Hate Crime laws exist because the purpose of certain crimes isn't to simply hurt a specific person, but to intimidate and modify the behavior of a group. The secondary charges are typically very similar to Racketeering, like a protection racket, because they have the same goal - to perform a SINGLE crime (shame about that merchandise) which affects a larger population (you heard about Bob's merchandise). Most Hate Crime legislation is just an expansion of Racketeering charges to explicitly allow them to be brought in the case where the crime was both motivated by bias and intended to intimidate the group.

All he has is a location his device was at, not who brought it there, or why it was brought there. He also only has his statement the device was there. Not a lot of evidence, all told.

Bethesda are required to provide the court with a comprehensive list of points of similarity, including minor ones. If they do not provide a point of similarity, it can be used against them as evidence that their claim is incomplete, that they concede certain elements of similarity do not infringe, or that their understanding of the property is incomplete. The Judge is expected to filter through this list and determine which elements are co-incidental and which contribute to possible infringement, as well as evaluating them for any potential damages, if it comes to that.

In fact, if you RTFA, you'll notice the phrases such as 'Test' and 'learn from the small deployment how to scale the Google Fiber program effectively for larger communities.'. This is intended as a close to home, easy deployment.

IANALBIFWI, "Twitter will be barred for 20 years ..." does NOT mean that twenty years from now they have the right to mislead. It means that if the Government finds out they're misleading within the next 20 years it does not need to have a trial to take action - they can just slam them as violating the existing ruling. This is, functionally, a suspended sentence (thus third party review of their new security measures).

Also, he was using an unsupported engineering sample CPU which was, in fact, the culprit for his issues. In other words, he ran into a Hardware Issue NO end user will, or most power users.

Largely, the change was made so that if they made, say, a Facebook TV commerical and they flashed your picture on the screen, they didn't have to pull the TV ad if you deleted your account. Or if they made a commerical where you see thousands of statuses in the background, or a Quiz a user made is referenced. Is it a good reason, I basically think so - it's not so they can claim your data after you close the account, but a CYA so users can't grief them when they do their next marketing push. The company doesn't WANT your data.

There exist, to my knowledge as a civilian, such standards, mostly imported from civilian agencies such as the NSA. There are a finite number of ways to secure a connection; each branch doesn't need to come up with a new way to secure their connections, and they don't. They do have their own set of informational tools, which are frequently customized software unused by other branches.

So, they need to decide what hardware best serves their needs. At what levels beyond the standard to implement strong cryptography, and to what degree. Which systems need specific kinds of protection, and what technology is needed to provide secure and useful network connections to their men. The Navy has far different requirements than the Army -- see the Army's use of collaborative mapping systems. It's a great, low level system for sharing data. The Navy, on the other hand, would need such systems to be used at a much higher level; the individual squad leaders on a Naval vessel don't need that intel, but reports and information from other vessels might help a ship captain who needs to patrol. Implimenting such a system for differing useage styles, hardware requirements, and access patterns will nesscitate very different final solutions. And that's just an fairly public one; the Air Force needs systems, backups, procedures, and the like to cover information intrusion into their sensor detection systems, and those will all be different than those used by another branch.

Sure, there's a lot of basic overlap. But the existing data security regulations used in other government branches mean that the basic software and hardware needed to do many things exists and can be reused or modified to spec... and some money will just get wasted anyway.