I agree with the court in this one, unless you want to exclude fingerprinting from all evidence.
When you're arrested you have to give your fingerprints and that could lead to your conviction if your fingerprints match prints found on something connected to the case. So that's tantamount to incriminating yourself as well. It seems though that everybody is fine with that.
Although it's still complicated because in this case it seems they went on a fishing expedition and compelled everybody in the general vicinity to be fingerprinted. That is a dangerous path in my view. Now it was "limited" to all residents of the residence. What is to say they can't "limit" it to all residents of a certain neighborhood, city, state, country?
That, to me, is not even remotely the point. I'm also surprised that it was so low a budget and it probably didn't move the needle much.
What should worry Americans is that they elected a president that was pushed by the Russians. They now have a man in charge that has the Putin stamp of approval.
Especially since he was elected on a wave of Jingoism that should raise a lot of red flags with his supporters. They seem to care the least though.
@John Doe: Perhaps it might be an idea to drop TechDirt TechSupport a mail. I experienced similar problems despite not (always) using a VPN and even being a Techdirt Insider. Also I think my posts are not generally offensive (unless you are offended by stupidity perhaps).
After I dropped a mail to them asking why they looked into it and there was some problem with my account. They fixed it and since then all my posts go through without being held for review.
"It requires several high-ranking officials to insert and turn their keys at the same time,"
They have to physically go somewhere, insert and turn their keys?That sounds really Cold-War-era like. So, every time they want to make a backup (which I assume would be at least daily) "several" officials need to go somewhere and turn a key?
I have a feeling this Network Security Vendor just made this up.
Okay, we all agree it was good advice so what "benefit of the doubt" should I give the guy?
He's a high paid lawyer that gives good legal advice. Kind of what you expect from your lawyer, good advice. If I need advice about private e-mail accounts used for sensitive government business I know I can go to him. Now, how does that make any of this better and/or worse?
"This will result in a few big fish that gobble the smaller fish."
Not necessarily. For sure there will be big fish but there will also be a space for niche players. Seeing current prices and what cable costs you could say that people would be able to subscribe to 3 or 4 services without increasing cost. So for example 1 or 2 big fish, a sci-fy service and a Marvel service, something like that.
I agree it sucks to have to subscribe to 15 different streaming services to keep up to date with popular culture and I also agree it will likely increase piracy.
I can't help thinking there is also a good side here though. CBS signed up a big crowd with their new Star Trek. What they will find out is that if they don't follow up on that offering (or offer a tepid series) the trekkies will leave very fast too. That's is the great new freedom of the streaming services, you can end them every month usually.
So, it could start a fierce competition for the streaming dollars which, by nature, are limited. So if the streaming service doesn't offer good value for money they are destined for ignominy. It could be a new golden era of creativity and competition.
Of course I could be too optimistic but the potential is there.
If I compare current systems the US version looks much more like the French that also selects its president separately.Also historically it seems much more likely (to me) they looked at France than England to set up a system since they seemed to like each other a lot (see statue of liberty). So I'm not sure they were thinking of a king when creating the position of president.
I also find it a bit hard to believe they tried to make a system with dysfunction in mind. They were extremely smart people and they could and did put limitations on what the federal government was supposed to do and not do. If you set up a government you want it to govern and you're not going to set it up to fail.
Failure of the central government was way too big a risk to take, especially in those times. Now I think of it, it would be a thing in any time...
Fair point but I feel it would be much stronger if the presidential candidates would be independents. Right now they're party members too, meaning that the group think is still an issue and possibly worse.
The fact that the US has only 2 parties doesn't make things better in that respect.Right now the 2 parties have a very big incentive to make the candidate for "the other side" fail.
I think most heads of state have veto powers by the way. They're rarely used (as should be) but they exist.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if it came out that the leaks from the White House were actually coming from hacked private e-mail accounts used by The Donald & fils to discuss government issues?
Can somebody explain me what they think is the advantage of electing the president separately? I'd also be interested if somebody can explain to me what the founding fathers thought was the advantage.
In many countries representatives are elected and the biggest party supplies the prime minister who forms the government, if needed together with other parties. In this system the president or, as the case may be, the king or queen, is only a figure head. The one that cuts ribbons on grand openings.
To me that seems more logic because you're sure that parliament supports the government so they can get shit done. I'd be interested if somebody could at least explain the reasoning behind electing the president separately.
I think those other major sports don't have that option. Most sports coverage is very focused on popular sports.There's is probably hundreds of hours of TV a week about Football during the season. How often do you see women's gymnastics?
Most major sports (basketball, baseball, football, soccer etc.) are mostly irrelevant during the event-that-shall-not-be-infringed-upon. It's about the small sports for whom this is their whole raison d'etre.
If I was in e-sports in any capacity I'd want to stay away from the event-whose-name-can't-be-mentioned-without-a-licence like it was a mobster in a cheap suit.
Many sports, especially less popular ones, are dependent on this event for promotion. Many of those are only seen on TV once every 4 years when they're jammed between the semi-final 100m dash and the swimming series. That way they can recruit new blood and stay relevant.
On the post: Reporter Arrested, Thrown To The Ground For Cursing
Re: Re: Re: Hard Jobs
On the post: Court Has No Problem With All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers To Law Enforcement
When you're arrested you have to give your fingerprints and that could lead to your conviction if your fingerprints match prints found on something connected to the case. So that's tantamount to incriminating yourself as well. It seems though that everybody is fine with that.
Although it's still complicated because in this case it seems they went on a fishing expedition and compelled everybody in the general vicinity to be fingerprinted. That is a dangerous path in my view. Now it was "limited" to all residents of the residence. What is to say they can't "limit" it to all residents of a certain neighborhood, city, state, country?
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Re: Re:
What should worry Americans is that they elected a president that was pushed by the Russians. They now have a man in charge that has the Putin stamp of approval.
Especially since he was elected on a wave of Jingoism that should raise a lot of red flags with his supporters. They seem to care the least though.
On the post: Use A Landline To Talk About Criminal Activity? The Government Can Seize The House Around It
Re: Why do corporate-owned properties never get seized?
On the post: Incentivizing Better Speech, Rather Than Censoring 'Bad' Speech
Re: How TechDirt Can Do Better
After I dropped a mail to them asking why they looked into it and there was some problem with my account. They fixed it and since then all my posts go through without being held for review.
On the post: Details Emerge Of World's Biggest Facial Recognition Surveillance System, Aiming To Identify Any Chinese Citizen In Three Seconds
Keys?
They have to physically go somewhere, insert and turn their keys?That sounds really Cold-War-era like. So, every time they want to make a backup (which I assume would be at least daily) "several" officials need to go somewhere and turn a key?
I have a feeling this Network Security Vendor just made this up.
On the post: Well-Known Email Prankster Ends Up With Sensitive Document From Jared Kushner's Lawyer
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm.
He's a high paid lawyer that gives good legal advice. Kind of what you expect from your lawyer, good advice. If I need advice about private e-mail accounts used for sensitive government business I know I can go to him. Now, how does that make any of this better and/or worse?
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Re: Is it a bad thing?
Not necessarily. For sure there will be big fish but there will also be a space for niche players. Seeing current prices and what cable costs you could say that people would be able to subscribe to 3 or 4 services without increasing cost. So for example 1 or 2 big fish, a sci-fy service and a Marvel service, something like that.
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Is it a bad thing?
I can't help thinking there is also a good side here though. CBS signed up a big crowd with their new Star Trek. What they will find out is that if they don't follow up on that offering (or offer a tepid series) the trekkies will leave very fast too. That's is the great new freedom of the streaming services, you can end them every month usually.
So, it could start a fierce competition for the streaming dollars which, by nature, are limited. So if the streaming service doesn't offer good value for money they are destined for ignominy. It could be a new golden era of creativity and competition.
Of course I could be too optimistic but the potential is there.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: Re: What is the point?
I also find it a bit hard to believe they tried to make a system with dysfunction in mind. They were extremely smart people and they could and did put limitations on what the federal government was supposed to do and not do. If you set up a government you want it to govern and you're not going to set it up to fail.
Failure of the central government was way too big a risk to take, especially in those times. Now I think of it, it would be a thing in any time...
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: Re: What is the point?
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: Re: What is the point?
The fact that the US has only 2 parties doesn't make things better in that respect.Right now the 2 parties have a very big incentive to make the candidate for "the other side" fail.
I think most heads of state have veto powers by the way. They're rarely used (as should be) but they exist.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: Re: What is the point?
On the post: Members Of Trump's Admin Team Using Private Email Accounts Because Of Course They Are
Hacked?
Just thinking about that outcome makes me giggle.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
What is the point?
In many countries representatives are elected and the biggest party supplies the prime minister who forms the government, if needed together with other parties. In this system the president or, as the case may be, the king or queen, is only a figure head. The one that cuts ribbons on grand openings.
To me that seems more logic because you're sure that parliament supports the government so they can get shit done. I'd be interested if somebody could at least explain the reasoning behind electing the president separately.
On the post: Federal Court Says Utah Theater Can Serve Up Beer And R-Rated Movies Simultaneously
Of course...
Yes, and I'm asking for a friend...
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Congrats!
A world without Techdirt would be a bleaker place so I'm happy we're not venturing into that alternative timeline.
On the post: IOC President Tosses Shade At Including eSports In Olympics Over Concerns About Violence And Doping
Re:
Most major sports (basketball, baseball, football, soccer etc.) are mostly irrelevant during the event-that-shall-not-be-infringed-upon. It's about the small sports for whom this is their whole raison d'etre.
On the post: IOC President Tosses Shade At Including eSports In Olympics Over Concerns About Violence And Doping
Who cares?
Many sports, especially less popular ones, are dependent on this event for promotion. Many of those are only seen on TV once every 4 years when they're jammed between the semi-final 100m dash and the swimming series. That way they can recruit new blood and stay relevant.
E-sports is doing pretty well on their own.
On the post: Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces
Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Next >>