Digital rights advocates are criticizing the telecom industry's silence on one of the great controversies of our day: whether police need a warrant to track people's location via their cellphones. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on the issue on Nov. 29.
Under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, it's a criminal act to intentionally access a computer or computer system without authorization. The law also allows victims of unauthorized access to sue for damages. In the modern world of the internet and social media, the definition of "unauthorized" has become contentious, however.
The mere fact that someone is under suspicion for a crime is not enough to justify a warrant for that person's cellphone. The mere fact that most people have a cellphone is not enough to justify a warrant. A warrant issued with no more specific reason than those is unconstitutional, the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently.
After a panel of federal judges ruled that the 1986 Stored Communications Act does not apply outside the United States, the Trump Administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
The federal judge hearing the case on Wisconsin's juvenile prisons commented that Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, suffers less restrictive solitary confinement than do the juveniles confined at the Lincoln Hills School correctional facility in Irma.
You've heard admonitions like this before, of course, in reference to the need to steer past mere baseline competence from a contracting third party when what you truly need is high-level performance from an individual or business entity.
One of the things courts value most is finality. Once a dispute has been resolved, courts are loath to start digging into the process of resolving the dispute -- and this has traditionally led to some pernicious consequences, even without ill intent.