Concurring Opinions

You're the professional, but to my understanding your characterization that the amount of information yielded by a search is a 4th amendment analysis "out of thin air" isn't accurate. Alito wrote in his concurrence in Jones v. United States: Justice Alito then evaluates the GPS surveillance here, noting that “devices like the one used in the present case … make long-term monitoring relatively easy and cheap.” “[T]he best we can do in this case,” reasons Alito, “is to apply existing Fourth Amendment doctrine” and “ask whether the use of GPS tracking in a particular case involved a degree of intrusion that a reasonable person would not have anticipated.” Alito at 13. Under this inquiry, “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy,” because “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not — and indeed, in the main, simply could not — secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/01/united-states-v-jon… It seems to me that Alito is saying that the amount of information gathered in Jones is relevant to 4th Amendment analysis. Specifically: "society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not — and indeed, in the main, simply could not — secretly monitor and catalogue every single…

you should see a lawyer. but the black letter law as of when i was a lawyer (2010) is that you can trade on an overheard conversation (see the switzer case involving the famed oklahoma football coach). you don't have a fiduciary duty to the company and you don't inherit the duty from the tipper because the tipper tipped without personal benefit. edit a reliable reference (contra some of the other sources cited in this thread): http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/08/insider-trading-dea…

This on Forbes? It's an ill informed exercise in victim blaming. The "apology" comes at the end, in the form of a link to a quite valid criticism of the article: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/02/adventures-in-victi… If you read the Forbes article, be sure you click through to the critique to see how flawed his logic is.

It's been linked and discussed here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059044 Please keep in mind that the paper is about as old as I am (34 years) and some things have changed, most notably that germany now has a plea bargaining system, though it's quite a bit different from the american one. See http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/07/german-bundestag-pa… for an overview (linked from the discussion).

It is quite different though: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/07/german-bundestag-pa…

You can't be that lazy :) http://google.com/search?q=porn+captcha http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7067962.stm http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/10/creative_ways_t.htm… (note the quoted part from article) and probably a thousand others Also I personally did stumble to Google's captcha in quite a few sites (borderline porn) posing it as their own for registration purposes (sometimes monochromed though). Google has easily recognizable captcha.

> tax returns are illegally obtained and released about Trump The NY Times did nothing illegal.[0] The person who provided the tax return (actually one page of a return, afaik) might have broken the law; we don't know. There are rumors that it was Marla Maples, his wife at the time, in which case their joint tax return was hers as much as his, and hers to release (unless there's some rule preventing one spouse releasing a joint return without the other's permission). Another major difference is that the NY Times carefully vetted the tax return to make sure it was accurate; they found and talked to Trump's accountant at the time, used other information to corroborate it, and gave Trump an opportunity to respond. Wikileaks, in contrast, publishes information without any vetting, making them a tool for lies and propaganda campaigns. > we should ignore the content How do you know it's accurate? Certainly, an anonymous Internet source is not at all credible, many people have motives to (and many actually do) spread lies and falsify documents during a political campaign, and Russian intelligence, which has a track record of such things[1] and is not at all a credible source, is very likely is behind the theft of the information.[2] ---- [0] https://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/10/fan-125-1-first-amendm… [1]…