Google offers you a service extremely valuable: the information you want.
And Groupon offers you a service extremely valuable: the things you want, cheaper.
And just like some people use Google stupidly by searching for child pornography, some people use Groupon stupidly by buying stuff they wouldn't otherwise want.
they will find themselves unable to pay back their investors
They don't have to pay back their investors, as their fundraising has been through equity financing rather than debt financing. They don't borrow money against collateral (this is debt financing); they issue ownership shares to investors (this is equity financing).
There is no "paying back investors" in equity financing.
What? Actually, I'm pretty sure the original statement is "deru kui wa utareru," which is very literally "the nail that sticks up will be struck/hammered." So don't say his translation is "Americanized." His translation is literal and correct, and, even in English, this saying is self-evident in metaphorical meaning, so a literal translation into English does not make it flawed as you have so suggested.
Thanks for the info, however I would ask: in the issuance of a "subpoena duces tecum", does the government not have to provide reasonable suspicion that the persons indicated in the subpoena took part in the crime?
I'm not a criminal practitioner and never took criminal procedure in law school, but LET ME OPINE NONETHELESS;)
I think to get a subpoena at this stage in the investigation, you just need to show the subpoena seeks relevant and material information. The only recourse the subpoenaed person has is, if I'm reading Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure correctly, to challenge the subpoena as unreasonably burdensome.
No, they won't. I have read the discussion from the start, and found the existing "chilling effects" arguments completely unpersuasive. So why don't you take a crack at it?
What is being requested here that would chill free speech?
Your complaint in your post talked about the US going after their "OWN citizens."
its ok to defile freedom of speech, principles
Explain how this decision defiles freedom of speech principles. Please explain it to me as if I were five years old. Because I read the decision and just don't see it.
figures how u.s. govt is able to set up torture prisons in client countries.
You may find it surprising to learn that I do not support torture prisons in client countries, either.
if the association is public, a court doesnt have the need to go after that information. if there is more information than seems on the surface, it means there is private information in the matter.
The "chilling effect" argument was only made with regard to the association. You're confusing the issues.
that is totally leaving out the fact that noone has the right to persecute their OWN citizens for knowing what their OWN government is doing. period.
None of the three users implicated in this case are American citizens. They are Australian/Swedish, Dutch, and Icelandic.
that court, is not pursuing people who are associated with New york times. new york times is just another outlet like wikileaks, which published that information.
Can you explain the relevance of this comment? I didn't see "NYT" show up once in the opinion, and I'm not aware of what this has to do with anything.
they have to pursue all people who are affiliated with new york times too. but they arent doing it. that is the degree of bastardry and filth that has become the law in united states.
Ah, I see. You're complaining that the NYT isn't being treated like Wikileaks.
I'm not going to voice my opinion on the Wikileaks issues. I'm just telling you the legal validity of what the court did.
None of what you said is relevant to this case. The First Amendment issue in this opinion is: If you join a site and publicly associate with someone, do you have a right to keep your public association private?
As a lawyer, I wish articles like this would link the decision at the very beginning or the very end of the article always. Here, no thanks to the/. summary!
Decisions relying on anti-"chilling effect" policy reasons for the conclusion tend to be at the appellate level, not the district level, and especially not at the magistrate level. Magistrates are appointed for a short number of years and are not Article III judges. Doing what the Article III judges (district, circuit, SCOTUS) say is of the utmost importance to them since Magistrates are basically merely auxiliaries or para-judges. So, no, magistrate judges will almost never rely on public policy concerns such as "chilling effects" to decide an issue. This is my experience as someone who used to work directly for a federal magistrate judge doing research for him.
Now, I humbly offer my analysis of the decision (apologies for it not being perfect writing, but it's Saturday, and the goal is just to shed a little light on what actually is going on in the decision):
Facts
Gov't requests Twitter records that do not include the contents of posts. Namely, it requests ID, contact info, registration information, records of connection time, etc.
Court orders Twitter to turn over info
Twitter users argue to "get rid of" ("vacate") the order to disclose this info.
Issues
Does the Stored Communications Act give power to Twitter users to try and get order vacated (i.e., do Twitter users have "standing" under the SCA)
was the order properly issued
does the order violate 1st Amendment
does order violate 4th Amendment
One user is Icelandic and a gov't official, so does "international comity" require vacation of the order
Standing under SCA No, they dont. SCA gives standing only if contents of communications are requested. The distinction between contents and records (non-content data such as ID, access time, etc.) is explicitly made in the law itself, so this isn't just semantics. Government wins issue 1.
Proper issuance of order Users argue the government did not follow proper procedure to get the order. Users argue info requested is not relevant and material to investigation. Court says it is.
First Amendment Users argue it creates a chilling effect on free speech by creating a "map of association." Court says that the association between these users was made publicly by the users themselves already, so no chilling effect in this instance can be had. This is where the whole "publicly policy" issue would come into play in an appellate court, but not in an Article I magistrate court. While it could have a chilling effect on other associations (which I personally doubt, as, IIRC from my use on Twitter, everyone's Twitter friend list is publicly accessible anyway), it's not for the magistrate court to decide. That would be for the Circuit or Supreme Courts.
Fourth Amendment Users argue it's a warrantless search, and the requested IP addresses are "intensely revealing" as to location, including location within a home and movements within. OK, wtf is this bullcrap? Turning over an IP address will tell the police which room in a house you were posting in? That sounds really specious.
In any case, court enters into a "reasonableness" analysis as is de rigueur with Fourth Amendment issues--does the act infringe on expectation of privacy society consideres reasonable? There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in data voluntarily turned over to third parties. This may not be true if the EULA specifies that data will be kept private, but the court doesn't address this issue because the argument was never made. Instead, the court says: Look, you gave Twitter your IP address, so you can't reasonably expect it to be kept secret from police. Other courts have apparently said si
Is the criticism that it should be "kbps" instead? Or is there something I've been missing since 1994ish, when my family got its first twenty eight eight?
This has not been the case in my experience. Google is the only way I ever find EE links, and 0% of the time have I ever seen an answer when accidentally clicking on an EE result. It got so annoying I wrote a script to add "-site:experts-exchange.com" to every Google search automatically.
On the other hand, telecoms would have to hire more compliance officers to ensure everything comports with the regulatory frameworks, so at least lawyers like me would have more work:)
on examination by a tech person instead of a lawyer, many would be thrown out before they got very far
You realize PTO agents are necessarily "tech people," right? You don't need a law degree to be one, but you absolutely must have a technical degree (well, there are a few exceptions if you just took a bunch of chem/physics in college but didn't major in it, but for example, I have a BS in abstract math and a law degree, and I cannot become a PTO agent because I lack the requisite tech background).
Not to mention the fact that, to become a patent prosecuting attorney, you must sit for the Patent Bar. To be eligible to sit for the patent bar, you basically have to be an un-degreed science genius, have taken a bunch of science classes in college that basically measure up to a BA in the subject, or have a bachelors, minimum, in a science/engineering discipline.
So the suggestion that the patent process is not dominated by tech people is specious unless you lose your tech credentials by virtue of getting a JD.
Just as an example, 100% of the friends from law school who work in the patent field have an engineering BS if not a MS/PhD. The least-credentialed I know has a BS in ME from MIT.
Non-snide response: 35 USC 101 says a "useful process" is patentable. The definition of "algorithm" is "a process for solving a problem." To put that another way, "a useful process." Seems open and shut to me.
Slashdot Mirror
And Groupon offers you a service extremely valuable: the things you want, cheaper.
And just like some people use Google stupidly by searching for child pornography, some people use Groupon stupidly by buying stuff they wouldn't otherwise want.
Well that PHP running on Groupon's servers probably was created by Groupon. So it looks like they manufacture software, too.
They don't have to pay back their investors, as their fundraising has been through equity financing rather than debt financing. They don't borrow money against collateral (this is debt financing); they issue ownership shares to investors (this is equity financing).
There is no "paying back investors" in equity financing.
I don't think you understand the difference between "debt" and "equity." Groupon secured about a billion in equity financing, not debt financing.
What? Actually, I'm pretty sure the original statement is "deru kui wa utareru," which is very literally "the nail that sticks up will be struck/hammered." So don't say his translation is "Americanized." His translation is literal and correct, and, even in English, this saying is self-evident in metaphorical meaning, so a literal translation into English does not make it flawed as you have so suggested.
Actually, according to SI, a comma is equally correct.
That's not what he said. Try to finish junior high school reading classes before participating in online discussions, please.
I'm not a criminal practitioner and never took criminal procedure in law school, but LET ME OPINE NONETHELESS ;)
I think to get a subpoena at this stage in the investigation, you just need to show the subpoena seeks relevant and material information. The only recourse the subpoenaed person has is, if I'm reading Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure correctly, to challenge the subpoena as unreasonably burdensome.
No, they won't. I have read the discussion from the start, and found the existing "chilling effects" arguments completely unpersuasive. So why don't you take a crack at it?
What is being requested here that would chill free speech?
Your complaint in your post talked about the US going after their "OWN citizens."
Explain how this decision defiles freedom of speech principles. Please explain it to me as if I were five years old. Because I read the decision and just don't see it.
You may find it surprising to learn that I do not support torture prisons in client countries, either.
The "chilling effect" argument was only made with regard to the association. You're confusing the issues.
None of the three users implicated in this case are American citizens. They are Australian/Swedish, Dutch, and Icelandic.
Can you explain the relevance of this comment? I didn't see "NYT" show up once in the opinion, and I'm not aware of what this has to do with anything.
Ah, I see. You're complaining that the NYT isn't being treated like Wikileaks.
I'm not going to voice my opinion on the Wikileaks issues. I'm just telling you the legal validity of what the court did.
That's not really within the purview of a magistrate courts authority to decide. That's an issue for appellate courts to decide.
Really? You can't think of one anti-account highjacking technique that IP addresses can be used for?
None of what you said is relevant to this case. The First Amendment issue in this opinion is: If you join a site and publicly associate with someone, do you have a right to keep your public association private?
As a lawyer, I wish articles like this would link the decision at the very beginning or the very end of the article always. Here, no thanks to the /. summary!
Decisions relying on anti-"chilling effect" policy reasons for the conclusion tend to be at the appellate level, not the district level, and especially not at the magistrate level. Magistrates are appointed for a short number of years and are not Article III judges. Doing what the Article III judges (district, circuit, SCOTUS) say is of the utmost importance to them since Magistrates are basically merely auxiliaries or para-judges. So, no, magistrate judges will almost never rely on public policy concerns such as "chilling effects" to decide an issue. This is my experience as someone who used to work directly for a federal magistrate judge doing research for him.
Now, I humbly offer my analysis of the decision (apologies for it not being perfect writing, but it's Saturday, and the goal is just to shed a little light on what actually is going on in the decision):
Facts
Issues
Standing under SCA
No, they dont. SCA gives standing only if contents of communications are requested. The distinction between contents and records (non-content data such as ID, access time, etc.) is explicitly made in the law itself, so this isn't just semantics. Government wins issue 1.
Proper issuance of order
Users argue the government did not follow proper procedure to get the order. Users argue info requested is not relevant and material to investigation. Court says it is.
First Amendment
Users argue it creates a chilling effect on free speech by creating a "map of association." Court says that the association between these users was made publicly by the users themselves already, so no chilling effect in this instance can be had. This is where the whole "publicly policy" issue would come into play in an appellate court, but not in an Article I magistrate court. While it could have a chilling effect on other associations (which I personally doubt, as, IIRC from my use on Twitter, everyone's Twitter friend list is publicly accessible anyway), it's not for the magistrate court to decide. That would be for the Circuit or Supreme Courts.
Fourth Amendment
Users argue it's a warrantless search, and the requested IP addresses are "intensely revealing" as to location, including location within a home and movements within. OK, wtf is this bullcrap? Turning over an IP address will tell the police which room in a house you were posting in? That sounds really specious.
In any case, court enters into a "reasonableness" analysis as is de rigueur with Fourth Amendment issues--does the act infringe on expectation of privacy society consideres reasonable? There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in data voluntarily turned over to third parties. This may not be true if the EULA specifies that data will be kept private, but the court doesn't address this issue because the argument was never made. Instead, the court says: Look, you gave Twitter your IP address, so you can't reasonably expect it to be kept secret from police. Other courts have apparently said si
Is the criticism that it should be "kbps" instead? Or is there something I've been missing since 1994ish, when my family got its first twenty eight eight?
That's because bukkake is merely "splashing with water" in Japanese.
This has not been the case in my experience. Google is the only way I ever find EE links, and 0% of the time have I ever seen an answer when accidentally clicking on an EE result. It got so annoying I wrote a script to add "-site:experts-exchange.com" to every Google search automatically.
Small world. I went to university in Machida and still have a bunch of friends who live in the area.
The Costco in Machida had its parking garage collapse. That's the worst in Machida I've heard of from my friends there.
On the other hand, telecoms would have to hire more compliance officers to ensure everything comports with the regulatory frameworks, so at least lawyers like me would have more work :)
No, because "obvious" means "obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art [PHOSITA]."
If two people come up with the idea, there's still not really grounds for assuming it is obvious to a PHOSITA.
Next up in this week's edition of SUPER FRIGGING OBVIOUS CONCEPTS: Calculus, invented by Newton and Leibniz at nearly the same time!
You realize PTO agents are necessarily "tech people," right? You don't need a law degree to be one, but you absolutely must have a technical degree (well, there are a few exceptions if you just took a bunch of chem/physics in college but didn't major in it, but for example, I have a BS in abstract math and a law degree, and I cannot become a PTO agent because I lack the requisite tech background).
Not to mention the fact that, to become a patent prosecuting attorney, you must sit for the Patent Bar. To be eligible to sit for the patent bar, you basically have to be an un-degreed science genius, have taken a bunch of science classes in college that basically measure up to a BA in the subject, or have a bachelors, minimum, in a science/engineering discipline.
So the suggestion that the patent process is not dominated by tech people is specious unless you lose your tech credentials by virtue of getting a JD.
Just as an example, 100% of the friends from law school who work in the patent field have an engineering BS if not a MS/PhD. The least-credentialed I know has a BS in ME from MIT.
Snide response: One of the most famous patents in all of computer science/modern life.
Non-snide response: 35 USC 101 says a "useful process" is patentable. The definition of "algorithm" is "a process for solving a problem." To put that another way, "a useful process." Seems open and shut to me.
What happens when a teacher calls it a republic right now? I'd assume the same thing will happen if the words are switched in preference.