From the time I discovered Groklaw, I grew attached to the way that PJ not only managed to keep a handle on the crazy machinations of long-running cases (SCO v IBM being one of the biggest), but was able to tie all of the different threads together into a cohesive narrative. I'm not sure any single news source has managed to step up to Groklaw's level.
PJ, if you ever read this, please consider coming back! Since you left, groups like the Freedom of the Press Foundation (https://freedom.press) have formed to provide tools that sources and journalists may use to communicate as securely as possible. Groups from different ends of the political spectrum — from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/anonymous-news-tips/) to the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/tips) and beyond — provide ways for sources to submit tips using Signal and SecureDrop.
In the time since you have left, there have been leaks of documents orders of magnitude more damaging than those of corporate lawsuits; and the news organizations which convert those leaks into reporting are doing a good job of keeping their sources secret. Government agencies continue to press for backdoors to encryption. And I take all of that as a sign that things seem to be working.
Funny, in 1999 the 9th wrote "Whether we are surveilled by our government, by criminals, or by our neighbors, it is fair to say that never has our ability to shield our affairs from prying eyes been at such a low ebb."
The list of things that have changed since then makes 1999 that quote look downright insane. I'm not even going to explain how much less private everyone is. But lets just say, back then, for the most part the government (and via 3rd parties) was probably surveying people under actual investigation less than they currently surveying everyone in the country.
> But lets just say, back then, for the most part the government (and via 3rd parties) was probably surveying people under actual investigation less than they currently surveying everyone in the country.
Only if we selectively ignore COINTELPRO, the Red Scare witch-hunts, the attacks on the Civil Rights & Black Power movements...
> The VENONA papers actually proved McCarthy right.
That's a pretty ludicrous claim, and the link you posted does not support it. It says only that a Texas school board was criticized for making similar claims.
Again, the wikipedia link says nothing about the claim you're making except that a Texas school board controversially tried to promote it in its curriculum.
From further reading, the claim itself seems to originate from an Ann Coulter book.
The decrypted messages gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. With the first break into the code, Venona revealed the existence of Soviet espionage[23] at Los Alamos National Laboratories.[24] Identities soon emerged of American, Canadian, Australian, and British spies in service to the Soviet government, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May, and Donald Maclean. Others worked in Washington in the State Department, the Treasury, Office of Strategic Services,[25] and even the White House.
The messages show that the U.S. and other nations were targeted in major espionage campaigns by the Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those identified are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie,[26] a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin,[27] a section head in the Office of Strategic Services."
McCarthy's claims were far broader than that (and virtually all spurious). From a specialist historian:
> But if McCarthy was right about some of the large issues, he was wildly wrong on virtually all of the details. ... virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. ... The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you reading the quote backwards? They're claiming 1999 had a then-record high amount of surveillance. That the trend continued is hardly a reason to call the quote insane!
It's strange to me that they mentioned Oracle vs Google in the introduction but not the body of the article.
It seems like in a lot of the cases involving new tech take a couple years to get started and then ~5 years to resolve. So we got a ruling about the phone searchers 7 years after the iPhone, a ruling about streaming 6 years after the launch of Napster, and a ruling about "decency" 8 years after the launch of the web.
I wonder what the big issues over the next 10 years will be. Self driving cars? It's a bit tedious to have every prediction about the future reduce to that.
I agree with respect to many of these cases. But the Waymo case or the Ross Ulbricht case were pretty routine from a legal perspective as I understand it. The Oracle one is establishing novel law about whether or not you can copyright an API.
I don’t know how much Ars covered it but it does seem like an omission. In general the list seems to be biased against cases that are strictly about software as opposed to bringing in criminal and other areas of law. Yes, the case is technically still alive.
>Result: Police cannot obtain 127 days' worth of cell-site location information about a criminal suspect without a warrant.
This was a weird one, because it seemed like they were cool with about 6 days of unwarranted cell-site data. What's so special about 6 days?
>Result: Workers that sign arbitration agreements are bound to them and can’t use the federal court system to adjudicate labor claims—making class-action lawsuits in such scenarios all but impossible.
Just had a law class (in Europe) and our professor told us that this is one of the main reasons that arbitration exists (and is so prevalent) in the US: to prevent class-action lawsuits.
EDIT: Especially read the bottom of the article. The arbitration clause required over $10k USD to even begin, and takes place in the Netherlands... What. the. actual. fuck.
How exactly did uber try to move the case to an EU country for Canada?
There are some super rare edge case legal arguments about jurisdictions and which laws apply within the eu for employees/workers who regularly work in different countries but not non eu countries and eu ones.
They didn't 'try to move the case'. They had a choice of forums clause in their agreement with drivers. Choice of forums clauses are supposed to give certainty to the location that a dispute would be heard in the event of a dispute. Theoretically they should be used to clarify the jurisdiction to govern the contract in the event of a complicated international enterprise so that parties can avoid fighting over the proper location to litigate the dispute.
The court found that in this case 1) the clause functionally was just an attempt to circumvent Ontario labour standards, 2) the clause was the result of a disparity between the power of Uber and the power of their drivers, and 3) Uber exercised their power here intentionally to deprive their drivers.
Canada has been moving to incorporate more civilian-style protections into their common law contracts jurisprudence. Civilian style systems have much less of an issue striking down abusive clauses like the aforementioned arbitration clause.
However, even if the abusive clause was struck down, recognize that the existence of the clause was still a net benefit to Uber; Prior to the ruling, there was the possibility that this litigation failed, and that the drivers or their lawyers (depending on their fee arrangement) would be saddled with the cost of fighting. The uncertainty itself is the aim of clauses like this one, even if most people recognize they are abhorrent.
Without strict penalties for this type of contracting behaviour, it unfortunately still benefits employers to twist arms.
I think that 6days for most property based crimes is plenty of time for "smart" criminals to clear up physical evidence and establish an alibi. for crimes like kidknaping or assaults [of various types] there is a window of opportinity to rescue a person and preserve life, then after a week, a shift into recovery mode so the family of/and a decedent will have dignity.
It's been over six years since PJ stopped posting to Groklaw, around the time that Lavabit shut down (see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175), because PJ relied on email to receive documents and tips.
From the time I discovered Groklaw, I grew attached to the way that PJ not only managed to keep a handle on the crazy machinations of long-running cases (SCO v IBM being one of the biggest), but was able to tie all of the different threads together into a cohesive narrative. I'm not sure any single news source has managed to step up to Groklaw's level.
PJ, if you ever read this, please consider coming back! Since you left, groups like the Freedom of the Press Foundation (https://freedom.press) have formed to provide tools that sources and journalists may use to communicate as securely as possible. Groups from different ends of the political spectrum — from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/anonymous-news-tips/) to the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/tips) and beyond — provide ways for sources to submit tips using Signal and SecureDrop.
In the time since you have left, there have been leaks of documents orders of magnitude more damaging than those of corporate lawsuits; and the news organizations which convert those leaks into reporting are doing a good job of keeping their sources secret. Government agencies continue to press for backdoors to encryption. And I take all of that as a sign that things seem to be working.
So I hope you consider coming back one day!