The court denied this motion suggesting that because the hard drive failed, there was no evidence to destroy in the first place.
Okay I skimmed the article, but I couldn't find a comment suggesting that.
It seems more that there's no evidence that the defendant wilfully destroyed evidence. The plaintiff wanted the court to assume that there was harmful evidence on the hard drive, simply because the defendant had thrown it out. The defendant on the other hand threw it out simply because it was dying, and had no idea that it might be relevant in the litigation.
Calling someone's mom and telling them their son has been making rape threats and harassing women on the internet is not doxxing.
No. This is fine. If any of them did only do that I wouldn't have posted, but it seems that this was not the case for any of them. Alanah Pearce seems to be pretty sensible with her reaction. Telling their parents means that we can reasonably assume that things are going to be kept in control.
Doxxing involves potentially setting off an online mob, or in some cases, interfering in their lives.
There's a reason doxxing is mainly associated with 4chan, 8chan and other pedophile websites.
Jezebel writer doxxes autistic kid.
Rebecca Watson promotes Doxxing.
Reddits ShitRedditSays subreddit digging up names of gamergaters.
A tumblr related website all about doxxing
Something about throwing stones in glass houses springs to mind here.
I don't think the great-grandparent grasps the degree of specialization the various sub-components of and individuals in the services have.
It's more that I don't see how the Army can have the level of generalisation enough to have an air corps, and an engineering corps, but somehow running their own A-10 division is suddenly out of scope. The division seems arbitrary.
No, they are not. Every ISP is required to offer this service
There's no law requiring them to. Only the largest ISPs offer this. The smaller ones don't. And if you don't want filtering then you can choose "No thanks", therefore the customer is not forced into doing anything except clicking "No thanks".
if one of the major ISPs tried that Cameron would be closing that loophole pretty quickly.
How? There's no law! Currently an ISP can just say "no" and if pressured tell people they can use a different ISP. It's unlikely that the government could even get this law through. The ISPs would actually be obliged to fight it and since the Lib-Dems mostly oppose laws to force this, it wouldn't become law unless Labour felt particularly puritanical.
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde