A person OM along with nine others were convicted for conspiring terrorism. The evidence that supported the charges against him included his social media posts. The person OM appealed that the social media posts were not proved to be his own. To find: The connection between the posts on social media and the person posting it as alleged by the government.

Question

3. An individual had been involved in an incident inside and outside a Manila restaurant where hiswallet was stolen. He also suffered minor injuries in the incident. He requested access to therestaurant CCTV footage relating to himself, saying he wants to see all details surrounding theincident and possibly figure out a way to recover his wallet. He tried to speak to the managerpersonally but was referred to the security guard. After a few days of following up on his request, hewas finally informed that the establishment would not provide him any data. This infuriated him and,upon going back to the restaurant, he demanded his right to view the footage or else he would createa scene. He was told that, as per their security policy, no “outsider” is allowed to enter areas in theirestablishment designated only as “for employees only”. As a compromise, the manager said theywould give him a record of the footage using the customer’s handheld gadget. What data privacyright is being…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 9, Problem 5BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: A person OM along with nine others were convicted for conspiring terrorism. The evidence that supported the charges against him included his social media posts. The person OM appealed that the social media posts were not proved to be his own.

To find:The connection between the posts on social media and the person posting it as alleged by the government.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

3. An individual had been involved in an incident inside and outside a Manila restaurant where hiswallet was stolen. He also suffered minor injuries in the incident. He requested access to therestaurant CCTV footage relating to himself, saying he wants to see all details surrounding theincident and possibly figure out a way to recover his wallet. He tried to speak to the managerpersonally but was referred to the security guard. After a few days of following up on his request, hewas finally informed that the establishment would not provide him any data. This infuriated him and,upon going back to the restaurant, he demanded his right to view the footage or else he would createa scene. He was told that, as per their security policy, no “outsider” is allowed to enter areas in theirestablishment designated only as “for employees only”. As a compromise, the manager said theywould give him a record of the footage using the customer’s handheld gadget. What data privacyright is being…

"7. Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weakening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD’s branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech. What principles apply to the government’s regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)"

Mary purchased 6 bags of potatoes from Smart Shops. Unknown to either party, the potatoes had become unfit for human consumption due to a secondary growth. What rights does Mary have?