Articles like this often get written because the author doesn't really understand the law, and rather than really trying to understand what's going on they just guess. The claims made in this article are so wildly off-base, however, that it makes me question whether the author is just trolling people.

Contrary to what the article suggests, Federal Criminal Rule 41(b) does not have a thing to do with what evidence law enforcement agencies are required to show to get a warrant, nor does it authorize the FBI (or anyone else) to get any particular type of warrant. Rule 41(b) is about VENUE; e.g., if you've already got enough evidence to get a search warrant, what judge (in what federal District) is the judge that you are supposed to present that evidence to?

You can read Rule 41(b) here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul...

The basic rule it sets out is that, when you want a warrant, you ask a judge located within the District where the person/property you want to search is located. There are exceptions to that basic rule, much like any other rule, because it's not always a simple matter of "X is located here." Sometimes things are located across several different Districts, sometimes they're mobile and can be easily moved to another District, etc. This is why there are currently 5 subsections to 41(b), each dealing with slightly different semi-unusual factual scenarios. At the end of the day, each exception is there for a very simple reason: to clearly and unambiguously tell federal law enforcement agencies how to identify the judge they are supposed to go to if they want to get a search warrant.

The proposal for changing Rule 41(b) is located here: http://justsecurity.org/wp-con...

What the DOJ is asking for is a scenario not currently covered by Rule 41(b). That being...what happens if you are dealing with someone you know to have committed a crime, you have enough evidence to get a search warrant, but the perpetrator of the crime is using some sort of technological means (like encryption, IP masking, etc.) to prevent you from finding the exact physical location of whatever you want to search? As of right now, it is not clear who the right judge would be to issue that warrant. The only thing the proposal would do is say that, if you can't identify the physical location of the computer to be searched (and therefore do not know which federal District it's located in), then you can go get your warrant from a judge in the District where the target of the crime was located.

Example: I'm an evil h@xx3r, and I hack some computers at the GooglePlex. I have masked my IP address, so the FBI does not know exactly where I'm at. Under current Rule 41(b), it's not clear who the right judge would be to try to get a warrant from. Under "new" Rule 41(b), they can go to a judge in California since that's where the GooglePlex is located.

That's literally the only thing this proposal would change. It says nothing about VPNs or TOR networks. It does not give the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) the authority to hack your computer or your phone whenever they want. It doesn't even grant them the authority to do that with a warrant, because they already have the ability to do that with a warrant. It also doesn't say anything about how much evidence they have to present to get the warrant, because Rule 41(b) has nothing to do with that. The standards for search warrants are exactly the same as they have been for years; this proposal would only clarify who the right judge is to issue the warrant.

I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the "FEE" is, but if this article is representative of their work and/or legal abilities then color me unimpressed.

Possibly they think that Apple (who's making lots of chips these days) may be infringing those patents, so it would be something to countersue with if Apple attacks Android.

Helium behaves as it does (as an inert gas) because its outer shell is filled. The Pauli exclusion principle means that you can't force another electron into the same place, so an He+ ion would have its extra electron in a higher energy level and very loosely attached. But the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply if you have one electron and one muon; the muon's average position is much closer to the nucleus (since the muon is about 200 times heavier), shielding the positive charge of the nucleus. So to any other atom the "helium atom" looks as if it were a very heavy hydrogen atom, as if it had one proton and three neutrons in its nucleus.

Also, the muon's half-life is less than 2 microseconds, so any experiments have to be done very, very quickly.

Any competent attackers will cover their tracks, often making it appear that the source of the attack is in a completely different country. It's fairly easy to frame someone and make it look credible.

Many of the most elite schools have a "legacy admissions" policy (that's how the C-student George W. Bush managed to get into Yale). It gives the children of alumni priority admission, because they want their richer alumni to keep contributing money, and denying little Biff or Muffy their admission would be bad business. It's affirmative action for the rich.

If someone manages to make a copy of your iris to create contact lenses that let them pose as you, we'll just issue you a new iris.

Useful data are not random. If it looks random, and you're devoting disk space to it, the investigator will assume that it is encrypted, or is key material for encryption (e.g. a one-time pad). Why else would you have lots of random data around?

... which may limit how much of the 3rd dimension you can use.

If it were only Flash it wouldn't be that big a deal. But Jobs wants a monopoly and wants to prevent any development platform that would let you write once, and wind up with an app that runs on an iPhone, a Droid, any other Android phone, and a Blackberry by providing an abstraction layer. The fanboys will complain that such an abstraction might result in an app that is somehow 10% worse than a "native" app. Big deal; if both kinds of apps existed you could choose the kind you prefer, but it shouldn't be up to Jobs.

... that is, if people are doing this kind of thing to gum up the works for their competition, one answer is to assess a very small fee per trade, less than a penny. This would be completely negligible to a normal investor, but could be quite expensive to those trying to saturate the system for the benefit of their trading algorithm. Market-makers like Goldman Sachs would also wind up paying significant amounts, but given their privileged position which basically gives them a license to print money it's only fair. The fees collected could go into an insurance fund to help cover the next financial meltdown, and if it slows down trading a bit, that may well be a good thing. Complex nonlinear systems have a tendency to go unstable, and damping is one way of decreasing this possibility.

There's a fringe of zealots who think (falsely) that any government action that imposes any restriction on anyone is a "taking", which would make zoning laws invalid. Sorry, that's fantasy law, not real law. It's true that if regulations go so far as to make the property completely useless to the owner, this might amount to a regulatory taking. But this is a very high bar. Since net neutrality would impose rules on ISPs that are very similar to the laws already imposed on telephone companies, these kinds of arguments aren't going to go very far.

If a school district decides to commission a textbook as a work made for hire, and pays the authors handsomely, and then makes the work free, it can be a win-win. The authors get a guaranteed amount, but they won't collect royalties going forward. The schools don't go broke buying expensive textbooks, and poorer districts can benefit. Textbook writers can be booked again when revisions are made. Of course, it will be possible to identify people that make less money. That's life.

Begin by sending a polite request to remove the content that is being used without permission.

Boing Boing releases their stuff using a license that would prevent others from picking it all up on a different web site and selling ads. This doesn't give them the right to use others' work in a way that conflicts with the license (other than fair use, which might allow for a thumbnail link). I think that this license violation on their part was inadvertent, the author of the web page thought he was filing his personal "I'm on vacation" announcement and forgot about the ads. In the case of BoingBoing I would politely ask them to take it down, and to respect that "noncommercial" means "don't attach ads to this". The copyright holder can still decide to grant permission if asked politely.

There's an intermediate step: send them a DMCA takedown notice. If they defy it, then you have to decide whether you want to sue.