I can list of plenty of mobile websites with horrible experiences that use jQuery.

But I would not say jQuery itself is the reason for that.

jQuery itself is not inherently a problem. It can be leveraged to do many memory-hungry and processing-heavy actions that break mobile browsers, but that's not jQuery's fault. People can make memory-hungry and processing-heavy PC-centric websites using many different tools.

That's nifty and all, but that's not the actual lawsuit.

The key feature of the lawsuit is that the individual cannot show any specific harm was done, only that their legal rights were infringed. Most aspects of civil law require that the person show some sort of injury. In this case the specific law does not require damage. Damage to consumers is assumed as automatic if the company does not comply with the law. The wording of the law is only about compliance, not about harm.

The big data companies absolutely want to forbid standing in the case. If he could show specific harm he'd have a strong case but it would be a different case. This is about data aggregators being compelled to follow the law.

The first court dismissed it, claiming since he had no specific "actual or imminent harm" he couldn't sue.

The appeals court observed that the law required specific actions by the company, and the law tied failure to comply with the rules to a $100-$1000 fine for noncompliance. That's even the name of the section: "Civil liability for willful noncompliance". Again, the law specifies damages for failing to comply, not damages for actual harm. The appeals court ruled that since the law as written does not require any actual damages -- the law is about compliance by the company, with damages assigned to "any consumer" affected by non-compliance -- he can sue. He qualifies under the definition of "any customer", and the law is only about compliance, not about actual harm.

Because of the exact wording of the law, my money is on Robins on this one. The actual law does not rely on harm to the individual. The wording of the law is based entirely on compliance, with noncompliance resulting in liability. Additional harm is not mandated.

But let's turn it around. Frequently the courts will examine the consequences if the court rejects the arguments. If they turn it down, if they say consumers cannot have standing unless there is real harm, then they would effectively void sections 1681n and 1681o. There would only be civil liability for actual harm, there would not be any civil liability for noncompliance. Generally the SCOTUS relies on a Constitutional reason to void large chunks of law like that, but in this case there are several solid reasons for Congress to pass the law. If he doesn't have standing then SCOTUS is voiding the law since no other method is available for liability. The Justices tend to be careful about voiding the law, generally only voiding laws when it falls outside what the Constitution allows. I'm absolutely certain that will come up in the oral arguments: if they deny standing how else can the noncompliance law be applied? If they deny standing they seem to be voiding the law without a constitutional reason.

No, it's all due to the stupid vague line between a "temporary stop", a "detention", and an "arrest". Our various branches of government have struggled with it for two centuries now.

Police need people to interact with them so the officers can do the job of investigating crimes. But legally in order to do that they must seize the thing, seize the person, seize the property, whatever. The requirements about due process, seizure of people and property, the law needed to allow for certain types of temporary seizures of people, and the balance is a hard one.

The traffic stop is just that, a stop. A temporary detention that can only last as long as necessary for the administrative task.

In the ruling (and according to most judges already), the officer stopped the individual and performed the task of writing a citation. Anything more than that is no longer a stop, it becomes either a detention or an arrest.

The ruling is clear on what the problem was here. The officer testified that they "had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reasons for the stop out of the way." Then after the stop was complete he did not allow the man to leave, even after the man asked to go, so the officer could call in a drug-sniffing dog. That was a second detention, done without probable cause (since he had already dealt with the reason for the stop), and was therefore unlawful.

Yeah, no. This was specifically mentioned in the Lexmark v Static Control Components case. That was already dealt with in the 6th circuit and supported 9-0 by the SCOTUS. Copy of the decision.

Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward. If Lexmark wishes to utilize DMCA protections for (allegedly) copyrightable works, it should not use such works to prevent competing cartridges from working with its printer.

... By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its “purpose.” Such a reading would ignore the precise language – “for the purpose of” – as well as the main point of the DMCA – to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark’s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward.

Yes it is a short line, but it seems rather bright-line to cite in this case.

Agreed.

The three causes are clear enough in the news report: Two drunken roommates around 1:00 AM were in a fight. That's it. What they were arguing about is irrelevant.

Having heard drunks argue, I can assure you it was not an articulate and well-reasoned discussion. The argument could have been about anything from a favorite phone operating system to a favorite sports team or a favorite color. The fact that they reached for the nearest beer bottle as a weapon is unsurprising.

Those with the recordings and with the ability to use them, have the power.

That can be a government with cctv, or a business with cameras on the doors, windows, tellers, and product aisles. Or it can be a cell phone camera capturing a police shooting, or even google glass capturing a crime on the street or an abusive patron.

When the 'little people' have and use recordings it can be leveraged for many things, including social changes for better or worse, such as social pressure after injustice is found, or social pressure to keep your head down and mouth shut.

Ubiquitous cameras can mean a police state, they can also mean when an individual has been abused by government or officers there are plenty of cameras to tell the story from many viewpoints. It can be used to identify triggers, and assign blame, and ensure justice, and to correct policies.

The tricky thing is those same two details: Who has the recordings? What are they able to do with them?

Funny!

What other developed countries?

UK? Campaigners get government funds, political party funds, and unlimited contributions. There have been quite a few scandals in recent years where individuals receive over a quarter million pounds in a single donation, and it is all legal.

Germany? Again, government funds, plus government-mandated airtime distributed to the candidates. On top of that, individuals get whatever you can buy. No campaign contribution limits to corporations and the first roughly 3000 euro are tax deductible to encourage businesses to buy their local leaders.

France? Well, there are a huge number of tiny political factions, each well funded and owned by the local businesses. The small parties ensure the elections run favorably by making deals with other political parties (businesses).

Australia? Three decades ago they changed the law to move toward public funding in an attempt to remove private interests. The law was quickly and quietly revised to continue to allow both. Yet wikipedia claims over the last two decades, corporate donations have gone up 5x, from just under $30M to well over $130M publicly reported and millions more through other sources.

Italy? In most of the country, including the southern regions, the old families run everything. What most of the world terms "protection money" is considered basically a local tax. Corruption is rampant.

India? Greece? Just kidding, we all know these are above any form of political corruption.

That is logical from several standpoints, but people's emotions prevent it.

People from a region want certain jobs, and they demand results from government leaders, not logic.

How can you get jobs? Entice businesses to move in or to form. How do you encourage business? Tax breaks and other government money. Money to entrepreneurs. Money to small businesses. Money to relocated or new offices.

In the short term that means results to the politicians, meaning re-election. In the short term it means more jobs. In the short term it means growth. In the short term it means an improvement in local life. In the short term it means getting re-elected. Most of society does not think about the long term handcuffs, but in the short term, it means the results most people want, so longer term consequences are ignored.

That's why the uniform taxes won't work. Not because it isn't logical in itself, but because it deprives governments of one of the most powerful incentives (rather than punishments) in their toolbox.

When I go to a restaurant I know sends out coupons, I will ask if they have any behind the counter, and they often do.

When I go to stores that are known for discounts, I ask for them.

Yesterday I needed new tires on my vehicle. At checkout I asked if they had any discounts available. He gave me 10% off.

About a month ago I went to a rock chip repair shop I asked if they had any deals running. The clerk said there was a radio special running and I needed to say their station name for a huge discount... Then he told me the name of the station and smiled, waiting for me to repeat it.

There are opportunities to negotiate everywhere.

No, it will continue.

Instead of negotiating for salary, it becomes a negotiation for pay grade.

"You are offering a job on pay grade #37, but I assure you, my background and history mean I should be on #43."

Same negotiation rules apply, just a different name for the salary.

Even in suburbia it can work out.

My DSL (vdsl2 modem) is 48 Mbps down 16 up. All the time, not a shared cable loop. My comcast friends pay a similar amount and have similar speeds --- but only during non-peak times. We found the cable loop is shared in the neighborhood, and peak evening hours most cable-using homes in my neighborhood struggle to get a steady 10 down.

While VDSL2 doesn't compare well against fiber to the home, it can compete well with most cable offerings.

Yes, for both.

Many people in various government and private organizations noticed. People were fired for playing games at work even though the game was inside excel, especially people at strict grunt-level jobs like calling centers where getting caught playing games on the clock was a terminal offense.

The question that many businesses and agencies immediately put to Microsoft were along the lines of "If there is the very large undocumented video game embedded in there without telling us, what else is secretly in your product?", and also "We needed to buy so many thousand machines up to this higher spec to make room for Office 97, how many of those megabytes are spent in the games rather than necessary components?"

I'm sure it was not a comfortable time for those product managers.

For that type of thing I would document it internally as a utility or debugging aid. Then it is no longer an undocumented feature, instead an obscure but documented testing aid.

Undocumented, unapproved, untested functionality is generally a bad thing. But fix it through a tiny bit of documentation, get approval to add a command sequence to get the debug information, and let the test team know the debug command exists, and you're good to go.

It all depends on who they happen to be, and how you define an Easter Egg.

I worked in games for many years and we included quite a few Easter Eggs. But they were not hidden from the studio. They were approved by management, tested by QA, and documented internally. We tried to keep them quiet to see how long it took for them to be found.

The article is right -- large corporations that are risk averse tend to crack down hard on undocumented Easter Eggs. I think that is correct for a business, to crack down hard on undocumented, unapproved, untested features.

The key detail is who knows about it, and how appropriate it is for the product.

Critically: Did it get approved and tested, and is it okay for the user? An Easter Egg that has been approved by designers and product managers, tested by QA, and is a happy surprise to the user is a good thing. If it was not approved, but the programmer intentionally threw in the feature without testing and without documentation, yes, the business should crack down.

The trickier ones are the ones that are approved and tested, but not quite what the customer expects. Microsoft's bouncing text screensaver used to have an Easter Egg that typing "volcano" for the text caused a cycle of volcano names. Fun, for sure, but if your screen savers were used for the machine name, and the machine name happened to be "volcano", then it is an unexpected negative behavior.

Someone working on Excel, a product used inside government agencies and nearly every major business, including secret unapproved features? Yeah, that's absolutely a fire-able offense.

Someone working in a smaller company, with management approval, adding in a small feature to change the color scheme to red and green on Christmas day? Potentially a fun little Easter egg... unless the user is making a major presentation on that day to group that doesn't respect the Christmas holiday, then better make sure there is a way to turn it off.

In strangely relevant news this week: Nevada brothel seeking paid testers; men, women, and couples for quality assurance. Fucking professionals, indeed!