I believe they should be required to make the footage available, BUT control its dissemination, just like clerks of court intermediate public access to recorded documents.

The footage should be filed with a government records office.

You can review the footage, and copy it for $10 per minute of video.

You should be required to show ID, and your copy should be watermarked with the ID information of the person who requested the record.

If you want to republish the video, you should be required to protect the privacy of people shown in the video or audio by obtaining a release for your commercial use, or clear the use of the video for newsworthiness through a neutral 3rd party, unless the person shown in the video is deceased or convicted of a crime.

Its called filing under seal.

Filing under seal allows you to separate certain case documents which contain confidential information and redact documents which contain personal private information such as social security number, DOB, or the full name of a minor.

Filing under seal doesn't allow you to hide the existence of the case or the names of parties to the case, it is only available for keeping sensitive and confidential information out of the record.

All include (not surprisingly) clauses that require the insured to have "implemented all required safeguards..."

If such a clause exists, then the feds' view should be that the insurance policy is not compliant with the requirement, because the purpose of the insurance requirement is to help protect consumers against insolvency of the business, as such, the insurance policy should be required to payout to a trust sufficient amounts which can only be redeemed by those whose information was leaked or who suffered ID theft.

Businesses (hey there Home Depot!) won't implement basic security measures to prevent data theft. Data security is a serious issue that needs to be addressed

Yes... PCI was a start, but we need new regulations; first of all, Businesses should be liable for costs to consumers resulting from breaches. There should also be a statutory liability for not being able to prove to within certain standards to consumers and independent auditors that their information is secure and has not been leaked.

In the event a customer's information gets leaked; the burden of proof should rest on the business.

And companies that collect SSNs or other PII that can be used to conduct ID theft should be required to take out an insurance policy to cover at least a portion of their potential liability.

They should be required to have 3rd party independent oversight, and there should be a fine for failures to comply, money which should be distributed to the affected customers, AND there should be a bounty for the company overseeing them spotting an error.

I would say they have no right to privacy, because they are doing this in public.

However, I feel it is dangerous for their home address, name, etc, to be available to the general public.

These are nude dancers; because of the unique nature of their occupation, they are likely to be at increased risk of men stalking them.

While the state doesn't have a duty to give them extra protection; it is sensible that there be a licensing requirement.

And.... home address, phone number, etc, should not be available for the individual; only the club's information should be published, or, at least the person should be allowed to use a forwarding address and a pseudonym.

This would be a violation of procedural law, and essentially due process.

You don't get to file a case anonymously just because you would be embarrassed by having your identity known, or you are concerned about public hostility or employment termination.

It is indeed allowed by some judges in exigent circumstances, such as if there is a severe threat of violent retaliation or other severe injury unrelated to the outcome of the case.

In other words.... unless something rather special is going on, the plaintiffs ID will be known; you can't get your ID hidden in a case "just because", in spite of the fact, that sometimes, indeed, plaintiffs can be anonymous under special circumstances.

You can't enter suit as a plaintiff to block a records request without revealing your identity to the court, and, therefore, other parties to the case. Gotta remember to go get the popcorn, for when the court gets to see the look on the dancer's face, when he/she learns that her court action makes her identity more public than answering the open records request would have. :)

I don't mind DigiCert, as long as they will participate in Certificate Transparency.

Very soon; I will not want to trust anything issued by a Certificate authority that does not participate in Certificate Transparency.

they would be legally giving that key and, with it, legal authority to enter through that door, to anyone who took one.

Bad analogy, that's not what they're doing. A more apt analogy would be, they did a Do-it-Yourself install of a Brand X lock.

They failed to realize, that all Brand X locks come to the manufacturer keyed with a standard very simple bitting and the package just includes a sample plastic key for purposes of testing the lock, and some blanks.

Before putting the lock into permanent use, you're meant to use the sample key to begin the rekeying process, and since it's a user-rekeyable lock, you are meant to take the key blanks to a hardware store or get a locksmith and have them cut the keys to a template of your choice, and just use the plastic key to start the rekeying process.

Unfortunately..... 60 to 70% of the users didn't bother to read the complete installation instructions, so they never proceeded to the rekeying process, and they have just been using the plastic keys to open their deadbolt, which the plastic keys that ship with ALL the Brand X locks are able to open.

This interesting fact is NOT authorization to operate the lock. It's not like leaving a bowl of keys outside your door; it's a procedural error in understanding the lock will be less secure, but it certainly is not an invitation, and it is still trespassing to enter.

Wait... it's illegal to enter through a door for which you have a key? Since the fuck when?

If the key was not provided to you with the permission or authorization of the property owner or their duly authorized agent, then you are committing a trespass.

If you don't know, or a reasonable person would not be confident under your circumstances, that the key you have is in your possession with consent of the right property owner or duly authorized agent to hold and use the key for entrance to that particular place, then you are committing breaking and entering.

But the real issue is not whether you hold a working key, but whether you are consented to access the area.

Just as a random example: If you are an employee at some place, and you have an unauthorized copy made of your key, and you give it to a friend for some reason, and you do not have permission to give it to them, And they use the key to sneak in one night, then they have committed breaking and entering, and you are probably an accessory to the crime (Even if you did not intend that they use the key to break in at night).

Oh yeah, if you learn all of brand X locks use the same kind of key, and you have a copy of that key; it's still breaking and entering if you use your key.

It's broadcasting on the Internet.

No. It's accessible from the internet; it's not broadcasting, there is a big difference.

It will respond to a request unicasted to its IP address and a certain port number, and the response will be unicast as well, not broadcast.

The mere fact that it will respond on its IP address is not an authorization to use that IP address to gain access to it.

If it were intended to be accessed, the owner would have provided information about how to access it, or at least listed the IP address in the DNS and major search engines.

it can't be proven what their intent was. In that identical situation where the sign on the door said "Closed" they are trespassing because notice was provided that entry was prohibited at that time.

Your comparison doesn't make sense; there was no Closed Sign or Open sign, because the commercial building is not a storefront. It is a place where there are employees who work, and there are authorized personnel who need the convenience of easy access to their work area, but it is not a place where business involving face to face contact is conducted with customers.

Probably the lack of an "Open" sign, were relevant, the fact they drove in through an open gate that completely surrounds the premises, and they parked in a manner that obstructed access to the loading dock after passing several signs that stated "Private Lot; (Company Name) Vehicles Only", then CCTV footage also showed them snooping around trying the doors on some vehicles then trying the locked door on a utility building, and the front door, before they found an unlocked warehouse entrance.

Let's not forget about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Just port scanning might be bordering on criminal in some cases. But gaining access without authorization by exploiting knowledge of a default secret code or factory backdoor is right-out.

Going inside a public or commercial building where a door is unlocked or the entry code is publicly known is completely legal and legitimate.

Oh really? I believe someone got arrested for trespassing a few months ago for entering an unlocked door into my office building, which is definitely commercial, but not public access either; no on-premise services or point of sale.

The door was unlocked, but the intruder just had no business being on the property, tripped a silent alarm when they entered, and someone called the cops.

How would a good person inform the owner that their door is unlocked if the only way is contact them is to walk inside? Or is the correct response to just walk away

Better have a good reason for being there on their property in the first place. And how would you discover the door was unlocked, unless it was left open?

Ring the doorbell wait five minutes.

Go talk to one of their neighbors. Don't enter the building alone if you are not an associate or good acquaintance of the owner.

The owner probably has relatives, or a cell phone.

Google is a US company, so they have to abide by requirements under US law in order to benefit from some protections against lawsuits over activities by any users, even EU users.

However, now that it has been made a matter of life and death; I wonder, if this doesn't represent an opportunity for the public to express outrage over the DMCA counternotice requirements.