.

[beachbum]

.

[Lawl Shcool]

YES!

I vote for an un-banning so this thread doesn't die. I guarantee OP's third attempt at thread entry will be even better than his second.

Should've let the guy stay longer so he could've called himself out even more...he obviously showed he was plenty capable of doing something that dumb.

Was the TOS he quoted even accurate? I think it is OP's style to reword the language more favorably to his position.

[zozin]

Hey OP, were you able to answer your exam question?

[shredderrrrrr]

OP:

[Always Credited]

That TOS is incorrect because, if needed, the government can serve a search warrant on TLS and compel any email address falling within the confines of that warrant. Such info can also be compelled by a subpoena with notice to the user, or a 2703(d) order with notice to the user.


So the TOS only means that TLS keeps its discretion to reveal the info or not. Its been held, however, that Terms of Service are insufficient in and of themselves to give users a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in noncontent info (subscriber info, emails, ect.) because by its very nature, noncontent info has NO reasonable expectation of privacy. See Smith v. Maryland.


HTH.

[shredderrrrrr]

That TOS is incorrect because, if needed, the government can serve a search warrant on TLS and compel any email address falling within the confines of that warrant. Such info can also be compelled by a subpoena with notice to the user, or a 2703(d) order with notice to the user.


So the TOS only means that TLS keeps its discretion to reveal the info or not. Its been held, however, that Terms of Service are insufficient in and of themselves to give users a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in noncontent info (subscriber info, emails, ect.) because by its very nature, noncontent info has NO reasonable expectation of privacy. See Smith v. Maryland.


HTH.

Damn, you know your shit.

[lawyerwannabe]

Person must have panicked because he asked TLS only 4 hours into his/her exam . . .

OP is one of 35 people but I don't know how it can be narrowed down any more than that.

[Lawl Shcool]

That TOS is incorrect because, if needed, the government can serve a search warrant on TLS and compel any email address falling within the confines of that warrant. Such info can also be compelled by a subpoena with notice to the user, or a 2703(d) order with notice to the user.


So the TOS only means that TLS keeps its discretion to reveal the info or not. Its been held, however, that Terms of Service are insufficient in and of themselves to give users a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in noncontent info (subscriber info, emails, ect.) because by its very nature, noncontent info has NO reasonable expectation of privacy. See Smith v. Maryland.


HTH.

Damn, you know your shit.

I was more referring to him adjusting the language he quoted but Always Credited FTW!

[Always Credited]

That TOS is incorrect because, if needed, the government can serve a search warrant on TLS and compel any email address falling within the confines of that warrant. Such info can also be compelled by a subpoena with notice to the user, or a 2703(d) order with notice to the user.


So the TOS only means that TLS keeps its discretion to reveal the info or not. Its been held, however, that Terms of Service are insufficient in and of themselves to give users a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in noncontent info (subscriber info, emails, ect.) because by its very nature, noncontent info has NO reasonable expectation of privacy. See Smith v. Maryland.


HTH.

Damn, you know your shit.

Learned computer crimes from this guy:

http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=3568

[Systematic1]

OP:

+1

[shredderrrrrr]

Person must have panicked because he asked TLS only 4 hours into his/her exam . . .

OP is one of 35 people but I don't know how it can be narrowed down any more than that.

Find who turned in a shit test. Done.

[lawyerwannabe]

OP:

+1

[monkey85]

Learned computer crimes from this guy:

http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=3568

Get Orin on this guy's case!

[CyLaw]

Learned computer crimes from this guy:

http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=3568

Been lurking, but came on to say that Kerr is awesome. His work saved me considerable time this semester at my externship.

[chrispronger]

Person must have panicked because he asked TLS only 4 hours into his/her exam . . .

OP is one of 35 people but I don't know how it can be narrowed down any more than that.

If it's just males, down to ~19. I could probably narrow it down to ~5 after eliminating folks who don't know/probably wouldn't know about TLS and folks who are too smart to formulate a question this way.

[beachbum]

.

[Morgan12Oak]

add in some knowledge of DC, possibly an unlikelihood of being a minority, obsession with money/big law, and general douchebaggery and you got yourself a lineup!

[Lawl Shcool]

edit: from google search FYI of "racist dc lax bro"

[I.P. Daly]

The top two threads in "Forum for Law School Students" involve cheating and popping pills.

[thelawyler]

It sounds like at least one, probably multiple people have already turned him in already so I think that is going to be satisfied. I doubt the mod's turn over much unless they get some sort of formal nice request from Duke. The higher chance is if someone already knows who he is. Or, in the alternative he turns himself in thinking that it becomes less severe and calculates his chances of being caught from the above two are relatively high.

Non-content electronic information (including basic subscriber information, IP addresses, and any email accounts he registered under) can be turned over by a private party (TLS) to another private party (Duke) without violating either the Wiretap Act or the Stored Communications Act.

Just saying.

GO MODS GO

Wouldn't this be a breach of TOS, would you ever want to post here again if they did that? I mean in the "anonymous" portion of Legal Employment I'd be deathly afraid to ever post if it could be linked to me.

Reminder of the TOS

Registration will require your email address confirming your registration details and password, but your email will never be provided to anyone. Please click on the links below to begin registering after reading the standard disclaimer below.

As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised

Nice try, OP. Banned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUH3JQjcweM

I'm so glad I kept coming back here.

[shredderrrrrr]

Person must have panicked because he asked TLS only 4 hours into his/her exam . . .

OP is one of 35 people but I don't know how it can be narrowed down any more than that.

If it's just males, down to ~19. I could probably narrow it down to ~5 after eliminating folks who don't know/probably wouldn't know about TLS and folks who are too smart to formulate a question this way.

Don't forget about knowledge of DC.

Any of these guys named Mike? Or have we established that wasn't a real name?

[lawyerwannabe]

Person must have panicked because he asked TLS only 4 hours into his/her exam . . .

OP is one of 35 people but I don't know how it can be narrowed down any more than that.

If it's just males, down to ~19. I could probably narrow it down to ~5 after eliminating folks who don't know/probably wouldn't know about TLS and folks who are too smart to formulate a question this way.

Guessing is not going to do any good.

[Morgan12Oak]

Going to draw a line in the sand here and say that there is no way his name is Mike. Though the "minuteman" description would go along with his self-deprecating sexual attitude (see earlier when he referred to his "tiny dick")

[zozin]

So... can the person be kicked out of school for this? Are we really ready to play internet vigilantes and screw somebody's life/career for this?

[alwayssunnyinfl]

The top two threads in "Forum for Law School Students" involve cheating and popping pills.

Now that TLS is done convincing 0Ls not to go to law school, the next mission is convincing parents to stop thinking it's a good investment.