I have always said fining a corporation does no good since it simply becomes a "cost of doing business" usually with their customers footing the fine.

Want to really punish a corporation? Revoke or suspend their corporate charter. Remove the protections they, and more importantly, their shareholder's enjoy. Let them feel the pain when a company does something illegal. They want to be thought of as a person, then let's treat them as a person and remove the entitlements they receive by being corporations.

Where you gettin all that free money, Tex? Obamacare fraud?

No... He works for Bank of America...

which brings this back on topic...

Here you have someone whose offense had zero effect on the economy yet those who brought the world to its knees got billions and never even saw the insde of a court room much less a jail.

but 17 USC 512(i)(1)(A) applies the safe harbor only to service providers with "a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers".

I was going to say the same thing but the point remains that Rightscorp would have to overcome the wide open ""in appropriate circumstances" clause in the DMCA as well as be able to prove that a particular IP in a dynamic IP block constitutes a "repeat offender". Good luck with that...

Each student had old fashioned paper records recording all that stuff: behavioral problems, class results, rewards, etc.

Is it really that different now because it's on a computer?

Yes it is because the paper copy isn't shared with God+his dog unlike this application does. Also, the paper copy is destroyed once the student passes that year unlike this application which stores it forever.

So to answer you directly, some things are better off only in paper if even there.

It isn't just secrets but any PII. Medical or financial for example. I work in state government and can tell you they have locked down many of these type of sites and track every keystroke and mouse click to include what sites you tried to get to even if it was blocked. It may be that they were fired at the meeting for a previous transgression (not necessarily transgressing at the meeting).

I've got a better solution for both of you...

Put an automated message that says the following...

"If you are calling about a recent scam involving our number, please call Level 3 at..." and give the phone number to Level 3's complaint office. If they don't have a complaint office then simply give the main number. Better yet if you can, forward the call to them via a menu system. Let them deal with the fallout. Maybe they will take the hint.

Obama destroyed healtcare in this country because he was just doing what the Republicans ordered him to do.

Frothing at the mouth aside, I will call you out on this one. Just how is healthcare in this country destroyed by the act? Please be specific.

Forcing me to buy something does not count as "getting it for me".

I would agree with you if and only if the hospital could refuse to treat you when you show up at the emergency room until you pay up front. Because, you see, when you show up and they have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay it raises the cost for all the rest of us who do have insurance.

How can you reason that the ACA was caving in to republicans when none of them voted for it? The reason why we got the crap that we did was to get the moderates of his own party on board, which they almost failed to do anyway (see Nebraska). They never would have agreed to a single-payer system, and this was the best they could do to try to get coverage for everybody.

Where were you when they were drafting the act? The reason we got what we got was the Republicans were given an equal footing at the drafting table. There were 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans drafting it in the false belief that if they had a hand in making it they would support it. The reason it almost failed the Senate was totally Harry Reid's failure to take Mitch McConnell at his word to "make sure that President Obama was a one term president" and use the "nuclear option" to fix the filibuster rule at the start of that session. Even to this day it still hasn't been fixed.

The only reason the Republicans are fighting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the FULL title of the act) is their fear it will be as popular as Social Security and the fact that President Obama was backing it (at that stage I argue he would have backed anything that had a positive effect on the broken healthcare system we still have).

The insurance companies are against it because it requires 80% of the premiums be spent on healthcare while trying to eliminate the arbitrary denials. The doctors don't like it because it requires them to be more transparent and stop unnecessary tests that only line their pockets. It also cracks down on the waste, fraud and abuse by hospitals. So that is why they are against it.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans now have some form of healthcare that they could never get before.

The only thing that needs visibility is the antenna. Tap into the car radio antenna and the problem is solved.

The original point of privacy was made and while I agree with that point there is the point that you don't own the car until it is fully paid for. That and the fact that this guy had major credit problems, enough for the loan guarantor to suspect they would have to resort to repossession, they deemed it necessary to track the vehicle. Lastly, my bet is his contract for the loan stipulated that the car was being tracked until the loan was satisfied buried deep in the legalese and removal of the device would constitute breech of contract enacting the repossession clause.

I'm more amazed anyone believes that in our current society strong encryption helps maintain privacy in any way.

I tend to agree with you mostly because it requires both ends to be encrypted to the same level to be of any use. It also requires too many parties have their hands in the security pot to be believable. Everything from the browser to the certifying authority to the end users. That is why encryption truly can be security theater.

As I said, it is recorded, not that it was "public information". And, like I said, they are having trouble with vote buying here so I really don't see them releasing that specific info.Probably a good reason that they got my info all wrong.

Whether you show up to vote (not whether you actually vote) is recorded. However, given the trouble they are having with vote buying in both WV and KY I doubt they actually release the specific info.

BTW, they both (republican and democrat) got my info wrong because I moved to this district recently.

I consider this an attempt at intimidation and won't bow to it. I would join any lawsuit if they released any list of individuals whether they showed up to vote or not.

I too use Gentoo and have since 2003. I started using it because it was the only one that had all my hardware working "out of the box" so to speak. Besides, it is a really good way to learn Linux under the hood.

Having said that, you can get some really messed up crap especially if you setup your use flags or compiler options wrong. What I do hate about Gentoo is the seemingly random masking of packages that knocks out other packages that are working just fine. Yes, you can unmask them but that is a PITA. So care needs to be taken when updating. Don't do it willy nilly neigh...

No, it truly is easy if there is probable cause.

This is from: http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

If they are not planning to arrest someone, then why the warrantless search? The point is, if the police can articulate their suspicions clearly enough with a modicum of evidence, they get the warrant.