What is the legal meaning of &quot;I certify that XYZ&quot; What are the legal implications of clicking acknowledge below the following statement: &quot;By clicking acknowledge below, I certify that I am not a resident of XYZ.&quot; The context for this, if it helps, is in the cryptocurrency space. There are a lot of initial coin offerings that are required to restrict participation based on residency. In addition to IP-based blocking, they typically require participants to &quot;certify&quot; their non-residency in prohibited countries. What is the legal meaning of &quot;certify&quot; in this context? For example, if one were to certify a false statement, would it be a crime?
It means that you state the fact and represent that it is true If you make a material false representation in the formation of a contract and the other party enters the contract in reliance on that, then that contract is void. This would appear to be the case here. When a contract is void neither party can enforce their rights, nor are they required to perform their obligations under that contract. The practical effect for a cryptocurrency broker is they have your money and your crypto coin and you can’t sue to get either back.
In the question, you write: The GDPR requires consent of the subject for collection or storage of personal data (in this case, IP addresses in a log file). No, it does not. To quote Miss Infogeek: GDPR DOES NOT MAKE CONSENT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA. Consent (Article 6 (1)a) is indeed one of conditions that can be used to comply with the GDPR requirement that processing must be lawful, but it is not the only condition available to the controller to ensure lawful processing &ndash; there are alternatives (before the list of conditions it says that "at least one of the following" must be satisfied). All the conditions for lawfulness of processing are spelled out in Article 6 of the GDPR. One of alternatives are Article 6 (1)f. It says says it is legal to process personal data if processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child. (my emphasis) As noted in the question, logging IP addresses for the purpose of security is an extremely widespread practice. It is a legitimate interest to comply with standard security practices. It is the default, and most (all?) web-sites do this. I.e. it is legal to do this without consent (if this is not the case, I am pretty sure the outcry had been heard all over the Internet by now).
"Acknowledged" is fine. There is no "preferable" substitute with which to prefix your signature. As a precaution, never leave too much space between the end of clauses and your signature, lest another clause later on gets slid in without your consent (a public institution is unlikely to incur such misconduct, though). Also, always be sure to ask for a copy of the contract/agreement you sign.
As to #1, the US Patent and Trademark Office has a patent practitioner search where you can verify if someone is a registered patent practitioner. If so, it means they passed a [registration process] that evaluates their &quot;legal, scientific, and technical qualifications, as well as good moral character and reputation&quot;, as well as a multiple-choice exam. I looked up a few of the attorneys listed on the firm's About Us page and they show up as registered. So this seems like a good indication that they are a &quot;real law firm&quot;. This does not address whether they are &quot;credible&quot; (I'm not sure what that means), or how to evaluate the firm's quality, and I will leave it to someone else to answer that.
Yes, it triggers the GDPR obligations Considerations: Can you surely identify those residing in Europe? In that case you should ask them to sign up again and confirm the consent. A lot of mailing lists are doing just that. Did they previously give consent and you can document it? If so, then you can argue that you have the required consent. Do you have business in Europe? If not then I don't think they would bother to go after you. You could just walk away from the fine. What other personal informastion are you storing? If you know who reside in Europe then you already have more info than just the email. The email address itself wouldn't be much of a documentation issue, SAR or Portability task.
&quot;Isn't it true that X&quot; is a very common way, in court examination, of asking &quot;is it true that X?&quot; For example: Isn't it true that you went to the bank that morning? If the witness did indeed go to the bank on the morning specified, the truthful and responsive answer is &quot;Yes&quot;. An answer of &quot;No&quot; would indicate that the person did not go to the bank on that morning. This form of question (Isn't it true that ...&quot;) is more often used during cross examination, because it tends to be perceived as more confrontational. I would say that even in general, non-legal, English language usage, &quot;Isn't it true that X?&quot; simply means &quot;Is X true?&quot;, the negative form does not in this case change the meaning at all, but that goes beyond the scope of Law.se. I would have made that answer on ELL.SE or ELU.se.
From the article: The FBI is investigating alleged computer intrusion and theft against an unidentified “victim corporation” involving “confidential or proprietary information,” including tests, test forms and internal emails, according to a search warrant issued in the case. The reference to "computer intrusion" is not precise, but may mean that they suspect a violation of some provision of 18 USC 1030, which makes it a federal crime to access a computer without authorization, or to exceed authorized access, under certain circumstances and for certain purposes. So it's not necessarily just a civil matter. Specifically, 18 USC 1030(a)(2) provides: Whoever [...] intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains [...] information from any protected computer [...] shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Subsection (c) provides for fines and imprisonment for various terms, making a violation of (a)(2) a felony or misdemeanor, depending on circumstances. Subsection (e) defines "protected computer" as any computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication". It seems very likely that the computer in question was used in interstate communication, and that the SAT does affect interstate commerce. The fact that they got a search warrant means that they were able to satisfy a judge that there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the search would yield relevant evidence. We'd have to read the warrant, or the corresponding application, to know more.
It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.