grylnsmn - Slashdot User

Submission + - Norm Coleman's donor database exposed on Wikileaks (computerworld.com)

Submitted by

CWmike

on Wednesday March 11, 2009 @09:34PM

CWmike writes: "In a brewing controversy, whistleblower site Wikileaks.org has published personal information belonging to more than 51,000 donors and supporters of former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. The information posted by Wikileaks included the names, street addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and, in the case of 4,721 individuals, the last four digits of their credit card numbers as well. In a statement on its site, Wikileaks said it was publishing the information to substantiate rumors that sensitive information belonging to thousands of Coleman's supporters had been floating around the Internet since January 28 'as a result of sloppy handling by the campaign.'"

Submission + - Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous", Decision S

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @12:27PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its "reconsideration" motion in Capitol v. Foster as "disingenuous" and "not true", and accused the RIAA of "questionable motives". In the decision (pdf), reaffirming his earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster's is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees, the Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true". This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly."

Slashdot Top Deals