For a simple search warrant no less. What do they toss when it's only a knock and talk? How about that whole sending a SWAT team for a search? Do they have some special searching skills?
Definition of reasonable, and why so disparate results?
The disparity between the various appeals courts has me baffled. Here they denied qualified immunity for irresponsible behavior. On the other hand a different court suggested that shooting at a dog that wasn't attacking any police and hitting a child was reasonable.
Does this suggest that the courts themselves aren't reasonable? Or is it just ideological differences between different circuits? Isn't there some agreement somewhere as to what reasonable means?
If, for example, the Baltimore Colts had trademarked Baltimore (besides all the other entities which include Baltimore as a part of their name) and then (as they did) moved to Indianapolis, they would still own the trademark on Baltimore. How does that make any sense?
Now I do not know if English soccer (er football) teams move about as American sports teams do, but giving any entity other than the place so originally named control of that places name is just asking for that named place to lose their own name.
"or is there some specific legal protection for Orlando residents and visitors that would stop the police from deploying the system?"
Unfortunately not. If your in public, anyone can take pictures of you. The issue comes when people are falsely accused of being someone they are not. Then the problem is, it is likely a civil matter to sue, that is if the falsely accused person can afford it and it ain't cheap.
Legislatures could take care of this, but they won't. At least not anytime soon.
Re: Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
"Copyright holders are losing a lot of revenue, even if you use conservative accounting methods, rather than counting each play as a lost sale."
Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Then, who cares about the copyright holders? It's the creators that everybody cares about, and the 'big' copyright holders who spearhead all of this nonsense are not creators.
If the 'approved' textbook needs feedback from students to correct it, it isn't much of a textbook for learning. That alone should disqualify it from being presented as a 'source'.
Textbooks should be peer reviewed and vetted, and not the way publishers do it, but the way scientists do it, regardless of which regime. Art history and other humanity type courses can be quantified an qualified despite how the 'winners' of a war decide how that war should be represented. The truth does not actually bow to what some bloviates say the truth should be.
And, as Mason points out, much knowledge for basic learning doesn't change rapidly, those changes are qualified and quantified to the nth degree over time with many concurring opinions, and only a few dissents which are documented and also quantified and qualified. Which wins depends upon logic and reason not ideology or who won some war.
The problem is it won't be the public implementing of it, it will be the corrupt Congress, who we know from past experience not only will exempt themselves. but listen to their biggest contributors rather than their constituents. The problem with that is that it will take some time (months, years) before their bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, personal communications (all not part of the exemption) are impacted and maybe some additional time (more months or years) before they become aware of it, as companies try to twist and encumber and obfuscate and lie about information so as to deflect responsibility.
In the mean time there will be prosecutions of various Internet related companies who will pay fines for not protecting the 'private' data who will not be exonerated when it is found that the bad guys got in though the encryption back doors mandated by Congress. That is, if the encryption mandate actually passes Constitutionals tests (which may or may not be expected from the current court, breath holding not recommended).
"...You know he's not talking about an incident where a "minor lessening of security" resulted in the entire federal employee database being leaked..."
Correct. He is talking about something catastrophic, maybe like 9/11. The problem he would have then (not that it would matter much, see Patriot Act and how it came about) is for him to prove that it could have been stopped if and only if the Government had access to encrypted communications.
Government routinely violates the rules set by the Constitution. If Barr thinks giving them more ability to violate the rules is something we will think is good, then he is either more crazy or more authoritarian than any good, law abiding, Constitution loving citizens should be.
His comments about the 4th Amendment are merely a smoke screen. The 4th Amendment would be important if he was acting with prosecution in mind, but the government has proven time and again that it often acts without intending to pursue a legal course, but as a mere exercise of power. And, while the courts and legislatures have authorized wire tapping with warrants, they have not authorized that the government has a right to access all communications, all the time, which is what weakened encryption will provide, and those intercepts will likely not be detectable. At least by the common person.
He also downplays the negative aspects of 'risk' due to encryption back doors. The economic disaster as eCommerce, eBanking, communications over IP (and probably others) crumble will not be easily overcome, if it can be overcome.
Rapides Parish must be one of those places where there are no private prisons. If there were private prisons there, there would be a certain tension between letting people go for a fee vs collecting ongoing fees for incarceration that would have manifested itself in other ways.
Teaching kids to be adults is what parenting is all about, and it takes 20 some years to accomplish, even if the state says the age of reason is something more like half that. However, not making them aware of surveillance is probably not a good idea (and my apologies for the double negative). They should be aware of the surveillance that social media and the government are performing, at the same time I agree that it should not be added to by parents, at least after a certain age (determined by ability to accept responsibility rather than chronological).
What should be taught is how actions have consequences. The Internet never forgets and that sexting behaviors will be remembered, along with many other bad behaviors. I don't know all of the things that parents should be teaching, but taking responsibility for ones actions is one that should be high priority. Withholding cookies or forcing time outs or grounding older children don't necessarily make that connection. It will take more communication, with examples, about what might happen, sometimes years down the road. The kids will have a hard time either believing those things could happen, or that they could happen to them.
Getting children, who consider themselves bullet proof (for all the wrong reasons), to understand is something that parents have been trying to do for millennia, and are still working on an absolute solution. Given the variety of environments children are raised in, there will likely not be any one solution, and some workable solutions will be ignored out of hand because of ideological or religious beliefs, to the detriment of the children.
Wouldn't that take having robust, static, inviolable definitions for conservative, liberal, progressive, right wing, far right wing, left wing, far left wing, and the various flavors of moderate, with hard lines between each nuance?
That is where the luck is needed, especially when people self identify to 'their' version of whichever nuance they claim while others point and laugh and claim that 'they' are in fact some other nuance, if not the complete opposite.
If paying cash, the items bought belong to the supermarket, my ID belongs to me. If using a credit card, my ID is only loaned to the supermarket until the transaction is completed, and then they should disassociate my ID from the items purchased. So far as the credit card company is concerned, the only reason they need to know the items bought is to have some record that lasts only until the 'loan' (aka credit) is resolved. If using a debit card, then both the supermarket and the bank need the ID only until the transaction is completed, the bank doesn't need the items sold after that, and the supermarket should disassociate my ID from the items purchased.
In other words, the confluence of what was bought and someones ID should only be kept when a record of the transaction is necessary, and they should be disassociated immediately upon completion of the transaction. Keeping records of items bought in bulk without being associated to individuals is not a problem, they need to be able to see trends and restock appropriately.
Neither should have any ability to resell information with my ID associated to it.
That would be a good start, but it doesn't help when generic manufacturers are paid to NOT make the pills. Preventing the coercion of those generic makers would also need to be stopped. And that is probably not all that needs to happen.
There is both method and intent in that madness. That what they will win, and what harm will be done, are both irrelevant to them and short term in the won benefit, doesn't even scratch the surface of what anyone else might consider a conscience.
It is likely that Amazon does have contact information for the sellers/manufacturers. They have to send the money someplace, or the seller wouldn't have an account at Amazon.
The problem I see, and it is probably not an appropriate legal argument, is that Amazon did not manufacture the defective product. Also, while Amazon may insist that communication with the original seller be through them, I have also been offered the opportunity to communicate directly with the original seller, who is likely, but not necessarily, also the manufacturer, from either Amazon or the original seller, I don't know which.
Then, while the manufacturer may not have the financial resources that Amazon does, they are the ones that made the defective product. In addition, in a question of defective products that result in injury, it would seem to me that Amazon might be willing to give up direct contact to the manufacturer. So going after Amazon is merely a deep pocket dive and has nothing to do with actual liability, whether they touched the money or not.
BTW, your touched the money idea might make credit card companies and/or banks (in the case of a check written for something or a debit card transaction) also liable, and we don't see that happening.
Maybe one of the corrections to the DMCA law should be an included considered responses to each of the 4 fair use questions that don't question the intellect of the ubiquitous 'moron in a hurry in the rain without an umbrella' for each and every specific infringement part. If the requester has to put that much into their take down notice, and it has to be, well at least sorta reasonable, then the expense of the take down might be greater than what is gained by taking the piece down.
That along with significant penalties for non compliance and false requests and any other shenanigans that are currently played by DMCA requester's.
On the post: Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child
Re: Go out with a bang
For a simple search warrant no less. What do they toss when it's only a knock and talk? How about that whole sending a SWAT team for a search? Do they have some special searching skills?
On the post: Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child
Definition of reasonable, and why so disparate results?
The disparity between the various appeals courts has me baffled. Here they denied qualified immunity for irresponsible behavior. On the other hand a different court suggested that shooting at a dog that wasn't attacking any police and hitting a child was reasonable.
Does this suggest that the courts themselves aren't reasonable? Or is it just ideological differences between different circuits? Isn't there some agreement somewhere as to what reasonable means?
On the post: Fans, Indie Soccer Clubs Slam Liverpool FC For Trying To Trademark 'Liverpool'
Which came first and which will be there last?
If, for example, the Baltimore Colts had trademarked Baltimore (besides all the other entities which include Baltimore as a part of their name) and then (as they did) moved to Indianapolis, they would still own the trademark on Baltimore. How does that make any sense?
Now I do not know if English soccer (er football) teams move about as American sports teams do, but giving any entity other than the place so originally named control of that places name is just asking for that named place to lose their own name.
On the post: City Of Orlando Kicks Amazon's Facial Recognition Tech To The Curb
Re: just a tech problem?
Unfortunately not. If your in public, anyone can take pictures of you. The issue comes when people are falsely accused of being someone they are not. Then the problem is, it is likely a civil matter to sue, that is if the falsely accused person can afford it and it ain't cheap.
Legislatures could take care of this, but they won't. At least not anytime soon.
On the post: City Of Orlando Kicks Amazon's Facial Recognition Tech To The Curb
Re: Too good to pass up
Amazon: What do you want? Most members of Congress haven't been arrested...yet, and the collective DMV's tend to take lousy pictures.
On the post: Why A 'Clever Hack' Against Nazis Shows How Upload Filters Have Made Copyright Law Even More Broken
Re: Re: Visible response versus the source that caused it
Do you have any actual evidence of that?
Then, who cares about the copyright holders? It's the creators that everybody cares about, and the 'big' copyright holders who spearhead all of this nonsense are not creators.
On the post: The Death Of Ownership: Educational Publishing Giant Pearson To Do Away With Print Textbooks (That Can Be Resold)
Re: Re: Unchanging basic principles
If the 'approved' textbook needs feedback from students to correct it, it isn't much of a textbook for learning. That alone should disqualify it from being presented as a 'source'.
Textbooks should be peer reviewed and vetted, and not the way publishers do it, but the way scientists do it, regardless of which regime. Art history and other humanity type courses can be quantified an qualified despite how the 'winners' of a war decide how that war should be represented. The truth does not actually bow to what some bloviates say the truth should be.
And, as Mason points out, much knowledge for basic learning doesn't change rapidly, those changes are qualified and quantified to the nth degree over time with many concurring opinions, and only a few dissents which are documented and also quantified and qualified. Which wins depends upon logic and reason not ideology or who won some war.
On the post: William Barr Turns Up The Heat On The DOJ's Anti-Encryption Rhetoric
Re: Put up or shut up
The problem is it won't be the public implementing of it, it will be the corrupt Congress, who we know from past experience not only will exempt themselves. but listen to their biggest contributors rather than their constituents. The problem with that is that it will take some time (months, years) before their bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, personal communications (all not part of the exemption) are impacted and maybe some additional time (more months or years) before they become aware of it, as companies try to twist and encumber and obfuscate and lie about information so as to deflect responsibility.
In the mean time there will be prosecutions of various Internet related companies who will pay fines for not protecting the 'private' data who will not be exonerated when it is found that the bad guys got in though the encryption back doors mandated by Congress. That is, if the encryption mandate actually passes Constitutionals tests (which may or may not be expected from the current court, breath holding not recommended).
On the post: The Death Of Ownership: Educational Publishing Giant Pearson To Do Away With Print Textbooks (That Can Be Resold)
Re:
You could probably safely bet they put 'unbreakable' DRM on those ebooks.
/s
On the post: William Barr Turns Up The Heat On The DOJ's Anti-Encryption Rhetoric
Re:
Correct. He is talking about something catastrophic, maybe like 9/11. The problem he would have then (not that it would matter much, see Patriot Act and how it came about) is for him to prove that it could have been stopped if and only if the Government had access to encrypted communications.
On the post: William Barr Turns Up The Heat On The DOJ's Anti-Encryption Rhetoric
OK, what are the real reasons?
Government routinely violates the rules set by the Constitution. If Barr thinks giving them more ability to violate the rules is something we will think is good, then he is either more crazy or more authoritarian than any good, law abiding, Constitution loving citizens should be.
His comments about the 4th Amendment are merely a smoke screen. The 4th Amendment would be important if he was acting with prosecution in mind, but the government has proven time and again that it often acts without intending to pursue a legal course, but as a mere exercise of power. And, while the courts and legislatures have authorized wire tapping with warrants, they have not authorized that the government has a right to access all communications, all the time, which is what weakened encryption will provide, and those intercepts will likely not be detectable. At least by the common person.
He also downplays the negative aspects of 'risk' due to encryption back doors. The economic disaster as eCommerce, eBanking, communications over IP (and probably others) crumble will not be easily overcome, if it can be overcome.
This is all about power and control.
On the post: District Attorneys Have Figured Out How To Turn Criminal Justice Reform Efforts Into Revenue Streams
Coming or going, not both
Rapides Parish must be one of those places where there are no private prisons. If there were private prisons there, there would be a certain tension between letting people go for a fee vs collecting ongoing fees for incarceration that would have manifested itself in other ways.
Not that I want to give anyone any ideas.
On the post: Instead Of Parents Spying On Their Kids Online, Why Not Teach Them How To Be Good Digital Citizens
Fixing infinity
Teaching kids to be adults is what parenting is all about, and it takes 20 some years to accomplish, even if the state says the age of reason is something more like half that. However, not making them aware of surveillance is probably not a good idea (and my apologies for the double negative). They should be aware of the surveillance that social media and the government are performing, at the same time I agree that it should not be added to by parents, at least after a certain age (determined by ability to accept responsibility rather than chronological).
What should be taught is how actions have consequences. The Internet never forgets and that sexting behaviors will be remembered, along with many other bad behaviors. I don't know all of the things that parents should be teaching, but taking responsibility for ones actions is one that should be high priority. Withholding cookies or forcing time outs or grounding older children don't necessarily make that connection. It will take more communication, with examples, about what might happen, sometimes years down the road. The kids will have a hard time either believing those things could happen, or that they could happen to them.
Getting children, who consider themselves bullet proof (for all the wrong reasons), to understand is something that parents have been trying to do for millennia, and are still working on an absolute solution. Given the variety of environments children are raised in, there will likely not be any one solution, and some workable solutions will be ignored out of hand because of ideological or religious beliefs, to the detriment of the children.
On the post: For All Of Trump's Complaints About Social Media 'Censorship', The White House Itself Moderates Content Similarly To Social Media Sites
Re: A Reminder:
Wouldn't that take having robust, static, inviolable definitions for conservative, liberal, progressive, right wing, far right wing, left wing, far left wing, and the various flavors of moderate, with hard lines between each nuance?
That is where the luck is needed, especially when people self identify to 'their' version of whichever nuance they claim while others point and laugh and claim that 'they' are in fact some other nuance, if not the complete opposite.
On the post: FTC's YouTube Privacy Settlement Pisses Everyone Off; Perhaps We're Doing Privacy Wrong
Re: Re:
If paying cash, the items bought belong to the supermarket, my ID belongs to me. If using a credit card, my ID is only loaned to the supermarket until the transaction is completed, and then they should disassociate my ID from the items purchased. So far as the credit card company is concerned, the only reason they need to know the items bought is to have some record that lasts only until the 'loan' (aka credit) is resolved. If using a debit card, then both the supermarket and the bank need the ID only until the transaction is completed, the bank doesn't need the items sold after that, and the supermarket should disassociate my ID from the items purchased.
In other words, the confluence of what was bought and someones ID should only be kept when a record of the transaction is necessary, and they should be disassociated immediately upon completion of the transaction. Keeping records of items bought in bulk without being associated to individuals is not a problem, they need to be able to see trends and restock appropriately.
Neither should have any ability to resell information with my ID associated to it.
On the post: Drug Prices Are So Insane That The NY Times Is Recommending The US Gov't Just 'Seize The Patents'
Re: Seizure vs invalidate
That would be a good start, but it doesn't help when generic manufacturers are paid to NOT make the pills. Preventing the coercion of those generic makers would also need to be stopped. And that is probably not all that needs to happen.
On the post: Claims Of 5G Health Risks Are Frequently Based On A Single, 20 Year Old Flawed Graph
Re:
There is both method and intent in that madness. That what they will win, and what harm will be done, are both irrelevant to them and short term in the won benefit, doesn't even scratch the surface of what anyone else might consider a conscience.
On the post: The Third Circuit Joins The Ninth In Excluding E-Commerce Platforms From Section 230's Protection
Re:
It is likely that Amazon does have contact information for the sellers/manufacturers. They have to send the money someplace, or the seller wouldn't have an account at Amazon.
On the post: The Third Circuit Joins The Ninth In Excluding E-Commerce Platforms From Section 230's Protection
Re: You can't touch the money
The problem I see, and it is probably not an appropriate legal argument, is that Amazon did not manufacture the defective product. Also, while Amazon may insist that communication with the original seller be through them, I have also been offered the opportunity to communicate directly with the original seller, who is likely, but not necessarily, also the manufacturer, from either Amazon or the original seller, I don't know which.
Then, while the manufacturer may not have the financial resources that Amazon does, they are the ones that made the defective product. In addition, in a question of defective products that result in injury, it would seem to me that Amazon might be willing to give up direct contact to the manufacturer. So going after Amazon is merely a deep pocket dive and has nothing to do with actual liability, whether they touched the money or not.
BTW, your touched the money idea might make credit card companies and/or banks (in the case of a check written for something or a debit card transaction) also liable, and we don't see that happening.
On the post: Three Years Later: 1st Amendment Challenge Over DMCA's Anti-Circumvention Provisions Can Move Forward
Re:
Maybe one of the corrections to the DMCA law should be an included considered responses to each of the 4 fair use questions that don't question the intellect of the ubiquitous 'moron in a hurry in the rain without an umbrella' for each and every specific infringement part. If the requester has to put that much into their take down notice, and it has to be, well at least sorta reasonable, then the expense of the take down might be greater than what is gained by taking the piece down.
That along with significant penalties for non compliance and false requests and any other shenanigans that are currently played by DMCA requester's.
Next >>