Internet lawyer type nogs, check in.....
04-18-2008, 11:29 AM
#41
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,282
Re: Internet lawyer type nogs, check in.....
just leave it the ---- be.. dont give a ----.. submit the papers yourself and they wont get your addy.. and even if they do.... let em sue you.. go to court without a lawyer.. say your honor.. im just a humble painter trying to make a living for my family.. i dont even know what an ip adress is.. these guys are bullying me and scared me into hiring some nitwit who calls himself a computer expert explain to me how my wireless network is unsecured and that anyone including my neighbor can connect to it and how i have to pay him 700 dollars to secure my network, i handed him the money to secure my network and he assured me that my network is now secure and that no one can connect to it other than me.. then when my wife tried to connect her laptop she couldnt connect to it and when i called the guy to fix it he told me it would be another 700 dollars to make it so that my wife could connect..
i hope you go to jail over this.. something you didnt do.. internet crime ---- is just like terrorism.. your automatically assumed guilty and now all of a sudden you have to go through beurocratic bullshit to keep them from getting your adress.. but if you block them it means you have something to hide right? which means they will try that much harder to ---- you over.
i hope you go to jail over this.. something you didnt do.. internet crime ---- is just like terrorism.. your automatically assumed guilty and now all of a sudden you have to go through beurocratic bullshit to keep them from getting your adress.. but if you block them it means you have something to hide right? which means they will try that much harder to ---- you over.
04-18-2008, 03:05 PM
#43
3.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,042
Re: Internet lawyer type nogs, check in.....
Call the Courthouse and get some information. If you ask for the information to be supressed will your request show up as a public document and therefore visable to the bitches who are after ya. If not, then just send it.
Or jus ask a lawyer to send a letter on yuor behalf. They will most likely not make you pay much just for that. And if it gets bigger then you will need said lawyer anyway, might as well make a contact.
Or jus ask a lawyer to send a letter on yuor behalf. They will most likely not make you pay much just for that. And if it gets bigger then you will need said lawyer anyway, might as well make a contact.
04-22-2008, 03:20 AM
#44
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,282
Re: Internet lawyer type nogs, check in.....
related
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/...privacy_ruling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/...privacy_ruling
NJ court requires subpoena for Internet subscriber records By JEFFREY GOLD, Associated Press Writer
Mon Apr 21, 4:06 PM ET
Internet service providers must not release personal information about users in New Jersey without a valid subpoena, even to police, the state's highest court ruled Monday.
New Jersey's Supreme Court found that the state's constitution gives greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the U.S. Constitution.
The court ruled that Internet providers should not disclose private information to anyone without a subpoena.
A Washington lawyer who handles Internet litigation, Megan E. Gray, said the ruling "seems to be consistent with a trend nationwide, but not a strong trend."
"It's contrary to what is happening with rights of privacy at the federal level," Gray said. "But it's all over the board for the states, with a mild trend toward protecting this information."
Grayson Barber, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, among other groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, said it was the first ruling in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy for Internet users.
"The reality is that people do expect a measure of privacy when they use the Internet," Barber said.
The 7-0 ruling upheld lower court decisions that restricted police from obtaining the identity of a Cape May County woman accused of retaliating in 2004 against her boss after an argument by changing her employer's access codes to a supplier's Web site.
Police obtained the woman's identity through her Internet provider, Comcast Corp., by tracing an Internet fingerprint left by her computer. The fingerprint consisted of an Internet protocol address, often called an IP address, that could be identified only by Comcast.
Police obtained a subpoena for the data from a municipal court, but higher courts said a grand jury subpoena was necessary because an indictable offense was at issue.
Police must seek a criminal grand jury subpoena to get such information, the court found. And it said the woman's 2005 indictment on a charge of theft by computer cannot stand unless prosecutors have enough proof without the evidence, now suppressed, that they got from Comcast without having the right subpoena.
Prosecutors can resume their pursuit of the information.
"Suppression under the circumstances present here does not mean that the evidence is lost in its entirety. Comcast's records existed independently of the faulty process the police followed," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the unanimous court. "And, unlike a confession coerced from a defendant in violation of her constitutional rights, the record does not suggest that police conduct in this case in any way affected the records Comcast kept."
Cape May County Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said his office will seek a grand jury subpoena and a new indictment.
___
On the Net:
Court ruling: http://tinyurl.com/5yyz25
Mon Apr 21, 4:06 PM ET
Internet service providers must not release personal information about users in New Jersey without a valid subpoena, even to police, the state's highest court ruled Monday.
New Jersey's Supreme Court found that the state's constitution gives greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the U.S. Constitution.
The court ruled that Internet providers should not disclose private information to anyone without a subpoena.
A Washington lawyer who handles Internet litigation, Megan E. Gray, said the ruling "seems to be consistent with a trend nationwide, but not a strong trend."
"It's contrary to what is happening with rights of privacy at the federal level," Gray said. "But it's all over the board for the states, with a mild trend toward protecting this information."
Grayson Barber, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, among other groups that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, said it was the first ruling in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy for Internet users.
"The reality is that people do expect a measure of privacy when they use the Internet," Barber said.
The 7-0 ruling upheld lower court decisions that restricted police from obtaining the identity of a Cape May County woman accused of retaliating in 2004 against her boss after an argument by changing her employer's access codes to a supplier's Web site.
Police obtained the woman's identity through her Internet provider, Comcast Corp., by tracing an Internet fingerprint left by her computer. The fingerprint consisted of an Internet protocol address, often called an IP address, that could be identified only by Comcast.
Police obtained a subpoena for the data from a municipal court, but higher courts said a grand jury subpoena was necessary because an indictable offense was at issue.
Police must seek a criminal grand jury subpoena to get such information, the court found. And it said the woman's 2005 indictment on a charge of theft by computer cannot stand unless prosecutors have enough proof without the evidence, now suppressed, that they got from Comcast without having the right subpoena.
Prosecutors can resume their pursuit of the information.
"Suppression under the circumstances present here does not mean that the evidence is lost in its entirety. Comcast's records existed independently of the faulty process the police followed," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the unanimous court. "And, unlike a confession coerced from a defendant in violation of her constitutional rights, the record does not suggest that police conduct in this case in any way affected the records Comcast kept."
Cape May County Prosecutor Robert L. Taylor said his office will seek a grand jury subpoena and a new indictment.
___
On the Net:
Court ruling: http://tinyurl.com/5yyz25
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RENR
General Discussion
31
08-29-2005 07:35 AM
willahlborn
General Discussion
10
04-23-2005 03:54 PM
