Slashdot Mirror

Really? http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424438569

Actually, it seems the software is required by technicians to SERVICE UPSes, because access to calibrations and voltage controls are restricted on the UPS and only available through the software. And the GE company being sued is a company that sells UPS maintenance and repair services.

I would equate this to vehicle manufacturers using encrypted communications with the cars' computers, to ensure only authorized dealers and servicers can possibly have access to diagnostic information.

So their technicians would be using the software while the company receives payments from other organizations for UPS repair/maintenance.

So they are (possibly) competing against the company that manufactures the UPS for repair, management, and maintenance services, as not an "authorized" servicer of their UPSes.

The software is not generally available to the public, and it sounds as if they might have obtained it through an unapproved channel.

There is also a possibilitythey might be providing service for UPSes that are not under service contracts with the manufacturer.

Hm.. http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/LawDecisionTX.jsp?id=1202463809581

I. MGE manufactures several lines of UPS machines, some of which require the use of MGE's copyrighted software programs Pacret and Muguet during servicing. This software fixes calibration problems more quickly than traditional manual servicing techniques. Without the software, a service technician can still partially service an MGE UPS machine, but a number of critical procedures (including recalibration and adjustment of voltage levels) can only be performed through use of the software, which works only on MGE-manufactured devices.

The software requires connection of an external hardware security key (called a "dongle") to the laptop serial port. Each dongle has an expiration date, a maximum number of uses, and a unique password. ... If the protocol exchange is successful, MGE's software proceeds to collect system status information for the technician.

Years after MGE introduced its security technology, a number of software hackers published information on the internet disclosing general instructions on how to defeat the external security features of a hardware key.

...
PMI is a critical power service company servicing a variety of brands of UPS machines, including MGE UPS machines. PMI initially subcontracted MGE to perform software service on MGE UPS machines, but sometime before June 2000, a group of PMI employees obtained at least one copy of MGE's software from an unknown source. GE acquired PMI in 2001.

Instead, they tell them to go law because "there is no such thing as an unemployed lawyer."

There are now many unemployed lawyers. See the lawyer layoff list. There's now "legal process outsourcing, and it's not just clerical work any more. You can now send work to cheap lawyers in a Bangalore call center.

A lawyer I was using was recently laid off by his downsizing law firm. It happens.

My point was twofold.

First, that they need to know what MPEG-LA claims is infringing and that MPEG-LA actually owns it, and this probably needs to be communicated to Google in some official manner.

Second, MPEG-LA cannot simply wait while YouTube implements WebM in beta, then makes it optional, and finally only sue when it becomes mandatory. That's acting in bad faith and the very definition of estoppel by laches, "knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title"

And here's a new third point. If MPEG-LA were to bring suit against Canonical now, it would not be estoppel by laches, since Canonical cannot claim MPEG-LA has been lax in enforcing their rights. Estoppel would most certainly not prevent from claiming damages, though other things might.

Well, contracts aside, it's still the case that large corporations offer continuing education or tuition reimbursement as a matter of policy, and while I'd hope that the value of investing in an employee should be self-evident to any employer, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that such notions fall victim to cost-cutting measures taken during tough economic times.

Jobs in the IT field aren't considered professions (at least in the traditional sense), but it may offer some perspective to consider how other professions handle things. Consider lawyers, as a ferinstance. From the American Bar Assocation website:

46 U.S. jurisdictions require lawyers to take mandatory or minimum continuing legal education (MCLE) courses in order to practice law within that particular jurisdiction.

So lawyers are required to "maintain their certifications". And by extension, law firms maintain their "certified status". How about the costs for the education? Well, unsurprisingly (or not), most of the better firms offer reimbursements, and then some.

All in all, I'd suggest it comes to how generous or otherwise enlightened an employer is at a given point in time. Should your employer reimburse you, or otherwise make accomodations? If the company's "certified status" depends on it, the answer is an obvious "Yes". If not, then I'm afraid your own needs or wishes will be considered discretionary.

> What is your angle?

Hard to tell, Ray. But if he's Thaetetus, does that make you Socrates? :]

Seriously, though, there are about a zillion Dan Roses out there. Mostly he appears to spend his time making random legal comments on Slashdot among a handful of others. Seems like he *might* be at UNC School of Law. The email has an extra dot, but I think Gmail ignores those. If that's true, he's part of the Lambda Law Students Association (a legal association for homosexuals), which doesn't really explain his interest in the RIAA & copyrights. That said, Google is giving some very strange results, so who knows?

That said, this exchange was pretty ugly for Tenenbaum. I assume it's what he's talking about. Of course, I see nothing in there admitting specifically to violating the distribution right. And I don't have a court transcript, either, which I trust more than random internet reports about the case.

I say that because there are other things out there like this story which claims that "Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson has conceded in a letter to the US Department of Justice that his client, accused peer-to-peer infringer Joel Tenenbaum, "downloaded music for [his] own enjoyment."" which points to this letter on your website. The problem is that I've read the letter three times and I can't find that "quote" in it anywhere, unless they got it by cutting out the phrase "is alleged to have," which would make their quote the same kind of dishonesty that led to $312,000 in sanctions recently.

The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer, but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests. Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer (here's a blog that tracks the court's activity). The judges don't seem to mind the extra load. In fact they pride themselves how their "streamlining" of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity. They've fondly nicknamed their court "the rocket docket".

I don't know how the judges rationalize it but the spin from the lawyers is that "the Eastern District is 'a great venue,' because the judges there are experts on patent matters, and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel". I guess it's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools. Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations "they prefer to go to ... where the judges have the expertise" So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases. Rinse, lather, repeat! Ain't circular logic fun?

It looks like someone is still confused there about copyright treaties like the Berne Convention.

It is perfectly legal to download and re-distribute the copyrighted material when the copyright owner gives permission. MPAA, RIAA, Disney / Microsoft don't want that discussed. And when formerly copyrighted material has its copyright revoked, either by the rights holder or by the passage of time. For example, the early Elvis recordings are now in the public domain in many countries because the copyright on that particular edition has expired.

Further, in some countries, fair use extends to copies for personal use. So while it may give you the warm and fuzzies to Repeat After Bill his every word, consider that the Internet is a global network and not just limited to your block.

What is likely at the heart of the matter is the issue of whether decentralized communications networks shall be allowed by control-freaks in various companies or their subservient governments. If it's not centralized, it's hard to track or censor.

I don't really see how it's that "big" a claim. I'm not like saying the earth is flat or all our politicians were replaced with aliens. Those would be pretty big claims. But anyway:
"Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly" only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a "kitchen sink" array of rationales, with Gura's. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim."

I am not sure the proposed law does much if redaction is all it takes to get a pass. From Law.com:

Electronic Redaction Doesn't Always Hide What It's Supposed to Hide
Paralegals need to know how to keep information confidential

Dana J. Lesemann. The Recorder. May 05, 2006

With the issue of intentional government leaks of classified information frequently in the news, the problem of unintentional leaks of classified and sensitive information is frequently overlooked. The examples are numerous and startling.

Last year, U.S. military commanders in Iraq released a long-awaited report of the American investigation into the fatal shooting of an Italian agent escorting a freed hostage through a security checkpoint. In order to give the classified report the widest possible distribution, officials posted the document on the military's "Multinational Force-Iraq" Web site in Adobe's portable document format, or PDF. The report was heavily redacted, with sections obscured by black boxes.

Within hours, however, readers in the blogosphere had discovered that the classified information would appear if the text was copied and pasted into Microsoft Word or any other word-processing program. Stars and Stripes, the Department of Defense newspaper, noted that the classified sections of the report covered "the securing of checkpoints, as well as specifics concerning how soldiers manned the checkpoint where the Italian intelligence officer was killed. In the past, Pentagon officials have repeatedly refused to discuss such details, citing security concerns." Soon after, the report was removed from the Web site.

Copies of the improperly redacted report, however, live on. We at the consulting firm of Stroz Friedberg, too, were able to remove the redaction and save the clear text in a Word document. Forensic examiners in our office found that the document had been produced directly from Microsoft Word using Adobe Acrobat 6.0's PDFMaker. The redacted text simply had been highlighted in black. As a result, to reveal the classified information, the steps are simple: Highlight the text with the "select text" button on the PDF toolbar, copy the text by typing "control C," open a new document in a word-processing program and paste the text into the new document.

Read more...

Meanwhile I am writing this on a Mac, which I was free to choose,

I too am typing this on a Mac, which I freely switched to.

by your definition Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. But tell that to the EU.

Strictly speaking Microsoft does have a monopoly. If that is not acceptable see what other law dictionaries say.

Falcon

If you didn't get it when I said I'm typing this on a Mac, I'm not MS fanbous, if you look at my previous statements about MS you'll see I oppose MS business tactics.

It can be assault, but it depends on the particular circumstances (emphasis added):

the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger. The assaulter must be reasonably capable of carrying through the attack.

Taken from law.com Law Dictionary, "Assault".

I find this lawsuit fairly amusing and hypocritical; since Thompson himself claimed First Amendment protection against his critics, and then when for good measure that the criticism of him violated state religious protection laws since he was motivated by his faith.

Mister Thompson wasn't damaged by "angry postings made by Facebook gamers" he was damaged by all the stupid, unethical (and illegal) crap he did that spawned those posts. This is just a greedy lawyer who got himself disbarred through his own machinations trying to get himself a payout so he can finance his insidious campaign of ignorance and fear. Hope Facebook takes this to court and tear Mister Thompson a proverbial "new one".

"what the hell is a patent troll?"

"Patent-hoarding giant Intellectual Ventures has long beat the drum that it doesn't file lawsuits"

Last year I wrote that Intellectual Ventures is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of our flawed patent system. Itâ(TM)s a firm that literally does nothing useful, its only business is the acquisition and licensing of patents. Not only does it have no intention of commercializing the technologies it âoeinvents,â its business model is based on minimizing the amount of research performed per patent obtained. In Malcolm Gladwellâ(TM)s brilliant (if inadvertent) exposé of IV, he describes how IV hires smart people to participate in brainstorming sessions and then has patent lawyers immediately file patent applications for every idea that comes up during the discussion, without bothering to actually implement any of them, or even devoting much effort to verifying that they actually work. IV then approaches firms that are doing the hard work of implementing âoetheirâ ideas and demands a cut of their profits.

Myhrvoldâ(TM)s firm illustrates in a way that no law review article could the extent to which the patent system punishes firms that actually produce useful products. Firms whose business models involve actual innovation have to show restraint in exploiting their patent portfolios. If they donâ(TM)t, thereâ(TM)s a high probability that some of their adversaries will countersue and both firms will be dragged into a legal quagmire. But if litigation is your only business, then youâ(TM)re not vulnerable to retaliatory infringement lawsuits, so you can exploit your patent portfolio much more aggressively. Many small âoepatent trollâ firms have exploited this flaw in the past, but Myhrvold is the first person to recognize that it can be exploited in a systematic, large-scale fashion.

Until recently, one of the few points Myhrvold could make in his own favor is that he hadnâ(TM)t started suing firms that declined to license his patent portfolio. I say âoeuntil recentlyâ because weâ(TM)re now learning that the lawsuits have started. IV has begun selling off chunks of its patent portfolio to people like Raymond Niro with well-deserved reputations for being âoepatent trolls.â Threatening to sell patents to a third party who will sue you is more subtle than threatening to sue you directly, but the threat is just as potent. Myhrvoldâ(TM)s âoesales pitchâ to prospective licensees just got a lot more convincing.

The fundamental question we should be asking about this business strategy is how it benefits anyone other than Myhrvold and the patent bar. Remember that the standard policy argument for patents is that they incentivize beneficial research and development. Yet IVâ(TM)s business model is based on the opposite premise: produce no innovative products, spend minimal amounts on research and development, and make a profit by compelling firms that are producing products and investing in R&D to pay up. Not only does this enrich Myhrvold at everyone elseâ(TM)s expense, but it also reduces the incentive to innovate, because anyone who produces an innovative product is forced to share his profits with Intellectual Ventures. Patents are supposed to make innovation more profitable. Myhrvold is using the patent system in a way that does just the opposite. In thinking about how to reform the patent system, a good yardstick would be to look for policy changes that would tend to put Myhrvold and his firm out of business.

typical ignorant geek. stick to your computer, son.
http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1181207138704

There was no physical copy, just data being deleted

The bits on the Kindle's flash memory were just as physical as the bits on a CD, and deleting them was just as much theft as stealing a CD would have been.

Or not, at least, if you aren't willing to swallow the idea of copyright infringement being theft.

What are you, an idiot? Copyright is different from theft because it involves COPYING, not deleting! With copyright infringement, the owner still has the work of art; all he's lost is an "opportunity." With theft, the owner doesn't have the work of art anymore.

If you are, then sure, that was theft. And again, at that point, you were in possession of stolen goods and had no claim to the book either.

Only if you're too stupid to understand the difference between moving something and copying it.

Anyway, here's the fundamental concept you seem unable to grasp: copyright isn't property, but rather an abstract set of permissions. It can't be "stolen," only infringed upon. In contrast, an individual copy is property, and can be stolen.

And let's not get into the bullshit realm of you and I trying to pretend we know the legal definitions here. You are no more in a position of claiming it's legally considered theft than I am. Legally, theft has a very strict and narrow definition and I guarantee you that neither the selling or subsequent deletion of the book will be counted under legal 'theft'.

O RLY? Read it!

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

Amazon.com intentionally and fraudulently deleted (i.e. "took" in the sense of "removed") the Kindle users' personal property (i.e. the copy of 1984 that they had lawfully purchased in good faith) and converted it to Amazon.com's use (to avoid having to pay damages to the copyright holder). That's theft!

Pennsylvania. Say no more.

Remember the recent scandal involving judges taking more than 2.6 million in payments from owner and builder of a juvenile detention center.

And don't forget Pennsylvania's judge Sabo, who unofficially handed out more death sentences than any judge in US history! Of course it's unofficial because such dubious records aren't kept in record-books... which seems bogus to me, since if we're going to support the death-sentence, then we need to do it with transparency and conviction, damnit.

Oh yeah, and how about the Move 9; nine black men who have spent nearly 30 years in prison for the same crime - allegedly killing a police officer who was shot with 1 bullet. Conveniently these men were all active members of a political family that openly complained about government corruption.

Pretty much every large company is de-facto required to rigorously delete materials that aren't required by law to be kept.

Which, in any public company or company that has a fiduciary role is either every piece of email for at least 5 years or a very specific cross-section of email which must be painstakingly identified (and most companies do not do this). This is the joyous ambiguity of S-Ox. Nowhere in the law does it say this explicitly, but the interpretation (which is very broadly applied by public corporations in order to cover their asses, since being "buried in discovery," as you put it is far better than literally going to jail) is that any email might contain data which is related to auditing requirements, and therefore must be retained.

See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1039054510969 for more detail. Then see http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/07/google_apps_gra.html;jsessionid=IASOOQCSKFDVGQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN for some info on the retention policy features in Google Apps, though I'm sure you could find more on Google's site at google.com/a

Following a visit to her hometown of Coalinga California in 2005, Cynthia Moreno wrote "An ode to Coalinga," and posted it in her MySpace page. The Ode opened with "the older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga" and made a number of negative comments about Coalinga and its inhabitants. The entry was posted for six days before Moreno removed it but that was long enough for the principal of Coalinga High School to find the ode and forward it to Pamela Pond, editor of the Coalinga Record, who published it in the newspaper's letters section. Local reaction was swift. Moreno's parents say they received death threats, a gun shot was fired at their home and her father's 20-year-old business lost so much money that it was closed and the family moved out of town. Moreno and her family responded by suing for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Now a Fresno based appellate court says Moreno had no grounds for her claim of invasion of privacy even if she meant her thoughts for a limited audience. "Cynthia's affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and, thus, opened it to the public eye," wrote Justice Levy. However, the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not dismissed and a jury will get to decide if the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous. In the meantime the editor who republished the essay has been fired and lawyer Eric Goldman, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, wonders "if the violent and ostracizing community response to Moreno's post didn't in fact validate some of her critiques."

more info

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429677896

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/court-your-myspace-page-isnt-private.ars

And the court summary..

http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2009/f054138.html

Interesting, I did not know of this. In the UK I think she would of had more success with the courts.

In any case it is common sense to watch what you post online. Once you click that mouse its gone, and you can never be sure that you can retract or recover.

I thought you were kidding until I saw the link, even then I didn't really think it would link to a patent application for that...

In any case, though, I'm sorry to inform Halliburton that there's a bit of prior art on patent trolling. Though I'd almost hope they get it, if for no other reason than to see the irony of a patent troll getting sued for patent infringement.

Nice searching - that specific article is cited as prior art in one of the many rejections on that app.

I thought you were kidding until I saw the link, even then I didn't really think it would link to a patent application for that...

In any case, though, I'm sorry to inform Halliburton that there's a bit of prior art on patent trolling. Though I'd almost hope they get it, if for no other reason than to see the irony of a patent troll getting sued for patent infringement.

That judge was an idiot, and his ruling was contrary to federal law, which specifies that coins are legal tender and nowhere says that there is a limit. The appropriate action is to fix the law, if you think it is broken, not make up imaginary rules in a courtroom.

Not that courts changing the law is anything new, though...

Anyway, I'll see your case and raise you one...

If you don't want to read the whole thing, basically in the end the judge admitted the defendant had "complied by taking legal tender there of $1,000 by the deadline" and then fined him $533 anyway (representing time, court costs, and the redemption fee to have the pennies converted to a check).

IANAL, but Groklaw contains all sorts of useful links to on-line legal references, which is how I found this. HTH. HAND.

Let's start with a couple of sources.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.Asp?selected=98

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breaking-and-entering/

Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

First, to note that locked versus unlocked doesn't make a difference. That is why people can not argue about whether something is a "lock" or not when defending against B&E.

Second, it appears that B&E is not per se a crime, as you say, because B&E is a wider net than the specific crime which is illegal. E.g. if there is a theft, then it is burglary, and if the person was authorized to enter, then there was no B&E.

Third, a closed door on a private residence is generally considered an implicit "uninvite" unless some other invitation has been given, implicit or otherwise.

Fourth, the better example would be to have talked about going to someone's home where there was an invitation, because then you can talk about public versus private alone. In this situation, the person is legally allowed to be in both places, but one is public and the other private, rather than in your situation, where the waters are muddied with possible trespassing. The original post discussed "expectation of privacy" and "in public", neither of which require the potential trespassing that you brought into the equation.

Last, thank you for bring to my attention that B&E is not technically a crime.

fraud

n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.

Fraud

Wikipedia is great and all, but please don't use it for legal advice...

It's called discovery and both sides are entitled to it. If discovery is found to not be pertinent, then that discovery is discarded as non-responsive. That doesn't mean you can hide discovery and in fact if you do things can go heavily against you for spoliage. This goes doubly for corporations such as Facebook:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005516406

Ok, so you want to focus on the use of the word crime instead.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=399&bold=||||

crime
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.

So are you suggesting that there was no law, that breaking the law did not cause injury to any member of the public, or that it was not punishable by a fine or imprisonment?

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=conviction&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up

n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime.

Try to use the proper tool for the job.

Libel is fairly well deliniated.
I don't particularly like the idea of pursuing anonymous posts as libelous, but your post is just ignorant.

Is there case law proving intrastate traffic and/or transactions conducted via the Internet is/are interstate commerce?

If I buy something from a company the headquarters of which is in my state, but I bought it from its web site, is that interstate commerce?

I know you're probably not a lawyer, so I'm not expecting you to be able to pull out case numbers or such, but a link to some article on it would be nice.

I did a little bit of research and found something which might help:

"Simply stated, we decline to assume that Internet use automatically equates with a movement across state lines. With respect to such interstate movement, the government must introduce sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof."

10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerome A. Holmes in U.S. v. Schaefer, No. 06-3080 wrote that. I think it has some bearing here. This essay might have some bearing, too, but I don't have the time at the moment to read it in its entirety.

You actually think that everyone the US is imprisoning without charge was 'captured on the battlefield'? As I understand it, the majority were not captured on the battlefield, but bought for bounty payments from Afghan warlords. Perhaps they captured them on a battlefield somewhere; I imagine that they did indeed assure the CIA that these people were terrorists captured on the battlefield. And who would lie when all they had to gain was getting rid of their enemies and acquiring large sums of money?

And that's before we discuss the people who were seized in peaceful regions across the globe, like Sarajevo, or Islamabad, or Gambia. Not that it matters. It seems that the Americans define 'the battlefield' as the entire planet, and anybody, anywhere could be declared an enemy combatant thereon and disappeared to some godforsaken torture camp.

I'll attach the definition of theft from a legal dictionary below. I leave it to you to decide whether it still meets GPs argument

n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426792619

This is something the ACLU is working on. Granted, not something they should have to work on (since the 1st Amendment should trump any turd of a bill Congress puts together), but it's indeed something they're working on.

... and then they'd serve you via publication, which seems a lot more error-prone but still commonly used and accepted.

This is a strange meme - the notion that to be an unlawful combatant, you have to have carried weapons on a battlefield. American government lawyers disagree.

Could a "little old lady in Switzerland" who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.

"She could," replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. "Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention." It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her.

So you don't need to carry a gun. You don't even need to have any intention of supporting terrorism. Team America will have you away to Cuba post haste anyway.

Now, how about this 'battlefield'? Where is it?

Noting the Supreme Court said detention was to keep combatants from returning to the battlefield, Green asked, "What and where is the battlefield the U.S.military is trying to detain the prisoners from returning to? Africa? London?"

Boyle: "The conflict with al-Qaida has a global reach."

So I suppose it's technically true that all the Guantanamo prisoners were captured on the battlefield. America defines the battlefield as the whole of Planet Earth.

IANAL, and I'm just guessing, but wouldn't that be tresspassing? I mean, if you're breaking and entering, I would assume that requires the breaking of something, right?

I'm not a lawyer, but according to the dictionary.com:
breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime.

Note the "even pushing open a door" bit. In Wikipedia's article on Burlgary, it states that in a store, going behind a shopkeepers counter (an area clearly not for customers) is trespass, which may be all he did.

However, to me it all comes down to intent (to steal or defraud, etc.). If a student logs in and sees in Network Neighborhood a server that allows them to double-click (is that a open door, or a closed door?) and access things with their own credentials (which this student could have used, but apparently tried to be sneaky and used another persons credentials so they won't be caught in the audit log). One place I read made it sound like he was trying to sell or hold ransom some information he'd found.

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

No. There was an attempt, admittedly a poor one, to keep out unauthorized people. The share had security on it. It was just very poor security, otherwise the individual in question would not have been required to enter a username and password.

Your analogy is backward because the server was not open to the public and was not supposed to be open to the public. Also, there was no equal authority involved. The student was granted username and password and permission to access specific servers. He did not have permission to the server in question, even though he may have had a user name and password.

This would be the equivalent of you giving a neighbor permission to use your pool along with a key to open the gate, that also happens to, whether known or unknown to you, open the back door then coming home and finding your neighbor in your living room watching TV. You did not give him permission to enter the house, only to use the pool. He is guilty of breaking and entering because he did not have permission to open and enter the house. It is not merely trespassing because he had to exert force to enter.

See the definition of Breaking and Entering

Your belief is irrelevant. What matters is what the law actually defines as breaking and entering.

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

No. Having the ability to access does not provide one with the right or permission to access.

Your analogy is false because it assumes he had permission to be in the school after-hours. It also puts the purse in an area where he might have permission to access. Move to purse to a teacher-only area and close the door and you have a true analogy.

Your argument is flawed and baseless, or would you like to give me an example where someone who had permissions to use a room/area/safe was charged with a felony when he/she found something that wasn't supposed to be there?

Your argument is flawed because he did not have permission to use the server in which the data was found, even if his user ID and password worked on the server. His user ID and password were for use on a different server. If one is given a key and permission to one door, one does not have permission to use that key to enter a different door, regardless of whether the key will unlock the door or not.

You want an example? If you give your neighbor a key to use in case of an emergency while you are at work, and you come home to find the neighbor has entered your house without cause, it is still breaking and entering.

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.

breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.
You are both ignorant and wrong. How does it feel?

The lock does not have to be "a super huge complex lock", merely a locking mechanism. You do not have the right to open or circumvent a lock just because the lock is flawed or flimsy.

If a piece of tape is placed over a door to keep it shut and you remove or break the tape, you are guilty of breaking and entering.

That is not what the student was doing so your contention is irrelevant. It is not my responsibility, nor is it yours, to educate a neighbor on anything.

And, breaking and entering does not require the door be broken down. Any force, even pushing open an ajar door is enough to constitute breaking and entering.

The only possible thing that's illegal is that two retards talking about.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005545655

(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2511.html

I actually read this first on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which cited the AP article, so it appears to also be significant in legal circles, though still noticeably absent from mainstream news sites. There also appears to be an some additional info here.

How about his filings disrespectful to the courts for starters? Perhaps submitting gay porn as court documents so they're part of the public record strikes you as a better reason? How about "making false and disparaging statements" about judges and other attorneys?

The claims are that he repeatedly makes false and inflammatory claims about others in and out of court, disrespects the officers of the court, and refuses to follow the rules of the court or to act with decorum in the courtroom. I'd say those are sufficient grounds. The Florida Bar Association and the courts appear to think so, and they consider the complaints against him legitimate enough to act. IANAL, but I know they need to abide by some rules and that they should know those rules better than the rest of us.

First, link to the opinion here.

I'm especially impressed by the opinion's final paragraph:

Under Pennsylvania law, school districts can punish students only "during such times as they are under the supervision of the board of school directors and teachers, including the time necessarily spent in coming to and returning from school." 24 PENN. STAT. Sec. 5-510. Plaintiffs cast J.S.'s actions as occurring at home; and therefore, the school could not properly punish her for them. We have found above, however, that the school did not err in disciplining J.S., and her actions were not merely personal home activities.

Perhaps you didn't read the other parts of the opinion, where it was made clear that the author of the MySpace page initiated discussions of it with other students at the school, and there was even a hard copy of the page which made it into the school. If the MySpace page had remained isolated from the school, then maybe that statute above would apply. But clearly it "leaked" into the school, and thus was a proper subject for disciplinary procedures.

Of course! If something doesn't violate any court precedents, it's impossible for it to violate a state law, right?

Well, the plaintiffs certainly had the opportunity to raise that point if they had even bothered to sue in state court, but as the opinion points out "Plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal the discipline she received to the school superintendent and the school board. (Def. Facts  62). She evidently did not take advantage of this opportunity. Plaintiffs instead instituted the instant case.". In other words, they went directly from "suspension" to "filing a civil rights case in federal court", not bothering with any state-court proceeding in between. The judge is certainly correct: a state law is not binding on a federal judge in a civil rights matter. That was one price they paid when they leapfrogged over a few steps in the litigation process.

The court's reasoning is even more funny when you consider an earlier quote:

To the extent that Killion stands for the proposition that a school can never discipline a student for lewd and vulgar speech made off of the school campus, we simply disagree, and Killion is not binding on this court.

Disagree all you want, it appears that the above statute does stand for that proposition.

Killion was a Federal Court precedent, trying to compare it to a state law is apples and oranges.