Slashdot Mirror

I see autocorrect spat out "injection" rather than "injunction".

It STILL doesn't want me to type injunction. Maybe my phone needs
https://thelawdictionary.org/i...

From your own link:

implementation of mandatory procedures to oversee and pre-
approve Mr. Musk’s Tesla-related written communications that reasonably

could contain information material to the company or its shareholders,

He didn't violate the agreement, because what he tweeted on 19 February was already public information released on 30 January during the investor call.

The tweet contained no "information material to the company or its shareholders" because they already had access to the information. As it turns out, "material information" has a defined meaning. Note the bit about "when it is revealed to the public" - if it's already public, then it's no longer material information.

You are wrong. You are not a lawyer. You are definitely not a securities lawyer, and neither am I. Don't act like one.

We won't know what the Court makes of the word "secured" until the Court makes various rulings, and that's if there isn't some sort of settlement that prevents it from ever being ruled on. But it sounds a lot worse without context than it does if you have the context.

Secured has a very specific legal meaning, and it is not "I had a talk and we may have a path to funding". No guaranteed pledge/contract? It's not secured.

In the eyes of the law, it might hold a different definition

I'm not an expert, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Also, that's not really what Bethesda is claiming here. They're not saying that they're doing this because the product isn't new, they're saying they're doing this because they don't know whether or not the product is new. In other words, they're divesting the seller of any responsibility and trying to seize control over the entire sales chain.

There's a question of why they'd be doing this. I'd imagine it's because they've gotten on board the software activation bandwagon, and this is a way to reduce the resulting support costs. It could also be about branding - with the Fallout case they showed themselves to be very sensitive to maintaining full brand control.

Regardless of the reason, the important thing to note here is that Bethesda is a horrible company and people should stop giving them money.

Please see the legal definition of secured. You secure financing when you have a deal done. There is NO securing a deal before it is complete. If he does not have funds committed in the amount of $72 billion, he's committed fraud. You can try to justify it all you want, but it definitely appears that Musk stepped in it, legally.

Even if the rest of your argument ...

What argument? What are you going on about? I had a definition, that's basically it.

You want a legal definition? You're not happy with the Oxford Dictionary? How about Black's Legal Dictionary? It says the same thing.

I have no idea where you got this idea about a "sexual servant" from the Oxford definition... None. I'm stuck there, can't even dispute what you said if I can't understand it. I also can't argue with the definition that you give, but... this here: “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.” This is prostitution.

I don't really know what you mean by "sexual servant." A prostitute is basically a sexual servant. Most people are confused because they think sex trafficking is the same thing as sexual slavery, this is the mistake that they make. They're confusing sex trafficking and human trafficking. The legal term that they really want is "severe form of trafficking in persons."

That's not the argument. The argument is that for a thing to constitute gambling it needs to potentially result in the loss of a wager. There's no chance of loss with loot boxes: you always get something. So buying a loot box constitutes a purchase, rather than a wager, even though you don't know exactly what it is that you're purchasing.

This is a legally valid argument, even though it wouldn't fly anywhere outside of a courtroom.

Furthermore, the word "debt" implies repayment.

The word "debt" means "a sum of money due by contract", where a contract is part of any financial transaction, even the implied contract that is established at a cash register.

Standing alone, the word “debt” is as applicable to a sum of money which lias been promised at a future day, as to a sum of money now due and payable

Shall we see what Black's has to say on the matter?

What is ALLEGIANCE?

[B]y allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence. Carlisle v. U. S

Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like Black's is on the same page as whoever wrote 8 USC 1408, and neither of them would not recognize the definition that you just pulled out of your ass. Have these "green card holders" renounced their other citizenship by some open and distinct act? Have they sworn an oath of fidelity and obedience to the United States?

No, of course not. The only people who are nationals by 8 USC 1101.a.22.B are the descendants of other nationals still living in overseas holdings. The only people who become US nationals after birth become Citizens at the same time.

You may want to look up "sexual assault" as well though.

Okay, I did. It's a recursive definition:

"These are the advances physically of one person from another in a sexual way that can lead to a sexual assault."

And on the site there's a link there, to itself. What the hell? That's just lazy.

Sued for what? Releasing an IP address (which is not identifying information as we all know) that was the source of a link that the poster KNEW was not authorized?

If that IP address leads them to contact a person, that IP address did, then, identify that person. Whether the link poster knew the source they linked to was unauthorized really doesn't come into play, as merely posting a link is neither a civil nor criminal offense. Uploading may be either or both, but then we have no proof (nor reaonable cause to believe) that the link poster and uploader are one in the same.

Because it allows Atlantic to determine who the employee was who broke his contract?

Well, for starters, by your own claim an IP address does not identify an individual, so no, it does not identify the uploader, even if the uploader and link poster were one in the same. Which brings me to point number two: the uploader and link poster are most likely not one in the same. Points three and four: the link poster broke no laws in posting that link and has no civil liability for doing so (that's #3), which means Atlantic has no leverage with which to coerce the link poster to give up his source (and there's #4).

Wanna bet that Reddit doesn't have a TOS that prohibits what happened?

You're on, how's $100M sound? USD, of course. Also, pay up.

reddit is designed and supported for personal use only. You may not use reddit to break the law, violate an individual's privacy, or infringe any person or entity’s intellectual property or any other proprietary rights.

Seems the clause does exist. In fact, it's the 6th paragraph of the ToS and the 2nd term listed after the preamble. But, a violation of that ToS does not absolve Reddit of their responsibilities laid out in theor own Privacy Policy. It does seem as though they've got that covered:

We will not share, sell, or give away any of our users’ personal information to third parties, unless one of the following circumstances applies: [...] We may share information if we believe your actions are inconsistent with our user agreements, rules, or other Reddit policies, or to protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and others;

However, as this is a legal document, the legal definition of certain terms applies. Reddit, being an internet-based business, reasonably understands that it is unlimely that the link poster and the uploader are one in the same and, so, while they may reasonably believe that the link posted violated their ToS and may take action against him for that (by way of deleting the post containing the link and possibly banning the account, as laid out elsewhere in the Terms), they do not reasonably believe that this user is the uploader, nor that the user will lead Atlantic to the uploader, so the above does, in fact, not apply.

A court order, on the other hand, would provide such reasonable belief. If Atlantic has a case, they should seek one.

You think they want legal liability for any illegal use of their system that happens?

Well, no, they don't, that's why the above-linked ToS clause exists. You think they want legal liability if the IP address they hand over leads to the prosecution of, or a lawsuit against, the wrong person? Of course they don't, that's hwy they won't do it without a court order, which Atlantic can easily obtain if they have actual proof that the IP address they seek will help them track down the uploader. We have legal due process in this country for a very good reason.

Yep. Know it, in fact.

And yet you can't back that state

But publishing standards should not.

What anyone posts on Twitter is, by every definition of the word, publishing. So, if People Magazine makes a statement like, "Pollux is a child molester," they are making an untrue public statement that may easily be subject to a libel suit. Trolls everyday on Twitter say the same, so why don't we hold Twitter to the same standard? They are the medium and should be held as equally responsible as any paper printing of the same libelous statement.

"We'll do it if we believe we are required to by law." No, you aren't.

right there in the article -

exemption applies to "information concerning individuals,"

individual means person. human. not dolphin. see http://thelawdictionary.org/in...

the legal definition is more relevant. try http://thelawdictionary.org/in...

Please don't ever try and be a lawyer, your understanding of the law, and your insistence that you know it when you simply have no idea what path Snowden's lawyers would take is painful to watch.

You still don't even grasp the basic concepts of trials, let alone have any idea whatsoever what legal routes Snowden's lawyers could take.

You got a precedent to back that up?

Because, as I said, multiple people have been convicted in just the past few years of violating the same law Snowden's violating.

Either you're arguing their trials were inherently unfair, you're arguing those trials did not meet European standards of fairness; or you're using the term "fair trial" wrong.

To go to the dictionary definition of fair trial it's "the term given to a trial in the presence of an impartial judge and jury." The part of the legal algorithm that determines whether the law says what the government needs it to say to get a conviction is pre-trial, "Fair trial" only means that you have a right to challenge the facts under the rules set forth pre-trial.

For example, in this case if Snowden could prove that there was a reasonable case to be made someone not named Ed Snowden leaked those documents he could win. But that's really hard to make, because the only person with access to the documents, who flew to Hong Kong to meet with Poitras and Greenwald, and then admitted that he leaked the documents in numerous interviews, all of which are admissible because the US Government wasn't coercing him, is Ed Snowden. So he'd have to convince a Jury that, while he was in Honolulu, the Chinese forced him to flee to hong Kong and then either a) Poitras and Greenwald conspired to make him look like the leaker, or b) the Chinese forced him to pretend he was the leaker.

To be fair the Judge has to give him the right to make that case. But the fact that he has the right to make that case, does not mean his chance of getting off under that scenario is 10%, or even rounds up to 10%. I suspect his chance is roughly equivalent to the chance of Jury Nullification.

You're just an internet commentator commenting way above your knowledge and intelligence level on the topic. It's embarrassing.

Pot meet kettle.

And if Obama announced he was cutting an anti-terror program Clapper said was useful how long do you think it would be before there was a movement in Congress to thwart him by adding a line item to the budget? A couple of those schmucks would actually switch over from strong pro-Civil liberties to strong-anti Civil Liberties simply to spite Obama. Hell, the NSA's specific budget is classified. For all we know there's already that line item.

And I think you're severely under-estimating all of DC's culpability in this. Bush had pretty much a blank check to do whatever he wanted on September 12th, 2001 (note: this is actually how Checks and Balances are supposed to work. The President gets checked, and can do jack-squat, until there's a crises, then he assumes powers similar to those of an Ancient Roman Dictator). He approved this programs. Any attempt by him to disclaim the damn things is one of those age old "lying or stupid?" things. Obama has a little more deniability, because PRISM was actually passed as legislation by Congress before he became President. But not really, because he voted for it.

People like to delude themselves that some stupid bureaucrat deep in the bowels of some agency that nobody had heard of prior to these programs being enacted is the whole problem, and that One Simple Trick (either a Court Case, or the President's signature) will end it.

But the Courts aren't gonna step on Congress's toes, especially when all Constitutional cases against the programs can be brought into pretty serious question law simply by checking a couple legal dictionaries, both Presidents clearly prefer a world where this shit happens to one where it doesn't, and Congress itself has ay least one statute authorizing the whole shebang.

The least difficult fix is Congress.

Who said jack-squat about war-time? That word does not appear in the Constitution at all.

The constitution does have things to say about war time, or if you prefer times of peace which is kinda the opposite. Certain provisions are relaxed not during times of peace because the authors of the constitution aren't idiots and knew what an existential crisis is.

The only times of peace clause is the one banning states from having a combat Navy. Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of rebellion, the Quartering Amendment (which has featured in one actual case I know of) is suspended in war-time.

BTW, your problem here is you don't understand the architecture. Under a system of Checks and Balances both policy-making branches are supposed to be nigh-tyrinical, their evil checked only by their stubborn refusal to agree on who should be horribly oppressed. These leaves governmental power gobbled almost all of the time. Except during wartime Congress is likely to roll over to the President's demands. Explicit mention of the concept would be against the design principles, because it would allow a potentially-tyrinical President to increase his own power by imagining a never-ending war.

Thus the PATRIOT Act is the system working as designed. The numerous Americans convinced it's a tyrannical attack on their freedom is also working as designed as the people are supposed to be an invisible, powerful, and wonderfully obstreperous branch of government.

Thus whatever it does in furtherance of those orders is a use of the President's Commander-in-Chief power, and not subject to the Fourth Amendment.

Oh yes. I forgot about the bit where the 4th gives exceptions to members of the government who are under the presidents order.

The Fourth does not apply to valid uses of the President's Commander-in-Chief power. His law enforcement power's are constrained by the Fourth. The way the Courts parse this is, if the Army finds out about something illegal in the course of using it's powers, law enforcement can't use the data until they get a warrant and re-aquire it. They can use Spec. Jackson's testimony that he saw that crack to get the warrant, but they can't say the suspect had crack in Court unless their capital-S-law-enforcement-Search turns up the data after Spec. Jackson snitches.

OTOH, if Spec. Jackson caught the suspect doing something clandestine that the Army has proper Commander-in-Chief authorization to stop (hard to imagine in the Continental US, but let's say that Putin's sending saboteurs in via submarine or something) then he can use the data to call in an air strike and kill everyone.

If you're wondering why our legal system is so much more expensive then yours, you now have an example of the complexities of administering a country with a 226-year-old document that only gets updated once a decade or so. You guys have some much older documents, but with Unity of Powers anything that looks obsolete tends to get refreshed by some maddeningly ambitious Minister every time there's a cabinet shake-up.

Funnily enough I'm having trouble in finding it in the one paragraph of text. The bit about "shall not" seems quite clear to me, but would you care to point me to the bit of the 4th (or later amendment) which makes an exception for the army?

"Shall not" applies to "unreasonable searches and seizures." A quick perusal of US legal dictionaries proves that phrase is a law enforcement term.

I'm not even arguing that counter intelligence is unreasonable. Searching and indexing the entire country's papers is unreasonable.

Ever heard the phrase

"but have strong legal protections from mass surveillance"

Both the US and the EU have strong legal protections from mass surveillance. The problem is those protections get ignored or subverted.

What US protection?

The Fourth Amendment only applies to "unreasonable search and seizure." Reasonable search and seizure, or uses of governmental information-gathering capabilities that are not "search and seizure", do not require a warrant. Black's Law Dictionary defines Search and Seizure as "These are the methods used to detect an punish crime that includes searching and taking property and data that can be used by the prosecution of the criminal." The NSA is not gathering data to arrest criminals and charge them in the civilian Court System. To be sure some of the data gets used that way, but if the military finds something out in the course of operations that are not intended to arrest your ass, there is a long history of the Court's saying "ok, Srg. Jennings says this guy had weed, we now grant a warrant to you Mr. DEA man to search this guy."

That doesn't mean there isn't a Check on the NSA's surveillance power, it just means that anybody trying to use the Courts and the Fourth Amendment to stop this shit is likely to find that particular API call does not work. They can't get to a hearing, because to get a hearing you have to prove you have a right to sue, which is called standing, and the plain language of the law is that the Fourth Amendment does not cover NSA Surveillance, mass or otherwise. Which is extremely frustrating to people who are convinced that the Constitution must ban this shit, because it's evil so of course the Constitution bans it, and of course this will be enforced by the Courts.

The actual Check on NSA Surveillance power is Congress, which could simply add a line to the budget saying "none of this money shall be used for PRISM," start hearings about the programs, or start impeaching people. Or any number of things that could actually work. But we can't try that. The EFF's lawyers have a legal casebook in their toolbox, but no lobbyists, so clearly the only tool for the job is the legal casebook.

So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?

An Internet search does reveal that it should be something to talk to your insurance provider about. Unless you want to risk being denied claims or even be charged with insurance fraud.

Just from the first page of my search:

http://www.carinsurance.com/Ar...

http://thelawdictionary.org/ar...

http://www.carinsurance.com/kb...

Just wait for these inv... undocumented Earthlings to really figure things out. In addition to medicines, they'll also be eligible for schooling, tax "credits", food stamps, "Obamacare" and other assistance. Some of these hand-outs will be illegal (in the US), but they will happen and no one will be punished for allowing it to happen.

The question of interpretation is not what it would mean to you if you buddy said it, but what it meant to the people who wrote it.

You asked me, what I think it meant. My friends would've meant the same thing as the founders did — I certainly think so.

Whether to extend to TV or internet is a question of hermeneutics not interpretation

How neat of you to completely skip everything else I wrote — about only petitioning the government being protected by the 1st Amendment, and only if the petition is for redress of grievances...

If the First Amendment really does protect the right to sell (adult) pornography (a rather obvious perversion of the Founder's intentions — if we really cared about them), the Second ought to protect owning and bearing of not only brass-knuckles and swords, but rocket-launchers and tanks — and certainly "assault" rifles of any magazine-capacity...

He argues for less fidelity to it [the Constitution -mi].

Yea, sure. More like zero fidelity — the entire piece is titled: "Let's give up on the Constitution"...

The first amendment has much more limited application in semi-private environments.

What has changed to these limits since the 60-ies? Not the laws... It is just the Illiberals of the past, who enjoyed the Amendment's protections back then (see Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969, for one example — that it was about school rather than college is immaterial here), have grown-up, taken the comfortable (semi)-government jobs, and no longer recognize the Amendment as applicable in the same circumstances.

High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical circumstance, do I not fall within the definition of "felony." State " v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16 Am. Dec. 68.

Law Dictionary: What is HIGH CRIMES? definition of HIGH CRIMES (Black's Law Dictionary)

High crimes can include felonies but does not mean felonies. Misdemeanors and other offenses or a combination of offenses that are not felonies or not criminal can be included as high crimes. And example of this might be sexual harassment in the workplace which isn't a criminal offense unless a crime happens in order to facilitate the harassment. This would/could be counted as a high crime with or without the criminal qualifier and grounds for impeachment even though it would not be a felony or misdemeanor or criminal in and of itself.

Wiktionary disagrees with your suggestion in the terminology.

Fixed.

By the way, to understand legal terms, you might try a legal dictionary. Perhpas this one, if you insist on only using stuff that's online and free: thelawdictionary.org/prosecution/

Because ones you pay for are better. That is why government is so expensive.

Wiktionary disagrees with your suggestion in the terminology.

Fixed.

By the way, to understand legal terms, you might try a legal dictionary. Perhpas this one, if you insist on only using stuff that's online and free: thelawdictionary.org/prosecution/

Nope. When *I* pay (authorizing payment is paying legally

Nope. You already lost. http://thelawdictionary.org/payment/

Black's Law Dictionary's definition of identity: http://thelawdictionary.org/identity/

Driving is considered a privilege not a right, you agreed to comply with certain requests in order to get your license.

Those "certain requests" have to comply with the New Jersey and US constitutions. Placing onerous and unconstitutional requirements on a necessary, prevalent, or valuable private activity such as driving or trading on the stock market is profoundly undemocratic.

I think the breathalyzer offers some insight with respect to compliance and your license.

"In every state, it is your right to refuse to take a Breathalyzer test ... The refusal will likely be the direct cause for you to lose your license."
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-if-i-refuse-to-take-a-breathalyzer-test/

Necessary, prevalent, or valuable does not turn an activity into a right.

"n 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive."
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

If you read legal definitions defined in the UCC 1-201 item 4 you see a definition for bank:

"Bank" means any person engaged in the business of Banking.

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201.html)

And the definitions of banking:

The business of receiving money on deposit, loaning money, discounting notes, issuing notes for circulation, collecting money on notes deposited, negotiating bills, etc.

http://thelawdictionary.org/banking/

The fact is, all people are in the business of receiving money on deposits even if depositions of money or it's equivalent is done informally, they loan their monies to banking institutions or to each other, they issue notes (checks) and most do negotiate terms when they take a 2nd mortgage out or perform any number of commercial negotiations at one point or another.

So while it may appear that we can't force people to become banks, it appears that that appearance is deceiving.

As one last bid to offer support for my claim, grab a magnifying lens and your checkbook. Using the magnifying lens examine the line on any check where the drawer is indicated to apply his signature. Examining that line very carefully, you will notice the words "Authorized Representative" in very small letters. You sign a check as an authorized representative of the bank, as a banker, unless you specifically apply a different endorsement (most people don't) you accept being a banker through the principles of tacit acquiescence.

Thanks for posting something I actually had to look up.

lucrum cessans means a loss of expected gain/profit, as opposed to a loss of real goods or money already held.

IOW, it's the classic MAFIAA equation "profits not as high as we'd like = we've been robbed" that any reasoning person knows to be false.