macchina

It's hard for me to believe they could access to the data centers without Google's knowledge.

Isn't it more plausible that they're intercepting data flowing in and out of Google servers?

Anonymous didn't solve anything by identifying the alleged rapists. Nothing I have read suggests that Canadian law enforcement didn't know who the suspects were. They simply did not file charges. We don't know why exactly they didn't file charges, but for some reason they determined there was no case.

I think you've shifted the meaning of king in the parent comment to tyrant. After that you go on to give Google the benefit of the doubt. Google isn't a tyrant, but we are all beholden to Google. Due to cognitive dissonance, we have the tendency to minimize or excuse any instances of abuse on the part of our benevolent data custodian.

I don't think it matters because Kerr is just arguing that the district court interpreted and applied the law incorrectly. An appeals court has full power in these areas. It would only be a problem if they wanted to introduce facts or procedural/evidentiary arguments not presented to the trial judge, or if they want to overturn the trial court's decision on procedural/evidentiary/factual matters.

This is fantastic news. Hopefully this gets overturned and narrows the scope of the CFAA to where the government can't put people in prison for exposing security flaws on unrestricted areas of the web.

Well, the name is very apt. I did manage to clear 1 line after quite a bit torment.

Thanks for reminding me about the Harper's Index. I love reading these things.

The producers of Warhammer 40k ought to take note.[1]

"Trademark Bullying" has totally gotten out of hand.[2] Brands have a duty to protect their rights, but a letter like this is really all that's necessary. Good on Jack Daniels. There is no reason to send indie publishers to the poorhouse over trifling infringement.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5176820

2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/stupid-lawyer-tricks-a...

I think it actually started with (A) the DOJ filing a action to compel the company to comply with the national security letter. Then (B) the company replied requesting the letter be invalidated on First Amendment (compulsory non-disclosure of the NSL) and statutory grounds. Then (C) the DOJ files another motion showing why they need the information and asking for the court to force the company to comply with the NSL while the case is pending so they can pursue their investigation.

The court ended up ruling that the non-disclosure provision violated the First Amendment and invalidated the NSL law as a whole.

I think the only law the DOJ was accusing Credo of violating was 18 USC § 2709[1] which requires carriers to turn over subscriber information and prohibits certain disclosure.

But you're correct that the Government argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the law. This was because Credo brought its action under a statute that gives a court limited authority to modify or revoke the NSL. However, the court found the constitutional challenge was a necessary part of Credo's claim and allowed it.

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709

Yeah, Credo is sort of a bizarre little company. They created a Super PAC to oppose tea party candidates and to support public financing of campaigns, i.e., outlawing Super PACs (they were a total anomaly in this regard). In 2011, they received one of those so called "national security letters" and just completely stonewalled the FBI. Thank god for this one activist mobile carrier or this case would've probably never happened.

Fair enough, but it's still a niche market that Apple has near plenary control over. Indeed, Apple essentially dictates what price other retailers may charge by keeping the wholesale price high. [1]

1. http://www.macworld.com/article/2024257/how-apple-sets-its-p...

>Not discounting works for Apple because products become obsolete long before they stop working.

No. Not discounting works for Apple because it's the only store selling MacBooks. You can buy pants and underwear at dozens of places that are not JCPenny. The usual practice is deceptive to be sure, but JCPenny gave up their most effective means of advertising bargains short of relentlessly juxtaposing competitors' prices against their own.

It's especially true with the FBI or any other person connected with the federal government in an investigation. Making false statements is a separate crime in itself. 18 USC § 1001 [1]

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[Fascinating article published originally in WSJ] http://ourtaxdollarsatwork.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/federal-...

[How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents] http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoi...

Cheers for doing this!

And when a primary source can be provided, it ought to be linked, e.g., articles based on a study, "new report," or court document. I feel like I am constantly hunting these things down for myself.

That makes sense.

I guess it's a work in progress, but I agree. The sole purpose of the site appears to be:

>We may be able to help by putting you in touch with a lawyer who can help prosecute your case.

People can generally do this themselves, but if you get enough related claims together, I imagine you could potentially file a class action.

It has to be used in the stream of commerce as a trademark. Being used as a trademark means that the term is used to identify the source of the goods.

When GW registered "space marine," prior users of the mark still retained the right to use it within their own specific geographic area.

Yes, but "Space Marine" is an extremely weak mark, and evidently it is only registered in one class of goods and services (in the US): "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith." [1]

I don't think the claim is baseless, but I don't see how this is a must litigate scenario. I'm pretty sure they could offer a reasonable settlement and remain protected.

1.http://mcahogarth.org/?p=5075

>that prosecutors didn't stretch the CFAA or wire fraud statutes to make a case against Swartz, and that they weren't unusually vindictive with Swartz in negotiating a plea

Yes, he was definitely doing that and he was right to. I am not saying he ought to play jury, just address some of the counterarguments.

I'm a lawyer and I completely agree with you.

In general, I think Prof. Kerr is just a lot more pro law enforcement than I am. I find that he is often very dismissive of the defendant's case. For example, he seems to take for granted that Aaron violated the CFAA. With that being said, I still think he is Volokh's best contributor.

The situation you describe is almost certainly not a crime under the prevailing interpretation of the CFAA.[1] (Although I do grant that your theory could potentially be correct, which is part of the reason it's such a bad law.[2])

The CFAA criminalizes "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access."

The unauthorized access provision applies to various means of hacking into a computer. The exceeding authorized access provision applies (in general) to company and government insiders. "The term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter." 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(6)[3]

Your contract with your ISP gives you access to the network. By spoofing a device, you would breach your agreement with the ISP, but you would not be obtaining or altering information that you are not already entitled to under your agreement with the ISP as an authorized user.

In sum, for an authorized user to commit a crime, he must break through the access level he was granted by his authorization and reach information that was effectively closed-off to him.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Drew#Guilty_verdict_set_as...

2. http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/EF_Cultural_Travel_v._Explorica (One of the most inane cases I've ever read.)

3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

>I'd be very surprised if they aren't using that data to match roughly equally attractive people.

I can confirm this is true. Last year, as an experiment, I made a dummy account with a picture of former NFL quarterback Kyle Boller but the same profile/personality as me. His matches are significantly more attractive than mine. He also received this email a few weeks after registration:

We just detected that you're now among the most attractive people on OkCupid.

We learned this from clicks to your profile and reactions to you in Quickmatch and Quiver. Did you get a new haircut or something?

Well, it's working!

To celebrate, we've adjusted your OkCupid experience:

You'll see more attractive people in your match results.

This won't affect your match percentages, which are still based purely on your answers and desired match's answers. But we'll recommend more attractive people to you. You'll also appear more often to other attractive people.

Sign in to see your newly-shuffled matches. Have fun, and don't let this go to your head

Maybe he is referring to something like an injunction or bail terms preventing him from using the internet or speaking out about the case?

Lessig's wife established free.aaronsw.com, so I don't think he is talking broadly about donations.

>Moreover, were we to publish the entirety of our holdings we, or any other company for that matter, could find ourselves mired down in a series of tactical declaratory judgments and reexaminations.

Yeah, obviously they don't want to be involved in a bunch of frivolous lawsuits....

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am in my 3rd year of law school - so yes I've heard of all those things. I've also studied the CFAA.

Common law is judge-made and only governs in the absence of statutory authority. (Due process and trial by jury are constitutional laws). The reasonable man is primarily a negligence standard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190406060457657...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594035229/

The federal government has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce. Federal law generally overrides common law to the extent its unambiguous.

It's true that Judge Kozinski in the 9th Circuit said he would not "apply a badly drafted piece of legislation to lead to [an] absurd result."

But the issue is not cut and dry.

Kozinski essentially acknowledged he was interpreting the statute in a manner possibly at odds with its very language. These courts get reversed all the time (over 70% of their cases) - and other circuits have read the law more narrowly.

And the government itself supports a narrow reading of the law.

OP's article is over the top. My point is, the "authorization" part of the law appears extremely broad and as the DOJ puts it: "the case law on this issue is muddy."

He actually does have a point based on the text.

1030(a)(2)(C) Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

Under the statute, a "protected computer" generally means any computer connected to the internet.

Also, based on the legislative history, "obtains information" has been read to mean "merely observing" information.

The only issue is "without authorization." Based on its plain meaning, the law could mean that you need affirmative authorization to access any website.

Obviously, that's a real stretch, but there was a case decided by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals [1] that held a company liable for using a web scraper - where the court said the defendants exceeded authorized access based on the website's boilerplate copyright notice.

[1]http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/577/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-ex...

wow, they commissioned a survey. Pretty interesting actually.

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/november2012/poll.do...

I clicked on some profiles, and I noticed that many of the e-mail addresses populated were @asdasd.ru — the domain of a Russian mailinator-type service. Something like that might be indexed.