tbcj

At my company we are seeing issues in us-east-1 involving KMS and EC2.

I would keep in mind that most disputes are not of the "I never signed this" variety.

Even companies like DocuSign acknowledge that fact: "DocuSign electronic signatures have never been successfully repudiated or challenged in any court."

State and local governments are, at least, partially to blame for the increase as a consequence of decreased budgets given to law enforcement, including district attorneys' offices. That money is often used to make up budget shortfalls, and often nearly doesn't provide enough to competently and fully staff such offices.

Not necessarily disbarment, but that would be one possible outcome. He will likely be facing violations of the rules of professional conduct.

Using California and your example, that would violate Rule 3-100. With the ownership stake, he probably violated Rule 3-300 which governs "Avoiding Interests Adverse to a Client."

I think this glosses over one benefit of monitoring: someone should be coming in the event an alert condition is triggered.

For example, if I was shot during an armed burglary, it is more likely that someone would be coming to my aid because of my alarm system than without it.

I personally don't feel more safe because of my alarm system. But, I do feel more hopeful that if my (or my spouse's or children's) safety is endangered, that someone will be coming that can increase the likelihood that we will survive that danger.

In this case, the defendant may have a say only because Amazon is claiming there is standing to enforce the defendant's First Amendment rights - the so-called chilling effect.

With the defendant consenting, Amazon's standing for litigating this issue becomes more fraught.

I thought it was strange too. I would suspect the caselaw involving the First Amendment provides more definition of the limits upon governments than the Privacy amendments, especially since this is such a novel set of facts with no easily applicable precedent. First Amendment seems to be more broadly protected than privacy anyways, so extending it to this set of circumstances would be ultimately useful.

However, their First Amendment argument would be more compelling if the search request was wider instead of specific. It looks like the request only wants a 48 hour period, so its not a dragnet kind of request (i.e., who checked out books on chemistry in the past 4 weeks?). In the event the ruling is against Amazon, I would guess the in camera evaluation will probably happen.

The cost wouldn't be substantially more than it is today if only because capital murder trials are rare occurrences these days, and its even rarer when the death penalty is given. Death row inmates stay on death row for a long time, so while its not effectively a life sentence, the state still has to keep them alive.

Between the use of burglary and the disregard of physical vs. intangible property, this is just a preposterous set of hypotheticals.

Why is it so bad to hold accountable both the company for hosting the content if they have reason to believe it was stolen and also the person who uploaded it? Criminal statutes punish pawn shops for selling stolen goods, criminal statutes punish people for knowingly purchasing stolen goods. Why can't a company be held responsible for knowingly acting as a marketplace for stolen goods?

What does "every relevant state" mean? The second and third most populous states don't require a helmet over 20, and the fifth doesn't require it at all.

Number 4 is somewhat misleading. I'd say gov't and public interest are both appealing options, regardless of the pay. You can get the advantages of the public service loan forgiveness program and, in some cases, some extra soft benefits. For example, my wife gets two official paid weeks, and extra time when the judges take time en masse (i.e, Christmas), so her two weeks is in reality four or five.

And, while our case might be an exception to the general outlook for families of two newly minted lawyers (2012 grads), her government job also enables us to lower our payments since we can contribute to an IRS 457 plan to defer compensation and lower our AGI, in addition to her retirement plan. So, that helps keep her payments lower during the required 120 payment period, while enabling us to dedicate more to addressing my law school loans.

Finally, I don't think even most government and public interest jobs are competitive in the sense that other candidates are the reasons why people can't get these jobs. Admittedly, this will be the case in more sought after positions, but there are many government jobs that don't have serious competition, where you are competing against a few other applicants. A lot of the time, the problems with people finding these jobs have to do with character issues from their past. Government jobs, notably state attorneys general, district attorneys office, or other governmental posts affiliated with law and enforcement, do scrutinize the background of the candidates more than others. So, any mishaps in character would cull you from the pool. But that's not competition, because you could be the only applicant and you still not get the job.

One area that it probably won't expand to, but I would see value in such a service, is an annotation system on legal texts -- statutes, case law, law review articles, et al.

When I was last able to use WestlawNext (almost two years ago), I think it supported personal annotations. Distributed annotations, though, might help me understand the differences in Hong Kong's definition of personal data in Cap 486 versus other definitions in other legal documents.

And it could provide some humor when reading the Alabama state constitution.