Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"
And of course, I forgot to mention the (admittedly unlikely, slippery-slope) potential effect that keeps nagging at me anyway: if a US court issues an order that documents involved in a case are to be kept private, does that order now include a ban on international travel for all involved parties?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"
expect that to come back and bite them when they're seeking a trade deal with the USA
Reading through the rather, er, high spirited discussions about this issue in the comments, it does seem like the pragmatic effects it may have (e.g. international trade, travel, business) are being given rather short shrift.
P.S. Anyone else notice the damming phrase "a neutral magistrate judge unknowingly issued a tainted warrant".
Thanks for mentioning that. I first read the decision piecemeal and then focused on the weirdness of events up to the coerced permission for a limited search, and totally forgot about that comment. It really seems to imply that we should toss Hanlon's razor out the window for Cooke's routing through federal agents to get a warrant.
Do you also work on topics related to digital marketing in the legal field? You might want to post something similar at https://www.popehat.com/. Ask for Ken, and good luck!
Because the wheels of justice grind slowly... and our system likes to grind people down as much as it can, should the unthinkable happen and justice eventually come down in favor of the accused.
Plausible. Gotta be some reason for an investigator to "secure the scene" when the first thing he's told after a medical emergency is that "it was not a suspicious death".
For anyone who's confused as to the initial motivation for the LEOs' behavior (questioning Shrum for hours, denying him access to his home, and coercing a limited search agreement out of him -- all the things that happened before seeing the ammo in his closet), you really need to read the decision... not to gain a better understanding, mind you, but it might make you feel better to know that the circuit court judges seem pretty confused, too.
Happy that at least one judge didn't see the color of an involved uniform and rubber-stamp anything they touched
Not only that, they (10th Circ., so three judges) chose to use the phrase "And we have news for the Government." I'm not a lawyer, but I think that translates into layman's terms as "Listen up, you chuckle-headed f*ck-wits."
I've always been curious about how easily LEAs that actually have retention policies can/do work around them. Anyone know if there've been any discussions of this issue (readable by a layman, vs sweeping general policy surveys and analyses)?
As an example, I read through the GA ALPR collection act (found via Muckrock from one of Tim's links). My pessimistic, perhaps slightly paranoid side worries about passages like
All such data collected shall be destroyed no later than 30 months after such data were originally collected unless such data are the subject matter of a toll violation or for a law enforcement purpose.
Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to preclude a law enforcement agency from contracting with a person to hold and maintain captured license plate data for such law enforcement agency; provided, however, that such person shall be subject to the policies of the law enforcement agency and paragraph (1) of this subsection.
Given that the retention limit can be exceeded if data is "for a law enforcement purpose", how easy would it be to use the "all data is potentially evidence" end-run around having to destroy anything at all?
Is it possible for a LEA to just keep extending the retention period by playing data custody hot-potato with a 3rd-party, tossing it back & forth every 29 months and resetting the clock, so to speak?
tech giants ... have been causing real problems with the move fast and break things attitude.
I'd agree that smaller and better (to me, meaning less exploitably rather than massively) regulated companies would probably be best for the world in the long run. But it isn't just the MFBT American tech giants that cause problems, it's also the Move Slow and Control Knowledge publishing giants like Axel Springer and Elsevier... and they aren't American.
Re: '... is found guilty of assault, but because they're poor, meh.'
If a cop can't pay the entire amount in one batch due to it's size, then split it up into future payments, garnished from all future paychecks
That makes sense for punitive damages, but for compensatory damages it might not be very helpful to a victim. As far as insurance goes, Greenfield mentions (in the comments to his own article/post) "the intentional crime problem, which many policies don’t cover as against public policy."; if a bad cop does something egregious enough, insurance wouldn't even have to cover it. Having the government as a final safety-net might work, but I'm willing to bet victims would have to sue their way to an award at that level, too.
Note: I may be conflating the Kaplan book and Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk, but they're both pretty good reads in popular science/math/history. (At least, they're both fun enough to have kept me reading when I hit chapters about the damn insurance industry. No mean feat.)
I'm kinda going off-topic, but there's a book I read a while back (Chances Are... by Kaplan & Kaplan) that has quite a bit about the origins of insurance being rooted in maritime trade and the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire. It's not an exhaustive or detailed history, but it looks at insurance -- and a whole lot of other things, from predictive policing to success in Hollywood -- in terms of how society deals with and (mis)understands probability... not to mention, how it can be abused.
Bad people sometimes abuse laws, therefore we should just craft better laws that are less easily abused by the rich and powerful to censor their critics.
Re: Re: Re: Some Advantages to Off-Shore Operations
"Considering that the US government considers it's authority to be worldwide"
Not everyone.
Hell, if we're going with the sense of "authority" that includes legitimacy, I'm not sure the government really has all that much of it right here in the US.
But... I'm enough of a naive idealist that, when it comes to voting, I feel obligated to act as though I trust the system to work as advertised. (How naive? I even voted when I lived in Chicago.)
On the post: To Obtain Documents About Facebook Data-Sharing, UK Gov't Seizes And Detains A US Executive Working For A Different Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"
And of course, I forgot to mention the (admittedly unlikely, slippery-slope) potential effect that keeps nagging at me anyway: if a US court issues an order that documents involved in a case are to be kept private, does that order now include a ban on international travel for all involved parties?
On the post: To Obtain Documents About Facebook Data-Sharing, UK Gov't Seizes And Detains A US Executive Working For A Different Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"
expect that to come back and bite them when they're seeking a trade deal with the USA
Reading through the rather, er, high spirited discussions about this issue in the comments, it does seem like the pragmatic effects it may have (e.g. international trade, travel, business) are being given rather short shrift.
On the post: To Obtain Documents About Facebook Data-Sharing, UK Gov't Seizes And Detains A US Executive Working For A Different Company
Re: Re: Re: It helps if you get the small details right
Why would he have been carrying those?
And the corollary, how would Parliament have known he had them with him?
On the post: Court To Law Enforcement: You Can't Seize A House For 15 Hours Before Obtaining A Warrant
Re: Re:
P.S. Anyone else notice the damming phrase "a neutral magistrate judge unknowingly issued a tainted warrant".
Thanks for mentioning that. I first read the decision piecemeal and then focused on the weirdness of events up to the coerced permission for a limited search, and totally forgot about that comment. It really seems to imply that we should toss Hanlon's razor out the window for Cooke's routing through federal agents to get a warrant.
On the post: Why Europe Will Never Build Its Own Digital Giants
Re: Content Appriciation
Do you also work on topics related to digital marketing in the legal field? You might want to post something similar at https://www.popehat.com/. Ask for Ken, and good luck!
On the post: Court To Law Enforcement: You Can't Seize A House For 15 Hours Before Obtaining A Warrant
Re: 3 years??
Why did this take 3 years??
Because the wheels of justice grind slowly... and our system likes to grind people down as much as it can, should the unthinkable happen and justice eventually come down in favor of the accused.
On the post: Court To Law Enforcement: You Can't Seize A House For 15 Hours Before Obtaining A Warrant
Re: Re:
Plausible. Gotta be some reason for an investigator to "secure the scene" when the first thing he's told after a medical emergency is that "it was not a suspicious death".
On the post: Court To Law Enforcement: You Can't Seize A House For 15 Hours Before Obtaining A Warrant
For anyone who's confused as to the initial motivation for the LEOs' behavior (questioning Shrum for hours, denying him access to his home, and coercing a limited search agreement out of him -- all the things that happened before seeing the ammo in his closet), you really need to read the decision... not to gain a better understanding, mind you, but it might make you feel better to know that the circuit court judges seem pretty confused, too.
On the post: Court To Law Enforcement: You Can't Seize A House For 15 Hours Before Obtaining A Warrant
Re: It makes my head hurt...
Happy that at least one judge didn't see the color of an involved uniform and rubber-stamp anything they touched
Not only that, they (10th Circ., so three judges) chose to use the phrase "And we have news for the Government." I'm not a lawyer, but I think that translates into layman's terms as "Listen up, you chuckle-headed f*ck-wits."
On the post: MuckRock Release ALPR Dataset Covering 200 Gov't Agencies And 2.5 Billion License Plate Records
I've always been curious about how easily LEAs that actually have retention policies can/do work around them. Anyone know if there've been any discussions of this issue (readable by a layman, vs sweeping general policy surveys and analyses)?
As an example, I read through the GA ALPR collection act (found via Muckrock from one of Tim's links). My pessimistic, perhaps slightly paranoid side worries about passages like
All such data collected shall be destroyed no later than 30 months after such data were originally collected unless such data are the subject matter of a toll violation or for a law enforcement purpose.
Given that the retention limit can be exceeded if data is "for a law enforcement purpose", how easy would it be to use the "all data is potentially evidence" end-run around having to destroy anything at all?
Is it possible for a LEA to just keep extending the retention period by playing data custody hot-potato with a 3rd-party, tossing it back & forth every 29 months and resetting the clock, so to speak?
On the post: Why Europe Will Never Build Its Own Digital Giants
Re: Such a bad thing?
tech giants ... have been causing real problems with the move fast and break things attitude.
I'd agree that smaller and better (to me, meaning less exploitably rather than massively) regulated companies would probably be best for the world in the long run. But it isn't just the MFBT American tech giants that cause problems, it's also the Move Slow and Control Knowledge publishing giants like Axel Springer and Elsevier... and they aren't American.
On the post: Police Misconduct, Data Breaches, And The Ongoing Lack Of Accountability That Allows These To Continue
Re: '... is found guilty of assault, but because they're poor, meh.'
If a cop can't pay the entire amount in one batch due to it's size, then split it up into future payments, garnished from all future paychecks
That makes sense for punitive damages, but for compensatory damages it might not be very helpful to a victim. As far as insurance goes, Greenfield mentions (in the comments to his own article/post) "the intentional crime problem, which many policies don’t cover as against public policy."; if a bad cop does something egregious enough, insurance wouldn't even have to cover it. Having the government as a final safety-net might work, but I'm willing to bet victims would have to sue their way to an award at that level, too.
On the post: Police Misconduct, Data Breaches, And The Ongoing Lack Of Accountability That Allows These To Continue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another profit center.
Note: I may be conflating the Kaplan book and Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk, but they're both pretty good reads in popular science/math/history. (At least, they're both fun enough to have kept me reading when I hit chapters about the damn insurance industry. No mean feat.)
On the post: Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Damn, there really is an xkcd for everything.
On the post: Police Misconduct, Data Breaches, And The Ongoing Lack Of Accountability That Allows These To Continue
Re: Re: Another profit center.
I'm kinda going off-topic, but there's a book I read a while back (Chances Are... by Kaplan & Kaplan) that has quite a bit about the origins of insurance being rooted in maritime trade and the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire. It's not an exhaustive or detailed history, but it looks at insurance -- and a whole lot of other things, from predictive policing to success in Hollywood -- in terms of how society deals with and (mis)understands probability... not to mention, how it can be abused.
On the post: Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law
Re:
Bad people sometimes abuse laws, therefore we should just craft better laws that are less easily abused by the rich and powerful to censor their critics.
On the post: Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
Gotta admit though, "pedantonymously" is an amusing portmanteau (Protologism? I'm not sure, I seem to have misplaced my Pocket Chomsky).
On the post: Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law
Re: Re: Sorry, but this is BS
What is RISE supposed to do when faced with the actions against under the GDPR?
Bankrupt themselves by going to court to defend themselves from being forced to pay a fine meant to bankrupt them.
On the post: Yet Another GDPR Disaster: Journalists Ordered To Hand Over Secret Sources Under 'Data Protection' Law
Re: Re: Re: Some Advantages to Off-Shore Operations
Not everyone.
Hell, if we're going with the sense of "authority" that includes legitimacy, I'm not sure the government really has all that much of it right here in the US.
On the post: Blockchain Voting: Solves None Of The Actual Problems Of Online Voting; Leverages None Of The Benefits Of Blockchain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Verify your vote?
I do. I don't.
But... I'm enough of a naive idealist that, when it comes to voting, I feel obligated to act as though I trust the system to work as advertised. (How naive? I even voted when I lived in Chicago.)
Next >>