Slashdot Mirror

Funny, I always figured it would be Wonkette which got Gawker dragged into court. Shows what I know. Anyway, IANAL, but Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr are, and have some useful analysis on Gawker/Gizmodo's exposure.

Funny, I always figured it would be Wonkette which got Gawker dragged into court. Shows what I know. Anyway, IANAL, but Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr are, and have some useful analysis on Gawker/Gizmodo's exposure.

As Dean Steacy, chief investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission said: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

http://volokh.com/files/warmantranscript.pdf

From the Oracle at Google, I found this paper by Orin Kerr (the professor featured in TFA) who argues convincingly that encryption does not create a legal standard presumption of privacy. Based on my educated layman's understanding of the law, his reasoning is sound in that the fourth amendment regulates access to the data WRT possession, not access in the sense of being able to use the data. Therefore, the government cannot compel you to give them your encryption key willy nilly if they need it to grok the data, but you can't protect yourself if they have the means to break the encryption.

That's really where your argument falls apart. Encrypted email is analogous to a postcard coded with something like the caesar cipher. Any postal employee can legally break that over a coffee break since the read the writing on the post card without violating the law. The closest thing to the protection of a first class envelope that an email could have would be to have the data buried inside a steganographically coded image or sound file.

According to Eugene Volokh, the law was actually passed in 1951, is something of a dead letter, and they're currently trying to repeal it. Sorry to spoil all the hand-wringing.

Actually it just looks like someone confused a revision of the SC Code with a passage of a new law. (The Code appears to undergo complete revision every once in a while. In the case of this 1951 law, the previous codification was the 1976 Code as the Volokh link points out.)

I wonder if there will be a retraction, or is this one of those "too good to check" stories? Ah well.

This statute was actually passed in 1951; actually, there was an attempt to get the law repeated and they got it backwards. See http://volokh.com/2010/02/10/did-south-carolina-pass-a-subversive-activities-registration-act-last-year/

Incorrect. The question before the court was whether the FEC's decision to prevent the airing of a movie depicting Hillary in a negative fashion within 60 days of the election was legitimate. The decision by the FEC to block it depended on special rules which only apply to collective entities such as corporations and unions. As a side issue, the court decided 8-1 that disclosure was still required. Please at least read the 7 page summary before spouting off. Or read the 180+pages of partial dissents and concurring opinions. Or at the very least find a law blog with details. Further, It didn't grant corporations exemptions from the same campaign financing restrictions which apply to people.

I suspect that many of the members of the Supreme court don't understand scientific notation given that they
didn't know what the word "orthogonal" meant. Actually, they probably don't understand what heat death means either.

http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/the-deputy-who-helped-himself-to-the-defense-attorneys-casefile

The video shows a criminal court hearing in which a deputy assigned to court security walks over to the defense attorney’s papers on the counsel table and starts to look at the papers. Eventually he reaches down and pulls out a document from the stack of papers, passes it off to another deputy, and then the other deputy walks away with it.

At least in some jurisdictions....

A more reasonable take is here. Especially since The Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative-leaning libertarian blog, staffed mainly by law professors, that generally dislikes Obama, I'm going to suspect they have a better take on it. Also, a site mockingly named after a conspiracy is probably better than one like patriotroom.com that is deadly earnest about it.

According to Eugene Volokh at his well-known (conservative) legal blog:

That’s legally wrong on so many levels: Short words and phrases can’t be protected by federal copyright law; common law copyright has been almost entirely preempted by federal copyright law, and in any event was applicable only to unpublished works; copyright of any sort would only apply to your own creative work, and Ted Klaudt’s name wasn’t created by him (unless it’s an assumed name); fair use would in any event allow people to use the name to refer to him, if there was a copyright claim to begin with, which there isn’t; and trademark law doesn’t preclude uses of a trademark in an article to refer to the trademarked item.

The summary, however, oversimplifies things. In the opinion, the Court notes that the sergeant signed an acceptable use policy in 2000, and was informed at a general meeting in 2002 that pagers (and their messages) were considered email as far as the policy was concerned. The city had a policy/practice (not entirely clear how official) that employees who went over the 25,000 character limit would pay the overage. The lieutenant who acted as the bill collector apparently told members of the force that if they paid the overages there would be no questions asked. In 2003, the chief asked for an evaluation of whether these repeated overages were work-related, apparently (and a jury agreed) to determine whether the 25,000 character limit was still reasonable or whether it needed to be increased. The primary point of contention, I think, is over whether the provider violated the Stored Communications Act by turning over the transcripts to the city in the first place. There's an interesting write-up over at Volokh from Orin Kerr, whose work on the SCA is cited in the Court's opinion.

Ahhhhh yes, the good old days when nations were unentangled by more treaties than a law clerk could shake a Judge's gavel at. There are two reasons the U.S. and other nations don't simply hang pirates from the yardarm anymore. First, and least, warships don't have much in the way of yardarms any more, and if they were to hang a pirate from the one yardarm left, the body would probably get entangled in an antenna and someone would have to go up and carefully remove it. A hassle. Second, and most important in terms of bad consequences is the number of treaties that prevent treating pirates like that. You may have noticed a couple of articles about releasing pirates (Google "catch and release" pirates). Especially see http://volokh.com/posts/1239738164.shtml which does a good job of explaining why nobody does what needs to be done.

The reason that the U.S. actually shot some pirates is that they were holding a hostage, which made them kidnappers, regardless of their being pirates, and one of them was stupid enough to actually aim a gun at the hostage. Obvious imminent threat to the hostages life.

Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.

I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:

http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml

The UDHR can go fuck itself. http://volokh.com/posts/1233622386.shtml

It's not an inbox problem. It's a GMail long-term storage problem. It was settled in United States v. Councilman that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act applied to messages in "temporary storage". This decision

Also, this was a search with a court-issued search warrant. The question being litigated is whether the service provider has to tell the customer about the warrant.

The original author of the blog in the story has revised his analysis thus:

"In the course of re-reading the opinion to post it, I recognized that I was misreading a key part of the opinion. As I read it now, Judge Mosman does not conclude that e-mails are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Rather, he assumes for the sake of argument that the e-mails are protected (see bottom of page 12), but then concludes that the third party context negates an argument for Fourth Amendment notice to the subscribers. I missed this because the reasoning closely resembles the argument for saying that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply at all, and I didn’t read the earlier section closely enough. That’s obviously a much narrower position, and I apologize for misunderstanding it the first time in the quick skim I gave it. Sorry about that: The fault is entirely mine."

http://volokh.com/2009/10/29/opinion-on-fourth-amendment-and-e-mail/

Oops. I probably should have read the actual opinion before opining.

> Sometimes reprinting is very good business.

The post you reply to doesn't deny that. The only thing which would change if copyright lapsed on out-of-print and other orphan works would be (cut to dramatic drum-roll) who profits from the reprinting, and how much.

For some real data on how interesting (or not) it is to maintain a copyright for more than 28 years, see Bill Patry's post at The Volokh Conspiracy.

And later he added, "Hey you kids, get off my damn lawn!" ;-)

Interesting view on Grove's statement, I assume you are basing that on the belief that all the patent trolling and threats are something new? Actually Grove's statement is fresh and enlightening as patent trolling and threats have been around for almost as long as the USPTO. Look up some history on the sewing machine patent wars of the 1850's or the aircraft patent wars in the early 1900's.

But Mr. Grove is correct - government often makes things stagnate and hold steady

I can't say I know Grove's political opinions and beliefs but you seem to be reading your own bias into his statements. Grove does not say government often makes things stagnate and hold steady, in fact he is stating that certain industries are already stagnated and holding steady and the government intervention is simply maintaining the status quo.

From the 1950s to the 1980s the only speeds available were 110 bit/s and 300 bit/s. If AT&T still held that monopoly, we'd still have 0.3 kbit/s modems and the late-90s web explosion would have been impossible (too slow).

Actually from the 1950's to the 1980's the only affordable data speeds for a home connection were in the 110bps to 300bps range. This was not due to the lack of technology development by a government mandated monopoly, in fact quite the opposite. The government mandated monopoly created a massive telecom infrastructure and AT&T was continually working on the technology to interconnect that system efficiently and effectively. The T-Carrier was designed and implemented in the late 1950's and early 1960's and provided 1.5Mbps. ISDN became available in many areas in the mid to late 1980's and provided two 64Kbps lines that could be bonded into one 128Kbps line. I still have an old 3-Com ISDN modem sitting in a box in the basement. :)

So from the 1950's to the 1980's there were bit rates available well above the 100 to 300 bps you noted. This may not have been apparent to home computer users connecting with POTS modems at the time because these services were not marketed to and the equipment likely was not affordable for a home user.

But the Carterphone decision (circa 1981) eliminated that monopoly and multiple companies began a "speedwar" that rapidly moved speeds from 0.3 to 56k in only ten years time.

I disagree. The decision made way for long distance pricing wars, but had no effect on data rates. The explosion in data rates came with the rise of the internet and was made possible by the companies developing modems they sold to house holds and the racks at the ISPs. The telecoms had nothing to do with this other than providing the analog POTS connection between the two. Now the bandwidth explosion after 56k was addressed by the telecoms as the POTS had reached its limit and it was up to the telecoms to provide better infrastructure.

But there is an interesting point from your statement, "eliminated that monopoly", that more than government controls affects the development of technology and better pricing and services for end users.

Two cases in point, the patent wars between sewing machine companies and aircraft manufacturers I noted earlier ended and industries prospered once the patents were pooled to eliminate the monopolies. In the case of the sewing machine patents the industry players created the pool, in the case of the aircraft industry the government had to step in and create the pool.

Now I'm not saying the government should start jumping into the markets and controlling everything, to the contrary, they should stay out and only get involved when it is necessary for the benefit of the p

Missouri has made harassing a minor a felony, http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_16-2009_08_22.shtml#1250896617

So what I figure is, they knew that the current charges would most likely not stick so they crafted a law to handle the situation. The new law is worse that than even the laws they attempted to prosecute Lori Drew under the first time. They are just too open to interpretation.

The decision is here.

It explicitly sets down a rule applying to *all* electronic media search warrants (though it will only apply to federal courts in the 9th circuit). The ruling's core is about the method of electronic searches and the plain sight doctrine, and eviscerates the usage of the latter for electronic media :

In general, we adopt Tamura's solution to the problem
of necessary over-seizing of evidence: When the government
wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard
drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain
incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result
in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson,
527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be
UNITED STATES v. COMPREHENSIVE DRUG TESTING, INC. 11891
vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout
our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance
upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases.
See p. 11876 supra.
2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized
personnel or an independent third party. See pp.
11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to be done by government
computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application
that the computer personnel will not disclose to the
investigators any information other than that which is the target
of the warrant.
3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of
destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that
information in other judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87
supra.
4. The government's search protocol must be designed to
uncover only the information for which it has probable cause,
and only that information may be examined by the case
agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.
5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may
lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the
issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and
what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.

So while it hasn't changed the plain sight doctrine per se, it's basically ordered magistrates to require cops to not use the plain sight doctrine when issuing a warrant for electronic data, among other restrictions to help ensure privacy. (Tamura is about a set of restrictions around searching things like filing cabinets, which have some of the same issues with the "plain sight" doctrine). Orin Kerr has a good post about the decision, which is part of a series of posts he's done on the situation.

So it's an extremely important case for computer privacy, at least in the 9th circuit, although it will probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Also, I have no idea why "database records" keeps coming up; the records searched were an excel sheet. The summary is terrible.

The decision is here.

It explicitly sets down a rule applying to *all* electronic media search warrants (though it will only apply to federal courts in the 9th circuit). The ruling's core is about the method of electronic searches and the plain sight doctrine, and eviscerates the usage of the latter for electronic media :

In general, we adopt Tamura's solution to the problem
of necessary over-seizing of evidence: When the government
wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard
drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain
incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result
in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson,
527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be
UNITED STATES v. COMPREHENSIVE DRUG TESTING, INC. 11891
vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout
our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance
upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases.
See p. 11876 supra.
2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized
personnel or an independent third party. See pp.
11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to be done by government
computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application
that the computer personnel will not disclose to the
investigators any information other than that which is the target
of the warrant.
3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of
destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that
information in other judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87
supra.
4. The government's search protocol must be designed to
uncover only the information for which it has probable cause,
and only that information may be examined by the case
agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.
5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may
lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the
issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and
what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.

So while it hasn't changed the plain sight doctrine per se, it's basically ordered magistrates to require cops to not use the plain sight doctrine when issuing a warrant for electronic data, among other restrictions to help ensure privacy. (Tamura is about a set of restrictions around searching things like filing cabinets, which have some of the same issues with the "plain sight" doctrine). Orin Kerr has a good post about the decision, which is part of a series of posts he's done on the situation.

So it's an extremely important case for computer privacy, at least in the 9th circuit, although it will probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Also, I have no idea why "database records" keeps coming up; the records searched were an excel sheet. The summary is terrible.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_16-2009_08_22.shtml#1250896617

Seen the fall out from Lori Drew case? Cause emotional distress to a minor and your violating the law. Granted the example cited on volokh is downright not nice but some of the clauses, like four and six, are so vague as to play into any prosecutor's hands.

Lori Drew stories on /. include

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/2017217/Judge-Tentatively-Dismisses-Case-Against-Lori-Drew?art_pos=1

http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/11/30/2014248/Groklaw-Summarizes-the-Lori-Drew-Verdict?art_pos=5

There's some level of obvious invalidity past which it can become illegal, if it's coupled with monetary demands (doesn't seem to be the case here). If the sender of the C&D knew or should have known that the claim was frivolous, and demanded monetary settlement, at least one case has held that to constitute criminal extortion.

http://volokh.com/posts/1238285248.shtml

Nope, go to the link in the article and then the link to decision at http://volokh.com/files/BoucherDCT.1.pdf

To quote the items of interest:

The agent asked Boucher to show him the files he downloads. Boucher navigated to drive "Z" of the laptop, and the agent began searching the Z drive. The agent located and examined several videos or images that appeared to meet the definition of child pornography.

The agent arrested Boucher, seized the laptop and shut it down. He applied for and obtained a search warrant for the laptop. In the course of creating a mirror image of the contents of the laptop, however, the government discovered that it could not find or open the Z drive because it is protected by encryption algorithms from the computer software "Pretty Good Protection," which requires a password to obtain access. The government is not able to open the encrypted files without knowing the password. In order to gain access to the Z drive, the government is using an automated system which attempts to guess the password, a process that could take years.

So it's most definitely NOT a case of "Oh, these file names sound nasty. I guess that they have something nasty in them that I haven't seen yet."

RTFA http://volokh.com/posts/1235508933.shtml II. Factual Background The material facts pertaining to the motion to quash, as set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Opinion and Order, have not been disputed. On December 17, 2006, Boucher and his father crossed the Canadian border into the United States at Derby Line, Vermont. A Custom and Border Protection inspector directed Boucher's car into secondary inspection. The inspector conducting the secondary inspection observed a laptop computer in the back seat of Boucher's car, which Boucher acknowledged as his. The inspector searched the computer files and found approximately 40,000 images. *2 Based upon the file names, some of the files appeared to contain pornographic images, including child pornography. The inspector called in a Special Agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") with experience and training in recognizing child pornography. The agent examined the computer and file names and observed several images of adult pornography and animated child pornography. He clicked on a file labeled "2yo getting raped during diaper change," but was unable to open it. The "Properties" feature indicated that the file had last been opened on December 11, 2006.

As I see it, the big problem is that cap and trade is spectacularly susceptable to rent seeking and regulatory capture. A carbon tax levied on non-renewable energy to offset negative externalities is much easier to both administer and understand while providing incentives through economics.

Yes, instead of giving people positive reinforcement for making environmentally sound choices that will have positive benefits even after the global warming pseudo-science is long forgotten, lets just raise taxes.

As I see it, the big problem is that cap and trade is spectacularly susceptable to rent seeking and regulatory capture. A carbon tax levied on non-renewable energy to offset negative externalities is much easier to both administer and understand while providing incentives through economics.

That's the bogus slashdot story I mentioned above. It was widely debunked by, for example, this analysis. This is why you should always cite your sources.

Did you even read what you linked? It's nowhere close to a debunking, and it specifically addresses the narrow scope of part of one piece of legislation (mostly subsection 2(A)) presumably referenced by Holder in his Face the Nation interview. Holder's wider views on censorship are not salient to the discussion of that legislation (and his misguided views on gun control are out of context for that article and off topic here). This is why you should always cite sources which actually support your assertions.

- T

That's the bogus slashdot story I mentioned above. It was widely debunked by, for example, this analysis. This is why you should always cite your sources.

Since you need an individualized warrant from a Federal court to wiretap an American citizen inside the US, (yes, even with the new FISA, IIAL and I have actually read the statute), I don't see how registering the SIM to an identity has anything to do with privacy or free speech. Unless it's your position that (1) citizens do not have to submit to the lawful surveillance under the terms approved by Congress and monitored by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the courts are not effecting Congress' intent properly or (3) the terms, as written by Congress, are entirely unconscionable.

If I were writing the law, I would likely include more protection for privacy than is currently included. That political preference, however, does not mean that I think the law outside the bounds of reasonableness. There is room to disagree without hyperbole.

* Oh yeah, the telecom immunity part of the law was bullshit because the law was clearly being violated from 2002-2006. That said, here's an analysis of the law going forward: http://volokh.com/posts/1215699055.shtml.

> Violating a company's EULA is not illegal. Period. Full stop.

I would have agreed with you until this happened. Wired even interviewed the jurors and found that they didn't question whether breaking a EULA should be illegal, only what "tortuous" meant. Here's the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act if you want to read it.

Here's one quote from the Groklaw story (which itself is a quote from Orin Kerr, one of Drew's attorneys)

The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website, and that Drew directly or indirectly did so, but it acquitted Drew of having violated Terms of Service in furtherance of the tortious act. That is, the jury ruled that Drew is guilty of relatively lower-level crimes for violating MySpacs Terms of Service (for being involved in the setting up of a fake MySpace account). It acquitted Drew for any role in inflicting distress on Meier or for anything related to Meier's suicide. The maximum allowed penalty for the misdemeanor violations are one year in prison for each violation, although the majority of federal misdemeanors result in a sentence of probation.

(emphasis added)

Yes, this is a bad precedent. Terrible, in fact. But someone has, in fact, been convicted merely for breaking a ToS. Worse, when MySpace reserves in that ToS the sole right to determine whether or not someone is violating it!

More than that, the 9th circuit has a tendency to take on cases that are a lot more interesting than the other courts when it comes to people's rights, etc. Challenges to civil rights violations and other constitutional challenges tend to occur in the 9th circuit because the people who are motivated to file those challenges tend to live within its jurisdiction more often than in any other circuit. Thus, because of how high-profile and constitutionally important their cases are, they tend to be heard much more often by the SCOTUS.

When viewed as a percentage of cases heard by the SCOTUS, their overturn rate is higher than the average (about 90% compared with about 75%), but at least in 2006 nowhere near as high as some other circuits (100% for the 3rd (NJ, DE, PA) and 5th circuits (LA, MS, TX)). Source: volokh.com. The 5th, BTW, is probably the most conservative circuit court in the U.S.

So there.

Orin Kerr, one of Lori Drew's attorneys, is a regular blogger at the libertarian legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

http://volokh.com/

He has a summary here:

"What does the Lori Drew Verdict Mean?"
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227728513

and has updated the blog's terms of use:

Any accessing the Volokh Conspiracy in a way that violates these terms is unauthorized, and according to the Justice Department is a federal crime that can lead to your arrest and imprisonment for up to one year for every visit to the blog.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227896387

Orin Kerr, one of Lori Drew's attorneys, is a regular blogger at the libertarian legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

http://volokh.com/

He has a summary here:

"What does the Lori Drew Verdict Mean?"
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227728513

and has updated the blog's terms of use:

Any accessing the Volokh Conspiracy in a way that violates these terms is unauthorized, and according to the Justice Department is a federal crime that can lead to your arrest and imprisonment for up to one year for every visit to the blog.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227896387

Orin Kerr, one of Lori Drew's attorneys, is a regular blogger at the libertarian legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

http://volokh.com/

He has a summary here:

"What does the Lori Drew Verdict Mean?"
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227728513

and has updated the blog's terms of use:

Any accessing the Volokh Conspiracy in a way that violates these terms is unauthorized, and according to the Justice Department is a federal crime that can lead to your arrest and imprisonment for up to one year for every visit to the blog.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_23-2008_11_29.shtml#1227896387

If this stands, this sets a terrible precedent. Suppose some ambitious prosecutor has decided that you must have committed a Federal crime by using a pseudonym to have a nasty war of words with someone on a chat forum on a politically touchy subject, in violation of the Terms of Service? He can use this terrible precedent to railroad you on charges of "unauthorised access", claiming it has nothing to do with, say, opposing abortion on demand, or supporting it, or whatever. If you don't think this can happen, well, it *has* happened, over and over, with other laws meant for originally limited purposes. The anti-Mafia RICO laws come to mind. There is indeed a slippery slope here, and a steep one at that.

Prosecuting what can only be called a venomous viper isn't worth it for what it'll cost all of us.

You might also find it mildly interesting to check out this slightly newer thread and this slightly older thread at The Volokh Conspiracy, both begun by Mr. Orin Kerr, who is one of the attorneys for Ms. Lori Drew.

If this stands, this sets a terrible precedent. Suppose some ambitious prosecutor has decided that you must have committed a Federal crime by using a pseudonym to have a nasty war of words with someone on a chat forum on a politically touchy subject, in violation of the Terms of Service? He can use this terrible precedent to railroad you on charges of "unauthorised access", claiming it has nothing to do with, say, opposing abortion on demand, or supporting it, or whatever. If you don't think this can happen, well, it *has* happened, over and over, with other laws meant for originally limited purposes. The anti-Mafia RICO laws come to mind. There is indeed a slippery slope here, and a steep one at that.

Prosecuting what can only be called a venomous viper isn't worth it for what it'll cost all of us.

You might also find it mildly interesting to check out this slightly newer thread and this slightly older thread at The Volokh Conspiracy, both begun by Mr. Orin Kerr, who is one of the attorneys for Ms. Lori Drew.

If this stands, this sets a terrible precedent. Suppose some ambitious prosecutor has decided that you must have committed a Federal crime by using a pseudonym to have a nasty war of words with someone on a chat forum on a politically touchy subject, in violation of the Terms of Service? He can use this terrible precedent to railroad you on charges of "unauthorised access", claiming it has nothing to do with, say, opposing abortion on demand, or supporting it, or whatever. If you don't think this can happen, well, it *has* happened, over and over, with other laws meant for originally limited purposes. The anti-Mafia RICO laws come to mind. There is indeed a slippery slope here, and a steep one at that.

Prosecuting what can only be called a venomous viper isn't worth it for what it'll cost all of us.

You might also find it mildly interesting to check out this slightly newer thread and this slightly older thread at The Volokh Conspiracy, both begun by Mr. Orin Kerr, who is one of the attorneys for Ms. Lori Drew.

Libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh has posted a discussion of this in which he concludes that what Holder advocated was actually a very narrow restriction on helping people build bombs.

The narrowness isn't terribly relevant - these people can never have enough after they get the first taste.

Almost any thought is inappropriate in the context of something else.

Funny you mention context...

The linked audio clip is very clearly Holder answering a question -- and the question has been edited out. The context is much narrower than it's been edited to make you believe. Holder is answering a question about distributing instructions for making a bomb. And he is probably referring specifically to a bill that was then under consideration -- a bill (now a law) that makes it illegal to teach someone how to make a bomb when you know they are going to use it for criminal purposes. Maybe still problematic in some eyes -- but much, much narrower than the "omg he's going to outlaw teh internets" interpretation it's been edited down to give.

Libertarian legal scholar Eugene Volokh has posted a discussion of this in which he concludes that what Holder advocated was actually a very narrow restriction on helping people build bombs.

The LDS require tithing, so the purchase of anything from any LDS member contributes directly to the coffers of the LDS. That money then gets funneled into initiatives like Prop 8, et al.

Absolutely untrue--but that talking point IS being spread around very frequently now.

This post sums up a lot of it for me: http://volokh.com/posts/1226094712.shtml

Check the list: http://volokh.com/posts/1209171703.shtml

Orin Kerr, Professor of Law; George Washington University Law School, who is a supporter of John McCain, questions the legality of the indictment:

Here's the indictment. And here's the potential problem with the indictment. In order to charge the case as a felony rather than a misdemeanor, the government needed to claim that the intrusion was committed to further criminal or tortious activity. The statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, states that the intrusion is a felony if the intrusion "was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."

Oddly, though, the indictment doesn't exactly state what the crime or tort is that the intrusion was designed to further. It just states that the intrusion was "in furtherance of the commission of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, including 18 U.S.C. Section 2701 and 18 U.S.C. Section lO30(a)(2)" But Section 2701 and Section 1030 are the intrusion statutes themselves! It makes no sense to allow a felony enhancement for a crime committed in furtherance of the crime itself; presumably the enhancement is only for intrusions committed in furtherance of some other crime. Otherwise the felony enhancement is meaningless, as every misdemeanor becomes a felony.

Orin Kerr, "Is the Palin E-Mail Hack Indictment Legally Flawed?, Volokh Conspiracy, October 8, 2008

I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama! Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal, all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he. ;)

First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh has a post on this decision over at the Volokh Conspiracy.