4 ms·

1.) Running a website that allows other people to upload their own software for others to download is hardly comparable to stealing a rental car. He can hardly

1.) Running a website that allows other people to upload their own software for others to download is hardly comparable to stealing a rental car. He can hardly be said to have "had the claimant's property on his premises". For comparison, Github takes an equally "laissez-faire approach to policing content on its site". Should the creators of Github be raided, questioned for 9 hours, passwords handed over, and the website taken offline, just because a user uploads something that a megacorp doesn't like? 2.) "I'm sending an independent lawyer and technical experts appointed by this court to accompany you" - they are actually appointed by the claimant, not the court.

gambiting 8y ago
1) and this brings us back to my original point - we can sit here and argue that the court should have never issued such order in the first place. But because it did, I want to see it carried out(or maybe let me put it this way - I don't want to see the power of search warrants neutered, just because courts sometimes misuse them. They are hugely helpful tool for law enforcement, and we should definitely work against courts issuing them frivolously or under pressure from corporations). 2) Quoting from the article: "One of the lawyers represented some of Canada’s most powerful telecommunications and media companies: Bell, Rogers, Vidéotron, and TVA. The other was there to be an independent observer on behalf of the court."
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  > I don't want to see the power of search warrants neutered, just because courts sometimes misuse them. This isn't a search warrant though.
- jstanley 8y ago
  He was there to be an independent observer, but he is appointed by the claimant, see the link posted elsewhere in this thread: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/

gambiting 8y ago

1) and this brings us back to my original point - we can sit here and argue that the court should have never issued such order in the first place. But because it did, I want to see it carried out(or maybe let me put it this way - I don't want to see the power of search warrants neutered, just because courts sometimes misuse them. They are hugely helpful tool for law enforcement, and we should definitely work against courts issuing them frivolously or under pressure from corporations). 2) Quoting from the article: "One of the lawyers represented some of Canada’s most powerful telecommunications and media companies: Bell, Rogers, Vidéotron, and TVA. The other was there to be an independent observer on behalf of the court."

AllegedAlec 8y ago
> I don't want to see the power of search warrants neutered, just because courts sometimes misuse them. This isn't a search warrant though.
jstanley 8y ago
He was there to be an independent observer, but he is appointed by the claimant, see the link posted elsewhere in this thread: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/