I've been around here long enough to remember the /. articles about free software organizations urging projects to move away from Sourceforge.

That's a decision for the courts and is a different situation since it is a targeted action to single out an individual.

Current law holds that the data collected by data aggregators is property of the aggregators, and not the people who are tracked.

Would I like to see that changed? Yes - but that is solved by changing data privacy laws so the information cannot be collected in the first place.

The warrant or request isn't going to you, it is going to the tracker. And the tracker is willingly selling it, so no warrant needed.

Under current law the data belongs to the tracker, not you. The data is *about* you, but you are not the data owner.

I don't think you understand what a warrant is. A warrant is a court order that entitles a government agency to collect materials from a private entity without their consent.

Voluntary relinquishment of materials, or selling access to those materials, has never required a warrant, nor will it ever.

Sure, but that's a pointless argument because because Congress has explicitly delegated many of their powers to the Executive Branch.

I've been surveyed for this. It's accurate. They don't ask you to guess, they ask you to pull the last receipt or credit card entry for item X. Then a month later they call and ask for the same item from a month later.

They put out the salt blocks because the cows need it for their own nutritional purposes, not to spike the milk.

drip irrigation is "new" in the sense that it was developed in Israel 60 years ago and has been widely available in the states for over 40.

But sure, let's keep giving the farmers the benefit of the doubt and ignore how incredibly cheap their water is.

That problem doesn't go away with non-email usernames. As long as the password reset process is by email, the accounts are vulnerable to an expired domain attack.

This is a problem without a straightforward solution.

When? Well over 20 years ago in the dotcom era. Probably even earlier.

What's a youngin like you doing on this site?

Many developers refuse to acknowledge it's their responsibility to clear up ambiguity in specifications.

So many developers love to claim "not my fault there is a bug/doesn't work, you didn't provide good enough specifications"

This experiment shows that with "good enough specifications" you can skip the developer. Those kinds of devs that hate talking to people to gather requirements are going to be out of a job eventually.

Actually, no. Some of the contributing problems with tulips were betting on futures, fractional trading, shorts, and derivatives.

Which is a lot easier to do once a transaction has been identified. If you're money laundering you don't want to draw attention to your transactions - the whole point is to hide illegitimate transactions in a sea of legitimate ones so you go unnoticed.

Once a real physical asset is in play, it's a lot easier to identify the parties involved and investigate their other financial activities. If your defense is "prove it", you're already too late, the authorities are investigating you.

I was thinking about that, but you'd probably want to make your transaction a lot less newsworthy if you were money laundering.