While Congress does not get any oversight of the appointing process itself, the Chief Justice can only appoint the judges from the pool of US District Court Judges. This means the judges on the FISA Court were first nominated by the President to become District Court Judges, and then confimed by the Senate, so there was some congressional oversight in terms of who could be appointed.

The FISA judges serve for seven years, and Roberts has been the Chief Justice since 2005, so yes, he picked all of the current judges.

Basically, no, since the laws deal with the intent of possessing the domain, so unless intent demonstrably changed from when it was first registered, this is just an attempt to shove a wedge into where the plaintiff thinks there may be a crack.

There are a few laws that can get involved, but the most important in the US is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

I haven't read it, but it appears the act lays out some guidelines, and among some defenses are "Registrant’s prior use of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services" which should apply here. The act also lists actions that would indicate bad faith by the domain holder, like "Registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location" and "Registrant’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site", but those don't appear to apply here. The fact the domain was renewed is not relevant to this law.

The other important "law" is by appealing to ICANN under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which unfortunately has historically been more fruitful to trademark owners when going after people legitimately using a domain that contains a trademarked name since it allows a person to complain that "a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights".

Not sure when the last time I saw barratry successfully claimed, but a counter claim for damages and legal fees based on the case being frivolous, yes, that is quite possible. I feel it is clear the plaintiff is pursuing this case, knowing it lacks legal standing, to coerce the domain holder into transferring it since they failed to acquire it through negotiation. The case shouldn't even reach the discovery phase; it should probably die from the first or second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (I'll say two since the judge will often reject aspects in the first on procedural grounds, but say why [like "motion didn't identify ..."], so the motion can be redrafted to meet the judge's requirements).

No, the weaknesses were created by the AV vendors, not the NSA and GCHQ. Do you also object to other security researchers looking though code for weaknesses, and when they find something say they are weakening the software's security? (Unfortunately there are some companies that have tried that). The difference here is mainly in what is done with the knowledge once found, and what these organizations are doing with it is consistent with their missions. In the industry it is called equities, namely deciding what is in the nation's best interest, whether to reveal a flaw so it can be fixed, or keep it secret so it can be used against an adversary.

Stupid auto-correct. That should be Boalt Hall.

I highly doubt I know more than she about Swedish law, and never said I did, but then nothing I have said conflicts with what she has said either. She wants Assange to be interviewed before the pending expiration of the statute of limitations for some of the crimes of which he is suspected (note, only some of the statue of limitations expire soon) to better determine if he should be charged. She can have him charged even without an interview, but wants to get as many facts in hand as possible first. My statements regarding tolling are also still valid and correct.

Sorry, I couldn't parse your statement. By the way, your didn't answer my question. I studied at Bolt Hall. Where did you study law?

I think well publicized eavesdropping on important people's calls was a major reason why they made it illegal to listen to cordless phones and cell phones.

That was essentially my thought. These organizations' charters include being able to attack adversaries if necessary, and they were looking into methods of attack. Where is the surprise? The technical arm of every other country's spy agencies are doing the exact same thing, though perhaps with less ability, so explain to me what about this is news?

Personally, I think your ego needs a check. I responded to the person about how statute of limitations stops when a person flees the jurisdiction by citing the term ("tolling") to help explain what he said. Since you obviously haven't looked it up, Swedish law also tolls the statute of limitations, just like US law, but with a few differences. The issue here is that since Assange hasn't yet been charged, he technically hasn't fled the jurisdiction under Swedish law (this is a difference with US law which says it tolls for a potential crime if you leave and they can show that was a reason you left, not just after being charged). That is why the article mentions the statute of limitations issue. If Sweden were to charge him, which they still have the option of doing, then the statute would toll.

I have formally studied law. Where did you get your legal training?

Already done by at least one group.

The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.

Sadly, that is how a conspiracy theorist actually thinks. In this case, NASA publishing photos from a probe orbiting the moon to prove NASA went to the moon 40 years ago will be labeled as the complicit organization just putting out more lies. These people will only believe something when it is put directly in front of them (sometimes not even then), and since they can't go to the moon to see these artifacts for themselves, you can't prove it to them, and any second-party proof you present will be dismissed as fake or lies. It is one of the tenets of how they make claims that within their requirements for "proof", the claim becomes non-falsifiable.

Not really break since the ruling is only binding on actions performed within the jurisdiction of that court's circuit, so legally the FISA court doesn't have to follow it, but each court tries to follow rulings by other courts unless they disagree with it. Obama is trying to convince them to disagree with it.

That's the point. Infosec professionals normally have a clue, and the general population in general does not. Desire isn't the problem, understanding the situation is.