Slashdot Mirror

Because there was no demand of money. Bezos and company were trying to say negative things and the contract was more of a truce. https://definitions.uslegal.co...

Prices do indeed constitute communication, but they are in the open. Something done openly is not collusion.

https://definitions.uslegal.co... "Such agreements are usually secretive". The fact that the definition includes the word "usually" implies that collusion is not always secret.

But really we should be looking at the actual anti-trust law, rather than the definition of collusion:

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi...
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal

When two business have algorithms, and they key off of each other's behavior to result in both picking a higher price -- (Q1) do the two business or their two algorithms constitute a combination? (Q2) does it restrain trade/commerce?

Well, really we should be looking at the anti-trust case law rather than the statute. Here I have no idea.

> Spraying anybody with glitter against their will is assault.

Nope. Assault requires intent to cause bodily harm.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assault

An entire second of google showed this: https://definitions.uslegal.co...
There are laws against any automatic booby trap, just about everywhere.....
Personally, I think he should get a medal, but law != justice no matter what you think.

"Criminal impersonation is a crime that is governed by states laws, which vary by state. It may involve, among other acts:

"(1) assuming a false identity with the intent to defraud another; (2) pretending to be a representative of another person or organization; or (3) opening a bank account or securing credit in the name of another person without the other person's consent.

"The following is an example of a state statute dealing with criminal impersonation:

"(1) A person commits criminal impersonation if he knowingly assumes a false or fictitious identity or capacity, and in such identity or capacity he: (d) Does an act which if done by the person falsely impersonated, might subject such person to an action or special proceeding, civil or criminal, or to liability, charge, forfeiture, or penalty; or (e) Does any other act with intent to unlawfully gain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or defraud another".

https://definitions.uslegal.co...

You may feel justified in taking something that has been ignored for many years. But legally you can't implicitly abandon your copyright. You have a copyright on your creations for many decades (in some cases 120 years).

Well, this is awkward:
Abandonment of Copyright

Intent is an important part of many laws. For example, it is entirely legal to carry lock-picking tools,

this assertion is dead wrong. all the state needs is evidence from which they can reasonably infer intent. I cite a US definition below, but I'm certain similar definitions are in place in every jurisdiction. decades ago In my southern Az town, if the cops caught you with a screwdriver and a can of freon, that was presumptive evidence you intended to break somebody's Kryptonite U-lock and steal her bicycle, and was enough to get you charged with theft along side whatever other crime they had already detained you for (in this client's case, failure to yield right of way to a pedestrian).

According to these idiots insults are hate speech:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
noun
speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

Websters seems to have it simplified down to a literal state which could be fine:
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Definition of Hate speech
: speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people

Wikipedia is all over the map but at least seems to only report on various countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

These people are subjectively confused thinking "any form of expression regarded as offensive":
https://definitions.uslegal.co...
Hate Speech Law and Legal Definition
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

These people get it:
https://www.urbandictionary.co...
  Hate speech
A highfalutin' way of saying "I disagree with your meticulously-researched, irrefutable facts, so I am going to organize a social media campaign to demonize you and ruin your life. But don't forget to donate to my Patreon."
Sane, rational human being: "I sure do loves me some grapes!"
Filthy SJW bacterium: "OMFG GRAPE HAS 'RAPE' IN IT THAT'S HATE SPEECH! RAAAAAAAPE CULTUUUUUURE!"

Disparaging a social group is hate speech to these people:
https://www.thefreedictionary....
hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.

What theft? It offers the script to your browser. If you choose to run it, that's your decision.

This theft:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/

The electric company runs wires to all homes as well, but if you don't have an account to pay for it and choose to use that electricity anyway, it's not just your decision but a crime.

Else you better be arguing that people running adblockers should be charged with theft also, when they visit a site and don't consume the ads...

That very argument has been made, and although there is no case law yet to actually explicitly say so, it is very easy to read the legal definition of theft of service such that ad blockers are actually illegal.

The only difference there seems to be is that people in general and the legal system doesn't appear to give a shit about the crime of using an ad blocker, where they do give a shit about the crime of infecting people with malware.

Unenforced laws are quite the common thing.
Cops write moving violation tickets all the time for exceeding the specified speed limits, yet when was the last time you've heard of anyone getting a moving violation for going under the specified speed minimum? Were you even aware that there *is* a speed minimum?
The penalties for both of those violations are pretty much identical (fine amount, points on insurance, thresholds for the additional "reckless" claims, etc) yet one is enforced and the other never is to the point people forget it's even a law.

It has NEVER been illegal to yell "Fire" in a Crowded theater, it's an old and incorrect quote.

https://definitions.uslegal.co...

As long as the law or a document referenced by the law defines the term Global Turnover, the court will not be confused. Everyone else can have an opinion which the court will eventually overrule.
Overall Turnover
Revenue Streams Law and Legal Definition

Obama simply said "We're not going to prosecute these people." That's a huge Constitutional overreach.

No it's not. It's called prosecutorial discretion.

No, no, no silly. Prosecutorial discretion is only what its called when a Republican does it.

> I own property but if I don't pay the property tax I lose the property.

You keep using this word "own". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Allodial Title is the ONLY legal concept of land ownership.

But go ahead and keep complaining about "usage tax" and how you got conned into thinking you "owned" it. I suggest you go read Black's Law Dictionary in the meantime.

For the same reason it's not arson. It doesn't fit the definition. https://definitions.uslegal.co...

the moment somebody attempts to manipulate with the hardware without knowing a secret disengagement procedure, they would irrevocably destroy the data

I guess, police might accuse the owner of Destruction of Evidence — perhaps, even a conspiracy to do so, if he used somebody's help to implement it.

The accusations should be easy to fight, because such security measures may have a number of perfectly valid and legal uses. A particularly dirty prosecutor may resort to locking the accused up anyway and let it be known (unofficially), what the accusations are — counting on the rest of the prison population to "pressure" the innocent victim of his zeal.

But there will be no "contempt of court" — both because there'd be no point (nothing left to unlock), and because the deed was done (or set in motion) long before any "court" convened.

Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.

IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.

A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.

A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".

There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.

The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.

The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.

That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.

In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect

That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.

Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.

Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.

Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.

IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.

A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.

A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".

There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.

The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.

The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.

That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.

In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect

That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.

Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.

Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.

Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.

IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.

A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.

A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".

There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.

The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.

The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.

That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.

In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect

That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.

Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.

Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.

"Lascivious is an American jargon indicating immoral sexual thoughts or actions. It is generally used in the legal description of criminal acts in which some kind of sexual activity is prohibited to differentiate that activity from an “innocent” conduct. It is often used to describe pornography. However, lascivious is not limited to pornography. For example, lascivious cohabitation refers to living with a member of the opposite sex, and having sexual intercourse with him/her without entering into a legal or religious marriage"

https://definitions.uslegal.co...

Nah.

It's other stuff like money laundering, extortion, illegally accessing a computer and "other," but not an act of war.

This is an act of war:

Act of War Law and Legal Definition

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances.

I'm certain you'll be interested to know that the state of California has just taken steps to make ransomeware illegal.

actually, no:

Theft of service is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but typically define the crime as knowingly securing the performance of a service by deception or threat, diverting another's services to the actor's own benefit, or holding personal property beyond the expiration of rental period without consent of the owner. Intent to avoid payment may be presumed under certain circumstances, such as failure to pay for an applicable rental charge within 10 days after receiving written notice demanding payment.

So unless she herself utilized the pipeline (that is, made it carry her own crude oil), she did not commit theft of service. Theft of service is most commonly charged when you bypass your electric meter, hook your cable back up, or alter the configuration of your cable box to see channels you don't pay for. It was also a popular charge connected with blue boxing a long distance phone call. In all cases because you took steps to use a service without intent to pay for it.

Perhaps YOU should do the looking up next time.

That discretion is based on quality of evidence. If the evidence is clear, there is no choice. Its not the movies.

Completely, utterly not true. The DA has fully discretion on what to prosecute. And political reasons are a huge part of deciding whether to do so or not. [1]

Not only does the DA have the freedom to not prosecute, a jury can declare someone not guilty they know is guilty if they believe the law itself or the punishment that will happen if declared guilty is unjust. [2]

[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://definitions.uslegal.com...

Thanks, but the details come within the rules on how that discretion is exercised. They can't just arbitrarily ignore solid evidence. They can choose to not prosecute based on lack of evidence. Its not like they can just say "I like this guy and he had good intentions, so we'll ignore this strong evidence he committed a felony."

At this point, we know he's been charged and arrested. Since the charges have been brought up, the DA/PA has to have a strong reason to dismiss the charges, based primarily on lack of evidence.

http://definitions.uslegal.com...

I think there are plenty of asshole things you could do to a driverless car that isn't illegal.

For instance, just get in front of it and drive 10 mph under the limit. Unless these things have a routine for that, the user will have to go manual to pass.

A couple of points:
* Who is going to be more annoyed - the person who is driving 10 below the limit or the person that isn't driving at all?
* Driving 10 below the posted limit can be illegal https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Ya...just search youtube for Road Rage and see all the fun things that people do.

Just think of Norman.

Just about anything you could do to annoy a driverless car would amount to impeding the normal flow of traffic - which is generally illegal.
http://definitions.uslegal.com...

This case has no chance. (IANAL, but I can google) The president can not be sued or prosecuted criminally for any act he does (or does not do) in the execution of his duties as president.

(from http://definitions.uslegal.com...)

Executive immunity is an immunity granted to officers of the executive branch of government from personal liability for tortious acts or omissions done in the course of carrying out their duties. The U.S. president's executive immunity is absolute; however, the immunity of other federal executive officials is qualified.

I suggest reading up on Privacy Laws and Property Laws (specifically on who owns the airspace over your property).

I've tried. Care to point me to specifics. Particularly specifics for the airspace BELOW 250'.

For example:
http://aviation.uslegal.com/ow...

"The dividing line between the portion of the airspace in the public domain and the portion protected as an incident of land ownership against invasions by aircraft, is the line delineated by the Federal Aviation Administration as the minimum safe altitude of flight[ix]."

FAA Minimum safe altitude of flight over occupied propertiy is 500'. Planes are required to be 1000' above nearby obstacles. This drone was under all FAA minimum heights. (Indeed, I think it has to be... as drones are not allowed higher.)

So down below 250' nothing I can find applies.

Meanwhile,

Flight by aircraft in the airspace above the land of another is a trespass, only if[xiv]:

        entry into the immediate reaches of the airspace next to the land is involved, and
        entry interferes substantially with the ownerâ(TM)s actual use and enjoyment of his land.

It CLEARLY interfered with the land owners use and enjoyment of his land. So the question is whether that interference was 'substantial' (and multiple passes, plus hovering of a camera equipped drone ... ranks as substantial in my books) and whether under 250' counts as the immediate reaches? (Which seems fairly reasoanble to me too.

If it does... then its a tresspass.

Can you point to specifics or cites to cases that clearly show otherwise? And if so, how low exactly does it need to be to qualify as the "immediate reaches".

hmmm... lets look at the legal code:
http://definitions.uslegal.com...

So, first degree harassment requires some sort of legitimate physical threat.

The second degree harassment appears to include anything that annoys someone.

I mean... technically you'd be guilty of that against me... you annoy me all the time. :-p

Frankly, I think the second degree harassment is so loose in its definition that it's very vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. I mean... I could shut people up all day by citing harassment simply because X, Y, or Z thing they said annoyed me.

Look, I think a big requirement for harassment is if someone gets into your personal space and won't leave you alone. If you're a public place... who has a right to be one place versus another is debatable.

I agree with you that they shouldn't be going to annoy people in other subreddits. But the response to that is to ban the users that do that or perhaps to set up a system where if someone is a member of subreddit X they can't be a member of subreddit Y. That would be okay.

But when you ban subreddit X from even existing... you've crossed a line. And there are going to be consequences because that sort of speech won't stop.

We saw this very clearly in the whole gamer gate thing in that there was an attempt to censor that COMPLETELY failed. Every time the conversation was disallowed in various places it just went somewhere else... and then it got something of the streisand effect... which was a HUGE part of gamer gate... in that every attempt to censor actually brought more attention to the issue.

Had people NOT censored it and just let it happen it would have burned itself out in a week. Instead, the censorship made it last for damn near 6-8 MONTHS.

I know you're a big fan of censoring people that aren't PC. The problem is that that attitude is obsolete. Its a tactic and concept that was invented before the internet. And it doesn't work on the internet.

You can't really censor people. Even the Chinese are having very limited results censoring opinion. The only people I know of that have figured out how to censor the internet are the North Koreans.

Everyone else has pretty much failed. I mean, you can talk to people in Iran about how they think the ruling regime is full of shitheads and that's against so many laws in Iran.

I think you're supporting something with good intentions... but I also think you are being naive about the consequences of what you're doing and that the net result of it all is going to be something other than what you think. I also think you are going to create a blow back to the censorship that is going to make people that normally wouldn't sympathize with the fat shamers etc... sympathize with them if only out of free speech concerns.

And rather than create this more civil society that I think you want... I think you're going to stir up a certain level of increasingly and proportionally militant anarchism where every escalation of efforts on your part to censor is going to be met with an escalation from people that see the nature of your response as a threat to their freedoms.

Possibly you might find this interesting. The chinese have a domestic political tactic they call "loosening and tightening"... The idea is that they loosen regulations to make people happy and less rebellious against the communist party. Then when people start to use that freedom to say or do things against the regime they go into a crack down phase and tighten regulations. Then when that starts to create a counter movement they go into a loosening phase again.

Back and forth. The idea is not to have a single consistant policy but to shift between two policies to balance various political considerations.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even people that set up autocracies understand what I'm talking about here. If you want to dominate the discussion and control speech... you'

Sounds like charges that they can bring anyone in on. And that's probably the point.

They can bring anyone in on anything they want. The question is whether the prosecutor has enough to believe that they can bring a successful case.

Disturbing a school:
You need to prove that he intentionally sought to disturb the school. Maybe he did... maybe he didn't. It sounds weird that he was there, but then again "bad judgment" is not the same thing as having an intent to disturb the school.

Loitering:
You need to prove that someone in authority asked him to leave. In most of the US it's not loitering simply because you don't have a good reason to be there. The story doesn't say that he refused any instruction to go, so this is actually the more curious charge of the two to me.

"Theft of services" is fancy lawyer for 'failing to pay for services'--from US Legal:

Theft of service is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but typically define the crime as knowingly securing the performance of a service by deception or threat, diverting another's services to the actor's own benefit, or holding personal property beyond the expiration of rental period without consent of the owner. Intent to avoid payment may be presumed under certain circumstances, such as failure to pay for an applicable rental charge within 10 days after receiving written notice demanding payment.

Thus, it is theft of services being talked about in the classic question "If you force a sex worker to have sex with you, is it rape or theft?" (I am inclined to go with 'both.')

Sounds like a Terroristic threat to me.

No, you may not excuse threats against passenger aircraft, whether by bomb or by hack, with a smiley emoticon. When you make such threats, your bomb or hacking tool may be seized by law enforcement.

Property rights do extend to the airspace immediately above the land. For example, hovering a helicopter ten feet above somebody else's house would still constitute trespass. If the GP was complaining about a buzzing drone, this test would also be relevant:

An entry above the surface of the earth, in the air space in the possession of another, by a person who is traveling in an aircraft, is privileged if the flight is conducted... at such a height as not to interfere unreasonably with the possessor’s enjoyment of the surface of the earth and the air space above it

from here. Of course, this is specifically about occupied aircraft.

There are plenty of established cases in the linked article dealing with trespass in the air above the property of others. There is also established case law regarding destruction of non-human trespassers. There's nothing specific to drones, but it's not exactly alien terrain.

The character of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, in addition to being protected by Trademark.

Sorry but you are wrong. Look it up. It's both.

http://www.trademarkandcopyrig...

http://copyright.uslegal.com/c...

http://dearauthor.com/features...

I don't think it's attempted murder. More like reckless endangerment.

http://definitions.uslegal.com...

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. State laws and penalties vary, so local laws should be consulted.

No that anyone here is designing or implementing an ATM security system, but something that could/would harm an intruder would probably count as a booby trap, and those are illegal. Nothing worse than having to fork over money to the guy who tried to steal your money.

The key points there are "concealed" and "designed to harm". There are plenty of places that
have electric fences and razor wires protecting their properties. As long as it's properly labeled it's
perfectly legal.

If you wanted to go one step further you could fill some of the glass packs with different chemicals that when combined produced combustion and incinerated the bills further.

No that anyone here is designing or implementing an ATM security system, but something that could/would harm an intruder would probably count as a booby trap, and those are illegal. Nothing worse than having to fork over money to the guy who tried to steal your money.

...some non-specific charge that you believe they missed.

The charge of excessive force is absolutely specific. It is not only missed here, but in every grand jury trial in the last few decades. I already covered some of the "why" it is missed, and rough statistics to back "that" it is missed. Go back and re-read what I wrote, and if you don't like the statistic the show I heard that on was 910AM SF, Gil Gross, and he was pulling data from the US DOJ for the topic (between 5:30-6:05PM 11/25/14).

I'm not a lawyer so to me the difference between "charge" and "indict" is not very significant to our discussion. If you want a pedantic discussion then you are probably engaged with the wrong guy.

Why do you continually claim that you need to be in a specific profession to be able to read, comprehend, and make decisions? Here you imply that you need to be a Lawyer to figure two dictionary words. Previously you stated that can't read and understand testimony unless you are a lawyer, and that you can't understand forensics without being a forensic scientist. I honestly don't understand that frame of mind. I see it as a repeated appeal to authority and not a rational defense for your position.

You can read what grand juries do here. I should not have to also provide the definitions for indict and charge. It is prudent to the discussion since you keep claiming that "we are throwing him under the bus", further claiming we can't hold an individual accountable for individual actions.

Where did you see those numbers?

Pick a topic and search for it. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/gr... was the first link when searching for "incarceration by race", but militarization and psychological profiling for police officers were linked way up in the thread. I don't normally trust one places statistics, but these can usually be corroborated with various other agencies such as US Census, US DOJ, DEA, etc..

Yes, I think we agree on the ends but not the means.

I wish history backed your theory of change without action, but I can't find any history to back it. Corruption will not just get up and walk away happy, never has and never will.

http://definitions.uslegal.com...

"A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose."

US airports are public places. Just because it is private property doesn't automatically mean it's not a public space. If you turn your home into a B&B, it becomes a public space, even though it is your private property. You can have private clubhouses and private airports but the moment you leave the door unlocked and put up a sign that you're open to the public, the presumption of privacy is gone.

It sounds like public disclosure of private facts. - http://privacy.uslegal.com/wha...

In general I think that destroying evidence should result in the assumption that they're hiding a worst case scenario

That is exactly what is supposed to happen, it is called spoilation of evidence and is very frowned upon. The penalties are supposed to include inferring that the missing evidence is beneficial to the opposing party and civil and criminal penalties against whomever destroyed the evidence. Though I doubt that will happen in this case.

More free skeet targets.

If you want your robot back, don't send it over my airspace.

You don't control the airspace above your property. You cannot (legally) shoot down a drone any more than you can shoot a medical helicopter or cessna that flies over your house.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act

Usefulness is not a valid criterium for arguing the Constitutionality of a law!

That needs some fine tuning.

Compelling-State-Interest-Test Law & Legal Definition

Compelling-state-interest-test refers to a method of determining the constitutional validity of a law. Under this test, the government’s interest is balanced against the individual’s constitutional right to be free of law. However, a law will be upheld only if the government’s interest is strong enough.

Tackling the most important topics of law school, Part 6a: Constitutional judicial review and strict scrutiny
Tackling the most important topics of law school, Part 6b: Rational basis, “with teeth,” and intermediate scrutiny

It doesn't just apply to the USPS, it applies to any delivery service. The hammer is just a bit bigger/quicker if they use USPS. Deliver something unsolicited to somebody, it's effectively a gift.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unsolicited-goods%20/

Unsolicited goods are those goods which are sent to someone without being asked those goods to be sent. ...
Goods or services are not considered to have been solicited unless the recipient specifically requested.

Yay legal dictionary!

Still it's a pretty big stretch, if they subpoena his computer the normal way then he would be in for some pretty serious criminal charges for tampering with or destruction of evidence if forensics finds any trace of that source code on his computer. The same applies if he removed or replaced drives or sent in the wrong computer, once it's subpoenaed you're on the hook for providing it. I mean if the court subpoenas documents it's hardly like most people can't operate a shredder or find a fireplace. That's on the "destruction of evidence" side, on the "irreparable harm" side I'll just quote this:

Irreparable harm is a legal concept whch argues that the type of harm threatened cannot be corrected through monetary compensation or conditions cannot be put back the way they were. Examples of such irreparable harm may arise in cutting down shade trees, polluting a stream, not giving a child needed medication, not supporting an excavation which may cause collapse of a building, tearing down a structure, among other actions or omissions.

Gramted, you can't put the source code back in the bottle if it's leaked online but it's clearly the sort of harm money can fix.

Even if California is as wicked as you say, do you seriously suspect that proponents of some economically useful drone application wouldn't just seek changes at the federal level that would preempt whatever state regulations happened to annoy them?

Good question, why don't we ask the medical marijuana dispensary community how that works?

The non-technological hurdles are exactly what you'd expect - government regulations, air-traffic restrictions and (restrictions on) emergency landing procedures.

Doesn't really seem like a problem - except in california, where realistic, useful legislation rarely passes on a permanent basis.

Even if California is as wicked as you say, do you seriously suspect that proponents of some economically useful drone application wouldn't just seek changes at the federal level that would preempt whatever state regulations happened to annoy them?

The issue is presently somewhat unsettled(in part because the FAA is a bit jumpy about the safety of a bunch of glorified model aircraft running around without either a Serious airworthiness workup or a pilot whose continued non-splatteredness is directly dependent on the aircraft); but "If a state pisses you off, go to the feds, if the feds piss you off, go to the states" is a well-established lobbying strategy...

Espionage is an over charging, clearly. You've committed espionage when you've divulged state secrets FOR ANOTHER COUNTRY. So even though Israel is a friendly nation, we still kick their spies out and or jail them.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/espionage/

But Snowden didn't release state secrets to and for a foreign country. He did it for Americans.

It's prosecutorial overreach and worse for the prosecution, is likely to be perceived as such by potential juries. I feel an acquittal on the espionage charge forthcoming, even in absentia.

So the question arises at least in my mind- is this a dog and pony show, with Snowden perhaps unwittingly playing the role of a dog?

Is the government using Snowden to leak this information and if so, why?

To acclimate citizens to this level of scrutiny? To see if we'll swallow it? Maybe.

Or is it a bid on the part of , possibly some subset of, the intelligence community to get the program revised and toned down because they're afraid of the corrupting power unlimited access to the most personal secrets of lawmakers and other power players could put into the hands of a Cheney or a set of true believers like the neocons?

It's not that far fetched. Consider that the neocons twice now have attempted, once successfully, to foment wars based on false intelligence they produced through Team B efforts, efforts which the intelligence community deeply resented and still resent especially since many Americans wrongly cite the CIA as the producer of faulty intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/military/news/2004/08/18/988/its-time-to-bench-team-b/

http://www.proudprimate.com/Placards/teamb-cahn.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

What this means is they're liars who will play WAY out of bounds to get their way, where WAY out of bounds includes LYING and DISTORTING intelligence and using intelligence to destroy domestic political opponents including exposing the identities of covert operators working for the CIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
see: Plamegate.

Historically, that didn't and can't now sit well with people at the CIA who consider accurate, unbiased intelligence assessments to be the crown jewel of nation's defense capability.

So is has the level of invasiveness which this program makes possible been gamed out somewhere at Langley, with one side playing the neocons and Cheney and using the techniques of deception, lying, distortion of information and targeting of dissenters through any means, legal or illegal, short (we think) of murder and the other side the CIA and other intelligence agencies upholding the letter and spirit of the law?

Perhaps such games revealed a gaping strategic disadvantage through which a coup by a Cheney and the neocons would be successful 100% of the time.

After all, we game out scenarios against all enemies foreign and domestic, if it's a threat to the US, it gets considered.

Perhaps one of the conclusions was- this intelligence program is a serious, mortal threat to the Republic.

Perhaps they took the result of this gaming to the President, who agreed with their conclusions. Perhaps a plan was hatched to subvert it, all the while making it look like they're only and intensely interested in doing the opposite.

I know it sounds too weird to be true, but this IS how intelligence agencies and covert missions work on a good day. This is the games they play.

If Obama tried to unilaterally quietly retire the program, it would just come back for the next administration who wanted it, and we know what admin would want it. Without the p

The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/

The definition isn't that long. Here it is:

Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship betweeen the colluding parties.

For example, in a divorce action, the husband and wife may agree to fabricate a story or suppress evidence to provide evidence of lawful grounds for a divorce. As another example, collusion may involve cooperation between competing sellers, in the form of an agreement, express or tacit, limiting competition, or a merger or other means to raise the market price above the competitive level.

Where's the collusion? The first sentence: Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another.

Who is being mislead? Other than anti-Apple fanboys who think Apple did something wrong here.