The iPhone sports a master encryption key and DOJ has access to it.
I know the FBI has been asking for something remedial-level easy, like a master key, for ssl since at least the 90s. Do you have a citation or anything? Speaking of remedial-level.. the DoJ still hasn't shown it has *anything* in the way of file evidence for its megaupload case. My wager is on the agents unplugging everything pell-mell before bothering to ask "what's a storage cloud". Ever since they suspended the 4th for certain cases, there are always, um, "very eager" agents on the scene whenever a seizure is in play.
I'm not shocked only 1 in 5 people in a country in the midst of a depression bought an American CD last year, I'm shocked 1 in 5 people in a severely short economy DID buy an American CD last year.
Take a look at their usage breakdown. The poorest countries use P2P the most. Who's the braniac counting 'lost sales' here? Can he sue his educators?
If the US government wants more sales in Spain, we should send them more money. RIAA doesn't use the barter system.
I know, free speech and all that. However, free speech doesn't seem to be the issue here at all, the issue has nothing to do with what is said, but what is (purportedly) hosted. And domains are arguably not property, so that wouldn't be the issue either, at least not certainly.
Disclaimer: I think these seizures are bad and illegal. I'm just not sure they are "violating civil rights" or "censorship", as seems to be the refrain on Slashdot.
Personally I'm not willing to separate communication over a computer network from face to face communication when it comes to freedom of expression or for that matter accountability for fraud, libel, sedition, civil offenses etc. The domain's owner pays a fee to use that identity for his puposes, and the only purpose of computer networking is communication. It *should be cut and dry, the government should have no special powers to censor Internet communications any more than they should be permitted to pepper spray passive demonstrators. This domain was seized without even contacting the owner and witheld for a full year. No offenses were committed and no due process was given. IMO they did conspire to violate US 1st and 4th amendment rights.
If Tesla wants positive reviews, they need to build a car that gets those reviews from testers.
That will never fly here for the same reason that the American Top Gear will never come close to the spirit of the original. This is a BBC thing: sponsors don't pay for the show... people do. Without worry of offending sponsors or friends of sponsors or potential future sponsors, Clarkson can pretty much express any personal opinion he wants. We have a word for that here in TVland: "terrorism".
Functionally, they don't even pretend to be made of different parts anymore.