What about simplicity and performance for hardware implementations? Or is this meant as a software hash? TFA only gives software runtimes.

First off: the uploader would be in breach of the TOS: "You may not post nude, partially nude, or sexually suggestive photos." If it's uploaded to their servers, they would be in possession, but that would not necessarily be sanctionable: the MegaUpload case for example explicitly indicated that the takedown procedure for child pornography was fine, but for copyright violations it wasn't (this was taken as evidence that there was a malicious business model). I know safe harbor provisions exist for copyright. I'm not sure if they exist for child pornography as well, but I would assume so.

No, you keep owenership of the picture you took, in the license agreement you agreed to with instagram, you "grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service", but you don't transfer copyright to them.

The picture you took however, also has a different creative work (the copyrighted photo you took a photo) in it. This - separate - copyright is not yours to license, and does not become licensed to Instagram in any form.

If this picture comprises almost all of your picture, it is unlikely that your picture (of the picture) meets the threshold of originality required to be eligible in the first place. If the copyrighted picture is a minor part of your picture, (for example, a picture of a room where the copyrighted picture is somewhere on a table), the use of the original work would be considered De Minimis, and would not have any influence on the copyright.

final question then: is instagram able to sell that picture? No, not in any normal shape or form, at least not while the copyrighted picture is the main part of your picture. If they would carefully remove that picture from your picture however, they would. So basically, it comes down to common sense. Well, apart from the part where you agreed to that license with Instagram. That's not common sense at all.

Sure, but that is quite different than doing the searching for him. Which is what the GP described.

It was a hypothetical. Surely it doesn't take too many of your brain cycles to figure out a hundred ways that scenario could arise.

Lets say they're looking for information about Steve Jobs on your computer and ask you what kind of cancer he had. You say 'prostate' and they fire that into Google images. Without filtering that could easily through up a host of images.

I just tried that one. The images it turned up are fine for a kid who wants to find out more about prostates. Why one would use image search in this scenario is quite beyond me, but that's another matter ("I want an image of a prostate in my paper on Steve Jobs"?)

Let's say they're researching a celebrity who happens to have had paparazzi shots of them stark naked leaked to the world, or some former partner sold a video. Again pictures might appear.

These too rarely appear on the first pages, assuming it's an A-list artist, and not a very recent very large scandal.

All stuff that yes, you could easily explain to your kids, but is also stuff which could easily and quickly be misconstrued, especially when it's being retold to other parents or school officials who may be mandated by law to tell authorities.

As for the suggesting there's nothing lower than moderate, that's to portray the change in such a way as to fundamentally distort it. The images are still available, but you need to be use keywords that make it clear that's what you're looking for. Search for a photo of someone famous, you get face pics, or publicity shots. Search for them 'naked' and if google has it, google lets you see it.

I really don't see why you think this is censorship or a big deal.

"Lo' how the mighty can fall!" McAffee is/was an important tech person, and he seems to be going batshit. That's popcorn-worthy.

I suspect the police of gross incompetence, but not this level of organised malice. Besides, I doubt there are many high bidders on the black DNA market.

No, but you could be under closer scrutiny in the investigation. Which IMO is not a good thing, but it is debatable.

No

One would think so. So far, in this case, they have been unable to come to a breakthrough through other means.

It was a cold case. Maybe he forgot he was involved in a murder in the first place. "Oh, that murder case! I forgot all about that one... ...wait, give my DNA back, I don't want to volunteer!"

I don't think that the fact calculus hadn't been invented, and he was there to invent it - or, if you're take the extreme view he stole it from Leibniz, that he had the opportunity to use a new kind of math, at the time completely unfamiliar to the scientific world - when he was 24 has been an advantage in developing a theory of motion and developing a theory of gravity. If you do think so your argument is quite valid, I - and a whole lot of other people - just disagree with the premise.

It is entirely possible that special relativity would have been formulated by someone else - with the problems with EM speed of light and reference frames, it could be said to have been in the air, so to say. That also goes for the photo-electric effect. General relativity was something else though, it was new, it was brilliant, and it completely shifted the way we think about the universe. He might not have been as great as Newton, but he's up there with the Very Select Few.

As most likely to secede?

The police force should make the resources available. As dkleinsc above you noted, enforcing the secrecy of the vote reduces the chances of fraud, and as we have seen in Florida, and may see this year in Ohio, a few votes can make a ton of difference. If you can't demonstrate you voted a certain way, you can't be coerced (either by bribery or by extortion). Police resources spent in safeguarding free elections are well spent.