their rights are, what the Law, including the bedrock one of the Constitution actually IS and they're doing things illegally because of stupid pricks like yourself.

and the Alabama protesters were charged under the very concept you cite: that they have no right to impede people/traffic.

and the SCOTUS disagreed.

https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

Lying to a cop is not a crime, in and of itself.

Yes, it is, at least here in Maryland: "A person may not make, or cause to be made, a statement, report, or complaint that the person knows to be false as a whole or in material part, to a law enforcement officer of the State, of a county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the State, or of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Police with intent to deceive and to cause an investigation or other action to be taken as a result of the statement, report, or complaint....A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $500 or both."

Some years back, Virgin Airlines accused British Airways of "dirty tricks", which included unauthorised access to the Virgin (rented) space on the BA bookings computer

British Airways improperly accessed confidential Virgin Atlantic flight information

http://law.justia.com/cases/fe...

VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LIMITED, Plaintiff,
v.
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC, Defendant.

No. 93 Civ. 7270 (MGC).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.

December 30, 1994.

Well, these guys also have a trademark on AIX in the computer space, so I imagine trademark applicability is a good deal narrower than "computer space".

The military can be called on to assist law enforcement efforts in a support role, such as operating equipment like this. What they absolutely may not do is run these flights under their own authority or for their own purposes and without the direct supervision of a Federal law enforcement agency.

These are not military flights, they are FBI flights "contracted out" to the military for their ability to operate the equipment. The FBI still has to follow the law for their recon activities and the military still cannot do any of this in the US without civilian LEO involvement.

This is not illegal under Posse Comitatus. The District Court ruled in US. v. Red Feather (1975): http://law.justia.com/cases/fe...

"It is clear from the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. 1385 and the above cases, the intent of Congress in enacting this statute and by using the clause "uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise", was to prevent the direct active use of federal troops, one soldier or many, to execute the laws. Congress did not intend to prevent the use of Army or Air Force materiel or equipment in aid of execution of the laws."

More specifically:

"Activities which constitute a passive role which might indirectly aid law enforcement are: mere presence of military personnel under orders to report on the necessity for military intervention; preparation of contingency plans to be used if military intervention is ordered; advice or recommendations given to civilian law enforcement officers by military personnel on tactics or logistics; presence of military personnel to deliver military materiel, equipment or supplies, to train local law enforcement officials on the proper use and care of such material or equipment, and to maintain such materiel or equipment; aerial photographic reconnaissance flights and other like activities. Such passive involvement of federal military troops which might indirectly aid civilian law enforcement is not made unlawful under 18 U.S.C. 1385 and therefore is not relevant or material and not admissible to disprove the third element of the 18 U.S.C. 231(a) (3) charge against the defendants."

This is correct. Maryland is an all party consent state - all parties must agree, unless you have a warrant, or special circumstances apply. They don't on a public bus. http://law.justia.com/codes/ma...

Most likely there's a sign clearly visible at the entry to the bus that says something to the effect of "By boarding this bus, you agree to have your conversations recorded." Then they're covered.

Not that I agree with the practice (I don't) but is it? I was reading this: http://law.justia.com/codes/ma... and one could argue (and I imagine it might be) that the fine print to use the MTA has a statement that by using the service you agree to have your conversations recorded - putting them in compliance with provision c.3.

I don't think that should be a condition to use a government service, especially a monopoly, but unfortunately the law allows all kinds of bullshit to slide in terms and conditions these days. Much to the fucking over of the common person.

The article mentions

Officials say the devices can capture important information in cases of driver error or an attack or altercation on a bus

which I do think would be valuable in an investigation of either scenario on top of video. But it doesn't mention what they do with the data generally or as a whole and that obviously is a problem.

This is correct. Maryland is an all party consent state - all parties must agree, unless you have a warrant, or special circumstances apply. They don't on a public bus. http://law.justia.com/codes/ma...

"Under Deng Xiaoping, the penalty for back doors, and for violating any of the meta- software principles, was death." In the US it's just a mandatory minimum of one-year in federal prison. https://dockets.justia.com/doc...; https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mi...

What the government is asking is that Apple divert its private resources away from Apple's priorities in order to develop a product for the government.

In United States v. New York Telephone, which may be the closest Supreme Court precedent related to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that New York Telephone needed to install a pen register for the government because it wasn't a burden on New York Telephone. It wasn't a burden because New York Telephone owned the equipment and already installed pen registers for their own, internal use.

In this case Apple does not own or control the equipment and does not already create software to perform this type of unlock. It seems to me that this is a burden.

The FBI has been asking for encryption backdoors for some time and Congress, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective, has not created legislation to do that. The FBI then gets a sympathetic case and decides to go through the courts to force a company to build a product in order to "unlock" a phone. If the government succeeds in creating this precedent then what's to prevent them from forcing any company to "unlock" a phone; whether it's via building a new OS version or creating a method to "backdoor" the encryption?

This becomes even more complex given the other discoveries that the county government changed the passcode after taking possession of the phone but are now unable to use the new passcode to unlock the phone. Also, don't forget, the county could have purchased a service that would have given them centralized control of their iPhones but chose not to, presumably because of cost.

If the government succeeds and can force Apple to build an OS they don't want to build and there's a bug in the code that causes erasure of the data then will Apple be held in contempt of court? What will help Apple recover whatever reputation they would lose as a result?

If the government succeeds in their effort to deputize/reprioritize/commander private resources to "create an OS version" of their liking against the will of the creators then you've created a real mess with liberty.

Your ignorance on this is just staggering.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said or requested. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?

A law from 1907 does not address the US constitution and because the law had no enforcement mechanism, I'm pretty sure no one ever had any standing to challenge it on its constitutional grounds.

However, activist conservative judges have (dishonestly) interpreted notes from a clerk in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific as a decision by the Court recognizing corporate personhood, which the decision did not.

How can you claim dishonestly? Did the notes not exist or say something different? IF anyone is being dishonest is it the premise that you claim the court is discussing corporate person hood when the fact of the matter is only if the 14th amendment applies to corporations as well. But that is essentially the same thing and a matter of semantics, it isn't a point of contention. BTW, the actual ruling in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific specifically states "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Or are you trying to say that it doesn't say that?

For nearly the first 200 years of this country's existence, money was seen as property and not speech, until Buckley v. Valeo. So much for conservatives and stare decisis!

Your reporting on this seems misleading too. The law in question was just passed by congress the year before it was challenged. Fortunately in this law, there was an enforcement mechanism which gave standing to sue.

Corporations existed at the time the Constitution was written, and if the Framers had so desired, they could have made corporations persons. I wonder if this was discussed at the Constitutional Convention..

The only thing I know of discussing corporations at the constitutional convention was a comparison of states and municipalities to corporations and a shot discussion of funding being so small that if wouldn't cover discharge of debt in corporate bankruptcies.

Corporations were a lot more powerful when the constitution was written. Many of the colonies which became countries under the articles of confederation and then states under the US constitution, were created and ran by corporations. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution just didn't see a reason to be redundant.

And many people try to shoehorn an article of the Constitution written before the advent of handguns and automatic weapons to the present time. So?

But if you insist, at that time the writers of the Constitution absolutely believed that INDIVIDUAL STATES can and must regulate the militias to protect against foreign invasions and tyrannical acts of the federal government. So in effect arms are a means of defense against an organized invasion.

The Constitution absolutely does NOT protect the use of guns for individual defense or for hunting. There's a Supreme Court decision that bans short-barreled shotguns because they are not a legitimate weapon of war, for example ( https://supreme.justia.com/cas... ).

The modern interpretation that gun-fondlers can use guns without any oversight whatsoever is a work of an activist judge, nothing more. So yes, if you want to play with guns - go to military.

Here's another one... I'll explain this very carefully.

You do not get a public defender (though there may be a representative in the court to speed things along and to give you basic advice for no cost, regardless of income). You do not get a public defender for a speeding ticket. You do not get a public defender for a drinking in public charge. You do not get a public defender for a littering offense.

Here's the important citation:
https://www.justia.com/crimina...

Note, very carefully, the verbiage. You have a right to a public defender in criminal proceedings. Speeding tickets are (unless they're particularly egregious) civil infractions. Civil infractions have a lower burden of proof. (Remember the OJ civil trial? there's a reason it was called a civil trial.) Civil infractions also do not carry a risk of jail time as their penalty. If the sentence can not include jail time then it is a civil infraction. Civil infractions are not criminal matters. Civil infractions do not have a right to a public defender.

Some courts will still have a person, paid for by the courts, to give legal advice - this is to speed things up, to ensure that you're aware of your rights - if needed, and is not an obligation but is a favor from the courts. Sometimes this service is even provided pro bono.

If you'd like, I'll explain the differences between the two a bit more but basically a civil trial means that the State must demonstrate that you, more likely than not, committed the offense as alleged. A criminal matter means that the State must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are guilty of the offense as is alleged by the State.

You do not have the rights that you would have in a civil case. This includes civil matters between individuals as well as the State.

These are *really* basic concepts and it's scary as fuck that you don't know this. Even worse, you're modded informative. You have an OBLIGATION to be at least familiar with the concepts of the law. This is your end of the social bargain. You are, if you want justice, to ensure that justice is carried out - it is your job to watch the courts and ensure that they are just. This is why court is a public proceeding (typically, unless there are compelling security or privacy reasons otherwise) and if the court is closed, when it otherwise should not be (due to crowding or the likes) then you can petition the court to provide remote access. This may include monitoring on a close circuit television, a simple microphone and speaker, or even just opening the doors. The default state of an in-session court is open to the public, it is by exception that it is not public, and you've an obligation to know the law, observe the courts, and ensure that justice is being carried out.

If you want rights then you must remain vigilant to ensure that they're maintained and protected. That is your end of the social contact. That you don't know the difference between a civil and criminal matter and what protections are afforded by the 6th Amendment is disturbing but not as disturbing as your moderation score. You are not read your Miranda Rights when you get a speeding ticket. You are not arrested and released on PR bail. You're issued a summons for a civil infraction and must answer to it in court. At court, you will be arraigned. If you take the matter to court, instead of paying the fine and admitting guilt, then you go to court. This will be a reading of your charges against you, it will be an opportunity for the judge to carefully explain your rights (it'd do you well to listen). You will then be asked to enter a plea or, if the matter turns out to be a felony, you will be deferred to a superior court. This is usually in a different court house. This may be granted a hearing then or delayed until a scheduled date in the future. You may be eligible for a trial by a jury of your peers.

This process will vary slightly, depending on what rights

That is only true if there's a chance that a conviction will result in jail time. This means that a DA can state that they'll not be asking for jail time, the judge can agree, and you can be not provided an attorney. Public defenders are ONLY provided when there's a chance that the offender will be sentenced, directly, to jail - meaning that you can be sentenced to pay a fine, found in contempt for not paying the fine, and have never had a public defender.

Do you not ever actually learn about the things you opine above? (There is some variance in the above but that's fairly universal across all US jurisdictions,) Just go spend a day watching the local district court in action. It's not only free, but it is a part of your end of the social bargain. If you want a justice system then you need to know about it and observe it to ensure that they are actually dispensing justice.

The most important part of that step is that you need to learn about it. You have access, for free, to the law library. It may be through a university, a State, town, or county library, or a dingy old room in the back of a disused section of the old courthouse. However, it is free.

It is only for CRIMINAL proceedings. The difference between a civil and criminal offense is that you can go to jail for one and not the other (not directly - see the comment about contempt for not paying a fine). The other major difference is the burden of proof. The preponderance of evidence, if you will, is that in a civil trail the state must only prove that you, more likely than not, committed the offense as charged by the State. (The burden for criminal matters is greater.) Some charges can be prosecuted, depending on jurisdiction, as either one at the discretion of the prosecuting attorney (representative of the State). At least I'm reasonably sure that's true in some jurisdictions. Others, it's a bit more defined but there's still prosecutorial discretion where they can charge you with a lesser or greater crime if they feel the burden of proof can be met.

I suppose you'll be wanting a citation?
https://www.justia.com/crimina...

Note the second link in the first sentence. It is "criminal proceedings." Feel free to click that link. At that point, you might learn even more stuff - specifically about the difference between a civil and criminal matter - however, I've given you a run-down here and that should be adequate but there's a citation if you need one.

Have you ever seen a let's play video? This are people who can't even be bothered to learn the game they're playing, what makes you think they'll ever try and understand something like trademark law?

And, it's worth noting, Let's Play IS trademarked already. By multiple companies for multiple reasons. It's owned by Del Monte, Sony, Blank Generation, T.P. Mills Company, Esparza Advertising, Info-Man Referral Services, Erica Leonard, Hasbro, Safeway, The Sports Authority, Trion World Network, "Regnier, Pady" (someone's name?), Let's Play Sports, Nabisco, JAKKS Pacific, another collection of names, M2 Polymer Technologies, Bally Gaming, Coliseum Entertainment, and that's just the first page of 234 separate marks!

So, yeah, who cares? Let's Play has been trademarked. A ton. And it hasn't stopped terrible people from posting terrible videos of their terrible gameplay. The worst that could happen is that Sony might make it possible to use YouTube without getting recommendations for idiots playing games.

So the committer appears to be a Microsoft employee named Jan Kotus, and he also appears to have filed quite a few patents. Why not make the source open if anyone who uses it will need to pay royalties to use it?

And putting the means of production in the hands of the people is evil. It interferes with interstate commerce.

and guess who just so happens to have several patents on the code generation?

Patents by Inventor Noel William Lovisa

SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION

Application number: 20150032573

Abstract: The present invention provides a method of allowing a user to obtain a service using a processing system. The method utilises components each of which corresponds to a respective service portion provided by a respective entity. The method includes causing the processing system to determine a combination of components defining a sequence of service portions, in accordance with input commands received from the user. The processing system then implements the components in accordance with the component combination, thereby causing the sequence of service portions to be performed, such that the desired service to be performed.

Actually, I cannot conceive of any situation in which I'd want drones to fly over my property, whether loitering or whizzing.

Well, it doesn't really matter what you want. It has been established by the courts that you don't control the airspace above 83 feet of altitude. Here is a reference for that: https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

Furthermore, this AB and other State's laws, are preempted by the federal law mandating the FAA to control all airspace from 83ft and higher. Here is a reference for that: http://www.americanbar.org/con...

So, as long as the UAV operator has been certified by the FAA, it looks like you will have to tolerate unmanned (or manned, for that matter) aircraft hovering over your property at and above altitudes of 83ft AGL.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us...

Since 1994 at least.

Bull shit.

The laws have been on the books for a very long time, and continuing to parrot that line to make her look better is disingenuous.

http://www.archives.gov/record...
http://www.archives.gov/about/...

You can read up on the records laws, they date back quite far. Here is a link to the 1994 version:

http://law.justia.com/codes/us...

Criminals, incarcerated or released, do lose some liberties. However they do no automatically lose all 1st Amendment rights. The Supreme Court case Turner v. Safley created the "Turner Standard" that asks "whether a prison regulation that impinges on inmates' constitutional rights is 'reasonably related' to legitimate penological interests."

For instance, prisoners are generally allowed to practice their choice religion, send as well as receive communications from the outside world, or seek redress of grievances from the government. Prisons may limit some aspects of these as they fall under penological interests such as maintaining order and security.

In Chief Keef case, yeah, he looks to be generally to be a piece of filth. However he's currently not convicted of a crime that he has not served his sentence for. Being a piece of filth also doesn't revoke your constitutional rights.

Yes, you do. Public airspace begins at 500 feet.

Here's the link, where you can view current and past Georgia state laws. I'm not sure if the laws are shown in full detail.

Do you have any plans to do anything with your Metaverse trademark?

Are you looking to sell it off, or to bless a public implementation of the Metaverse with the official title?

He lost because he didn't bother to respond to the charges.. I couldn't read the text of the complaint (they want money), but the article says he's been ignoring them for several years over these "performances".

I don't agree with the price tag, but it looks like he was fudging the truth to get free advertising out of this lawsuit.

The court didn't actually weigh the case, since the restaurant never answered the complaint.

And that's the end of any sympathy they might have had coming from me. No matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is, if you don't answer it, you deserve to lose.

(ii) in the case of a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 3,750 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 3,750 gross square feet of space or more (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and--

(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

So most establishments have a defense. Maybe this one did. But the judge heard from only one side since the restaurant never showed up to court. Too bad.

HSBC
the East India Tea Company
Silk Road Trading

The real point is that the First Amendment, to take the example, was written in terms of the speech not the speaker. The speaker could be an individual or it could be a corporation (per https://supreme.justia.com/cas... (link will likely kick up a warning, the site is safe)), both enjoy the guarantees of the US Constitution inside the jurisdiction, both also bear the responsibilities.

The metadata collection of mail, or specifically knowing senders, receivers and dates of communication etc. has long been known as a law enforcement tool. The contents of private correspondence has been protected not only by the fourth amendment but also affirmed in 1878 ex parte Jackson:

a distinction is to be made between different kinds of mail matter -- between what is intended to be kept free from inspection, such as letters, and sealed packages subject to letter postage, and what is open to inspection, such as newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and other printed matter purposely left in a condition to be examined. Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Of course based on reasonable suspicion law enforcement could always obtain warrants or with the help of postal inspectors focus in on one group or hierarchy of mail delivery to focus in on collecting this metadata. The protection for criminals conducting illegal activities was that there was so much mail that it would be hard to filter through it unless suspicious activity was observed. The FBI under Hoover however took it a bit further and intercepted mail and examined it without warrants under the guise of "counter intelligence." The Church Committee found:

Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been illegally collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret and biased informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone "bugs", surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous—and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations—have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.

So, the NSA and it's surreptitious activities are nothing new to the Feds.

With the advent of OCR technology now you could sort the mail faster, 1000s of times faster than before but the side benefit was that huge amounts of metadata could be easily collected and it didn't require warrants or suspicions. Since sending letters requires another party, the Third Party Doctrine and in 1967 the Supreme Court in Katz v. US established a test to determine if when a person could assume that their communications were private:

1) "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted

Patents are equally useless for protecting against copying the look and feel of a game.

Design patents aside, of course.

You can only patent specific concepts or technologies, say, the way Zynga tried to patent the the use of in-game virtual currency. You're telling me you think the proper way for these indie devs to handle this is to go out, patent their own code and algorithms, and then fight it out in court with Zynga? Insanity.

You're saying a better way to handle it is to get no legal protection and just hope that Zynga never decides to copy them? Worse insanity, particularly because we've seen it fail, over and over.

The AAA game industry isn't "ignoring" the patent issue. They're simply declining to participate in the patent war madness that everyone else seems to be currently engaged in. Companies like Zynga are the exception to the general trend, and may end up forcing everyone else to do the same goddamned thing. Do you know who'll be left behind here? Yeah, the indie devs, because they can't afford patent lawyers and ridiculous lawsuits.

Patent litigation is frequently done on contingency. That's like saying "I can't afford to have you place a bet for me, because if it wins, I have to give you a share of the huge pile of free money I get."

Read the massive list of Zynga patents. It makes me weep as a game developer.

Why should it? After all, I believe a wise man once said, "The only way to beat a company that steals your best ideas is to keep coming up with better ones." Similarly, the only way to beat a company that comes up with the best ideas and patents them is to come up with better ones, right? Or pay a reasonable license fee if you can't come up with a better idea.

The USPTO seems to be rubberstamping whatever the hell Zynga sends their way, so long as it's couched in enough confusing terminology and legalese (oh, and "online" is mentioned anywhere).

[Citation needed]. The USPTO currently rejects around 95% of patent applications in this industry, so if they've got a rubberstamp, it says "DENIED".

If you actually read the patents in detail, they're essentially the sort of thing any competent developer would think.

If you read anything in detail, then ask yourself immediately afterwards if you could think of what you just read, you'd say yes. It's called hindsight. The question is whether any competent developer would have thought of it before reading the patent. And that takes evidence to prove, not a gut feeling based solely on "I understand what I just read, so therefore it must be obvious."

Patents are equally useless for protecting against copying the look and feel of a game. You can only patent specific concepts or technologies, say, the way Zynga tried to patent the the use of in-game virtual currency. You're telling me you think the proper way for these indie devs to handle this is to go out, patent their own code and algorithms, and then fight it out in court with Zynga? Insanity.

The AAA game industry isn't "ignoring" the patent issue. They're simply declining to participate in the patent war madness that everyone else seems to be currently engaged in. Companies like Zynga are the exception to the general trend, and may end up forcing everyone else to do the same goddamned thing. Do you know who'll be left behind here? Yeah, the indie devs, because they can't afford patent lawyers and ridiculous lawsuits.

Read the massive list of Zynga patents. It makes me weep as a game developer. The USPTO seems to be rubberstamping whatever the hell Zynga sends their way, so long as it's couched in enough confusing terminology and legalese (oh, and "online" is mentioned anywhere). If you actually read the patents in detail, they're essentially the sort of thing any competent developer would think.

Seriously, this is madness, and it has to stop. Software patents need to die.

Georgia -- see O.C.G.A. SS. 40-6-1 (a)