Skip to main content

law directory


LG München: 3 O 17493/20 Vom 20.01.2022”, Munich & Chamber 2022

LG München: 3 O 17493/20 vom 20.01.2022⁠, Regional Court of Munich, 3<sup>rd</​sup> Civil Chamber (2022-01-20; ; backlinks):

Dynamic IP addresses constitute personal data for the operator of a website, because he has the abstract legal means that could reasonably be used to have the person in question determined from the stored IP addresses with the help of third parties, namely the competent authority and the Internet access provider (following BGH VI ZR 135/​13).

The use of font services such as Google Fonts cannot be based on Art. 6 (1) p.1 lit. f GDPR⁠, since the use of the fonts is also possible without a connection from visitors to Google servers.

There is no obligation on the part of the visitor to “encrypt” his IP address (presumably means disguise it, for example by using a VPN).

The disclosure of the user’s IP address in the above-mentioned manner and the associated encroachment on the general right of personality is so substantial with regard to the loss of control over a personal data to Google, a company that is known to collect data about its users, and the individual discomfort felt by the user as a result, that a claim for damages is justified.

…The defendant is sentenced to refrain from a fine of up to €250,000.00 to be set for each case of infringement, alternatively to imprisonment or imprisonment for up to 6 months, when the plaintiff accesses a website operated by the defendant and his IP address address by providing a font from the provider Google (Google Fonts) to disclose the provider of this font…The defendant is sentenced to pay the plaintiff €100.00 plus interest from this amounting to 5 percentage points above the base interest rate since January 28, 2021.

“Jay-Z's 99 Problems, Verse 2: A Close Reading With Fourth Amendment Guidance for Cops and Perps”, Mason 2012

2012-mason.pdf: “Jay-Z's 99 Problems, Verse 2: A Close Reading with Fourth Amendment Guidance for Cops and Perps”⁠, Caleb Mason (2012-12-01; ⁠, ; similar):

This is a line-by-line analysis of the second verse of “99 Problems” by Jay-Z⁠, from the perspective of a criminal procedure professor.

It’s intended as a resource for law students and teachers, and for anyone who’s interested in what pop culture gets right about criminal justice, and what it gets wrong.

[WP: “In 2011 Southwestern Law School Professor Caleb Mason wrote an article with a line-by-line analysis of the second verse of the song from a legal perspective referencing the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution⁠, citing it as an useful tool for teaching law students search and seizure law involving search warrants⁠, Terry stops⁠, racial profiling⁠, the exclusionary rule⁠, and the motor vehicle exception⁠. Mason writes that some of Jay-Z’s lyrics are legally accurate and describe prudent behavior (eg. identifying when police ask for consent to search, specifically asking if one is under arrest, and complying with the police order to stop rather than fleeing which would certainly result in a search of the car and might authorize police to use lethal force to stop a high speed chase). However, Mason also notes the song lyrics are legally incorrect in indicating that a driver can refuse an order to exit the Arand that police would need a warrant to search a locked glove compartment or trunk—in fact, police would only need probable cause to search a car.”]

…The year is ‘94, in my trunk is raw
In my rearview mirror is the motherfuckin’ law
Got 2 choices, y’all: pull over the car or
Bounce on the devil, put the pedal to the floor
And I ain’t tryin’ to see no highway chase with Jake
Plus I got a few dollars, I can fight the case
So I pull over to the side of the road
I heard, “Son, do you know why I’m stopping you for?”
“’Cause I’m young and I’m black and my hat’s real low?
Do I look like a mind reader, sir? I don’t know
Am I under arrest or should I guess some more?”
“Well, you was doing 55 in a 54
License and registration and step out of the car
Are you carrying a weapon on you? I know a lot of you are”
“I ain’t stepping out of shit, all my paper’s legit”
“Well, do you mind if I look around the car a little bit?”
“Well, my glove compartment is locked
So is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights, so you gon’ need a warrant for that”
“Aren’t you sharp as a tack? You some type of lawyer or something? Somebody important or something?”
“Well, I ain’t passed the bar, but I know a little bit
Enough that you won’t illegally search my shit”
“Well, we’ll see how smart you are when the K9 come”
I got 99 problems, but a bitch [female dog] ain’t one; hit me!

“Modafinil”, Branwen 2009

Modafinil: “Modafinil”⁠, Gwern Branwen (2009-02-20; ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ⁠, ; backlinks; similar):

Effects, health concerns, suppliers, prices & rational ordering.

Modafinil is a prescription stimulant drug. I discuss informally, from a cost-benefit-informed perspective, the research up to 2015 on modafinil’s cognitive effects, the risks of side-effects and addiction/​tolerance and law enforcement, and give a table of current grey-market suppliers and discuss how to order from them.

“Psychological Assessment Versus Psychological Testing: Validation From Binet to the School, Clinic, and Courtroom”, Matarazzo 1990

1990-matarazzo.pdf: “Psychological Assessment Versus Psychological Testing: Validation From Binet to the School, Clinic, and Courtroom”⁠, Joseph D. Matarazzo (1990-09-01; ⁠, ):

Increasingly, psychological assessment is conducted with clients and patients involved in child custody and personal injury litigation. Clinical neuropsychologists are being asked sophisticated questions by attorneys regarding the validity of practitioners’ most highly respected tests.

Research reviewed here bears on the validity of test-buttressed clinical opinions, including research related to the following psychometric properties of individual test scores: standard errors of measurement, test-retest stability and subtest-to-subtest intercorrelations. The highest and the lowest subtest scores used as indices, respectively, of an individual’s premorbid level of cognitive functioning and the degree of current impairment from that presumed earlier level is not justified when used in isolation from the life history and current medical findings.

Although many practitioners use information from the wider research, courtroom experience suggests that a number do not; contrariwise, the attempt of D. Faust and J. Ziskin (1988a) to undermine the courtroom testimony of every psychologist who serves as an expert witness is also criticized.