I thought the same. The article said he would have faced repercussions for disobeying a court order had he refused to let them in, but at the same time he wasn't obligated to. It sucks because he...
I thought the same. The article said he would have faced repercussions for disobeying a court order had he refused to let them in, but at the same time he wasn't obligated to.
It sucks because he probably would have been better off had he refused entry and then fought the case from there. You would think that arguing an unlawful search of your home by telecom companies would hold up better in court, but then again there were those judges who deemed it lawful despite the original ruling that it wasn't.
Maybe someone can help me with an example or two, but I recall just this sort of thing happening in the early 00's in the USA, where end users were targeted.
Maybe someone can help me with an example or two, but I recall just this sort of thing happening in the early 00's in the USA, where end users were targeted.
A more Canadian solution would be to greet them warmly with a fresh cup of coffee. If they want to use the bathroom, it will be $500,000 per use. Re-entry to the domicile is not permitted unless...
A more Canadian solution would be to greet them warmly with a fresh cup of coffee. If they want to use the bathroom, it will be $500,000 per use. Re-entry to the domicile is not permitted unless expressly included in the court order.
How is this legal? I get the tech was court-authorized but it sounds like the entire event was copying all his data and invading every inch of his privacy to prevent evidence from being destroyed....
a court-authorized computer technician took TVAddons offline and made its Twitter account with 100,000 followers private, locking Lackman out in the process.
How is this legal? I get the tech was court-authorized but it sounds like the entire event was copying all his data and invading every inch of his privacy to prevent evidence from being destroyed. How does that enable them to reach out and then make changes, seize his property, and lock him out of his own social media accounts?
I thought the same. The article said he would have faced repercussions for disobeying a court order had he refused to let them in, but at the same time he wasn't obligated to.
It sucks because he probably would have been better off had he refused entry and then fought the case from there. You would think that arguing an unlawful search of your home by telecom companies would hold up better in court, but then again there were those judges who deemed it lawful despite the original ruling that it wasn't.
Maybe someone can help me with an example or two, but I recall just this sort of thing happening in the early 00's in the USA, where end users were targeted.
A more Canadian solution would be to greet them warmly with a fresh cup of coffee. If they want to use the bathroom, it will be $500,000 per use. Re-entry to the domicile is not permitted unless expressly included in the court order.
How is this legal? I get the tech was court-authorized but it sounds like the entire event was copying all his data and invading every inch of his privacy to prevent evidence from being destroyed. How does that enable them to reach out and then make changes, seize his property, and lock him out of his own social media accounts?