ldar15

IANAL, but the 5th circuit appeals court has ruled that the 5th amendment means that a person cannot be forced to give up the combination to a lock. It is informational, and it is testimony.

Any discussion of a physical key is without merit. A physical key, is not the same as a "encryption key". For the purpose of law, an "encryption key" is the same as a combination to a safe.

There's actually a ton of precedents on this. Google 5th amendment and combination lock.

The reason it is testimony is because if you provide a password and it works then you've just proven that the contents are yours: you have incriminated yourself. If the prosecution can prove that the contents are yours without the password, then at that point you can be forced to give up the password.

Takeway: your encrypted drive had better have a different password than your login, and you'd better be able to deny that it is yours.

EFF will win.

I have a promising start-up, with several hundred users in specific geographic locations. I will need "$4.6m" to scale, and I want to take out $1m for the cofounders.

In our market, 32,000 such companies launch each year, and of those, only 250 generate more than $200,000 in revenue. Only 30 generate $20m.

What is a fair percentage to offer the VCs?

Yes, I appreciate that there are many differences between bands and start-ups, but if, as she says, only 250 of 32,000 albums sell more than 10,000 units, then this $10m the record company makes from her band must go, in a large part, to cover the costs of funding all the bands that dont make it. Maybe they are still making a handsome profit, but its not as unjust as she makes out.

Sorry, I didnt meant to suggest that actually happened in the last paragraph but it does read that way on review. My apologies.

Dont feel too bad. HN has become full of people who believe that the correct response to something they disagree with is to mod down, instead of to reply with a rebuttal. It sucks, but others will mod you up.

Really???? Mod down???? How about a comment explaining which bit you disagree with?

This is a great question for new users of jQuery, or indeed any software I need to download and integrate with my software/website. When a user is hit with malware, it affects just them (and maybe their email/facebook friends). If I download malware and incorporate it into my software, then I'm now distributing it to my users!

So how I do it is I look for the community. github is a good place to look. HN is itself a good source of vetting. Google, certainly, but not the first link I find. In fact, when I first heard about jQuery, I didn't assume that the "real" site could be trusted either: if I'm going to install this on my site, and serve it to people who trust me, then it had better be trustworthy.

Now imagine I run a tutorial website, and people come to my site because they trust me, and then they install software they copied from me (or my links), and distribute that to their users. Wow. Kudos to the author: I think it was bad form to blame google here, but the fact that he admitted it all does a lot to reestablish trust.

"MAJOR BUG! Google search engine found to be open to SEO abuse!!!"

Except that this wouldn't be news. And because it wouldn't be news, the blame falls entirely on the author.

The author got fished. Kudos for letting everyone know about it. -kudos for blaming google.

"to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."

Does this include if they think its necessary for them to turn off paswords for several hours? I am curious that about the timing:

  * Fuck up security[0]
  * Get hit with class action suit[1]
  * Change TOS

[0]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576 [1]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dro...

"presumption of accessibility" should apply to a broadcast SSID.

Takeaway: parallel programming is hard even for Googlers.

No.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/interstate.html

Now imagine a world where anyone could enter a gps coordinate and height and see the activity there, at anytime in the past. You think we'd have TARP? You think we'd be at war in afghanistan? You think we'd have priests fucking children? Lynchings? Drunk driving?

Many think this would be a dystopian future that forces everyone to conform. I believe that if all those people who only pretend to conform were actually required to conform, we'd suddenly see a great debate on what "normal" should actually be.

Asimov wrote a story about this, and seemed to suggest that his view was that the end of privacy would be a bad thing (but maybe I read it wrong).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past

"some states are 2-party consent states, which means, both parties have to consent to an audio recording."

IANAL, but I believe that there is no state where this applies to public recording. The issue is "expectation of privacy". http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

In the rochester case, the public servant informed Ms Good that they did not feel safe, and then used the "refusal to obey a police instruction" as the crime. However, citizens are only required to obey lawful instructions. I do not believe that the instruction was lawful.

Until our public servants in law enforcement are educated on the matter of law, a citizen will be taking a risk in exercising their rights. I believe that it is our duty to do so.

IANAL, but TFA states that this would also happen here in the USA because many states have a one-way loser-pays.

According to TFA that's not how it works in Europe: if you deliberately run up costs, the court will not assign them to the loser. Only reasonable fees are passed on to the loser. And the loser can challenge.

Are you talking about "Hide", "Report as Spam", or both? Because I hide stuff all the time.

Does it make a difference if a user had to explicitly select me in order to send me the message? Does that make it the user's fault and not the app - i.e. does asking consent of the sender give an app immunity?