It applies to restrictions on consumer - end customer - reviews, specifically. An NDA on consumer goods is not a common thing; most NDAs apply to employees. And this bill doesn't address that sort of thing at all. Read literally, however, yeah, it does seem to prohibit an NDA that restricts a consumer's right to talk trash about bad services or products. How it gets enforced is anybody's guess. California courts can get pretty stupid sometimes (and remarkably sensible at others).

I got no problem with it, though. If you can't stay in business if your customers talk about your products and services honestly, then you've got far bigger problems than this law.

What a crushing rejoined. I'm going to go commit suicide now out of shame.

Of course there'd be a problem with that. Comcast's users won't pay as much for ad free content as their customers - advertisers - will pay to shove ads down your throat.

And doing so for a commercial purpose. Which, in theory, could make it criminal.

Nothing new there, either. Arguments over whether black people were human go back centuries, for instance. Some still argue over it today. You kind of remind me of them.

Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.

Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.

Interpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.

Once again, and I'll use small words this time:

Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.

Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.

There's no difference, legally.

If the guy's talking about "memory reading devices," then he's off in fantasy land, as there is no theoretical basis for such technology, nor is there likely to be during the lifetime of anyone alive today.

And if you record it, it's a recording, same as if you videotaped yourself committing a crime. If it's a device, there are clear, well established rules for showing probably cause for a warrant. If it's part of the body, there are clear, well established (for decades) rules for showing probably cause for a warrant, same as for forced collection of biometric evidence, like DNA, fingerprints, blood alcohol levels, and so on.

There are no new issues here, and no gray areas.

When there is some theoretical model for building an artificial brain (your question was trivially answerable decades ago), it will matter. In the meantime, yawn.

Since that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand, and there is no theoretical much less actual, way for this to happen, who cares?

The same arguments were (and should have been, to get the issues resolved) made about forced blood tests for DUIs, for forced collection of DNA evidence, for forced collection of fingerprints.

In all cases, when a minimum standard of probably cause is met, warrants will be issued and forced collection allowed.

Feel free to explain how this is any different.

Either it's a device, and subject to the same rules as a cell phone, or it's part of the person, and subject to the same rules as biometric evidence. There is no other option. The former has recently been settled by the Supreme Court, in favor of privacy and the fourth amendment. The latter was settled decades ago, same way.

If there's probably cause, a warrant will be issued. If there's not, there's not.

There is nothing new here.

An implanted cell phone is no different, legally, than any other cell phone. The cops can't search your cell phone without permission or a warrant, why could an implanted one be any different? At worst, it'd be the same process to forcibly take a DNA sample, which also requires probably cause.

Does the Brookings Institute require their senior fellows to publish on a regular basis to keep getting a paycheck or something? Cuz I'm having a hard time figuring out any other reason for this.

Two moves back, I chose where to move based on who had better DSL. Last move, I stayed in the same city.

Are there registrars that do not send out reminders to the various contact address in the registration? And why would anyone deal with such a fly by night outfit? Or, to put it another way, it's not so much "forget to renew their domain name" as it is "ignore the reminders" or "put in bogus information in the first place, which is a violation of the terms of service."

I feel zero sympathy for these people. I've run my own mail server since 1995, and have no regrets.

That is the price of having made a bad decision early on. The longer she waits, the more severe the pain will be when she finally does switch.

Then provoke them in to committing a felony against you. Most states, that gives you a wide range of responses, especially if you're making a citizen's arrest at the time.