LSAT Rules Prohibiting Discussion

[StudentUVA]

There's a clause in the Constitution called the 'Freedom of Speech' that negates the LSAC's rules. 

haha pwned

[traffic777]

It's called an IP address and notice the little "logged" icon in the lower right hand corner of your post?  If you are posting from a computer that is registered to you, they can find out who you are.......Of course LSAC would probably have to petition LSD to release its IP data to them and probably go through a lot of other hassles.  Don't think they have that much time on their hands, but if determined enough they probably could find out who you are.

No, they could only find out that somebody was posting from computer "registered" to you.

[theo]

Or they subpoena our IP number from this website, then find which ISP provides that number and subpoena the ISP to give up our names.  Then its a simple matter of cross referencing our names on LSAC with the information provided by the ISP's.

Well, even in the US that has proven more than difficult, there has been multiple cases where law enforcement has tried to get info such as IP owners from ISPs, IP addresses from hotmail.com, etc in criminal investigation, and it has fairly consistently been to no avail, I doubt discussion of a standardized test would prove more critical to a court than numerous other illegal activities that are frequent on the web;)

Unfortunately, Andrew doesn't take much persuading to give up IP addresses.

[LizPendens™]

They only come after Feb test takers and Sabbath test takers, based on past evidence. Post away! I'm pretty sure I need PM's for my sanity, or that PM's are going to make me insane.

Have they actually done this before?  Just curious.

yes, last february.

to clarify:

yes, it is a breach of copyright and your agreement with lsac to participate in PMs.

lsac knows about PMs here.

yes they can find out who you are.

last february, andrew pulled the relevant threads and posted a copyright notice, allegedly at lsac's request.

they have taken legal action against those downloading pdfs of tests from file sharing sites.

february, sabbath tests, and experimental sections are undisclosed and going to be reused in the future. (experimental sections and sabbath tests are traditionally not subject to PMs on lsd. i assume feb 07 will NOT have a pm, and based on past actions and the rreuse of the tests, i personally discourage feb PMs.)

no threads have been pulled nor legal action begun since last february.



infer from this what you will and act according to your conscience and comfort level.

[«ě»]

Unfortunately, Andrew doesn't take much persuading to give up IP addresses.

Even if that is true, my ISP does, so the IP wouldn't do them much good. But yeah, this is getting a bit off topic

[dbmuell]

I'm thinking that the most likley scenario, if LSAC were to decide to do something about this, would be that they would follow a course similar to that of the RIAA in regard file sharing:  Single out a few people, subpoena their info through their ISP and sue the ever-loving crap out of them to send a message to everyone else and hope to curtail these discussion for fear of being "singled out."  It's not really that much work to nab a few people and it would certainly do a lot to curtail post-mortems if LSAC were to decide that they were indeed a problem.

As for the question of whether they care, I can certainly see one major reason why it would peak their interest.  Every test administration brings more than a few people posting on here something to the effect of "after reading the PM, I have decided to cancel my score."  Enough of this behavior would certainly sway test results and effectively give unfair advantage to those people.   

I think it's unlikely that LSAC would really go to all this trouble, but I know I definitely stayed as far away from September PMs as I could, on the off-chance that I might be one of the first to find myself on the bad end of some new policy.  I would feel pretty stupid if my law school aspirations were ruined because I couldn't wait a few weeks to get my score.

[ProfessorPlum]

Yeah, I'm going to stop participating in the poll and PM questions.   I thought LSAC's rule was against revealing content rather than discussing questions after the content has been revealed.

Although it is very enticing to argue! 

[laxlaw]

Yeah, I'm going to stop participating in the poll and PM questions.   I thought LSAC's rule was against revealing content rather than discussing questions after the content has been revealed.

Although it is very enticing to argue! 

That is how I interpreted it, too.

I pulled anything I've ever posted.

Paranoid? Maybe, but I'm not taking any risks.

[«ě»]

laxlaw, meet web archives
web archives, meet laxlaw.

[guyminuslife]

I would not have a problem if people who knowingly breach the contract they signed with LSAC got a big black mark in the place where their scores used to be.

I hate this bull like, "Well, I didn't have a choice not to sign it." You're not being disenfranchised. Imagine if a corporate executive leaked company secrets to the press, and then said, "Well, I didn't have a choice not to sign my nondisclosure agreement. I couldn't have gotten my current job any other way."