Search for: "Cloud v. State" Results 1321 - 1340 of 1,742
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2013, 10:04 am by Keith R. Fisher
Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008, 1012-1013 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 (1986), and United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2016, 4:01 pm by INFORRM
The directive also states that there should be transparent procedures and effective safeguards, but leaves unsaid what these should be. [read post]
5 May 2019, 10:39 am by Cyberleagle
”This exclusion is nowhere stated in the White Paper. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 10:32 am by Stewart Baker
It’s not hard to find support for that view if you compare United States v. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 1:35 pm by Timothy P. Flynn, Esq.
The case, Tkachik v Mandeville, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision that ruled she could not do so.In this case, the wife became ill and died of breast cancer after nearly three decades of marriage. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 10:36 am by Alan S. Kaplinsky
While the constitutionality issue has loomed over the Bureau nearly since it opened its doors for business, it has now descended upon the Bureau as a very dark cloud. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 1:39 pm by Berin Szoka
For example, in the United States, The Progress & Freedom Foundation recently joined Google and a number of other companies, trade associations and think tanks in the Digital Due Process coalition, which is pushing for heightened protections for users’ privacy when government demands data from “cloud” service providers, such as email and document hosting. [read post]
14 May 2015, 6:48 am by Adam Weinstein
As a background, IWEB manufactures and markets data storage products and cloud based software targeted for U.S. government agencies and companies. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 4:19 am
 Frances had been attending Steve Ballmer's lecture on cloud computing at LSE, at which Lord Justice Jacob asked Steve what he thought of software patents. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 6:16 am
.'" Id. at 6, quoting Group Health Plan, Inc. v. [read post]