I have severe myopia, so anything more than a few feet from me is a blur unless I am wearing my glasses or contacts. I'm an avid gamer (Partnered on Twitch.tv) and I used to be an active equestrian. My lifestyle lead many people to recommend LASIK or PRK surgery, but the risks turned me off from both. LASIK creates an eye flap that can be dislocated, torn, etc., which can permanently damage your eye. This flap is not created with PRK, although there are similar risks associated with that surgery. Our eyes have protective layers for a reason and permanently shaving these off with surgery creates a lifelong risk. One of my friends practices jiu jitsu and he's suffered some major injuries while sparring because of LASIK. One girl that I rode with also supposedly had "successful" surgery, but she became extremely sensitive to light and had to wear sunglasses while riding, which defeated the purpose of getting the surgery. She also had trouble seeing at night and would complain about halos or glare with light. Nearly all of the people that I know who have had either surgery have to carry eyedrops. I'd rather put on glasses or put in contacts that deal with any of the risks associated with these surgeries.

The fact that this MMO has been in development for the last five years makes me extremely apprehensive about the yet-to-be-revealed combat system. The business world gauges the success of an MMO by it's popularity and one key element to popularity is accessibility. World of Warcraft modeled itself after EverQuest, but achieved much greater success by making everything more accessible to even the most casual of gamers. Nearly every Western MMO made within the last five years has copied the stereotypical fighting mechanic of hitting tab to select a target, mashing an optimal rotation of buttons, and landing skills based on a hit rating statistic (not player skill or aim). The most recent example (or casualty) of this archaic combat system was Star Wars: The Old Republic, which gave players an even more simplistic combat system than the WoW model it so transparently copied (despite having a $200m budget). It is exciting to imagine that this will be an MMO version of Skyrim complete with player housing, fully customizable classes, and combat that is dependent on aiming, positioning, and reading enemies that aren't automatically targeted with the click of a button. But I'm already setting my expectations for this pretty low.

Auto-complete suggestions for Kanji are cycled through in IME when trying to type out a name, so it is very easy (if not second nature) to type out a name in a Google search box and hit "submit" on an auto-completed suggestion. I do this all the time when searching for the name of a politician or celebrity. Japanese names also have the potential to be a bit more unique than English names in writing. Even the Japanese equivalent of a name like "John Doe" could be written several different ways. Over 2,000 characters in one of the Japanese writing systems, Kanji, are devoted specifically to naming (Jinmeiyo Kanji) and the Japanese Ministry of Justice plans to add nearly 600 more Kanji to that list within the next couple of years to encourage unique names. That isn't to say that you wouldn't get a few unrelated individuals in any name search, but it does give you an idea of the possibilities for unique names.

Some people have asked why the Petitioner doesn't simply change his name. My understanding is that your legal name is tied to your family registry, or Koseki, where everyone must share the same last name. Births and deaths, marriages and divorces, even your citizenship is recorded on your family's Koseki (social security numbers do not exist in Japan). He could easily register an alias, but changing his legal name could be more difficult because of the Koseki system. The only circumstances that I've personally seen of a Japanese citizen changing their legal name was when they married and formed a new Koseki, or were adopted onto a spouse's Koseki. Even if he was successful in changing his legal name, his educational background, degrees, and previous job recommendations would all be linked to his original name. That might make him stand out and appear even more suspicious to a prospective employer.

Discrimination against job applicants is a very big human rights issue in Japan. There are detective agencies devoted to doing background checks on job applicants, including finding ways to illegally get their hands on a person's Koseki just to see if they are of Buraku lineage (read up on the "National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities" section in the U.S. Department of State's Human Rights Report on Japan). Businesses do not want to hire an employee who could bring the slightest hint of scandal or poor image to their company; even if the scandal comes from mistaken identity, or a long-forgotten familial relation.

Could the Petitioner actually be a criminal, or yakuza, who is just looking to get some money out of Google? Possibly. But it is equally possible that the Petitioner is genuinely suffering from a case of mistaken identity or association. How unfortunate and shameful would it be if the auto-complete was for the name of some estranged, distant relative, for example? It is difficult not to empathize with someone in this sort of situation, especially in an economic recession.

The judge ordered the counsel to exchange login information. The counsel -- not the couple -- was who had access and that access was limited to gathering any evidence on the accounts that could portray either party as an unfit parent (such as images or messages documenting substance abuse). The access being given was not unrestricted or without purpose.

The motivating factor behind this judge's order was a child. Something convinced the judge that important evidence relating to what was in the child's best interest could exist on these accounts. An order like this wouldn't be issued in a typical divorce that didn't involve children because most states have no fault divorce. Family courts in those states don't care about any romantic trysts, juicy drama, or even substance abuse that your spouse might have dished about on Facebook. The child is what made the order relevant and necessary in this case, which is why it was issued.

That being said, using social networking sites to gather this kind of information in custody cases is fairly common place in California and most of the time we don't even need a court order. The types of people who post pictures of themselves getting high or drunk at parties on Facebook or MySpace typically do so for the attention, so their accounts and galleries tend to be public. If you can't find anything there, then you can usually find something on the account of whoever leaves the most comments on their profile/wall.

Once, I found a picture of the wife in a divorce cradling her newborn daughter in one arm while she held a joint in the other, along with a Ziploc bag full of weed. The picture was on the MySpace account of one of her friends who had attended a party at her house. The friend documented the events of that day by writing a blog entry about how drunk and high everyone had gotten (including the mother, who had passed out). These sites can be a valuable tool to gather information on an individual, even if the information is not being gathered from their account.

Japan being on that list as one of the "cleanest" countries at #17 just removed whatever credibility the page might have had in my eyes. Clearly this list only tallies publicly documented and acknowledged forms of corruption for the countries listed. The US, UK, and many other western countries on that list have laws criminalizing different forms of corruption. They also have institutions in place to investigate and address that corruption internally or publicly. Most importantly however, we have freedom and accessibility for media. Some of the "cleaner" countries on that list don't rank as more corrupt because they do not acknowledge corruption or have any means of addressing it legally, socially, or even culturally. It is disingenuous to claim that these countries are "cleaner" simply because that it what the statistics they choose to release about themselves say about them.

I don't know how the state/county works exactly, but typically judges run for re-election every three years and people just by default re-elect them without even knowing anything about them. Who's to say that anyone will remember or care about this in three years? He may still keep his job.

That doesn't make extortion that occurred recently (for which the statute of limitations has not expired) any more excusable, if there is any truth to the judge's claim.

As upsetting as the video may be to watch in 2011, it was still recorded in 2004. The statute of limitations for any crime(s) documented in the video (assault and battery/domestic abuse) have already expired.

Federal prosecutors can't do anything because no federal laws were broken. This is a state matter. The people of Texas decided that five years should be the statute of limitations for domestic abuse and they are the only ones who could change that with legislation. If the state of Texas finds the situation unjust, then it needs to extend the statute of limitations for these crimes, or enact new laws. The people can also refuse to re-elect the judge.

The opportunity may still exist for the daughter to sue her father and seek tort remedy; not for the abuse documented in the video, but any abuse that occurred after it (if a court sees it as abuse). Many states view each occurrence of abuse as a separate act. The statute of limitations begins to run for each act at the time that it occurred. If the last incident of abuse took place within the last 5 years, then the daughter could hold her father accountable in civil court for damages.

Only one crime may have taken place relating to this video for which the statute of limitations has not expired: extortion.

The father claims that when he cut off the daughter's financial support after she dropped out of college, she threatened to publish the video and ruin his career unless he reinstated it. It is unusual that the daughter held onto the video for seven years (four years after moving out of the household) before releasing it.

What are you basing this conclusion on other than the assumptions and the misinformation written in both of those articles? What California or federal court has stated that the search warrant was illegal? Where has the DA "admitted" that the search warrant was issued under "false pretenses"?

Under what "false pretenses" was the search warrant supposedly "procured", or issued?

The search warrant was for the recovery of Apple's stolen property (the iPhone prototype). The prototype was originally lost property, but became stolen property when the individual who discovered it sold it to Gizmodo for several thousand dollars. The seller and Gizmodo agreed on such an outrageous price because they both knew the phone to be authentic and understood its value as an un-announced iPhone prototype.

That knowledge and transaction is what made this a crime involving stolen property. Being the home of silicon valley, California takes its trade secrets laws (of which there are many) very seriously. There are criminal penalties for stealing, misappropriating, and publishing trade secrets:

Cal. Penal Code ÂÂ 499c, 502
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

Steve Jobs personally requested that Gizmodo return the iPhone prototype. Gizmodo refused and attempted to extort an official press statement or exclusive interview out of Jobs instead as a "condition" of the iPhone's return. That is extortion.

Correspondence between Jobs and Gizmodo, five Gizmodo front page articles about the iPhone prototype, editor Jason Chen's videos handling and dissecting the iPhone prototype, as well as police interviews with the seller of the iPhone prototype, were all more than what was needed to meet probable cause and issue a warrant on Chen's residence to recover the phone and collect evidence.

What evidence do either of these article authors have that the warrant was illegal?

I've yet to see any.

If either of these article authors are going to insist that the DA acted a certain way because he "knew he had broken the law", then why can't they meet their burden of proof and produce a single statement by the DA, or any US court, intimating as much?

The DA's Office signed an order withdrawing the search warrant because they had already collected all of the evidence that they, or Apple, would need in any subsequent legal proceedings against editor Jason Chen and/or Gizmodo (Gawker Media). The DA's withdrew the search warrant and returned Chen's property to him under the following conditions:

Further, the parties involved shall waive all authenticity and foundational objection in any future proceedings regarding any documents found or discovered between the parties. The images returned to counsel shall remain sealed and in the possession of counsel until such time as necessary, or upon application to the Court with due notice to all of the parties involved.

If the search warrant was "illegal", then why did neither the court, nor Jason Chen's counsel have anything to say about the evidence that the DA's office collected and documented for any future legal proceeding -- civil or criminal?

Yes, EFF claims as much. But nowhere in the order does it actually state...

"Illegal search warrant."
"Search warrant issued under false pretenses."

Or anything about evidence being procured illegally and being inadmissible.

This is an order by the DA withdrawing the search warrant on Chen so that his property can be returned now that the DA's office has inspected, copied, and documented whatever it or Apple may need in subsequent proceedings. Chen works for Gizmodo from his home. His computer and cameras are necessary for his work. Once the DA's office collected all of the evidence that it needed, it withdrew the search warrant and released this property back to Chen.

There are no admissions here. The only insinuations are written by the authors of the /. and EFF article.

I was not ignorant of the DA's order to withdraw the warrant.

I am also not ignorant of California law, working in the legal field in this state.

What is ignorant is for both of these article authors to claim that an order withdrawing a search warrant and releasing personal property is an "admission" of anything sinister, let alone illegal.

That's almost as careless of a journalistic practice as paying for a stolen iPhone prototype.

Thanks you for the advice and help with the tags. I hope that my post is less confusing to read now with quote tags.

The summary for this Slashdot article was so ignorant and biased that I actually registered just to comment on it.

"After the police broke in to a Gizmodo editor's home [...]"

They didn't "break in" -- they had a search warrant.

"[...] the San Mateo District Attorney's office petitioned the court to withdraw the search warrant [...]"

The San Mateo District Attorney's Office didn't petition the court to withdraw the search warrant. The San Mateo District Attorney's Office petitioned the court to issue the search warrant.

"[...] because it violated a law intended to protect journalists [...]"

The search warrant didn't violate any laws. Journalistic shield laws exist to protect the sources of journalists. The identities of Gizmodo's "sources" (or "sellers") were already known to police. They were in custody and cooperating with police. Journalistic shield laws do not exist so that journalists can purchase stolen goods.

It isn't a crime to execute a search warrant. It is a crime to purchase a stolen iPhone prototype, damage, and dissect it in order to publish trade secrets before the product has hit shelves, or even been announced to the public. It is damaging not only to Apple, but to their employees and shareholders.

"[...] Nevertheless, the DA, rather than apologize [...]"

Why should the DA apologize for doing his job? The DA deserves an apology from whoever authored this article stub.