No, what this article talks about is the police unilaterally collecting information without any court oversight.
No, the article talks about the ruling saying the police need a court order rather than a warrant, but they still need a court order, which means an active prosecution must be in progress and a judge has to sign off on the request. That sound to me like court oversight. The problem here is the police have a lower threshold to meet to get a court order than they do to get a warrant.
Never mind the rather shocking implications with respect to personal freedoms when the government is given carte blanc(sic) to track everyone at all times.
That is the crux of the case, namely the government isn't tracking everyone all the time, the cell phone companies are, or at least their phones when on, since that is how the cell phone system works. The government is merely using that data when a court feels it is justified and issues a court order.
There is ZERO need to record ALL phone conversations, instead there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations.
Never said there was. My response was to the statement that any spying conducted inside the US borders was a form of treason, which I disagreed with. You in fact agree with me by saying "there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations". In fact in an earlier post in this thread I said "I think they have gone too far, but please enlighten us with clear rules to say where the line is?". The question then is what the criteria is for this "small list" since that still doesn't answer where the line is.
The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Internet-based service, is just ridiculous. The judge is applying brick-and-mortar rules to a global network.
No, he is apply the law. Where to file is spelled out in 28 US Code 1391, and unless you can't for some reason, like you don't know where the defendant lives, the place to file is "a judicial district in which any defendant resides". The law is clear, and the judge has no choice but to follow it.
It's a standard legal practice by unscrupulous companies, make the small guy spend a lot of money to travel long distances in order to have his day in court.
That is why under 28 US Code 1391(b) the proper legal venue is where the defendant resides. The reason why you see a lot of patent suits filed in Texas is that for large corporations, where they reside is murky since they do business everywhere and are registered the Secretary of State in most/all of the states, including Texas, so they are considered "local" under these rules. The "small guy" however lives in a specific place, so that is where the proper venue would be.
Regarding the cartridges, due to a couple issues that came up, such as this one, they started including cartridges that were 1/2 to 1/3 full with new printers.
Your assumption is true for a loaded bus, but municipal busses, in all but a few cities, spend much more time travelling nearly empty than they do full.
Show me a plane that makes stops every few city blocks then we can accept your data as a fair comparison. Otherwise, stick to data about long-haul bus and train routes.
Using the same logic, using a bus or going by train is also more efficient since the many seats versus a couple is also true.
That should read using a BUS. Damn autocorrect.
Why bother scrambling when we already know that chrome puts saved passwords in a clear text unencrypted text file?
Because those passwords are stored with the explicit permission of the user, and because they need to be accessible so they can be used to fill in forms. On the other hand, to simply check if you have typed the Google password doesn't need the clear text password, so best practice says it should be hashed, err, I mean scrambled.
In my opinion we would be better off with absolutely no limits on free speech.
Slandering some, threatening someone, revealing people's private information like their SSN and credit card info, committing fraud, committing treason. Just a few things I can think of off the top of my head that can happen through speech that I think are valid limits on free speech. Or would you not mind if any or all of these were committed against you (minus treason since that is done against a state)?