Top-Law-Schools.comTLS
Home		Law School
Admissions		Law
Schools		Law
Students		TLS
Forums		 
Forum Index     Latest Posts     Forum Search     Mobile (on/off)     Forum Archives     See Also: Rankings/Profiles   Interviews   LSAT Prep   TLS Stats

TLS would like to remind its users that it is unlawful to share or distribute copies of copyrighted materials. Click here for copyright infringement notification information.

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Students and Graduates » Forum for Law School Students

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 6 of 17
  [ 411 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
beachbum
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm
Posts: 2837
.


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

Top
 Profile  
 
Lawl Shcool
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 803
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
zozin
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 3180
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
shredderrrrrr
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am
Posts: 6115
OP:

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Always Credited
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 4458
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
shredderrrrrr
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am
Posts: 6115
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
lawyerwannabe
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm
Posts: 852
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Lawl Shcool
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 803
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!
Top
 Profile  
 
Always Credited
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 4458
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
Top
 Profile  
 
Systematic1
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:14 pm
Posts: 463
shredderrrrrr wrote:
OP:

Image


+1
Top
 Profile  
 
shredderrrrrr
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am
Posts: 6115
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
lawyerwannabe
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm
Posts: 852
Systematic1 wrote:
shredderrrrrr wrote:
OP:

Image


+1


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

Top
 Profile  
 
monkey85
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:07 pm
Posts: 746
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!
Top
 Profile  
 
CyLaw
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:59 pm
Posts: 2625
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
chrispronger
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:12 pm
Posts: 19
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
beachbum
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm
Posts: 2837
.


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

Top
 Profile  
 
Morgan12Oak
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:59 am
Posts: 348
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!
Top
 Profile  
 
Lawl Shcool
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 803
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
I.P. Daly
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:27 pm
Posts: 5780
The top two threads in "Forum for Law School Students" involve cheating and popping pills.
Top
 Profile  
 
thelawyler
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm
Posts: 890
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

Quote:
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
shredderrrrrr
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:36 am
Posts: 6115
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?
Top
 Profile  
 
lawyerwannabe
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:39 pm
Posts: 852
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Morgan12Oak
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:59 am
Posts: 348
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
zozin
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 3180
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?
Top
 Profile  
 
alwayssunnyinfl
 Post subject: Re: .
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 13158
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.
Top
 Profile  
 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 6 of 17
  [ 411 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 17  Next

Board index » Students and Graduates » Forum for Law School Students

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Borg, dsap45, patrickd139 and 13 guests


Princeton Review LSAT

Search for:
Jump to:  
Login     Contact     Copyright Notice

copyright 2003-2013 top-law-schools.com • all rights reserved • powered by phpBB