All this would take is a digital signature. You can ship the public keys with the firmware.
These blocks are only for people who run their own mail servers. If you're using a mail client, it'll be configured to connect to your ISP's mail server, and nothing changes for you.
It's not a work for hire. The company is being hired on an independent contractor basis, and essays don't fall under any of the classes of work that can be covered under work for hire.
Even if they did, a work for hire in a non-employee relationship requires a signed agreement by both parties, and I doubt a company like this would go to any effort to relinquish their copyright.
I was horrified because I thought you threw a coach off the top of the building. I swear I'm not making this up.
Besides not having to pay for the electricity when they shut off the water heater, you also get a small credit on your bill every month, whether they shut the heater off or not. It's only a few dollars, but it adds up and doesn't inconvenience people too much.
I think Google Docs meets every one of your requirements.
A large number of Mac users are technically savvy. I switched from Windows to OS X when Windows XP introduced activation, while OS X let you make illegal installs with impunity. (It still does.) I stayed because of the UNIX core. The second Apple changes the value proposition, I'll jump ship, and I think many others will as well.
No problem. Hawaii is also civilized.
iTunes (or the producers?) generally offer premieres and catch-up videos free of charge so people get into the series. It's not a bug, but it most likely is for a limited time.
You must be new here. Crop infringement isn't stealing.
Please explain why you think the gmail user should get to keep the private bank account data.
The user did nothing wrong. They didn't solicit the data. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, they didn't use it for malicious activity. They may not even know they have it. They should not have to hire an attorney to protect their rights when they did nothing, let alone did nothing wrong.
The fact that the data was sent by electronic means shouldn't give the bank additional rights that they wouldn't otherwise have. If the bank had sent the data by fax machine or snail mail, should a court grant them a search warrant?
Please explain why it's more responsible for the bank to simply allow an anonymous person to have 1325 bank records than to file a court action to get the data erased.
The bank is already in the wrong for sending the data, unencrypted, to an unsecured e-mail address. They can't undo their wrong by bringing court actions against innocent third parties (Google and the Gmail user) for the bank's mistake.
And what's wrong with sealing records in a privacy-related court case?
Nothing, if you're suing to protect people. (In fact, the judge has ordered the e-mail address in question to be redacted from all court records.) Everything, if you're suing to protect your reputation. It's fine to redact the information of the people involved. It becomes a problem when you're trying to keep the entire action under seal.
If I were on that list of 1325 names, I'd want the data erased.
If you were on that list, I'd wager your actual reaction would be to remove your money and switch to a more trustworthy bank, and I'm certain that the other 1,324 accounts would feel the same way. Perhaps that's why Rocky Mountain Bank has gone to such great lengths to attempt, clumsily, to keep this a secret?
If the bank needed to go to court to accomplish this, I'd expect them to file suit.
You're not the only person whose rights are being violated in this case. Somebody should be looking out for the Gmail user's too. (Google isn't - they won't fight a court order regardless of how ludicrous it is.)
I'd want the court records sealed so I'm not publicly dragged into this.
Your information can be redacted without sealing the entire filing, and I have no objection to that happening.
And I'd also switch banks.
Here's what Rocky Mountain Bank should have done. (I refuse to allow them to be anonymous because that's clearly what they want, and they should be held responsible for their mistake.)
- They should have e-mailed the 1,325 customers that had their data exposed.
- They should not have sued Google in an effort to get the e-mail deleted.
- They should not have tried to seal records in a lawsuit they filed to fix their mistake.
- They should have trained their employees to understand that recalling e-mails doesn't work more often than it does.
Had they done this, this would not have been international news, and probably not even local news.
Hey when some twits ringtone goes off are you going to find a way to charge for that "performance" too?!
Yes, that's exactly what they're going to do.
They go live in the sense that anybody can view them, but visitors will have to go through extra effort - the new revision gets hidden in the history unless visitors know to look for them. That means that any editor who hasn't been blessed by The Powers That Be will need to wait before the vast majority of the public will see their contribution.
And, since new editors who want to contribute in a positive way are continuously finding their changes reverted by the wikelite, they will have even less incentive to stick around long enough to have the privilege of unfettered editing bestowed upon them.