Slashdot Mirror

For commentary by an expert on First Amendment law, see Eugene Volokh's post.

You appear to be ignorant of the principle of implied consent

It is not "Stealing" nor "Theft of services" nor "Unauthorized use of a computer" nor "Computer trespass" according to New York Law, for one example.

Perhaps you'd like a scholarly article on why we should not make your assumptions (and get indignant about it, I might add) from George Washington University - Law School

In fact, I had already given you examples of use which are not stealing, and you are choosing to ignore them so you can't redundantly say stealing is stealing. On the off chance that you blacked out, the examples were anonymous FTP and a web server sharing files. P2P is another situation where you could be sharing files by mistake, but it's reasonable to assume that it is not by mistake - and downloaders use more of your computer resources than someone sending data through your router.

It takes all of one minute to turn on security. You do *not* have to be a hacker - what a canard that is. I won't claim that there isn't anyone who wouldn't be able to do it, but society cannot always limit itself to what the least of us can do. There is no victim in this scenario, just someone who has shared their network, so deserve has nothing to do with it. I was merely suggesting that being lazy and ignorant usually means you are to blame when you do something you did not intend.

Enough of your feeble attempts to claim I will take other people's physical property if it's not bolted down. You are obviously having trouble recognizing the difference between a car parked in your garage and a service that you are broadcasting onto my property which advertises itself as non-private and explicitly authorizes me to join the network.

Is it possible that reasonable people can reach this conclusion? Or am I the only asocial moron with a toddler's mentality?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060227-6272.html
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/02/26/20060226-H2-03.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi
http://zovirl.com/2006/07/27/you-cant-steal-wifi/
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1179938755.shtml

You may not agree, but you should not continue to pretend that all people who hold this view think it's OK to steal. Try to learn that much.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the first (originally missing) comma; it is important. It makes the phrase 'being necessary to the security of a free state' a dependent clause: a present participial phrase at that. This means it serves as an adjective modifying the noun, 'militia'. The next phrase is the same: âoethe right of the people to keep and bear armsâ is also a dependent clause acting as an adjective and modifying 'militia'.

As we all learned, a sentence is still complete even when all dependent clauses are removed. Thus, the thought described by the 2nd amendment can be considered to be simply

A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

And the meaning of militia, according to the author at least, encompasses the idea of 1) being necessary for a free people, and 2) synonymous with the right to bear arms.

Now we can argue what a militia means. And what it means to be well-regulated. I would suggest, based on the amount of power Congress has squeezed out of its other Art 1, section 8 enumerated powers, quite a lot.

It's too bad the conservative 4 and the opinion by Scalia is shamefully similar to the twisted, biased logic expressed in various forms by one Eugene Volokh (well-known libertarian/conservative individual gun-rights proponent). Especially the semantic and grammatical deconstruction of the text itself, which was afforded more weight than several experts in English, Literature, and History.

PS. When did /. get overrun with gun nuts?

He was probably excluded because he was a fringe candidate* whose supporters engaged in questionable internet tactics designed to undermine serious results from any search engine one cares to study. Of course including him screws up the results. That was his supporters' goal.

*Yes, he was. Get over it. He was a candidate so far to the racist, paleocon fringe that even many libertarians were troubled by him (See, e.g., The Volokh Conspiracy, and I can provide others). He's not a serious candidate now, nor was he ever.

Apologies to Slashdot readers if someone else already posted the following link(s) or material, but I looked for it and related keywords over the entire thread, finding nothing. Orin S. Kerr over at The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog with a cool name) has posted a useful quick analysis of the matter, which I believe is more important than might appear at first glimpse. It's well worth reading in its entirety, but I'll quote a short stretch of it:

[...]

This case involves a terrible tragedy; I think what Lori Drew did is truly despicable. But the government's legal theory, based entirely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, is very weak. Legally speaking, the prosecution is a real stretch. In my view, the courts should dismiss the indictment. In this post, I'll explain why.

To understand this case, you need to understand the government's theory. The indictment is not charging Drew with harassment. Nor are they charging her with homicide. Rather, the government's theory in this case is that Drew criminally trespassed onto MySpace's server by using MySpace in a way that violated MySpace's Terms of Service (TOS).

Here's the idea. The TOS required Drew to provide accurate registration information, not to harass or harm other people, and not to promote conduct that was abusive. She didn't comply with these terms, the theory goes, so she was criminally trespassing onto MySpace's computer when she was logging into her account. The indictment turns this into a federal felony conspiracy charge by arguing that she did this in concert with others to obtain information and to further tortious conduct -- intentional infliction of emotional distress -- violating the felony provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2).

But these arguments are a real stretch for three reasons.

Problem One: The first major hurdle is a legal question that I wrote an article on in 2003: Is it a federal crime to violate contractual limitations on use of a computer? The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, generally prohibits accessing a computer "without authorization" or "exceeding authorized access." But what makes an access "without authorization"? If the computer owner says that you can only access the computer if you are left-handed, or if you agree to be nice, are you committing a crime if you use the computer and are nasty or you are right-handed? If you violate the Terms of Service, are you committing a crime?

In my article, Cybercrime's Scope: Interpreting "Access" and "Authorization" in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 NYU L. Rev. 1596 (2003), I argue that the answer should be "no." I won't recite the legal arguments here, as you can just read the article itself. (You can imagine the basic idea, though: Since everyone who uses computers violates dozens of different TOS every day, the theory would make everyone who uses computers a felon.) However, I will point out that the MySpace case is to my knowledge the very first federal indictment that has tried to claim that violations of Terms of Service for an Internet account amounts to a crime under Section 1030. In fact, I wrote my NYU article in part because I figured it was only a matter of time before a sympathetic case came along and some aggressive prosecutor would try the argument and see if it flew. It looks like this is the test case.

[...]

(The original post has embedded links to relevant citations).

Apologies to Slashdot readers if someone else already posted the following link(s) or material, but I looked for it and related keywords over the entire thread, finding nothing. Orin S. Kerr over at The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog with a cool name) has posted a useful quick analysis of the matter, which I believe is more important than might appear at first glimpse. It's well worth reading in its entirety, but I'll quote a short stretch of it:

[...]

This case involves a terrible tragedy; I think what Lori Drew did is truly despicable. But the government's legal theory, based entirely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, is very weak. Legally speaking, the prosecution is a real stretch. In my view, the courts should dismiss the indictment. In this post, I'll explain why.

To understand this case, you need to understand the government's theory. The indictment is not charging Drew with harassment. Nor are they charging her with homicide. Rather, the government's theory in this case is that Drew criminally trespassed onto MySpace's server by using MySpace in a way that violated MySpace's Terms of Service (TOS).

Here's the idea. The TOS required Drew to provide accurate registration information, not to harass or harm other people, and not to promote conduct that was abusive. She didn't comply with these terms, the theory goes, so she was criminally trespassing onto MySpace's computer when she was logging into her account. The indictment turns this into a federal felony conspiracy charge by arguing that she did this in concert with others to obtain information and to further tortious conduct -- intentional infliction of emotional distress -- violating the felony provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2).

But these arguments are a real stretch for three reasons.

Problem One: The first major hurdle is a legal question that I wrote an article on in 2003: Is it a federal crime to violate contractual limitations on use of a computer? The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, generally prohibits accessing a computer "without authorization" or "exceeding authorized access." But what makes an access "without authorization"? If the computer owner says that you can only access the computer if you are left-handed, or if you agree to be nice, are you committing a crime if you use the computer and are nasty or you are right-handed? If you violate the Terms of Service, are you committing a crime?

In my article, Cybercrime's Scope: Interpreting "Access" and "Authorization" in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 NYU L. Rev. 1596 (2003), I argue that the answer should be "no." I won't recite the legal arguments here, as you can just read the article itself. (You can imagine the basic idea, though: Since everyone who uses computers violates dozens of different TOS every day, the theory would make everyone who uses computers a felon.) However, I will point out that the MySpace case is to my knowledge the very first federal indictment that has tried to claim that violations of Terms of Service for an Internet account amounts to a crime under Section 1030. In fact, I wrote my NYU article in part because I figured it was only a matter of time before a sympathetic case came along and some aggressive prosecutor would try the argument and see if it flew. It looks like this is the test case.

[...]

(The original post has embedded links to relevant citations).

Neither irony nor sarcasm is argument.

Your framing doesn't work, in part because medical care isn't nearly the basic need that food is. I hardly ever have to go to the doctor, but I eat all the time. My mere existence doesn't reduce people's responsibility for their own well being. If I come across a crime in progress, and do nothing about it, that doesn't make me responsible for the crime occuring. If someone is starving on the street, and I'm wealthy, that doesn't mean I'm at fault for them starving.

You used a false dichotomy. The choice isn't a) property being iviolate and b) taking care of those whose basic needs are not being reasonably met. It's possible to have property be inviolate AND take care of those basic needs. It's just that you have to spend your money, not someone else's. But historically, statists are unwilling to make personal sacrifices unless they can compel everyone else to sacrifice at least as much. There's a reason conservatives in the US generally give more to private charity than liberals. For the sake of argument, take as a given the known issues with dividing people along a single axis.

At a basic level, your system isn't compatible with freedom of choice. Mine is. I suspect you place some value on freedom of choice and equal rights, but that you place them below a right to life. Unfortunately, a right to live can become self refuting if it allows you to violently rob people or compel medical care, at the risk of their life, to provide someone else with life. That's why I only concede a right not to be killed, even though I will act personally to help other people live. And at that point we have very few principles in common, probably consisting only of "Helping others is a good thing". I'm not accusing you of being fascist, I just don't see how the system of government control you seem to prefer differs from fasicsm in kind. I'm quite happy to concede that it differs in quantity. Minor government oppression is much, much preferable to total government control. Just as an organized government welfare system is preferable to being mugged. That doesn't make either one right.

I long since came to the conclusion that Godel's theorem applies to moral systems as well as mathematical ones. Consistent, complete, or finite: pick any two. I'll take consistent and finite by preference.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_20-2008_04_26.shtml#1208802378

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

What about the best of all - Star Trek? It paints a utopian picture of Earth in the future, that picture being one where they've done away with money and capitalism, and are living in a happy world under a system of governance closer to communism than anything else.

I think Star Trek has had too many inconsistencies in its portrayal to say any particular economic model is used by the Federation. There is no money, but "gold-pressed latinum" is used widely; there are no poor on the starship, but plenty of poor worlds in the Federation; there is supposedly democratic representation, but some planets are more equal than others; it is supposedly a meritocracy, but family dynasties exist throughout StarFleet and the Federation Council.

I like the theory presented here about the structure of the Federation.

Permanent link to the actual post.

I know it's not normal here, but you can find an opinion by someone who actually knows the law and read it. Look for [Orin Kerr, March 20, 2008 at 6:29pm].

There's an interesting write-up by Orin Kerr over at Volokh Conspiracy. An important point that's lost in the hand-wringing above is that the FBI agent in question posted the link in a message board which was already known to be a distribution point for child pornography, and the link in question was clearly described as a link to child pornography. As an aside to the prefetch argument, from reading Mozilla's FAQ I'm not such a link would have been prefetched, but I'm not sure about that.

It is a good thing the government would never shop around for an easily manipulated test case to undermine the Constitution and Bill of Rights:

http://volokh.com/posts/1179865714.shtml

Here's a potentially interesting take on this by an actual law professor who actually read the court's actual decision.

Which is why I included a link to the best discussion about the most current judgment that I am aware of.

Since the Bill of Rights is treated as just a scrap of paper these days, I would actually prefer that electronic (or any other) communication not be protected at all to remove the illusion that the government does not clandestinely routinely monitor it.

Oddly (or not) enough, encryption itself does not legally create a presumption of privacy. If the authorities have gathered encrypted information in an otherwise legal way (say by copying a hard drive at a border crossing for any or no reason at all), they are free to use whatever methods are at their disposal to decrypt it. Getting the password through testimony so far is another matter.

http://volokh.com/posts/1157133639.shtml

So the police don't make you reveal your password -- they just tell you to enter it into your computer and unlock the files so they can look at them. It's no different than coming to you with a search warrant for your safe and making you unlock it.

Real profiling. Until grandma and grandpa with that brace on his bad knee bombs us there's no need to 'randomly' pull them aside for a more in depth search. Tips from other countries that racially profile and do it well like Israel would help point us in the right direction. It's not all about racial profiling either. Just a mix of some good questions asked to people with other real security measures would be just as good if not better than what we have now.

I think we already have that. It is the county elections registration offices.

  Many dead people have a history of voting. And that history isn't all that long ago.

You wish. And so do a lot of lefties here, who fantasize about rising up to smash the system that oppresses them...which never seems to actually get around to take an interest in oppressing anyone!

Tom Wolfe covers this succinctly: "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."

And as they say, read the whole thing from "The Intelligent Coed's Guide to America"

I'll take my chances living in Boston before I'd take my chances east of Albion.

--AW

As is often the case, law and ethics diverge on the question of a duty to report crime.

It is the general rule in the the US that there is no duty to report crime absent a special relationship between the people involved. Teachers and nurses have to report child abuse, but if you witness a murder there is no duty to say a word unless you are subpoenaed to testify in a court. Hint: when you are being questioned ask "am I free to go?" and then go find legal representation. You can walk right past a crime scene and never call the cops if you don't want to. Of course, that assumes you had nothing to do with the murder -- if you were part of the conspiracy to commit the murder then your legal duties change pretty dramatically.

In general Europe has stronger duties to help/report, so law there might differ.

As always, check with YOUR attorney -- IANAL, state laws may vary, and there might be specific laws covering your situation.

For some commentary on this case by a real lawyer who has some idea of what he's talking about, see this Volokh Conspiracy posting. Note, for example, that he points out why this is far from decided, and some interesting complexities in the case because it took place at a border crossing.

Entering a password into the computer implicitly communicates facts. By entering the password Boucher would be disclosing the fact that he knows the password and has control over the files on drive Z. The procedure is equivalent to asking Boucher, "Do you know the password to the laptop?" If Boucher does know the password, he would be faced with the forbidden trilemma; incriminate himself, lie under oath, or find himself in contempt of court. Id . at 212.
The Supreme Court has held some acts of production are unprivileged such as providing fingerprints, blood samples, or voice recordings. Id. at 210. Production of such evidence gives no indication of a person's thoughts or knowledge because it is undeniable that a person possesses his own fingerprints, blood, and voice. Id. at 210-11. Unlike the unprivileged production of such samples, it is not without question that Boucher possesses the password or has access to the files.
In distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial acts, the Supreme Court has compared revealing the combination to a wall safe to surrendering the key to a strongbox. See id. at 210, n. 9; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 43 (2000). The combination conveys the contents of one's mind; the key does not and is therefore not testimonial. Doe II, 487 U.S. at 210, n. 9. A password, like a combination, is in the suspect's mind, and is therefore testimonial and beyond the reach of the grand jury subpoena.
The government has offered to restrict the entering of the password so that no one views or records the password. While this would prevent the government from knowing what the password is, it would not change the testimonial significance of the act of entering the password. Boucher would still be implicitly indicating that he knows the password and that he has access to the files. The contents of Boucher's mind would still be displayed, and therefore the testimonial nature does not change merely because no one else will disc

Does encrypting Internet communications create a reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents, triggering Fourth Amendment protection? At first blush, it seems that the answer must be yes: A reasonable person would surely expect that encrypted communications will remain private. In this paper, Professor Kerr explains why this intuitive answer is entirely wrong: Encrypting communications cannot create a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reason is that the Fourth Amendment regulates access, not understanding: no matter how unlikely it is that the government will successfully decrypt ciphertext, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection if it succeeds. As a result, the government does not need a search warrant to decrypt encrypted communications. This surprising result is consistent with Fourth Amendment caselaw: it matches how courts have resolved cases involving the reassembly of shredded documents, recovery of deleted files, and the translation of foreign languages. The Fourth Amendment may regulate government access to ciphertext, but it does not regulate government efforts to translate ciphertext into plaintext.

Actually, I find this observation more compelling because it maps across years better. Essentially the US had higher incarceration rates in the 40's and 50's when you take mental illness hospitalization and prison rates together. In the early 60's, the mental hospitals started to empty out and it was made quite difficult to commit somebody (I know some people were committed that shouldn't have been).

Here is the article
http://volokh.com/posts/1177939981.shtml

Here is the larger version of the chart:

This chart shows mental illness hospitalization vs. prison rates over time. It is not on the graph, but the big crime spike in the 60's through the nineties lines with emptying the hospitals before they were all put in prison instead. As the incarceration rate increases in the 90's the crime rate drops.

http://volokh.com/files/bernardharcourt-volokh_graph.1.JPG

Actually, I find this observation more compelling because it maps across years better. Essentially the US had higher incarceration rates in the 40's and 50's when you take mental illness hospitalization and prison rates together. In the early 60's, the mental hospitals started to empty out and it was made quite difficult to commit somebody (I know some people were committed that shouldn't have been).

Here is the article
http://volokh.com/posts/1177939981.shtml

Here is the larger version of the chart:

This chart shows mental illness hospitalization vs. prison rates over time. It is not on the graph, but the big crime spike in the 60's through the nineties lines with emptying the hospitals before they were all put in prison instead. As the incarceration rate increases in the 90's the crime rate drops.

http://volokh.com/files/bernardharcourt-volokh_graph.1.JPG

I'm glad that swearing at work is good for you, because swearing at home is illegal.

WTF do people think that entering a store makes you the ownser's slave?

Does a user have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their files -- including images of child pornography -- posted on a password-protected website? In a decision handed down last week, Judge Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded that the answer is "yes." At the same time, Judge Stearns refused to suppress the evidence in the particular case, finding that its collection was the fruits of a private search by a tipster. The case is United States v. D'Andrea.

civil law. The right of enjoying a thing, the property
of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit,
utility and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the
substance of the thing.

You display your ignorance. There are blogs by noted authorities which are anything but what you say. Check out The Volokh Conspiracy. Same for Dinocrat and others.

What the ruling held was that the header information of your email (and web browsing I believe) is subject to exactly the same standards as the information about what phone numbers you dial. Mostly this seems like an appropriate and totally correct extension of offline legal standards to the online world. The only reason that it is more problematic is that an email header includes things like the subject which contains a little bit of the content.

Still all things considered this seems like the correct rule. Subject lines don't contain that much information and if you are concerned you can just use an unrevealing subject. Moreover, we already contemplate the possibility that someone who happens to glance at the recipients screen might notice the title so it really doesn't seem like we have the same expectation of privacy for the title of the message as we do for the body.

Anyway for a better more interesting discussion about this case you can check out Orin Kerr's comments over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

(why can't I help myself?)

The freaking WP editors think it was a boneheaded move:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/07/02/AR2007070201611.html?hpid=opinionsbo x1

25 year diabetic vet doesn't get a lighter sentence for pretty much the same thing as libby:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=33 02407

The entire investigation is by republicans for republicans (yet it's a liberal witch hunt party!)
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_01-2007 _07_07.shtml#1183437010

Dick's fingers are all over this one (eww!)... Justice Department Guidelines? Go F___ yourself!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/07/02/AR2007070202060.html?hpid=topnews

Here's how I submitted the story a few days ago:

At Volokh, Professor Orin Kerr notes a 6th circuit decision (pdf) about whether the 4th Amendment's expectation of privacy applied to Yahoo emails. Yes. Wired has more. EFF's friend of the court brief may have helped.
--
Meanwhile Dr. Kerr has more on the case, here.

Here's how I submitted the story a few days ago:

At Volokh, Professor Orin Kerr notes a 6th circuit decision (pdf) about whether the 4th Amendment's expectation of privacy applied to Yahoo emails. Yes. Wired has more. EFF's friend of the court brief may have helped.
--
Meanwhile Dr. Kerr has more on the case, here.

Whatever the law is for telegraphs should be the law for emails.
It is basically the same things 1s & 0s (long & short dashes) transmitted over copper wires (or fiber now a days) relayed by a machine or person (depending on the tech).
And even when relayed by a machine the Admin of the machine can read any email on the server. Email passes through multiple servers, at least the sending SMTP and the receiving POP/IMAP machines. I have no control over my ISP's POP server or the Admin thereof.

I assume there was no expectation of privacy in a telegraph and there should be none in an email. It would be nice, but it ain't how it works.

And now for some commentary from a real lawyer.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_06_17-2007 _06_23.shtml#1182181742

[Orin Kerr, June 18, 2007 at 11:49am] Trackbacks
Sixth Circuit Blockbuster on E-Mail Privacy: In an earlier blog post on a pending case in the Sixth Circuit, Warshak v. United States, I figured there was no way the court would get to the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue lurking in the case: there were no facts yet and no decided statutory law, and surely the panel wouldn't be so reckless as to presumptively strike down a federal statute in the absence of facts or law given the procedural problems with the case. I had a funny feeling things would turn out differently when I learned who was on the panel, though, and that funny feeling turned out to be justified: the panel just issued a blockbuster decision that tries to answer how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail (all without any facts, amazingly) based on arguments from amicus briefs that the government didn't address all in the context of an appeal from a preliminary injunction. Wow. More on the decision later today.

    UPDATE: Here's the key part of the opinion:

[Start Quote]
        [W]e have little difficulty agreeing with the district court that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial ISP. The content of e-mail is something that the user "seeks to preserve as private," and therefore "may be constitutionally protected." Katz, 389 U.S. at 351. It goes without saying that like the telephone earlier in our history, e-mail is an ever-increasing mode of private communication, and protecting shared communications through this medium is as important to Fourth Amendment principles today as protecting telephone conversations has been in the past. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 352 ("To read the Constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to play in private communication.")
[End Quote]

Notably, the court's Fourth Amendent analysis combines aspects of the probabilistic, private facts, positive law and policy model (the above-quoted section being from the policy model section).

the opinion is here in pdf. here online commentary includes volokh

This does seem pretty ridiculous, and clearly not very many people get in trouble for placing such ads, but there is some case law supporting it. In the roommates.com case, since they not only encouraged placing such statements, but seemingly also more-or-less required it, they were exposing themselves to liability. Plus, since they have much deeper pockets than your typical "SWF seeks same", they were much more likely to be taken to court.

Nice try, but it is a violation of federal law to bring a fire-arm onto public school property.

This is incorrect. Each State controls the legality of firearms at schools unless they are on federal property.

In the case of Virginia, state law allows CCP holders to carry at universities but Virginia Tech policy forbids carrying by students or staff. If a student were to do so, they would be subject to administrative punishment.

http://volokh.com/posts/1178639680.shtml

At least we can teach the crusades in school.

There is statutory law at both the state and federal level that protects certain civil rights from private party infringement but the application of constitutional rights to common law is more nebulous. A good example are the statutory protections against discrimination by race or sex.

The law blog "The Volokh Conspiracy" has a recent discussion on a court case involving an employer, United Parcel Service, firing an employee for having a firearm stored in his car which was not on company property:

http://volokh.com/posts/1172173543.shtml

I really don't understand why the heck they even let someone write a software player, how big of a market slice can that be?

I believe you forget the studios' objective; they want a more pirate-resistant successor to the current standard DVD. Ergo, they must be able to displace the current DVD market. A sizable minority of college students use a Windows PC with DVD drive (and perhaps tuner card) in lieu of a TV and DVD player to conserve space in cramped dorm rooms. While there is a trend away from desktops to increased laptop usage, USB tuners and large LCD external monitors are common enough and easily available, almost all current laptops come with drives that read DVDs (at least), and (looking ahead again) LCD projectors are getting cheaper and correspondingly more common. Due to the disposable income levels, the college and immediately post-college crowd is THE target demographic to hook, and while a gaming console is a luxury, a computer is considered just short of a necessity.

The software player market is not one they can yet afford to ignore.

From Akhil Reed Amar's excellent book, The Bill of Rights:

"the Fourth Amendment actually contains two different commands. First, all government searches and seizures must be reasonable. Second, no warrants shall issue without probable cause. The modern Supreme Court has intentionally collapsed the two requirements, treating all unwarranted searches and seizures--with various exceptions, such as exigent circumstances--as per se unreasonable."

http://volokh.com/posts/1155973771.shtml

The analysis over at The Volokh Conspiracy seemed to make sense. In particular "...instead of just informally requesting information in a context that would make clear the request is voluntary, the DoD and CIA seem to be issuing their requests using letters that look a lot like "real" National Security Letters. If that's right, the government would know that the letters have no legal effect, but they would be written so as to try to trick the recipients into thinking that they do."

This looks like more bending of the current administration's penchant for the rules to the breaking point (or past), using the excuse of a drastic threat to society. While I'm slightly sympathetic to such for dire threats, there is no evidence of this being for the unimaginably rare (dinosaur killer asteroid heading for earth) or for even the horrifically unthinkable (better than 50-50 chance of a million plus deaths). Instead, it's an attempt to covertly and permanently expand domestic intelligence powers when the legislature has refused to endorse such expansion.

Everyone should remember: "defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic" can include defending against yourself and your own darker impulses, and against any of lesser honor who may come to serve after you.