Slashdot Mirror


Accused Killer Asks For Online Media Users' IDs

SpaceGhost writes "According to the Houston Chronicle, the attorney for a Texas man charged in the death of a four-year-old 'has asked several local media outlets to provide the names of readers and listeners who commented about his client online,' stating that his client 'was struck by the conclusions people drew about his client and the specificity of some comments that made it appear they came from people with personal knowledge of the case.' Media outlets who have been subpoenaed include The Houston Chronicle, the Conroe Courier, KHOU (Houston area Channel 11, CBS affiliate) and KTRK (Houston area Channel 13, ABC affiliate)."

149 comments

  1. Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Informative

    That stupid skank whore in New York got a court to force Google to give up the ID of someone who hurt her feelings and now everyone will use that precedent to do the same.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      That stupid skank whore in New York got a court to force Google to give up the ID of someone who hurt her feelings and now everyone will use that precedent to do the same.

      LK

      Any details? Where is the story?

    2. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People speculate wildy on a message board and some get it right. I'm shocked and outraged! OUTRAGED I TELL YOU. These miscreants must be brought to justice!

    3. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you live in reality? This is a man charged with murder who is alleging that people posting appear to possess material knowledge of the crime he has been charged with he could have asked for this before the 'skank whore' case you reference and it has happened. Don't act like that was the first time ISPs or service providers coughed up privileged data information to the police or an attorney.

    4. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Here a link to a related story about suing Google. Interestingly, I actually got the link by Googling "stupid skank got google to release user information court case". Man, I really love Google sometimes.

    5. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Albinoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but 300 people having personal knowledge of the case? Did he kill her on stage? Sounds to me like someone clawing for anything to get out of doing his time.

    6. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps, although to give the guy (or should I say, his lawyer) the benefit of the doubt, it is entirely possible that of those 300 people, 295 have information about actual witness. Rumors can spread pretty fast -- I would not be surprise if, within a 24 hour people, 300 people heard from "a friend of a friend" some detail about an emotionally sensitive subject like the murder of a child. IANAL so I cannot comment on whether or not this sort of investigation has a precedent or is even legal, but the guy does deserve a fair defense, and I can see this being part of a defense strategy.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Two things that case screams to me:
      1. Not really the same issue that we are seeing here.
      2. If you want anonymity, STAY AWAY from blogging services, and more generally, stay away from the web. If you really have to use the web (i.e. because it is more popular than an anonymity-friendly system like Usenet), use a damned proxy server from a different jurisdiction.
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I used the term "skank" intentionally, it has direct bearing on the case.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I play devil's advocate, it doesn't have to be admissible in court for an investigator to follow it up.

      For example "Bill told me that he hears Mike scream out that he was going to kill that bitch!" would be hearsay. But an investigator can go to Bill and ask him details about what he saw and heard. From there you can build a case (or a defense).

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    10. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While not admissible, it's certainly worth his lawyer getting their names to check them out. Even if its hearsay, they heard it from SOMEBODY, and maybe that person didn't tell the cops everything, or the witness is telling things to other people.

      Guy is accused of heinous murder... anybody talking to their buddies, and the rest of the internet, and not to the police is not doing their civic duty to get this guy a fair trial. If somebody told different information in an internet post than they told the investigators, that's definitely worth knowing.

    11. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not. you can EASILY be anonymous and be near the blogging services. it simply takes some IQ and knowlege.

      You can go through proxies, use a throw away email service to get the initial login and make it impossible for them to find a single poster that does not use the same path twice.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, a search on "emma thompson" online comments death OR murder" only leads to the Houston Chronicle story, either directly or through some spam-portal. Any other sources?

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    13. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      No, it's not the issue. I also don't think the issue at hand here is necessarily related to the online medium only either. Frequently newspapers have the same sort of comments sections in print. They generally want contact information for you, but I'm fairly sure they've always been very militant about releasing any details. The bar to releasing details online should be exactly the same online as it is in print ... you need to do more than just ask for it. Is it that easy to get details on commenters in the printed media? (I'm don't know, I'm asking ...)

    14. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Really? When I search Google for that phrase now it just finds your comment. That's damn impressive from Google.

    15. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      Wow... that phrase now generates the original story as the second result. (The first being the parent post.)

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    16. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Really? When I search Google for that phrase now it just finds your comment. That's damn impressive from Google.

      Maybe google gets it directly from firefox in real time.

    17. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      That [nice young woman] in New York got a court to force Google to give up the ID of someone who hurt her feelings

      Great, now you've exposed Slashdot to the same liability. %}

      Seriously though, this is a real concern. I for one value my anonymity. If I had to take responsibility for everything I wrote, I'd hardly write anything at all. And wouldn't humanity be the poorer for that!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    18. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that line of defence... when the "stupid skank" is at your door.

      Disclaimer. I distance myself from anything in quotation marks. It has been included for SEO reasons only.

    19. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not admissible in court, but it might lead his attorneys to somebody that does have direct knowledge that could vindicate him. Of course that's assuming he's really innocent, but even if he is guilty, they might track somebody down that can get him off death row, or at least that's the operating theory.

    20. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      For her own sake, I hope that she does not come to my door.

      Send a letter.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    21. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My local paper actually requires addresses AND verifies them for their printed letters to the editor section. Enough of which they print for anybody to look up the commenter in public records.

      In other words, no Nerdfest or Anonymous Coward postings there.

    22. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When in doubt, couch your language and, that does mean typing all your comments while sitting on a sofa using a laptop, that means simply express everything as a opinion not as a statement of factor. The all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world can not touch you unless they can prove that at the exact time you expressed your opinion it was not in fact your true opinion but that you lied about it and falsely expressed your opinion in order to slander someone.

      Whilst this can definitely happen, think of all those astroturfers eg. M$ trolls for example, it is of course impossible to prove.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or just consistently use Tor and don't post shit that can ID you. I have a political blog like that.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    24. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My opinions contain no factors as they are prime opinions.

      --
      I hate printers.
    25. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by carolfromoz · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, this is a real concern. I for one value my anonymity. If I had to take responsibility for everything I wrote, I'd hardly write anything at all. And wouldn't humanity be the poorer for that!

      Sorry - humanity would be poorer if you had to take responsibility for your own actions? Isn't that what adults are supposed to do??

      I found the skank case pretty bizarre, particularly since no-one was even reading that woman's petty little blog, but I also think trolls who hide behind anonymity to say hurtful things they'd never have the courage to say in person are despicable little weasels who should be held up to public ridicule. I've seen some pretty vicious attacks, including anonymous posts on a board and emails to a friend who had lost a baby in a drowning accident, basically saying she was a murderer and had no right to get pregnant again. Really - do people like that deserve protection?

    26. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hearsay is almost always allowed in court. About the only thing that isn't allowed is when the hearsay is used to hold someone to something they said when that person is able to testify themselves. That is, unless it is an admission against interest, in which case it is still allowed. If someone said "a friend of a friend said Bob did it in the conservatory with a candlestick" that wouldn't be admissible because the friend could be located and questioned directly. So I can see how this would be dismissed as inadmissible hearsay, but almost all hearsay objections are overruled because there are so many exceptions to the rule it is more admissible than not.

    27. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit why is this not modded up to 5?

    28. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL: However if the defendant can demonstrate that a significant amount of detail has been leaked to the media by the prosecution he could prove that no juristiction could grant him a fair trial (as the minds of any potential jurors had been impossibly tainted against him , the defendant). In practice this would mearly slow the jury selection and might result in a change of venue. Of course if the courts fail to be able to enpannel a jury this chap walks away.

    29. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      The all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world can not touch you unless they can prove that at the exact time you expressed your opinion it was not in fact your true opinion but that you lied about it and falsely expressed your opinion in order to slander someone.

      In other news, it is my opinion that some americans still haven't figured out that other countries may just have slightly different laws than their own.

      Like that?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    30. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Sorry - humanity would be poorer if you had to take responsibility for your own actions? Isn't that what adults are supposed to do??

      WARNING: The post you are responding to may contain traces of animal products, peanuts or irony.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    31. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world can not touch you unless they can prove that at the exact time you expressed your opinion it was not in fact your true opinion but that you lied about it and falsely expressed your opinion in order to slander someone.

      Speaking as a lawyer, I would caution against presuming this is sufficient, to protect yourself against "all the slander and attorney lawyers in the world."

      In my jurisdiction, for instance, 'truth' (by itself) has only been a defence to defmation since 1 January 2006 (and this was, IMHO, a very poorly thought out 'reform'). Prior to that you were required to show more (eg. truth + public interest). In much of the common law word (eg UK) this is still the case. I believe that throughout most of the world, whether the defamatory publication is an honestly held opinion, is not relevant. The question is whether the 'imputation' is defamatory, and whether it is true (and, jurisdicition depending, more than merely true).

      As I understand it, even in the US, the principle in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requiring actual malice to be shown, applies only to public officials. Or do you have any better (more recent) authority which suggests otherwise?

      You might find lawyers more of a threat than you imagine. ;)

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    32. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      No they don't. Anonymous political speech is one thing, but hiding to insult or call for violence is not (i.e., the 'they should just hang that guy' or 'all of them' type of comments). If you wouldn't express it to friends or family then why express it online behind a name like MickeyMouse123?

      I am appalled at some of the comments I read on local stories. And in these cases people are coming out with information in regards to a case, yet no one can ever be found to testify (for the prosecution!).

    33. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      More likely, they read about it in some paper(s) and are drawing conclusions. Unless what they say has not been reported anywhere or could be concluded from publically available sources, there's no reason to believe that anyone who commented has some "inside" knowledge.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by selven · · Score: 1

      Anybody not talking to the cops is simply being sane.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

    35. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For her own sake, I hope that she does not come to my door."

      Another terrifying slashdot nerd....

    36. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      The parent is not flame bait. Who gave mod points to the damn illiterate prudes, "Skank" is one of the accusations the blogger who was sued made that got his anonymity pulled. The point being calling someone a skank or a prude or a motherfucking son of a cunt should not be enough to have someone's anonymity pulled online.

    37. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or post from the library. Free!

    38. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by quadrox · · Score: 1

      I too am appalled at some comments, however I value liberty of speech much higher. So what if some nutcase says something nutty? its your own responsibility to determine whether there is truth to it, you should not act (in any way whatsoever) upon something that could just be slander until you have determined the truth for yourself.

      I would much rather have ten people say lies and one person telling the truth, then everyone being forced to shut up.

    39. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      Or, judging by your name, I just fed a troll. At any rate, it should still be useful to anyone who really hadn't heard what GP is referring to.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    40. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Primarily because it's not that funny.

    41. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      Here a link to a related story about suing Google. Interestingly, I actually got the link by Googling "stupid skank got google to release user information court case". Man, I really love Google sometimes.

      Thank you kind sir, as I sit here on Labor Day working. Your post made my day :)

    42. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I can't help but notice that you posted anonymously.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    43. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I was being intentionally provocative, but no it was not flamebait.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    44. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by carolfromoz · · Score: 1

      My irony detector was obviously set too low - ta for that.

    45. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      That's a good way to break it down.

    46. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      remember some of these people are gun nerds and are loaded with enough ammo to single-handedly defend against a small, well-armed invasion force that can't get a clear sniper shot.

    47. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      Thanks.

      Or, judging by your name, I just fed a troll.

      I merely politely asked for more information. Chill out.

    48. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      My irony detector was obviously set too low

      OK, I admit starting the passage with "Seriously though" was mischievous. OTOH, when I imply that humanity would be the poorer but for the scibblings I leave on slashdot and similar fora, I would hope the reader can see the tongue planted firmly in my cheek.

      There were also traces of honesty. You are absolutely correct! As adults we ought to be taking responsibility for our actions (including speech acts). My irony was deployed to make just that point.

      However, it is also true that I would write less without the level of anonymity these fora afford me. Not because I want to hurt or defame people --even anonymously this holds no special appeal --but because I wouldn't want, at some point in the future, to be held to what I write today. When I look back at what I wrote (non-anonymously) on Usenet in late 80s early 90s, I wince. Damn you Google Groups!

      So I both believe we should take responsibility for what we as well as valuing my anonymity. At least I haven't got it all worked out yet. Maybe it's something along the lines of anonymity being a privilege that the law can revoke when it is used abusively ...?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    49. Re:Not like we didn't know this was coming... by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      I too am appalled at some comments, however I value liberty of speech much higher. So what if some nutcase says something nutty?

      The problem is that there are competing rights. I value the right of an individual to their own dignitas very highly. A person's reputation is something they have spent their life building. In some cases their reputation is something the person has spent many years repairing, following various youthful indescretions. In a sense, since it is the result of years of Labour, reputation can be conceived of as a species of property pertaining to that individual (inalienable though it is).

      I also value freedom of conscience and speech highly. Indeed one could argue that these freedoms are a necessary part of our individual dignity. Whether or not they are that, or completely separate rights, they are clearly rights of greatest importance.

      We thus have two right, neither of which imo, can simply be overridden by the other. With competing rights the problem is to find the correct balance. Here this balance involves the further problem of who should govern the limitation placed upon speech, and how we can trust them to minimise that limitation and find the proper balance. It is extremely problematic.

      In the U.S., the 1st Amendment implicitly (inasmuch as it explicitly constrains the legislature, leaving, one would have imagined, the common law of defamation in place) allows some sort of balance to be struck by the courts. Personally, I found it surprising to see it invoked by the honourable Justices in the New York Times v Sullivan case, radically to restrict the reach of defamation (at least in respect to public persons). Jurisprudence, however, inevitably reflects the Zeitgeist.

      its your own responsibility to determine whether there is truth to it, you should not act (in any way whatsoever) upon something that could just be slander until you have determined the truth for yourself.

      You shouldn't act upon it, but people actually do. And slander is viral. One would hope that those who fail to live up to their "responsibility to determine ... [the] truth" would be the ones to suffer the consequences of that failure. However, they are not! The person who suffers is the very individual whose reputation has been vandalised.

      I would much rather have ten people say lies and one person telling the truth, then everyone being forced to shut up.

      Perhaps I'm too concerned with the rights of an individual victim of defamation, as against the rights of the community generally to slander and ostracise that individual?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Doug52392 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of the comments in an article about a man who killed a four-year-old on local news websites would most likely be along the lines of "OMG THIS SICK FUCK DOESN'T EVEN DESERVE A TRIAL! JUST SHOOT HIM!"... ... At least that's the trend I notice on local news sites in my area.

    1. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, in Texas, we call that due process.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    2. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      I believe it requires multiple people to say that.

      Cuts down on the appeals after the fact.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by joocemann · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, in Texas, we call that due process.

      Slashdot mods you 'Funny'.

      Texans mod you "Informative"

    4. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're joking, but it's slowly coming to light that Texas almost definitely executed an innocent man in 2004.

      At the time of his execution, numerous petitions containing exonerating evidence had been filed, and were ignored.

      With any luck, this case will have far-reaching implications. At the very least, the judges and governor need to be put on trial for negligent homicide.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you're not thinking of Yahoo?

    6. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Bill Engvall who said that Texas had a "He needed killin'" law?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      It does, but I thought it only applied to politicians.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    8. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Quothz · · Score: 1

      HE KILLED A FOUR YEAR OLD.

      Golly. Sounds like you have personal knowledge of the case.

    9. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by ChadL · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that link, I am glad I got a chance to see that story, depressing as it is.
      I had read The Innocent Man by John Grisham before, and this just further hardens my view of the death penalty.
      If I had some mod points, I would mod your comment up, sadly I do not.

    10. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Mark this however you like. HE KILLED A FOUR YEAR OLD. Hmm do they still have their criminals drawn and quartered in Texas?

      Begging the question, yerr'onner! Next you'll be saying "he shouldn't get a trial because if they find him not guilty then he's gotten away with it"...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    11. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by quenda · · Score: 0

      Innocent of what? No man with a death-sized tattoo of a skull on his arm can be all that innocent.

    12. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Yes, and: He's a dirty [enter race here] that is ruining [state/country/city name] and [if black Obama will let them go / if other insert sky falling conspiracy / if white say name of residing neighborhood should be burned down].

      I thought this was just my city. A woman was in a bad accident and it became a forum to discuss which race was the superior race... Makes me cringe and also makes me wonder how much the police do watch these boards. Some of the calls for violence and vigilantism are truly illegal.

    13. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Free world mods it "flamebait".

      What? No "flamebait" mods yet? QED.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      No, my guess he's expressing a not unexpected horror that the sick fuck murdered a 4 year old child. Here in South Africa a child goes missing every 6 hours. Most are never found, many are found murdered (usually raped first, naturally). So yes, people (especially parents) tend to get a little irrational where kids are concerned.

      Due process must of course be followed, but fuckit, there's something to be said for stringing that fucker up and hearing him gurgle. Irrational of course, but if it was one of my children...

    15. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. He listened to Iron Maiden too, so he must have been guilty.

    16. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's slowly coming to light that Texas almost definitely executed an innocent man in 2004.

      I read the article before, and it certainly is of concern. However, it's a horrendously one-sided article, which covers only the incriminating facts that they can later refute, ignoring the rest of the trial as if it didn't exist, in order to make a point.

      Secondly, just because someone shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence (reasonable doubt), isn't proof of innocence by a long shot.

      With any luck, this case will have far-reaching implications. At the very least, the judges and governor need to be put on trial for negligent homicide.

      The governor does NOT serve any role in the court system. The fact that he has the opportunity to pardon someone doesn't translate into an obligation for him to determine guilt or innocence.

      And while I'm here, I'd just like to point out my endless frustration with this idiotic mindset that, if you don't execute someone, you can "make it right". It's a load of crap. People on death row are in prison for years, DECADES, before being executed... Releasing someone for a crime they didn't commit after 30 years of torture in prison isn't exactly a "take back" that's going to make it all better. You've still utterly destroyed a person's life, not just for the time they were in prison, but also for all the time after they're released. I'd like to keep the death penalty around, if only for motivating people to improve the rigor of the legal system. Clearly, they wouldn't be nearly as motivated if people were "just" facing a lifetime locked away...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, my guess he's expressing a not unexpected horror that the sick fuck murdered a 4 year old child.

      No, that is once again begging the question. The man's been charged but not yet convicted - you know that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? It looks like he's guilty, yes, but 'looks like' isn't good enough when you're talking about a long life in prison or a much shorter one on death row.

      Due process must of course be followed, but fuckit, there's something to be said for stringing that fucker up and hearing him gurgle.

      Due process is all that stands between YOU and being strung up to gurgle when some kid goes missing and you happened to drive past their house that morning. Witch hunts are bad and don't serve 'justice' in any way.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    18. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      That's odd, the Slashdot crowd usually says the exact same thing about Ballmer.

    19. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that. I read the New Yorker article and now can't think about anything but this case.

    20. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Your argument is ludicrous and doesn't work in practice. The death penalty is already here, and clearly the legal system still fails people who are really innocent. The gravity of capital punishment in no way motivates people in power to be more rigorous in their methods. Why would it? They *want* the defendant to be put to death. They're not motivated to examine evidence to clear the defendant.

    21. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Secondly, just because someone shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence (reasonable doubt), isn't proof of innocence by a long shot."

      Well isn't that convenient? In this country, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

    22. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the article before, and it certainly is of concern. However, it's a horrendously one-sided article, which covers only the incriminating facts that they can later refute, ignoring the rest of the trial as if it didn't exist, in order to make a point.

      It's a terrible article, I'll give you that. But you still should have read it, or at least looked up Cameron Todd, before you ran your mouth off. Here's another quote from the article:

      Willingham was convicted of murdering his two young children by arson. He spent 12 years on death row in Texas before he was executed. Forensic science that supposedly proved the fire was intentionally set was central to Willingham's conviction was, in fact, completely invalid -- which the experts who testified should have known in 1992. A state forensic science commission in Texas is officially looking into the case and selected a widely respected expert to analyze whether the forensic testimony was valid. Last week the expert filed a report confirming what five other leading arson experts have found -- what passed for arson analysis in the Willingham case had no scientific basis, and the scientific facts in Willingham's case were the same as the case of Ernest Willis. In an entirely separate case, Willis was sent to death row in Texas for an arson murder of family members but, luckily, in his the state recognized the arson analysis was wrong. Willis was fully exonerated just months after Willingham was executed.

      The state forensic commission in Texas is still finishing its work on Willingham's case, but David Grann's New Yorker article examines the entire case, including the jailhouse informant who plainly gave false testimony and the circumstantial evidence, flimsy in the first place, that was not what it appeared to be to the jury. After reading Grann's report, fair-minded people will know beyond a reasonable doubt that an innocent person was executed

      The science was completely invalid. The prosecutor's proposed theory of the arson was physically impossible. The "rest of the trial," as you put it, is completely irrelevant.

    23. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      However, it's a horrendously one-sided article, which covers only the incriminating facts that they can later refute, ignoring the rest of the trial as if it didn't exist, in order to make a point.

      How incredibly one sided of them only to show the details that can be refuted...which just happen to be the most damning details in the case. Personally, I think Willingham's life never would've amounted to much. There's a better than fair chance that his death will become much more meaningful for everyone, if it becomes the straw that broke the camel's back on the death penalty in Texas. So at least he's got that going for him.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    24. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      With any luck, this case will have far-reaching implications. At the very least, the judges and governor need to be put on trial for negligent homicide.

      The governor does NOT serve any role in the court system. The fact that he has the opportunity to pardon someone doesn't translate into an obligation for him to determine guilt or innocence.

      To (re)use an incredible cheesy line: "With great power comes great responsibility"

      The governor is the chief executive of the state. If the state is attempting to put a man to death, it is the chief executive's job to be damn sure that the person being put to death is guilty of a crime severe enough to warrant capital punishment.

      The fact that she failed to act on pertinent information is all the more damning.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    25. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, Texas has the best compensation package for the wrongfully convicted (free school, health care, $80k/year they were wrongfully in jail + a $50k annual payment afterwards if I remember all the numbers correctly).

    26. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      I actually read that article a few days ago, and it was on my mind when I posted.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    27. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Irrational of course, but if it was one of my children...

      Hey, that's a good way to eliminate excess children... move to an area with a child murderer that keeps getting away with it. I wonder if that's "criminal negligence" if you actually do take every precaution to protect your child, but he's just determined...

    28. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I think the death penalty is a valuable thing; it brings the worst criminals with the most horrible lives to a place where they either reflect and become better people before they die, or they get removed from existence because they're worthless and horrible.

      That being said, the process needs work. Innocent or not, the life and execution of this person has shown many, many flaws in the process; for example, we can't halt the death penalty pending appeals just by showing new, significant evidence. The process found that evidence which completely debased the prosecuting arguments was not significant; the process is wrong, that is the definition of significance. This wasn't just evidence that cast doubt on his conviction; this was evidence that cast doubt on the supposed facts supporting his conviction. The circumstances just completely changed, it's time for a re-trial.

      We shouldn't jump at every little complaint the lawyers have; but when you can make an argument that clearly debases the expert scientific opinion of the prosecution's expert witnesses, and show multiple experts that find it plausible and worthy of further review, it's time to sit down and go over this shit again.

    29. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The science was completely invalid. The prosecutor's proposed theory of the arson was physically impossible. The "rest of the trial," as you put it, is completely irrelevant.

      Some of the evidence was wrong. Others had plausible alternative causes (than arson), but aren't necessarily incorrect (eg. either natural flashover, OR arson could have caused the "pool" burn marks). The prosecution's theory of arson is most certainly NOT physically impossible.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    30. Re:Most of the comments on local news sties.... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Well isn't that convenient?

      Not at all. It's a simple fact.

      Just because X = Y hasn't been adequately proved, doesn't PROVE that X != Y.

      In this country, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

      For purposes of criminal punishment, that's true. However, that doesn't apply to civil cases, and NOBODY (except trolls feigning ignorance) actually believes not being convicted necessarily means someone must NOT have committed a crime. The justice system doesn't work that way at all.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  3. Okay... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some examples would be nice, because we can't possibly make a call on the validity of the claim without an example of an applicable comment. Of course, the idea that 300 of the comments are really useful is a dumb one...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Okay... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just the standard fishing expedition. The defense doesn't HAVE a defense, so they are trying to confuse the issues. Notice that they don't name just a single paper, or a specific number of users or posts. It's a broad sweep with a huge net, meant to pull in a lot of material that will have maximum confusion value.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe I read this on ./ at some point, and it nails this nicely.

      If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If both are against you, bang on the table.

      It appears they are banging on the table.

    3. Re:Okay... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a broad sweep with a huge net, meant to pull in a lot of material that will have maximum confusion value.

      I think you're probably right, but there are two reasons you might be wrong. The first is that this sort of plan has a high chance to backfire and I'm sure the defense knows this. The second is that a lazy defense might reasonably ask for way more data than they need as a delaying tactic, even if there IS some gold in there. They might have just asked for all comments, lacking an intelligent way to ask for a specific one. That would be ridiculous, but seems like something a less-than-technically-astute lawyer might do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Okay... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      SELECT * FROM tbl_Comments
      WHERE userid LIKE '%CHEWBACCA%';

    5. Re:Okay... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, 300 is not a large number of people, at least not on the scale of Internet comments. Is it likely that all 300 have relevant, original information? No. Is it within the realm of possibility that 295 of the 300 got their information from the same 5 people, and that those 5 people have relevant information? Absolutely.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Okay... by Erinnys+Tisiphone · · Score: 1, Interesting

      True. Imagine how long it will take the provider to retrieve that sort of data from a technical perspective. If the users only registered their accounts with a hotmail or gmail account, or if all they have is IP data, it could stall the proceedings for months. Who does the burden of correlating IPs to people or accounts fall on? Does the blogging company also have to contact the poster's ISPs, or do they just provide emails and IPs to the legal team?

    7. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now he'll have 4,800 more things to read in the comments here and elsewhere.

    8. Re:Okay... by e9th · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is an earlier Chronicle article with >300 comments. Decide for yourself how many of them show inside knowledge.

    9. Re:Okay... by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I believe I read this on ./ at some point, and it nails this nicely.

      If the facts are against you, bang on the law. If the law is against you, bang on the facts. If both are against you, bang on the table.

      It appears they are banging on the table.

      Its a shame that the "If the law is against you..." part of that quote doesn't involve either changing wrongful laws or being responsible for your actions.

    10. Re:Okay... by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What exactly do you think "bang on the facts" means? It's an argument for jury nullification, that's what.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SELECT * FROM tbl_Comments
      WHERE userid LIKE '%CHEWBACCA%';

      SELECT * FROM tbl_Comments
      WHERE UPPER(userid) LIKE '%CHEWBACCA%';

    12. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God that article only had about 320 comments, so I only had to read 21 to determine with certainty that there were not 300 comments with insider knowledge. Heck, I read a few more, and also determined that there were not 300 comments with worthwhile intelligence.

    13. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LIKE is case-insensitive. But thanks for playing.

    14. Re:Okay... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you think "bang on the facts" means? It's an argument for jury nullification, that's what.

      No, you are ignoring the simplest and correct answer. Bang on the law means "It wasn't illegal". Bang on the facts means "I didn't do it". If you try reading something into the last one except resignation, then maybe it could imply appealing to their emotions. Because that's what jury nullification is, you don't need it unless both the law and the evidence is against you...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Okay... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Having been on a jury, I can safely state that this is not presented as an option within UK courts. Juries are instructed to return the verdicts of guilty or not guilty, and they're too blinded by the posh robes and wigs to think they have any other choice.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    16. Re:Okay... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    17. Re:Okay... by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      Over your head, or mine? Care to explain?

      From my understanding it is talking about what you would do in court. In this case, bang on facts would mean to try to deceive the court or manipulate the truth. Facts are facts and I have drawn the inference that 'bang on' means 'play with' or 'manipulate' for your advantage.

    18. Re:Okay... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Christy1981 on those comments, her comment history constantly contains things like "evil evil witch" and lots of violent statements pertaining to other girls. I do not like this person.

  4. A great day in history by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm pretty sure this is the first time people on the internet have ever been accused of disseminating overly-substantial and accurate information.

    But I wonder why this guy did not subpoena the names of any youtube commenters? :/

    1. Re:A great day in history by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If they have some factual information, they may have more. The defendant's legal team may wish to learn their identities, so the commentors can be subpoena'd for questioning as possible witnesses for trial.

    2. Re:A great day in history by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So, it's about those who actually know things! Because if they are involved in the lawsuit (e.g. by being the judge etc), then the whole lawsuit's validity can die with it!

      Who cares about some false accusations! It's the likely true ones! ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:A great day in history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure this is the first time people on the internet have ever been accused of disseminating overly-substantial and accurate information.

      Because we know they usually make their shit up on the spot. This time, it's going to hit them right in their face and I hope it sticks. I despise commenters that pretend to know the background to some news story, throwing all kinds of random assumptions about the people involved around. It's about time they were called out on their bad fiction.

    4. Re:A great day in history by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Mind you the child had oral and vaginal herpes. This was known, and she wasn't removed from their care. ?_?

  5. sigh by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those who comment generally use pseudonyms, and the lawyer has asked for identifying information on about 300 of them.

    how many people would have ersonal knowledge of the case? probably no where near 300 so they're implying that a smaller number of people went out of their way to voice their opinion about the guy. It seems however, that they are on a fishing expedition with suspicions but no evidence at least indicated by TFA.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People sure like to voice their opinion, not surprising.

      Or maybe some made something up? But no, not on the Internet!

    2. Re:sigh by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The defense might want to suggest some sort of conspiracy theory planned by 300 internet users to frame the defendant.

    3. Re:sigh by Compholio · · Score: 1

      The defense might want to suggest some sort of conspiracy theory planned by 300 internet users to frame the defendant.

      Or trying to link those users to some common "informant"...

    4. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"

      The defense lawyer is trying to seed doubt, the best way to do this is by implying that other people knew or were potentially involved and that his client is simply victim of user "blu_shadowz15", and that Mr.blu_shadowz15 and wizardforce are potentially the true killers.

  6. At Last! by Knoman · · Score: 1

    FINALLY! A way to return civility to the Interwebs!

    --
    "It's an imperfect world,screws fall out..."
    1. Re:At Last! by ysth · · Score: 1

      There are other ways.

    2. Re:At Last! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You want to trust lawyers to bring civility to something? I cringe at the thought.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Is precognition in effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First reply to an article being marked redundant? Is the poster to have known what others will post in the future or something?

  8. 300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    THIS.... IS... TEXAS!!!!

    1. Re:300? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      You're saying that in Texas, it would be expected that 300 people would have specific information about a case suitable for the defense attorney to consider using? I can believe that maybe one or two people possibly might. But 300 ??? No, I thing this attorney is building a case to get an appeals court to dismiss for mistrial.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was making a joke, related to a movie called "300".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film)

    3. Re:300? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happens when cousins marry.

    4. Re:300? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, this is blasphemy. This is madness.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. banging on the table by captnbmoore · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's trying to not be banged on the table.

    --
    The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
    1. Re:banging on the table by Shikaku · · Score: 0, Redundant

      In the prison cell.

    2. Re:banging on the table by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      The Navy Motto"IF it aint broke Fix It"

      If so, things have really changed. Back when I was in Uncle Sam's Navy, sonny, it was "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:banging on the table by techno-vampire · · Score: 0, Redundant

      While covered with hot grits.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:banging on the table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like slowly injected. Banging into veins tends to rupture them.

  10. Intimidation by soundguy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like an attempt to intimidate witnesses.

    --
    Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    1. Re:Intimidation by e9th · · Score: 1

      How so? Would a witness in a case like this expect to testify anonymously?

    2. Re:Intimidation by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sounds like an attempt to intimidate witnesses.

      Eh?

      "What's your name, sir?"
      "STOP INTIMIDATING ME!!!"

      Man, you must be a complete pussy.

    3. Re:Intimidation by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      I think the "big net" to subpoena these commenters' identities is a bit disturbing. If I call someone a flaming douche online, it's my opinion. The line separating opinion from slander/libel is becoming blurred because of overt Political Correctness and otherwise rational people being whiny "victims" if it means spanking someone (legally). Like a schoolyard fight trying to get the last "lick" in. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  11. Re:Navy Motto. by captnbmoore · · Score: 1

    I was in 86-97. unless you were in before the navy adopted the air force maint system and then doubled the frequency then you would not remember. In what business do you know where regular maint requires you to tear apart a running engine (After shutting it down) to make sure it is still operating properly.

    --
    The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
  12. Re:Navy Motto. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    I'm Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. We were doing shore bomb back in '72 during the Eastertide Offensive. Back then, we didn't have time to try fixing things that weren't broke. I remember, once, the but-plate on our 5"/54 broke, and a machinists mate made a new one out of a bearing blank and saved us from having to go all the way to Sasebo and back for a new one. In one WestPac, we not only wore out the barrel of our gun, we used up half the service life of its replacement.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  13. Why is there any complaint? by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's the attorneys job to follow every possible defense. It might get the defendant proven innocent. If he dosn't, it'll be grounds for an appeal based on incompenant defense.

    Seriously, why is there any argument against all the facts being available for a trial? If there is nothing to help him, it'll just ensure his conviction sticks.

  14. Got you, Simon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I knew you'd slip up sometime!

  15. Re:Navy Motto. by fractoid · · Score: 1

    In what business do you know where regular maint requires you to tear apart a running engine (After shutting it down) to make sure it is still operating properly.

    Pretty sure airlines have mandated rebuilds every so many hours of flight time. Much better to find out that your turbine blades are damaged in the workshop than halfway across the Atlantic.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  16. Re:Navy Motto. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    This lends a lot of weight to the hyperbole of "one millions shots fired for every man killed in Vietnam."

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  17. Re:Navy Motto. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    In what business do you know where regular maint requires you to tear apart a running engine (After shutting it down) to make sure it is still operating properly.

    EVERY engine has recommended service intervals, and the recommended service involves parts inspection at minimum, and usually mandatory replacements. Congratulations, you know nothing about... physics? Valves every so many thousand miles, bearings every so many other, timing belts, water pumps... These are all commonly inspected and replaced if necessary. You don't do it with the engine running.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Considering the location... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    ... An unbiased jury pool should be of paramount importance in a trial like this. After all, the accused is being called to trial in the state that executes more prisoners than the rest of the country combined.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  19. He COULD win this, and it would be a good thing by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Granted, he has a high bar to climb, but if he can convince a judge someone out there knows something that could be used for the defense, he should win his subpeona and be able to bring that evidence into his trial.

    It's one of the fundamental rights in America to be able to present any real evidence that can exonerate you.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  20. Good luck with that... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he got a court to grant some kind of discovery process for this, but I wonder how far it will go? OK, so he can ask for the information that was collected by the "primary" source - some web logs, probably. This gives you at best an IP address unless there is a specific, confirmed identity required to log in.

    With an IP address he is going to need another round of subpoenas to get the identity from the ISP. Likely as not, unless the ISP is very, very friendly towards criminals he will have to sue them to get this information. That is pretty much the normal course for non-law enforcement folks. Is it worth that? And, even after filing suit, would a judge force the ISP to open their books?

    Naa, probably not.

    Let's assume an accomplice was mouthing off in some online forum. Someone that knows the person looking for this information is innocent and knows who committed the crime. Well, given things to day they are going to be protected by the courts, by the prosecutor, by the media companies and by their ISP. The accused doesn't stand a chance.

    1. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I am not an American, a Texan or a lawyer, but my understanding of this sort of thing is that his lawyer can ask for a subpoena to get access to information relevant (or even just possibly relevant) to his defense. So effectively (in my understanding) his lawyer asks the judge to subpoena the comment site for the logs, then he asks the judge for a subpoena on the relevant ISPs to find out who was using those addresses at the times of interest. Then he can ask for a subpoena to call the particular individuals as witnesses, if it looks like they know anything that could help his case. Note that a subpoena has all the force of the court behind it...it may be his lawyer that asks for it, but it is his lawyer asking as an officer of the court. If the court refuses to allow him to have access to information that might be relevant, it makes very good grounds for an appeal. Compared to the skank in New York, he has excellent grounds for asking for access.

      So whether the ISP is friendly towards criminals or not is not really very relevant, since at this point he is not officially a criminal, as least as far as this case goes, and the ISP would be presented with a court order, which gives them the choice of conforming or going to jail for contempt. While I am sure there are ISPs that many of us would like to see in jail for contempt, I do't think they are likely to take that choice.

      I work for a mobile phone company which is these days of course also an ISP. We will not give a customer information about the location of phones that they pay for or any other activity without a court order...however given a court order we will provide anything and everything that the network can provide. Same applies if the police ask, and there are channels whereby they can get access pretty promptly if time is critical in a particular case. I think this is a pretty usual stance.

      Of course, this case being in Texas, all bets are off, they will probably hang him first and have the trial afterwards.

  21. Re:Navy Motto. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Not as much as you think. For a 5"/54 naval rifle, the service live of a barrel was about 1500 rounds. Of course, the average round weighed over 50 pounds, and that was just the shell because the shell and powder were inserted separately.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  22. Re:Navy Motto. by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    Have you never driven a 70's era Volvo?

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
  23. Re:Navy Motto. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Have you never driven a 70's era Volvo?

    Nope. The only ones I'd be interested in, I wouldn't fit in well. I drive a 1982 MBZ 300SD W126. They are now cheap.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Re:Navy Motto. by ma1wrbu5tr · · Score: 1

    1982 MBZ= Classic Pimpin'. I loved the grille and body shape of those. I drove my 1971 144S for 250K+ miles and never had anything done but the brakes and oil changes (2 of them). Not that I'm proud of that. If I'd taken care of it, it'd probably gone a million. (yeah, you're right!)They can make a maintenance free battery, why not a damn motor?

    --
    Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!