Proof of the alleged misdemeanor was a screenshot of said poke

Technology and law traditionally haven’t meshed well together, as technology’s constant stream of new developments sometimes make the law’s adherence to the letter ludicrous. Stanford fellow Ryan Calo laid out the legal rationale behind the whole affair:

…it is still a form of communication restricted by a protective order.

“A poke is a very deliberate action,” he said. “You have to select the person and say, ‘this is what I want to do.’”

Advances in technology have expanded the spectrum of communication, from low-engagement to high-engagement ways of interacting with others, Calo said.

Fair enough, a woman goes to court and successfully gets a court order protecting her from further communication from an offending party, and that protection was violated. Getting arrested for poking someone else on Facebook sounds a bit rough, but there’s a lesson here: If someone hated or feared me enough to actually file a restraining order against me, I would simply delete him or her from my list of Facebook friends. Common sense people!

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

What’s even more amazing is a student is willing to go through the trouble of suing Amazon over this (the company deleted his copy of 1984, which he needed to finish homework) to “set a precedent”. Not for money in other words, but to make the courts declare remote control of paid merchandise illegal.

I’m suddenly glad the Kindle never tempted me too much. Then again, I’ve also started worrying about my Steam games collection, which of course is subject to Valve’s control.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

What is the value of the digital product for use tax purposes?

The value is the purchase price of the digital product. If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product. [emphasis mine]

So, does this mean the state government can apply a tax to people who acquire a “digital product” (like music, video, or a game for instance) “acquired by means other than a purchase” (like through a pirated torrent)? Authorities definitely need to clarify.

Screenshot of Steam Checkout Page

More importantly, will the tax lead to higher prices, as sellers have to raise prices to honor the law and continue making money? If so, then won’t the tax lessen the incentive for “unauthorized” downloaders to become paying buyers?

More info on ESHB 2075 (AKA the Digital Products Bill) is available here.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

That’s because the FCC claims that newer gadgets that use radio waves (or are subject to the same rules that have dictated the government agency’s actions in decades past. In other words, the power to search for non-certified equipment and pirate broadcasters without a warrant.

There’s a reason why the FCC wields such authority. After all, it was created to ensure that transmitting and broadcasting entities play nice and within the allotted frequencies, and prevent the disruption of communications that may have potentially life-and-death consequences. Home privacy and FCC impetus hardly conflicted when radio devices weren’t commonplace as they are today.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case nowadays, and there may be unforeseen complications. If Wired’s interpretation of case precedent and the law is accurate, this kind of unfettered access could have bad consequences:

But if inspectors should notice evidence of unrelated criminal behavior — say, a marijuana plant or an unregistered gun — a Supreme Court decision suggests the search can be used against the resident. In the 1987 case New York v. Burger, two police officers performed a warrantless, administrative search of one Joseph Burger’s automobile junkyard. When he couldn’t produce the proper paperwork, the officers searched the grounds and found stolen vehicles, which they used to prosecute him. The Supreme Court held the search to be legal.

The same article also illustrates a case where a man refused entry to an FCC inspector: “Winton was later fined $7,000 for refusing entry to the officer. The fine was reduced to $225 after he proved he had little income.”

Post from: The Gadget Blog

As I’ve written on Philippine-affiliate Technograph, the intentions behind this bill are good—anyone remember that US high-school cellphone scandal? But again, it’s always a question of enforcement:

But, how will the government enforce the Anti Cyber-Boso bill, if it becomes law? The only possible scenario I imagine the law working is when the police discover amateur smut on the cellphone of someone they’ve arrested.

(image from Technograph)

Post from: The Gadget Blog