Desert-dwelling sheep herders weren't ignorant! They knew all about herding and breeding sheep, what kinds of food they need etc. But they couldn't write, and therefore they couldn't have written the Bible.
Let's wait until next week then.
It's really good that you bother to check these things and don't just apply blanket IP bans.
Yes, that was kind of my entire point. You HAVE to do this. Historical IP address is not a unique identifier. To do otherwise is indeed like going to the scene of a crime and just shooting the first person you see.
I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia for years due to IP bans affecting the addresses I use
Well, the main question was whether to treat this user like any other normal user doing the same thing, or like sock-puppet account. In this case it was pretty clear with a modicum of other investigation that he was in fact a separate user, and not a sock of the other ("good") user.
If I'd treated this the way the cops in this story were treating things, I would have just dumbly acted as if every user who's ever shared an IP were all socks of each other, and sent a nasty note (and probably a suspension) to one of our websites best users, who had in fact been one of the people who flagged this guy to my attention in the first place. Or that'd be like going to the scene of a robbery, and shooting the guy who called it in because he was at the scene of a reported robbery. Fortunately, we all know things like that don't happen.
Which things were declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch?
You seem to under the misapprehension that the opinions of courts make something constitutional or unconstitutional. No. It's the text of the constitution that makes it so. For example, Obergefell v. Hodges did not make it unconstitutional for the states to deny equal protection of the law to gay couples; it became unconstitutional long ago, when Amendment XIV took effect. If some future right-wing court undoes the Obergefell decision, it will still be unconstitutional and illegal for the states to deny equal protection.
Here's a real-world example from just this week. I'm a moderator on a site on the StackExchange network. We had a problem user who was posting a bunch of stuff the community didn't want posted (consistently badly moderated). What I'm supposed to do in this circumstance is point said user to our instructions for writing acceptable posts. However, such users often are just sock-puppet accounts for someone who's already been suspended. If that's the case, I'm supposed to take more drastic action.
SE has a (community-mod only) link for this, that shows you the user's IP, and all user accounts that have used that user's same IP. I click on this, and discover that he happens to share an IP with one of our better users. Not only is the writing style completely different (writing style is practically a fingerprint), but this user has in fact voted to close all but one post the problem user has ever made.
I talked to the "good" user about this, and he confirmed that his work access point is shared by a very large number of other people.
Just this week we got another new problem user. Again, totally different style than the other two users mentioned above, but also same IP.
As an investigative tool, IP address is useful, but only as a piece of evidence. I'd place it somewhere down with blood-type (perhaps like sharing an uncommon blood type like AB), rather than up in the realm of fingerprints.
I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was
I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)
I use Firefox daily, mainly because I don't like Google, but occasionally
Same here, but I wouldn't say I don't like Google. I actually love the hell out of Google. Won't trust my web searches with any other company.
But I don't like to use the same company for multiple different things if I don't have to, because the market that results from that kind of behavior will never be in my best interest. I also don't like to use proprietary products when there's a viable Free Software alternative. The former points me away from Chrome, and the latter points me to Mozilla.
Or perhaps their user-base doesn't really care about startup time and memory use.
If I just start the browser once when I boot my computer, and then use it for days (or weeks) thereafter, its tough to get really exercised about that whole extra minute I had to wait that once. If I'm primarily using my system for web browsing, and it has 16Gig of memory, do I really need the browser maintenance engineers spending all their available time getting it to take up 0.0007% of my available RAM instead of 0.01% of it? Wouldn't I rather they work on actual features I might want to use?
I'm not saying Mozilla is better there either, but that's a much more legit place to hit them if they aren't.
Now with Apple, who won't even let another company make a browser for iOS (any browser on iOS is really just a skin on Safari) and therefore has no competition you might have a point. But we don't like to speak ill of Apple around here
I can't speak for "we", but I didn't mention them because they just aren't that relevant to me. They provide roughly the same product as the Android vendors, but with worse lock-in issues, and for hundreds of dollars more. Last I checked their sales market-share was in the vicinity of 1/5th of the market, and falling. There will probably be a blip up next month due to a new version coming out, but the trend is pretty clear.
Android as of March had a hair more than 70% of all sales in the market. That's not the >90% Microsoft used to have, but 70% is plenty. I understand legally to be considered to have a monopoly, you typically have to have at least 50% of the market. That's a bare minimum threshold of course, but Android is way over it.
Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.