nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 27, 2017 17:36:01 GMT
What other time have you heard of evidence being asked to be excluded because of the first amendment? Amazon wants this evidence to be excluded because of the first amendment. Amazon wants to refuse to comply with a request for this information based on some imagined first amendment right. To me that certainly seems like treating this evidence differently from other evidence. Please cite me a case where evidence was excluded because of the first amendment so we can see if it bears any resemblance to this case.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 24, 2017 20:04:33 GMT
I doubt the computers or databases or recordings have any sincerely held religious beliefs that would prevent them from revealing the recorded information. This would be like saying the first amendment protects against the collection of physical evidence, because after all, that could possibly incriminate someone. We are talking about evidence and a device. If the police are otherwise empowered to collect evidence via a search warrant, then I see no reason that a device such as Alexa or the data related to same, would not fall into the same category as other bits of physical evidence.
What justification is there for this physical evidence to be treated differently from other types of physical evidence?
If there was a 911 call during a possible crime, would you say the first amendment prevents the recording of the 911 call from being used as evidence? If there were a tape recorder owned by the defendant that happened to have been going during the time in question, would you similarly claim that the first amendment protects the recorded audio from being used? If the audio recorder happened to be digital in nature, would it now be protected by the first amendment? And finally how is the Alexa different from a digital audio recorder insofar as it being evidence and subject to all the same rules as apply to other types of evidence?
Because ... "Computers!!!" .... is not a defense. I see this as similar to the battle against software patents. Just because it is stored in databases and on computers does not make this evidence any different from other types of evidence. No matter how 'smart' Alexa is, it is NOT a person and not subject to first amendment protections. If the first amendment can be twisted to prevent recordings of a persons voice from being used as evidence against them, then the first amendment can be further twisted to prevent the use of other types of evidence. (Fingerprints, DNA, web-searches, emails, etc)
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 23, 2017 19:15:02 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 24, 2017 21:32:26 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 16, 2017 20:15:20 GMT
Any bets that the judge will pretty much just ask with incredulity why SCOG are even bothering. The dead horse that they are continuing to beat, has been dead for so long that all the flesh has rotted away and even the flies are now gone. Wildflowers have been springing up and it is hard to even see that it was any sort of corpse at one time, much less a horse.
The BSF folk who drew the short straw for this appearance will bluster and say how unfair all previous events have been and how much they should have previously won and that if only this judge will give them a chance, they can finally effectively hint at how horribly unfair IBM has been to them and their cause. It'll be coulda, woulda, shoulda ... and please please please.
Hopefully the judge (who also drew a short straw) will beat them down and just rule no, no!, NO!!
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 4, 2017 21:18:54 GMT
Nothing unusual about "scenes a faire". What I found unusual was that this was described as unusual. But then again, maybe that isn't so unusual for Joe Mullin.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 4, 2017 19:15:51 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 22, 2016 15:03:20 GMT
I would wager that not one of those patents Nokia is suing Apple over, is rounded rectangles or other such design patents.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 21, 2016 21:12:45 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 19, 2016 16:02:30 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 16, 2016 19:36:22 GMT
Does my heart good to know that these two may not go entirely unpunished. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Update
Dec 6, 2016 18:33:51 GMT
Authored by nsomos on Dec 6, 2016 18:33:51 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 6, 2016 17:50:26 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Nov 22, 2016 19:52:00 GMT
If there were a competition for lawsuits with the greatest product of stupidity times elapsed time, I do believe this one might be exceptional. In fact, even if this case isn't totally dead yet, it might already be well in the lead.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Oct 7, 2016 20:21:44 GMT
|
|