bamboo

It's really great, and you can just keep them on the line if it's an actual person.

Who was the other CEO that died?

Listen to some classical music

No longer 100% after a review from Autostraddle

Marketing ruined the movie for me, seeing Ross’s Red Hulk was unavoidable before release, but watching the movie, it was meant to be a twist or something, since he only turns in the last 20 minutes. It seemed like they were banking on Red Hulk to draw people to see the movie.

Type G. For safety.

G

fuck that's scary.

tea users don’t want men to access their data but tea admins did nothing to stop it

I edited my post to include a case which explains the plain view exception with regard for digital files. From the sound of it, if the warrant were for like a Bitcoin wallet or some data file, then movies and images are likely out of scope, but if the search warrant were for video files, then pirated material would be in plain view of the search.

Based on this, I think it's safe to assume that if there is a search warrant for video evidence related to a crime, and you have pirated material in a folder called /media/Jellyfin/Marvel Movies, that content would be admissible. I don't think you could argue that the analyst should have understood that the only files in that directory were Marvel Movies, because if that were the case, then everyone would hide video evidence of their crimes in a Marvel Movies directory.

IANAL and not really sure if this would hold up for digital assets, but if there is a search warrant, anything in plain view is up for grabs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California. I would assume anything on the hard drive can be evidence in court if it is in plain view of the assets of the search warrant.

But also, for simply possession of pirated content, I don't think the state would charge you, but you could be open to civil litigation if the copyright holders find out somehow.

EDIT: Looked into it some more, and seems there's precedent that files of similar type on a hard drive are considered to be in plain view if they match the type of files which would be searched via a search warrant of the hard drive

In the case of United States v. Wong, police were searching the defendant's computer for evidence related to a murder when they discovered images of child pornography on the computer. Although the warrant was specific to evidence of the murder, the Ninth Circuit held that the plain view exception allowed them to seize the child pornography, as searching graphics files was valid under the warrant and the files were immediately identifiable as contraband.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1158361.html

Yeah, not a lot of details in this case. Unfortunately though, Google has previously banned accounts that don't contain any illegal content and appealing it is a fools errand: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html

Again it was just a guess, but why would a company like Google just randomly freeze all the data for this one person for no reason? Feels like there has to be a cause and effect, and the only info we know of is that the backup to scrivener the day prior. Obviously they never had a problem before to amass all the documents in there, so what just happened to get banned?

I don't know the total file size or the tool used to pull the content from Google Drive. It could be that the behavior looked like file sharing to Google's servers and the policy is to shut it down while they investigate.