Maybe.

The problem with TOR is that it would route others traffic through your connection too. This leaves the same problem of others on your network.

There was a couple stories a while back where people were getting their internet shut off on the three strikes rules (somewhere in Europe ) for copyright infringement and it was claimed it was because they ran TOR.

The courts cannot and normally do not arbitrarily reinterpret law. The best they can do is declare something unconstitutional or that a law is ambiguous enough that it cannot be reasonably enforced. If any court decided that your insistence that the cannabis be called by it's street name therefore not covered by the law being enforced was correct, they would promptly be overturned by a higher court and possibly removed from the bench. It just doesn't work that way in the U.S.

I was thinking the same thing. I bet the cops do not initially buy the story about open WiFi when they kick your door in, put you in bracelets, and proceed to notify the news channel that they just busted a pedo looking at kiddie porn just before perpwalking you to the squad car. It would probably take weeks before some lab informed them that your harddrive is clean

Sure it is to a degree. There was something about a court case in which they inverted it and said that the feds can only withhold additional funds.

But if the point is true and legal, it shows that the court got it wrong.

Sigh.. the law defines what cannabis is not you. You cannot claim a hammer and pribar is a key so you didn't break and enter. Calling something by a different name doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name. ...

Its not interpreting federal law, it is interpreting the circumstances.

I don't know what you are talking about and evidently neither do you. Congress has voted to remove that wording several times now. Even Obama references those attempts.

And no. Congress was definitely not ambiguous in the wording on this. Supports made mention of it as a tool to force republican governors to create state exchanges when promoting the law to supporters.

This is twice now that scotus has changed plain language wording or ignored it altogether in this law in order to keep it alive.

He didn't say it was too hot, he said there was no snow. In my area we have cold without snow quite often.

The good of the many outweigh the good of one?

Seriously, There would be no cars if that was not true. Life is full of acceptable losses and acceptable risks. You just try to mitigate them as much as possible or practical.

Did their snow machinery break or something? I'm consistently skiing in areas before the first snowfall of the year because they make the snow.

Not really. Gasoline is much more like a utility than a commodity in its demand. There is somewhat of a captive market controlled by an oligopoly. In a normal market what you say is completely true but with oil it becomes distorted.

First there is the sunken costs. Someone who pays $20k for a car doesn't have the luxury of abandoning it when oil prices jump. The same is true with home heating and such. Second, even if they could, the alternatives are even more costly and it would seriously disrupt the lifestyle of most people. Getting to and from work or the store is essential to most people and public transport (where available ) doesn't eliminate the usages - it just transfers who pays the costs. Finally, population growth and urban sprawl means more usages even with conservation efforts and increasing efficiency. You could say it is somewhat of a captive market.

While there are limits to some of this like collapsing the economy,(like leading up to 2008) there is a lot of room before that happens. There is almost a guaranteed volume of sales and increases over time. Efficiency and alternatives slow the increase but have yet to replace it.

Repossession companies use this a lot. You can take static locations (the cam car was sitting still ) and narrow down the likely location of an asset to within about ten or twenty minutes of searching.

The real problem is with who has access to the info. The repo companies will generally only be able to identify vehicles they are actively looking for. But just like a general warrant which the fourth amendment was addressing, you can build a significant circumstantial case against someone or expose personal information for malicious reasons. For instance, suppose you logged taking some friends home after a few drinks. Some businesses get robbed in that area but they get robbed all the time because it is a bad area. A year later, you help the campaign of some local politician trying to unseat the longstanding mayor and all the sudden you are being investigated for connections to those robberies. You forgot you were even in the area and after proclaiming how preposterous the investigation is, the cam data makes you appear to be lying. Or even worse, suppose you saw a shrink after the loss of a loved one and the cam data shows you in the parking lot of the shrink. You are running for office and now it's revealed that you have mental issues.

What if this anonymous speaker turns out to be the staff of his political opposition? Certainly election law comes into play. Does that change anything for you?

The same guy who told Harry Reid that Romney didn't pay taxes told me about it.

You mean like you who beats your spouse, goes on drunken tirades and molests your own children?

Now i understand you don't want to respond to those allegations because it might appear as if you have some reason to be sensitive to them. And not responding to them doesn't mean you acknowledge they are true but we all know the truth.

If the ISP was notified about the lawsuit - they kept the logs. Destroying evidence or failure to take steps to preserve evidence in your possession can cost them some serious bank if it no longer exists.