IAAL who's worked for a Federal judge. These are slam-dunks for the US Attys.
Seriously, if you don't know basic code (the law-type, not the geek type) on this topic, sit down and STFU. This sort of "advice" can ruin someone's life.
I'm a patent litigator these days. I can and do issue subpeonas by filling out a form (AO-88 in civil cases, google it), signing it, and mailing it to people, businesses. I've lost track of the number I've sent, no judge required.
If the recipient fights it, then a judge gets involved to referee.
He will likely do only 6 months of actual jail time
Nope. Conviction of a Federal crime in a U.S. (not state) court means he will do 85% of the time sentenced (with a few outs that are not relevant here, like executive clemency).
Another reason why you generally don't want to mess with the Feds.
2 months is 35 U.S.C. 102(a) prior art, which can be sworn behind. The holy grail is a reference at least one year before the filing date, which gets you a 102(b) absolute bar.
IAAL, and I've worked directly for judges. This won't win the RIAA lawyers any friends on the bench.
There is an ethical obligation to inform the court of legal authority (cases) in the controlling jurisdiction (same state, or federal circuit, for example) known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2).
Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits offering "false evidence." Not quite on point, because legal authority is not "evidence".
The commentary suggests that a "lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statement of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false." Rule 3.3, cmt. 2. That's pretty inclusive, and I'd feel comfortable arguing that failing to disclose the reversal of authority you've previous cited is an ethical violation. A referal to the state bar commission could be in order here, and let them sort it out.
You'd like to think that the Federal prison system would reward good behavior.
Parole is basically dead in the Federal prison system. Federal prisoners must serve at least 85% of their sentence. After they get out, there is a separate period of "supervised release" that has been implemented as a clunky replacement for parole.
> I might have taken physics a long time ago, but we learned that you make things colder by removing energy. So there can be no such thing as cold energy storage.
Have you considered these things called "ice cubes"?
Or, more realistically for this sort of application, a thermal energy storage ("TES") material. Envision a freezer wall made with an expandable panel of blue ice... Something with a sub-zero freezing point, that can be frozen with cheap power and cools the freezer when electricity is expensive.
A quick search turned up, for example, US patent 6,370,908 (for a retail fridge).
In this recent case from the 4th circuit, a spouse consented to having a shared computer seized. The husband had a passwd-protected account on his computer. The forensics guy bypassed that, accessed the files directly on a ghosted drive, and found child pr0n.
His defense? Reasonable expectation of privacy, no warrant, no consent = 4th amendment violation. The government claimed that "apparent authority" existed through the wife, and the 4th circuit allowed the pr0n as evidence.
But. Even with a modest amount of encryption, it becomes a *lot* harder for the gov't to make an "apparent authority" argument with a straight face. If it's transparent for the user to implement, relying on the consent of someone other than the accused will become a lot harder. This has real-world implications.
This says nothing about forensic password breaking or brute force attacks. But to analogize to your front door, a locksmith or battering ram is a far cry from a consent-based search. Expect defense lawyers to make the same argument with respect to files protected with Bitlocker.
an overlooked aspect of this is that in the great "Homeland Security" reorganization, Imiigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) somehow got tasked with responsibility for kiddie pr0n. When the local cops execute a search warrant and find kiddie pr0n? They don't call the FBI, but ICE. Testifying in Federal Court at plea bargains and sentencings in the great Midwest? ICE agents.
I hazard a guess that the laptop snooping allows ICE to bump up its arrest stats, and thus their budget. That it's concentrating on something pretty much completely orthogonal to goal that would make sense is merely a side effect of the Dubyah administration's vision, leadership and foresight.
I told the nice judge that I was not the driver of the car [mine] that illegally exited a toll road without paying. The cop had apparently just recorded my plate number and taken no other action. I later got the ticket in the mail. As I wasn't actually driving (I'd loaned it out), I challenged it in righteous indignation.
Since the police officer couldn't state with certainty I *was* driving, case (and $500 fine) dismissed.
Unfortunately, NPR's gov't funding has been on a steady decline since the 1970s, when most of their funding came from our tax dollars. The share contributed by the gov't is now approximately two percent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR That's not a whole lot, and in return they have to put up with the Corp. For Public Broadcasting, which in the last few years (thanks, Dubyah!) has been taken over by conservatives who seem bent on undermining its mission.
"They get gov't money" is no longer much of an excuse to donate. And yes, I put my money where my mouth is.
This is incorrect: non-competes are an enforceable contract that can, if drafted correctly, survive the employment period itself.
They must be reasonably limited in time, space, and occupation. There are some jurisdictions which frown (a lot!) on non-competes, but please don't leave people with the false sense that they are never valid.
The absurdity of a non-compete varies with the circumstances. Compare two scenarios: McDonalds has non-compete for the guy asking "do you want fries with that"? Absurd. Head of regional sales for a company, and you're worried she might take customers with her? Not so absurd, and likely enforced.
IAAL. Turning over documents is not "testimonial" in a way that is protected by the 5th amendment. In a similar vein, turning over an encryption key is not testimony that, itself, is used to convict you - it's only about access to the data.
An analogy: you're served with a subpeona for all docs relating to "case X". You can't get out of the subpeona by placing them in a safe and then refusing to turn over the combination; the combination itself is not "testimony".
At which point, a judge can send you to jail for contempt of court. In the Federal system, I think that maxes out at 18 months; it can be indefinite in state courts.
The fifth amendment is not an absolute shield against being forced to do any action that might get you in trouble.
http://www.shotspotter.com/ has already deployed this sort of sensor net commercially, and has already helped catch real live criminals, such as the Ohio freeway sniper.
Slashdot Mirror
18 U.S.C. 922(g). Nuff said.
IAAL who's worked for a Federal judge. These are slam-dunks for the US Attys.
Seriously, if you don't know basic code (the law-type, not the geek type) on this topic, sit down and STFU. This sort of "advice" can ruin someone's life.
Incorrect.
I'm a patent litigator these days. I can and do issue subpeonas by filling out a form (AO-88 in civil cases, google it), signing it, and mailing it to people, businesses. I've lost track of the number I've sent, no judge required.
If the recipient fights it, then a judge gets involved to referee.
Something that never fails to amuse me is the ERN YER DIPLOMA NOWZ! spam sent to my account @alum.mit.edu ....
He will likely do only 6 months of actual jail time
Nope. Conviction of a Federal crime in a U.S. (not state) court means he will do 85% of the time sentenced (with a few outs that are not relevant here, like executive clemency).
Another reason why you generally don't want to mess with the Feds.
Ayep. Read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
This decision was one of the most dispiriting things about law skool.
Not that it's a bad plan for Oakland.
Dude! I've seen pot addicts assault the refrigerator on a daily basis.
It's ugly, mang, ugly.
2 months is 35 U.S.C. 102(a) prior art, which can be sworn behind. The holy grail is a reference at least one year before the filing date, which gets you a 102(b) absolute bar.
I'd like to say on behalf of my fellow sharks^W lawyers: woohoo!
IAAL, and I've worked directly for judges. This won't win the RIAA lawyers any friends on the bench.
There is an ethical obligation to inform the court of legal authority (cases) in the controlling jurisdiction (same state, or federal circuit, for example) known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2).
Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits offering "false evidence." Not quite on point, because legal authority is not "evidence".
The commentary suggests that a "lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statement of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false." Rule 3.3, cmt. 2. That's pretty inclusive, and I'd feel comfortable arguing that failing to disclose the reversal of authority you've previous cited is an ethical violation. A referal to the state bar commission could be in order here, and let them sort it out.
> There's always time off for good behavior.
You'd like to think that the Federal prison system would reward good behavior.
Parole is basically dead in the Federal prison system. Federal prisoners must serve at least 85% of their sentence. After they get out, there is a separate period of "supervised release" that has been implemented as a clunky replacement for parole.
"George W. Bush" added to the list?
> I might have taken physics a long time ago, but we learned that you make things colder by removing energy. So there can be no such thing as cold energy storage.
Have you considered these things called "ice cubes"?
Or, more realistically for this sort of application, a thermal energy storage ("TES") material. Envision a freezer wall made with an expandable panel of blue ice... Something with a sub-zero freezing point, that can be frozen with cheap power and cools the freezer when electricity is expensive.
A quick search turned up, for example, US patent 6,370,908 (for a retail fridge).
IAAL; US-centric analysis follows.
P .pdf
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/064399.
In this recent case from the 4th circuit, a spouse consented to having a shared computer seized. The husband had a passwd-protected account on his computer. The forensics guy bypassed that, accessed the files directly on a ghosted drive, and found child pr0n.
His defense? Reasonable expectation of privacy, no warrant, no consent = 4th amendment violation. The government claimed that "apparent authority" existed through the wife, and the 4th circuit allowed the pr0n as evidence.
But. Even with a modest amount of encryption, it becomes a *lot* harder for the gov't to make an "apparent authority" argument with a straight face. If it's transparent for the user to implement, relying on the consent of someone other than the accused will become a lot harder. This has real-world implications.
This says nothing about forensic password breaking or brute force attacks. But to analogize to your front door, a locksmith or battering ram is a far cry from a consent-based search. Expect defense lawyers to make the same argument with respect to files protected with Bitlocker.
an overlooked aspect of this is that in the great "Homeland Security" reorganization, Imiigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) somehow got tasked with responsibility for kiddie pr0n. When the local cops execute a search warrant and find kiddie pr0n? They don't call the FBI, but ICE. Testifying in Federal Court at plea bargains and sentencings in the great Midwest? ICE agents.
I hazard a guess that the laptop snooping allows ICE to bump up its arrest stats, and thus their budget. That it's concentrating on something pretty much completely orthogonal to goal that would make sense is merely a side effect of the Dubyah administration's vision, leadership and foresight.
why yes, I have!
I told the nice judge that I was not the driver of the car [mine] that illegally exited a toll road without paying. The cop had apparently just recorded my plate number and taken no other action. I later got the ticket in the mail. As I wasn't actually driving (I'd loaned it out), I challenged it in righteous indignation.
Since the police officer couldn't state with certainty I *was* driving, case (and $500 fine) dismissed.
Unfortunately, NPR's gov't funding has been on a steady decline since the 1970s, when most of their funding came from our tax dollars. The share contributed by the gov't is now approximately two percent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR That's not a whole lot, and in return they have to put up with the Corp. For Public Broadcasting, which in the last few years (thanks, Dubyah!) has been taken over by conservatives who seem bent on undermining its mission.
"They get gov't money" is no longer much of an excuse to donate. And yes, I put my money where my mouth is.
The OS all the way down to games. Sounds like a good way to invite anti-trust complaints.
This is incorrect: non-competes are an enforceable contract that can, if drafted correctly, survive the employment period itself.
They must be reasonably limited in time, space, and occupation. There are some jurisdictions which frown (a lot!) on non-competes, but please don't leave people with the false sense that they are never valid.
The absurdity of a non-compete varies with the circumstances. Compare two scenarios: McDonalds has non-compete for the guy asking "do you want fries with that"? Absurd. Head of regional sales for a company, and you're worried she might take customers with her? Not so absurd, and likely enforced.
Perhaps "...and a free TV!" is precisely what the GI Bill needs to boost recruiting.
IAAL. Turning over documents is not "testimonial" in a way that is protected by the 5th amendment. In a similar vein, turning over an encryption key is not testimony that, itself, is used to convict you - it's only about access to the data.
An analogy: you're served with a subpeona for all docs relating to "case X". You can't get out of the subpeona by placing them in a safe and then refusing to turn over the combination; the combination itself is not "testimony".
At which point, a judge can send you to jail for contempt of court. In the Federal system, I think that maxes out at 18 months; it can be indefinite in state courts.
The fifth amendment is not an absolute shield against being forced to do any action that might get you in trouble.
classic counter-example: drug taxes.
possession is a criminal offense; failure to pay the applicable taxes results in an "additional" civil fine.
> Estoppel.
Laches.
Estoppel connotes reliance on the plaintiff's assertions that they won't do something (like sue you).
Laches is failure to file a timely suit (ie the plaintiff "lies in wait" and lets damages rack up) as a defense.
Their original test city was Redmond, CA in 1996.
hide my "cans on string" communications network before the taxman cometh!