"And while 'big' providers like Google provide some degree of encryption, they WILL give up user data in response to a court order"

I believe the correct statement would be:

"And while 'big' providers like Google provide some degree of encryption, they HAVE GIVEN up user data in response to a court order"

Is that you, Doug?

And on top of that, given that the video hasn't come out yet he's not in much of a position to sue anyone. What's he going to say, "I know it was you punks who faked that video, I was there the whole time!"

The authors of the video haven't revealed themselves, and the only way Ford could know who they are is if he was smoking crack with them.

Entanglement does crap all over relativity. The two theories, while both showing astonishing degrees of experimental confirmation, are fundamentally incompatible with each other. Resolving this incompatibility is the most pressing project of current theoretical physicists.

Isn't there an EMACS command to do this?

My reading of the summary is that they are going to the courts in the UK to get the courts to enforce their little list against the ISPs. My clue was the submitter's use of the word "action" which is legal jargon for a law suit.

I can help you identify that whooshing sound you heard, if you like.

I don't think you have to be a hero-worshipper of Assange to believe that there's a difference between facing criminal charges in Sweden, and being rendered off to Gitmo to face a US kangaroo court. Personally, I don't like Assange, I think his strategy re: wikileaks has been misguided and harmful, and he handled the revelation of the US cables badly. I have no opinion on his guilt or innocence with regard to the rape accusations, and under normal circumstances I'd agree that he should have to appear and answer those charges. But you only have to look as far as Bradley Manning and what's being done to him to see that there's a real risk that Assange is going to end up in US hands and receive the exact opposite of justice if he comes out of his hidey-hole. Nobody - and I do mean nobody - deserves that.

Except server machines are a class of their own, not desktops. Oops. Okay, I'm going to go have some more coffee.

By 2014 the desktop will be a special-purpose device only, with a market consisting mostly of development and server machines (which linux already has a health share of now). No victory there.

Illegally obtained evidence can be ruled still admissible in Canadian courts. It's not automatic, the trial judge would have to rule on the admissibility on a case by case basis, depending on
1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct of the State
2) Impact of the Charter-Protected Interests of the Accused
3) Society's Interest in an Adjudication on the Merits

Basically, if the charge is serious and the cop can come up with a good reason for the breach, the evidence will probably go in. If the officer in charge basically just didn't care about your rights and dumped all over them, well then the Crown would have some trouble.

"briefly" in this case means, I believe, several months. We looked into retrieving them as customers for use (long story, not getting into it), and I think we had 6 months or more to make the request for the text messages.

Psst. They're our signals coming back to us from Voyager. Source of the signal is human technology and thus (ostensibly, but I'm starting to wonder) intelligent.

tl;dr:
Whoosh.

Of course you're right, that'll be a factor, but it may not be the determinative factor for the US or China, even if it is one for South Korea. Also, a lot will depend on how confident the US feels about its ability to pre-emptively take out most of NK's artillery. There are a lot of unknowns here, of course.

That made me laugh out loud. And then, depressed. Well played, Impy, well played.