Perhaps then, some form of civil disobedience that cannot be misinterpreted in any way as a terrorist threat?

I confess I have no answers, I'm just impressed enough by your comment to try and throw out a few thoughts. In a way, I think the growing social stigma/approbation is beginning to have some effect- the executive is forced to justify itself, there appears to be more elected officials questioning the NSA and tech companies appear to be less compliant in servicing the secret demands.

Nowhere near enough of course, but it is a start.

I hereby request for a canary clause!

At least let me know if the puir bird is dead.

I find from past experience that people who feel the need to shout to make their point (especially in caps over the internet) invariably have nothing worth listening to.

It takes a critical mass to effect change

AC has a point, albeit somewhat crudely worded. You need a trigger to start the critical mass rolling. We might still have racial segregation today if Rosa Parks obediently gave up her seat when ordered to do so. Mahatma Gandhi did not have that critical mass when he started his Salt March, the march inspired many other to join him and later turned into civil rebellion.

Of course its easier to say it can't be done, sit back and complain over the internet =)

And the DOJ did not assert the EFF was on a "fishing expedition"; it argued that it misunderstood the scope of discovery, and would not have destroyed the information in question if it did (which seems highly improbable given the circumstances).

That is an unbelievably stupid argument by the DOJ. It's common sense that when the court orders you to preserve documents, you hold on to any documents which may remotely be affected at all. This is a clear cut case of contempt of court and ought to be prosecuted as such.

The DOJ is setting a fine example for all other law abiding citizens out there. I expect to see more "I misunderstood the scope of discovery" excuses in forthcoming civil and criminal cases.

You still have the freedom to be brave and bash your government and the government has the freedom to bash your head for it.

Spoken by an Anonymous Coward.

We are talking about a terrorism trial... There are more than only the defendants at stake.

Invalid passport, copy of a booklet or even possession of illegal weapon are insufficient to prove that someone is a terrorist. There probably need some witnesses. ...

And, pray tell, how do you know the accused are terrorists? That the government has clear evidence that they are terrorists? Or that there are any credible witnesses at all?

You don't. In truth, you don't know anything at all. Because the whole proceedings are secret and hidden from you.

The government could drag you before the same secret court tomorrow, and none would be wiser. Think about it before you so enthusiastically throw away your rights. Secret trials because of "terrorism" can be used to hide many sins and subvert inconvenient rights.

Americans don't have secret courts. Secret evidence sometimes, secret charges rarely, but never anything like this. UK is the vanguard of the Orwellian State.

  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court begs to differ.

Because of the sensitive nature of its business, the court is a "secret court" – its hearings are closed to the public. While records of the proceedings are kept, they also are unavailable to the public, although copies of some records with classified information redacted have been made public. Due to the classified nature of its proceedings, usually only government attorneys are permitted to appear before the court. Because of the nature of the matters heard before it, court hearings may need to take place at any time of day or night, weekdays or weekends; thus, at least one judge must be "on call" at all times to hear evidence and decide whether or not to issue a warrant.

If the public has no idea what is going on in the FISC, then yes, it is a secret court.

Actually, making truthful information readily accessible to the public is a public good. At the expense of the particular individual under scrutiny perhaps, but broadly speaking it is a public good.

A scam artist would love to hide evidence of his past scams. OTOH his past victims/potential victims would probably insist the information be broadcasted far and wide.
A paedophile would love to hide the fact that he abused children from his new neighbours. His new neighbours however would probably be very upset at being kept in the dark.
And I sure wouldn't like it if the person applying to be a school bus driver was able to hide the fact that he drinks heavily on the job and lost his previous job because of it.

In all these cases, I think it is appropriate that the individual's fear of social stigma be sacrificed when weighed against the potential harm that could be caused to innocent parties if the truth was obscured.

Otherwise history is going to look very different in the near future. Holocaust? Sorry, no records available. Khmer Rouge? Never happened.

You do realize that those events are documented by first hand accounts and historians right? How is being erased from Google's databases close to erasing the memories of witnesses or even the ability of historians to publish books? Not even close sorry.

As far as the internet is concerned, if you don't appear on Google, you don't exist. Practically speaking, a lot of people doing research today start with a quick google search. If they don't get any results, they are likely to assume the subject doesn't exist/never happened.

As for your point about historical records, accounts etc, the same are often accused of being fabricated/simply ignored. For example, even today there are many who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. Similarly, until today the government of Japan still denies that the Nanking Massacre occurred.

My point is, if this information is freely available on the web, it is much harder to deny the truth. Make this information disappear, and it is much easier to brainwash the public into believing it is a lie.

This brainwashing process has already begun.

And that is the crux of the problem. If you want to prosecute someone for sports bribery, then do so as sports bribery. Don't try to twist copyright infringement to cover odd scenarios it was never meant or intended to deal with.

Twist it too far, and it will cover everything and there goes your precious fair use.

Your argument is basically that the ends justifies the means. They're stopping cheaters who are evil therefore its ok even if what they're doing is an abuse of copyright protection.

The problem is its a slippery slope- they may be going after cheaters today, but tomorrow they can use the same legal precedent they set for themselves (with your enthusiastic support) to go after others who use their software in a way they don't approve of.

Such as going after modders.
Addon makers.
Data miners.
Manufacturers of macroable mice, keyboards etc.

You may think, oh Blizzard will never do that. My answer is it is never a good idea to put yourself at the mercy of their corporate policy. After all, not that long ago, they introduced RMAH to D3 despite objections from their playerbase.

In most jurisdictions in the world, you can file lawsuits against anyone for anything. Whether or not the suit will be dismissed or rejected by the court after being filed is a different matter.

Not true. Let me illustrate this with another analogy.

This gun you bought legally belongs to you. Firing your gun is your right as the owner of this equipment --- after all, the gun is owned by you. No one can disallow you the use of equipment that you own. They don't own it, you do.
To test that belief, bring that gun to the nearest supermarket, fire it and see what happens.

My point is that ownership rights are, unfortunately, not absolute. For example, note the DMCA restrictions and how they affect products that belong to you.

Forgive me for trying to boil this down into more simplistic terms to understand the concept:-

So what you're saying is that just because 2 different drivers drove from Town 1 to Town 2 (similar results), it does not necessarily mean that they took the same route. Driver A had to buy groceries, pick up his daughter, visit the video store so he drove a certain route. Driver B had to top up his gas, return a library book and buy dinner so he took a different route (evolutionary pressures). But both of them ended up in Town 2.

Would this be a reasonably accurate metaphor?