TFA doesn't say why this would be legally fuzzy.
I don't see what's legally fuzzy about this either. Since when did privacy rights of thieves trump owner's rights to recover their property?
I'm 22 and I don't have any social media account and no account anywhere that uses my real name (possibly excluding my bank account and/or any government-related services if you count that).
Nothing in the article says they're only interested in real-name accounts.
I have yet to see a single one that can decrypt SSL. I tried. A lot.
The only way to 'decrypt' is to force your own cert, which must be trusted on the devices (WPAD or manually) before it can actually do it without a browser throwing a fit.
Yes, obviously that is what is meant by an SSL decryptor. I'm not suggesting that firewalls can crack SSL. It decrypts the traffic by acting as a MITM. You do need to install certs on the various browsers for it to work, or they'll complain.
Well for one thing, the police took your phone - it is reasonable to assume you know how to turn it on.
On the other hand, the police SUSPECT you killed someone and hid the body - yet without proof that you did it is not reasonable to assume you know where the body is.
Suppose you admitted you know where the body is. There are many reasons you may know this that don't involve you being a killer. Maybe you witnessed someone else dispose of the body, maybe you ran across the body after it was deceased, maybe the killer told you where the body was buried, etc. Now, supposing you actually DID happen to kill the person and you know there is evidence on the body (DNA, fingernail marks, ballistics that match your gun, etc.) that would lead to you most likely being convicted if the body were found. Suppose you are asked by police or a judge where the body is. You've already admitted to knowing where it is. Are you compelled to reveal where it is, if such a revelation will incriminate you?
Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.
And the assets seized were not even in the U.S. New Zealand and Hong Kong bank accounts as well as various physical goods including a mansion!
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I want: the government controlling my Internet!</sarcasm>
If you threaten the safe harbor status of the ISPs you are going to get stomped.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the safe harbor statute require you to do something if you receive a notice of infringement? According to the article, Rightscorp has been sending notices of infringement and the ISPs haven't been doing anything.
In the U.S., cars will unlock with the mechanical motion of pulling the handle from the inside or must have the ability to be unlocked mechanically without electrical power. It's an NHTSA requirement for safety.
Have you ever tried opening a car door under water with the windows shut?
But there is nothing illegal about buying milk... so why does this message need to be encrypted?
Unless the government does not like that brand of milk...
There's nothing illegal about pooping, so why don't you leave the bathroom door open and let everyone watch?
They need TOR for when they are watching kiddie porn, in between cases.
Yeah, that's why we all use TOR, but that isn't part of their professional duties. Since a DOJ official is recommending TOR to a room full of judges, I assume it is somehow tied to their work and I'm just curious why judges would need that.
Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau