Acta signed!!!!

[DutchJazzer]

But despite this observation you feel totally comfortable making statements about the law.

Hmmmmm.

got me there. but for example this case off aplle vs samsung galaxy s II. the judge ruled that galaxy s should not be sold. a prohibtionw a sinstated on it.
but here's the kicker it was instated because the SOFTWARE was similar to apple's. as far as i know a lot of android phones have the same stuff.
so because some software hardware was prohibited.
serioulsy a case of cluelessness.

the software should be prohibited unless they reporgram it.

there are enough of these examples. dont need to be a lawyer/judge to see this common sense.

i try to live by this rule. It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.

 

[One Brow]

Are you being serious here? Here is the very first sentence on that page (emphasis added by me):
"The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. "

There was no provision on that page for interception. Just mentioning the word in the introduction does not make interception illegal.

Um, waiting...

Yes, I am. By all signs, I will be indefinitely. I'm used to it.

I'm also waiting for you to demonstrate how information in publicly accessed servers can be considered private.

 

[DutchJazzer]

also the sexual offenders list is a great idea in essence. but in practice it ruins some "innocent" lifes.
i say "innocent" because accroding to the law they are guilty but according to morals ethic logic they are innocent. yet they cant get off that list.
no wy to fight it.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Someone in the USA finally reported on this:
www.mashable.com/2012/01/27/acta/

 

[babe]

Someone in the USA finally reported on this:
www.mashable.com/2012/01/27/acta/

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SaltyDawg again.

Sometimes I get this message even though it seems like it's been a very long time since I gave my last rep to somebody.

I'll keep trying until ths one sticks.

 

[Stoked]

also the sexual offenders list is a great idea in essence. but in practice it ruins some "innocent" lifes.
i say "innocent" because accroding to the law they are guilty but according to morals ethic logic they are innocent. yet they cant get off that list.
no wy to fight it.

If you mean like some 18-19 year old kid slept with his 17 year old girlfriend than yea I agree that he should not have to register or even be arrested for a crime.

 

[Gameface]

If you mean like some 18-19 year old kid slept with his 17 year old girlfriend than yea I agree that he should not have to register or even be arrested for a crime.

Or the 11 year old boys who were slappin' girls butts in the hallway...

 

[SaltyDawg]

Or the 11 year old boys who were slappin' girls butts in the hallway...

Or the 15 year old who received a topless picture from his girlfriend on his cell phone.

 

[babe]

Someone in the USA finally reported on this:
www.mashable.com/2012/01/27/acta/

Of course we can't let anything distract us from our popular entertainment. And I don't think anyone read Salty's link.

So we've had Presidents for a while who have been entering into "executive agreements" with other nations, instead of trying to get a bill run through Congress.

We also have a recent addition to our legal lingo "Administrative Law", that is inimical to the US Constitution. Judges making up their own rules for settling a lot of fairly personal sorts of litigation, such as divorces, child custody, traffic tickets, DUIs, shoplifting, family law. What's "Administrative Law"? The judges make up their own laws, and call it a regular court perogative, something like formalized rules worked out from "judicial disgression".

And it's not that the legislatures are not passing enough laws. We've loaded thousands of laws into 2000-page budget resolution bills that impact personal rights on every level. We have more laws than anyone can even read.

Under Stalin the standard Soviet court would ask "What do you mean, "Not Guilty"? "Not Guilty of Anything?" As related by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, it was simply court procedure to efficiently process you and find you guilty of something. No way was anyone ever going to be found "innocent".

We are already the most productive incarcerating government in the world, and nowhere near done with it either.