Talk:B. Lynn Winmill

Untitled
Possibly add a "Controversial Decisions" section? BATTELLE ENERGY vs. SOUTHFORK SECURITY: Decision made in apparent ignorance of professional usage of the word hacker, "The tipping point for the Court comes from evidence that the defendants – in their own words – are hackers". Cite the court order http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-4_13-cv-00442/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-4_13-cv-00442-0.pdf, and commentary on it, such as http://www.digitalbond.com/blog/2013/10/22/call-yourself-a-hacker-lose-your-4th-amendment-rights/. EdmundSS (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Article currently states in relevant regard: "... This decision caused a storm of criticism that such semantic ignorance could cause someone to lose their 4th amendment protections." This repeats a legal error in the cited article's headline. The 4th Amendment has no application here. The Amendment is a restraint on government action but the government is not a party to this case. As cited in the court's opinion, the controlling law is the federal copyright statute and Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. The defendants may have a 1st Amendment defense to the copy of the drive being turned over to Batelle, but the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this motion and order. Speaking as a retired lawyer, I agree that the judge's order is flimsy at best. But the statement that 4th Amendment rights are in play doesn't belong in this article. Marbux (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has valid information on the decision. Both the judgement and the controversy are real, they generated headlines online and are absolutely valid, they deserve a sentence or two here. This keeps getting censored by the same user in an edit war. There is no attempt to edit to preserve facts but simply to blanket delete the entire entry with falsehoods about the validity of the citations. The 4th amendment is the protection against unreasonable search and seizure OF COURSE it has relevance to the judgement. It is correct to say that if upheld this decision would mean anyone calling themselves a hacker would lose their protection against unreasonable search and seizure, i.e. your 4th amendment rights, (and you're a retired lawyer?!). This edit belongs in this article, this judge's only claim to fame is this decision and the attention it has attracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorbie (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The judgment may indeed be real, but the "controversy" is not. Slashdot is not a reliable source for such a claim, especially not when terms such as "infamous" are used to describe it.  According to the BLP policy, injecting controversy into an article such as this needs non-primary sources, and yet that is what keeps being added ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person").  As such, the deletion is entirely appropriate.  The 4th Amendment is not implicated in this case so that cannot serve as the basis for inserting this information, either.  This person is notable for being a Federal district judge ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office") so there is a reason to have the article without this information.  (emphasis added) --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)