.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: .

Postby beachbum » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:51 pm

.
Last edited by beachbum on Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: .

Postby Lawl Shcool » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote: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.

User avatar
zozin
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: .

Postby zozin » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm

Hey OP, were you able to answer your exam question?
Last edited by zozin on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: .

Postby shredderrrrrr » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm

OP:

Image

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: .

Postby Always Credited » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:54 pm

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.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: .

Postby shredderrrrrr » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 pm

Always Credited wrote: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
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: .

Postby lawyerwannabe » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 pm

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.
Last edited by lawyerwannabe on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: .

Postby Lawl Shcool » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:
Always Credited wrote: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!

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: .

Postby Always Credited » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:
Always Credited wrote: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

User avatar
Systematic1
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: .

Postby Systematic1 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:58 pm

shredderrrrrr wrote:OP:

Image


+1

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: .

Postby shredderrrrrr » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:58 pm

lawyerwannabe wrote: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
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: .

Postby lawyerwannabe » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:58 pm

Systematic1 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:OP:

Image


+1
Last edited by lawyerwannabe on Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
monkey85
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:07 pm

Re: .

Postby monkey85 » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:00 pm

Always Credited wrote:Learned computer crimes from this guy:

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


Get Orin on this guy's case!

CyLaw
Posts: 1557
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: .

Postby CyLaw » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:01 pm

Always Credited wrote: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.
Last edited by CyLaw on Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chrispronger
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:12 pm

Re: .

Postby chrispronger » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:01 pm

lawyerwannabe wrote: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.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: .

Postby beachbum » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:02 pm

.
Last edited by beachbum on Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Morgan12Oak
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:59 am

Re: .

Postby Morgan12Oak » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:03 pm

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!

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: .

Postby Lawl Shcool » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:05 pm

Image

edit: from google search FYI of "racist dc lax bro"
Last edited by Lawl Shcool on Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
I.P. Daly
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm

Re: .

Postby I.P. Daly » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:05 pm

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

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: .

Postby thelawyler » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 pm

dailygrind wrote:
minutemanmike wrote:
Always Credited wrote:
Morgan12Oak wrote: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.

User avatar
shredderrrrrr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am

Re: .

Postby shredderrrrrr » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 pm

beachbum wrote:
chrispronger wrote:
lawyerwannabe wrote: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
Posts: 945
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: .

Postby lawyerwannabe » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:07 pm

chrispronger wrote:
lawyerwannabe wrote: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.
Last edited by lawyerwannabe on Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Morgan12Oak
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:59 am

Re: .

Postby Morgan12Oak » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm

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")
Last edited by Morgan12Oak on Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zozin
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: .

Postby zozin » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm

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?

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: .

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm

I.P. Daly wrote: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.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], derecho123 and 12 guests