It's not just about monetization of data. It's also about trying to keep some things under relative wraps. Imagine if not just garages and enthusiasts could get the occasional read-out from e.g. the ODB-II, but that everybody with an in-dash Google/Apple unit or even just a smartphone communicating with a pre-installed dongle would have that information at any time. Worse, imagine if this information starts getting collected 'publicly' (under Google/Apple's control) and people (G/A) start noticing trends about certain models or brands. Marketing spin can only do so much in the face of widely collected data.

I suspect that there will be information on most countries having some group interested in this.

Dutch police: http://www.nu.nl/internet/4083...
Dutch IRS: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/104...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The battery is just a battery. Those who are into wearables likely find no practical issue with grabbing an existing coin cell holder with leads and JST connector (or just solder one on themselves) and plugging that in - or with using a small lipo pouch (presuming the circuitry is tolerant to the voltage).

It is a shame that the slot (itself a holder) was removed mainly because of the fear that little children will eat absolutely anything, but I can understand the decision given that it is targeted to (slightly older) children in the first place and engineering e.g. a screw-fastened lid on top of it would be rather expensive.

I can't mod up, so just a reply then: thanks for the additional information.

I think it falls back to my second point, though; "inform the standards by which private conduct is judged" in no way suggests that you can't be sued, and "truth an absolute defense to defamation" is still a defense that would have to be brought before the court?

I will say it is not defamatory to make the factual statement you hired someone and got bad service, no batter what the business thinks.

If you are making a factual statement - and I interpret that to mean a statement of fact that is actually the truth - then by all means. In this case, the business believes that the statement is not the truth, and further believes it has damaged their business.

Whether or not that is actually the case (either way), let the courts decide.

In this particular case, the business owner believes

Bullshit. Do you have facts to support this? Or are you just asserting it?

Do I have facts to support that the business believes something? No. I can't read their minds, and neither can you.

So can I say with certainty that the business actually believes in what they write in the allegations - e.g.:

5. The entire review is false as it pertains to the plaintiff.
6. The review as published by defendant DOE 1 is libelous on its face

  - no, I can't say with certainty that they actually believe this, and aren't just using these and other allegations to try to silence critics. The suit is the evidence before me on which I base the description that they believe it. If you want to split hairs and suggest that I should have said that these are the allegations, fair enough.

If those people actually did hire this company, and if they are giving actual negative reviews, this lawsuit is nothing but intimidation tactics by assholes.

That's two ifs that would end up being at the core of either this or follow-up lawsuits, now wouldn't it?

If those people are actually just 1 person and if their reviews are anything but honest, then this lawsuit is well-founded, the reviewer is nothing but an asshole, and additionally in legal trouble?

How do we find out which of those scenarios apply?

Court orders to reveal someone's identity are also a government thing

A completely different government thing. You can't just link them together and suggest that the government should intervene in a civil law case just because pudding is delicious.

anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion

And the real courts have fuck-all to do with that

You'd think I would have followed that up with a reference to something about courts. Oh wait, I did :)

I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta.

By all means, file a suit.

When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?

IANAL, and certainly not yours. Yes, I know you're just trying to make a point and/or trying to be funny - but ultimately it's up to a lawyer to plead your case and the courts to decide whether the point you're trying to make has merit.

1. Freedom of speech is a government thing.

2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of such speech. Whether you're Anita Sarkeesian, the Dixie Chicks or Sir Tim Hunt - anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion - and potentially in the court of law if a target of your speech feels that your speech crossed the boundary into libel / slander / defamation.

In this particular case, the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person, etc. etc. (read the actual document). Now it's up to the court to decide whether or not Yelp will have to notify the author(s) of those reviews, or hand over personal information directly, etc.

To throw another one out there - lower bitrate, different approach, much cheaper (especially if built yourself - designs are completely open): https://github.com/waywardgeek...

Technically, they should already have 'a monopoly'. They're putting up these blocks because the government is unwilling or unable to actually enforce previously existing laws OR the new law that was passed back in October 2014.

And since governments don't take too kindly to protests against its own institution (you may protest.. you know, somewhere out in a field where nobody's bothered by it, sees it, and you accomplish nothing - there's a good little citizen), they've taken to these measures.

Whether that will result in the law getting enforced, or ferrying people about is turned into a free for all (in which case the 'official' taxi drivers should not have to get a license and pay for that either), for the time being they have every right to be upset; not so much at Uber, but certainly at the French government.

Though if you think this is bad - keep an eye on Calais and the French government's unwillingness to deal with that clusterfuck.

Since when did we decide that it's OK for computers to make those type of decisions--and not allow human beings to reverse it?

Nice try, computer! Your font betrays you.

These programs tend to go well beyond just a sticker, though. If you're not part of this program, you just won't be listed in the store, or carried in Apple's physical stores. If you're not 'certified' for Apple devices, your product won't be in the "Apple Accessories" aisle at other retailers. And if you're not part of the MFi project, then at least in theory Apple could simply block your accessory from working at the lightning interface level.

some other email addresses belonging to other corporations. I would suspect that those are the people who are most at risk of blackmail

Why even bother with blackmail, which could land you in your own legal hell?

Instead of racistsgettingfired.tumblr.com, somebody could try setting up cheatersgettingfired.tumblr.com and get people fired for their infidelity (plans).

While I agree with what you're trying to say here, I think GP actually meant that they could confirm that the IP address belongs to a range assigned to government institutions - i.e. it's not just people using their .gov e-mail address from home, but they're using it from what should be their public servant workplace - and not so much tying it to a specific individual.

Why stop there? Why not say they should only be entitled to recover the fair market price?

Is it in theatres now? Good, the price of one admission, then.
Wait, it's in theatres in Bangladesh? The price of one admisssion there, then.

Is it on sale in iTunes? Whatever that is, then.

Is it on Netflix? Subscription cost / subscription duration * movie duration ~= $8.99 / 2,635,200 * 7200 ~= $0.03 (rounded up, being generous)

Or, given that the market in question - that is to say, 'pirates' - decide that the fair price is $0, they should be able to recover exactly that.

Insert further arguments to make the case that they should actually be paying the 'pirates' ;)