True, and I do not deny that. But it is important to actually read her opinion too before we come to a conclusion that she has obviously acted in a biased way. Note that I do not make any assertion as to her pre-existing bias in this case, I merely wrote a factual post that contains excerpt from her opinion, noting that her decision does not appear to be an overt bias.

As I said earlier, I am sure that the info is encrypted on the laptop -- it will probably be inaccessible without a proper key. And if the machine comes on, they will be able to wipe it before the OS loads.

Big organizations usually do hedge for such scenarios and have precautions and procedures in place in such events. You don't think they supply their executives with plain vanilla laptop with Windows on it with no serious authentication measures?

You would never know that with the ruckus everyone here was raising at the start of the thread. And by the way - you conveniently ignored the fact that they are doing damage control.

There is a lot of difference between theory and practice. You would know that if you work for a big organization. I am not condoning the lack of precautions on the executive's part -- the executive needs to reprimanded properly, but all I am saying is that this stuff happens.
True BP may be bad and evil, but this does not mean that every incident is a sinister plan unless proven otherwise. You are coloring the incident with your own biases and opinion about the company.

And as far as the laptop is concerned -- almost all such companies have multiple layers of security to log on to such machines. The machine is probably encrypted by default and will be erased as soon as its turned on. (There usually is a pre-Operating System level locking)

This leads to my original opinion that if a machine is turned on by a novice, it will be wiped out immediately. Unless someone who is determined to get at this data acquires it, and I am almost 100% sure that the data is stored on the HDD encrypted. (Why? Because almost all organizations with sensitive customer info need to)

Right you are.

It seems they do have a copy of the data (the original article alludes to that) -- so this is in effect just a loss of a laptop that contained a copy of this data.

Shit happens! Seems like they are doing appropriate damage control (by offering free credit monitoring to affected people). And hopefully, as soon as it comes online if it gets turned on by a novice finder/stealer, it will be wiped/locked by the company's software agent.

Such data is usually copied by many on their laptops or devices so they can run some quick analyses or answer questions -- there is nothing out of the ordinary. It should be treated like any other company laptop loss, except in this case it had a copy of some rather news-worthy data.

Sure enough.
Let me see if I get this right;
you are free to do anything as long as:

1. Identify yourself legitimately - so when I do litigate against you, I can identify you and of course the neighbor, if he/she listens to you.
2. Accept that there are consequences for your actions.

Now given those two conditions -- feel free to exercise your choice. Remember you DO have the right to commit your actions, but you do NOT have the right to deny my rights nor can you deny responsibility/consequences arising as a result of your actions.

And I agreed in my last post that I did create the link based on my own stereotyping - it is the first line in my post.
I am not on a high horse here or being elitist. You may disagree with me about the link between effeminate behavior and gay men, but that excuse cannot be used to deny my legitimate right to question such a banter.

The truth is that people's usage of such banter forms a constant attack to the self-esteem of anyone who is different from the traditional mould. You can brush it off and label it as just a random guy's interpretation, but you don't know how it feels until you are on the other side.

Of course, on second thought -- it indeed may have been my opinion and that I am willing to accept.
You may not mention gay people -- but the implication is there all around.
So what is wrong with feminine behavior of men? Why do you joke about it? Explain me the humor? Touchy - yes a bit I am... especially after growing up with these kind of jokes and for the longest time thinking that there was something wrong with me for NOT being the manly man as perpetrated by everyone around me.
Unfortunately it is easy to call names as you did, but it takes some thinking to arrive at an intellectual response and a humility to accept your fault.

And you know what? that is my definition of a man.

Wait a second...
Did anyone above me here actually go through her legal memorandum in this case?


I just finished a quick skim of her memorandum, and even though at present I have not formed an opinion on her conflict of interest in this case (I have yet to research her past from unbiased sources), it seems to me that her memorandum was not unduly biased towards the RIAA.
Basically, she states these facts:

• The defendants cannot be severed from this case at this juncture because of judicial efficiency, and the fact that the plaintiffs only have an IP address along with date and time requiring them to sub-peona Time Warner for the information of actual defendants. She determines that the burden of finding out the names and addresses of defendants would be far greater on the plaintiffs than Time Warner at this juncture of the case. Furthermore she opines that for the purpose of judicial efficiency she has to allow plaintiff's request, so there are not thousands of cases filed.
• Even though the defendants are protected by the 1st amendment rights, this does not preclude the defendants from being identified. She says that the 1st amendment rights are unaffected at this juncture as the actual defendants have not been identified. (In effect -- freedom of speech does not mean that you can remain anonymous -- you have to take responsibility of your speech.)
• Furthermore, Time Warner and others have stated that actions on the internet constitute expression that can be considered to be free speech. She denies this, because if she wouldn't, this implies that any act on the internet, especially concerning usage of files comes under free speech and you can remain anonymous, which would have been a sweeping judgement regarding all activities on the internet. So this would have been squashed under any judge.
• Finally Time Warner has argued that her court does not have jurisdiction as the defendants are located in different places falling under different judicial scopes. She agrees with this, however she says that since the defendants have NOT been identified at this juncture, the question of jurisdiction is premature.

In other words, she is agreeing to let the case proceed at the very least until the defendants are identified by name and address. She says that other questions can and should be answered after the defendants are named.
Having read her opinion, I would not say she was overly biased against one party or the other. This is by no means a judgement against file-sharers and is just an order to let the defendants be identified at least, before the validity of the case can be judged.

So, I have a hard time understanding the impulsive comments above -- read before accuse? (Oh but this is /.)

But then he knew that going in... why would he choose a mac, if you are primarily working in Linux? (Others have raise the same question above this...)

Believe it or not though, the macs do have that sleek look and stable hardware -- I run Linux on my macbook (2007 white) all the time, and I quite like it than running it on my Dell. I don't know what it is about PC Laptop manufacturers but they don't seem to make aesthetic machines at all - why does it have to have some gaudy collection of lights, cheap shiny plastic, and screen that is better at reflecting your face than displaying -- I have only seen Sony laptops that seem to have good quality, superior screens; but then those are already in the price range of a Macbook Pro -- so might as well get a macbook pro.

However, the OP's need and his choice still seems way divergent and random! Seems like it was just an allure for a mac, and the fact he was getting the company to buy it from him. (You gotta admit, a Mac looks quite sleek and sexy on a lap at the airport than a clunky Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc...etc..)

Oh... here come the gay jokes... seriously... grow up?
Jest? Sure, but whats with the perpetuation of a stereotype against gay people?

Oh BTW, plenty of men go see a production of Justin Bieber/Glitter Boys, prance, and get a pedicure... ain't nothing less manly about them!

It is "magic" in the same sense that this is magic: Lim_{x -> \infty} {1/x} = 0
The first instance is a limiting case, in that we can only postulate it by coming arbitrarily close to that first instant.

I do subscribe to the NYT and personally I feel, I do get a value out of the subscription. YMMV.

Their Sunday and Friday editions are enough to justify the price I pay to them, and I have found that they always keep me informed about the changes in their policies along with their justification.

Frankly speaking my customer experience with them has been rather satisfactory and quite a refreshing change from various different websites that take my data and impose arbitrary "shove it in your face, accept our brand-new-redesign-that-we-will-impose-on-you-anyway" attitude.

The Times is amazing to just chill with a cup of coffee in the sunlight lazing on a Sunday morning. The articles usually are thought-provoking with an elevated conversation level that is intellectual, simple, and complete -- a very satisfying experience after the cacophony of @juvenile LOL tweets, facebook "me-too" posts, and brain-dead txt msgs. Just for that, I am glad to be a paying customer and the reason why in spite of being only a poor student, I do subscribe to NYT and make sure to donate to NPR.

True that! I think by the time I wrote that, the irony of the matter was completely lost on me!

And of course spellings... try ferocity.