Secondary liability could end in wondrous things. Just imagine if...
* AT&T could be held liable for those illegal pitch phone calls * The average ISP could be held liable for delivering spam * Credit card companies could be held liable for bad behavior by merchants * Chemical companies could be held liable for improper disposal by dump operators * Walmart could be held liable for contractors hiring illegal immigrants * Much, much more I'm sure.
(Help me out here: What else do we all hate that we could hold someone secondarily liable for?)
And all of that, of course, is why secondary liability is never getting off the ground, even on the hated internet.
This is a lovely example of government capture by a corporation.
A corporation that will bring 35 permanent jobs to the entire U.S.; will bay $negative taxes; will profit no company in the U.S.; risks environmental damage; destroys property rights; won't provide the U.S. with a single drop of oil; and...well, there is not a single visible upside to Keystone XL that can possibly outweigh even one of the negatives.
Yet the government (every level) is bending over backwards for Keystone; not only to give them permission but to secure their land and protect their activities; including as described here, suppression of public comment and activism.
No matter what pithy platitudes may be mouthed by our legislators or courts: anyone who gets in the way will be pepper-sprayed, tazed, clubbed, beaten, stomped, arrested, jailed, sued, imprisoned, terrorized, or declared a terrorist; or will be forced by loss of employment, eminent domain, or other tricks to move. By the time it's over we will possibly even see people burned out or murdered.
Keystone XL is happening; might as well accept it. Our lapdog government hastens to do its fawning duty.
I'm betting the new policy actually goes something like this:
Under the new policy there must either be probable cause to believe an illegal act is taking place other than the act of structuring; or the case must be prosecuted as a national secret.
Basically, national security trumps all. Which would explain why they're irritated about this case: they declared it a nation secret so the press and Congress wouldn't be a nuisance...and here they are, being a nuisance.
And, if so, that would mean the policy really didn't change at all, and the fact that they said it did is merely propaganda...hiding a national secret interpretation of the rules.
One day a large brontosaurus named Vinny went for a walk. A raptor named Tim came along and chewed off one of Vinny's legs. Vinny said, "I don't really want that leg anyway, all it did was complain I was too big and too heavy." The end.
“There’s an obvious piece of legislation that we need to start working on,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., said during a Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Jihad 2.0“.
Listen, Senator, as Apple and Microsoft can both assure you, the correct term is "Jihad 10".
It doesn't matter. If you go follow those rules, they just bring in the drug dog.
And since almost all cash is contaminated with drugs, the dog will detect it and...bye, bye, money! (And that assumes they aren't teaching the dogs to indicate on cash itself, which they could do and probably are.)
Don't get me wrong: First of all, I detest monetary forfeiture. It is a bankrupt concept; the only example under U.S. law where a possession can be taken simply because it is a possession.
Nevertheless, forfeiture is a reality of life; it's like hurricanes, fire, and flood. You protect yourself from those disasters with insurance. In the case of forfeiture, the protection is simple: Do not carry large amounts of cash. How long does this have to go on before people get that?
Also, whatever you do, don't check back, because we might have had to remove that clause this week due to all the media attention, but we'll be stuffing that clause back in there next week.
Arbitration is fine, if it is fair arbitration. What that does is remove the random element of the jury, which is often problematic for both sides.
What I would like to see changed with arbitration is that, instead of having to use the company's captive arbitrator/partner, such clauses require that the arbitrator must be acceptable to both sides; or, alternatively, that the arbitrator is responsible for losses due to unconscionable decisions.
As it stands, arbitrators tend to be in a partnership with the company and are prone to decide in the company's favor even when the company is wrong.
Given its history (as reported in that article) it looks to me like Consumer's Research has always been more oriented to corporations and corporate practices, than to consumers.
So let me get this straight: Internet.org is adopting a 2005 service model in 2015? That just means that it is obsolete before it starts. It will prove irrelevant.
Imaginary Newsie: "Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia, Japan, Finland and now potentially Indiahave all passed neutrality rules banning zero rating of apps. Don't you think that this will interfere with your plans for internet.org?"
Imaginary Zuckerberg response: "No worries: we'll resolve all those nuisance laws just as soon as TPP is signed."
You're missing the point; don't get distracted by Sauron's so-called "person-hood". This is about the rings...I mean, keys.
There might be multiple keys, but I bet among those will still be just one key, that does the work of all the other keys. One key to rule them all. Because otherwise DEA might get possessive and refuse to share it's key with FBI, and we all know how bad that will be.
So this promise of key splitting is just nonsense--no matter what, there will be one key that rules them all.
I was told a story once by someone who worked for the government, reviewing food at port of entry to the United States. He related what happened one time, when he rejected a shipload of orange juice because it was contaminated. The administrator's first move was to yank him off the case. Then, they ordered test after test after test--according to him, sixteen tests in all--until they finally found a test that was bad enough to pass the orange juice. Then they approved it for entry. He, of course, was cashiered for his temerity, sidelined to the point that he finally resigned.
See, the reality was: his job was not to evaluate and approve or reject food at the port of entry. His job was to evaluate and unconditionally approve it.
So you might think a patent examiner's job is to evaluate a patent, and approve or reject it. But God help any examiner who might be so bold as to reject a patent.
I agree. The claim should have been filed against the assets of the drug lords.
No doubt, there has already been a "U.S. against A Bunch of Assets" case, and the assets are in the hands of the DEA, but I don't see that as a problem. First his truck was damaged, then there was a forfeiture case; so his claim is antecedent to the forfeiture claim.
That is: I think he can make a case that he should have been recompensed out of the assets before the government forfeited the residue. As an non-ally party of the drug lords he is certainly entitled to that recompense, and his claim comes first.
Of course, that will have a negative effect on the DEA, since they won't get to keep all those cool assets; they'll have to fork some back to him. Does anyone outside of DEA have a problem with that?
On the post: Paper Says Public Doesn't Know How To Keep Score In Privacy Discussion While Glossing Over Government Surveillance
Discounting the overpriced
"We might have taken 100% of your privacy, but you're getting back 20% in convenience!!!"
On the post: Once Again, Just Because Someone Used Backpage.com For Trafficking, Doesn't Mean Backpage Is Liable
Re:
* AT&T could be held liable for those illegal pitch phone calls
* The average ISP could be held liable for delivering spam
* Credit card companies could be held liable for bad behavior by merchants
* Chemical companies could be held liable for improper disposal by dump operators
* Walmart could be held liable for contractors hiring illegal immigrants
* Much, much more I'm sure.
(Help me out here: What else do we all hate that we could hold someone secondarily liable for?)
And all of that, of course, is why secondary liability is never getting off the ground, even on the hated internet.
On the post: FBI Spied On Activists Because Protecting Corporate Interests Is Roughly Equivalent To Ensuring National Security
Government capture
A corporation that will bring 35 permanent jobs to the entire U.S.; will bay $negative taxes; will profit no company in the U.S.; risks environmental damage; destroys property rights; won't provide the U.S. with a single drop of oil; and...well, there is not a single visible upside to Keystone XL that can possibly outweigh even one of the negatives.
Yet the government (every level) is bending over backwards for Keystone; not only to give them permission but to secure their land and protect their activities; including as described here, suppression of public comment and activism.
No matter what pithy platitudes may be mouthed by our legislators or courts: anyone who gets in the way will be pepper-sprayed, tazed, clubbed, beaten, stomped, arrested, jailed, sued, imprisoned, terrorized, or declared a terrorist; or will be forced by loss of employment, eminent domain, or other tricks to move. By the time it's over we will possibly even see people burned out or murdered.
Keystone XL is happening; might as well accept it. Our lapdog government hastens to do its fawning duty.
On the post: Spouting Cliches In A Crowded Theater: Steve Wynn's Lawyer Argues For The Dismantling Of Nevada's Anti-SLAPP Law
What I heard
On the post: This Is Important: Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Introduced
Long, long road
Don't get too attached to the good news, there's a long way to go before this does anything useful (even if Congress somehow manages to pass it).
On the post: IRS Continuing To Pursue An Asset Forfeiture Case That Contradicts Its Own Policy On 'Structuring' Prosecutions
New policy probably not as stated
Basically, national security trumps all. Which would explain why they're irritated about this case: they declared it a nation secret so the press and Congress wouldn't be a nuisance...and here they are, being a nuisance.
And, if so, that would mean the policy really didn't change at all, and the fact that they said it did is merely propaganda...hiding a national secret interpretation of the rules.
On the post: Verizon Wireless Tells 'Price Sensitive' Customers It Doesn't Want Them, Declares It Doesn't Need To Truly Compete
Simile? Or is it Allegory?
On the post: Senators On Jihad 2.0: We'll Take Down ISIS With 'Fancy Memes'
Listen, Senator, as Apple and Microsoft can both assure you, the correct term is "Jihad 10".
On the post: DEA Takes $16,000 From Train Passenger Because It Can
Re: Don't give up your rights.
And since almost all cash is contaminated with drugs, the dog will detect it and...bye, bye, money! (And that assumes they aren't teaching the dogs to indicate on cash itself, which they could do and probably are.)
On the post: DEA Takes $16,000 From Train Passenger Because It Can
When will it stop?
Nevertheless, forfeiture is a reality of life; it's like hurricanes, fire, and flood. You protect yourself from those disasters with insurance. In the case of forfeiture, the protection is simple: Do not carry large amounts of cash. How long does this have to go on before people get that?
On the post: Prison Messaging Service No Longer Claims It 'Owns' All Of Your Communications
Re:
On the post: Legislators Introduce Bill Calling For Nationwide Ban On Non-Disparagement Clauses
Re: Re:
What I would like to see changed with arbitration is that, instead of having to use the company's captive arbitrator/partner, such clauses require that the arbitrator must be acceptable to both sides; or, alternatively, that the arbitrator is responsible for losses due to unconscionable decisions.
As it stands, arbitrators tend to be in a partnership with the company and are prone to decide in the company's favor even when the company is wrong.
On the post: Why Is Consumers' Research Pushing For Anti-Consumer Trade Deals, And Bad Intellectual Property Laws?
Re:
Maybe that's why the split?
On the post: Dangerous And Ridiculous: Facebook Won't Let Sites Join Its Internet.org Program If They Encrypt Traffic
Internet.org irrelevant
On the post: Police Department Says It Will No Longer Be Accepting Motel 6's Nightly Guest Lists
The reality of liability
...the motel.
...the motel's occupants.
...the dead occupant's families.
...the motel's employees.
...and/or the motel's neighbors.
Which, in this case, means...
...every motel.
...every motel's occupants.
...every dead occupant's families.
...every motel's employees.
...and/or every motel's neighbors.
And then city's lawyers all had a Richter 9 panic attack and then...
On the post: DOJ Apparently Last To Know About Widespread Stingray Usage/Secrecy; Vows To Look Into It
DOJ Investigator Barbrady responds
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Zuckerberg "responds"
Imaginary Zuckerberg response: "No worries: we'll resolve all those nuisance laws just as soon as TPP is signed."
On the post: White House Floats Idea Of Crypto Backdoor... If The Key Is Broken Into Multiple Pieces
Re: Re: It's just on the tip of my tongue
There might be multiple keys, but I bet among those will still be just one key, that does the work of all the other keys. One key to rule them all. Because otherwise DEA might get possessive and refuse to share it's key with FBI, and we all know how bad that will be.
So this promise of key splitting is just nonsense--no matter what, there will be one key that rules them all.
On the post: Why Does The US Patent Office Keep Approving Clearly Ridiculous Patents?
Say it isn't so
See, the reality was: his job was not to evaluate and approve or reject food at the port of entry. His job was to evaluate and unconditionally approve it.
So you might think a patent examiner's job is to evaluate a patent, and approve or reject it. But God help any examiner who might be so bold as to reject a patent.
On the post: Who Pays When The DEA Destroys Your Vehicle And Kills Your Employee During A Botched Sting? Hint: Not The DEA
Re: Re:
No doubt, there has already been a "U.S. against A Bunch of Assets" case, and the assets are in the hands of the DEA, but I don't see that as a problem. First his truck was damaged, then there was a forfeiture case; so his claim is antecedent to the forfeiture claim.
That is: I think he can make a case that he should have been recompensed out of the assets before the government forfeited the residue. As an non-ally party of the drug lords he is certainly entitled to that recompense, and his claim comes first.
Of course, that will have a negative effect on the DEA, since they won't get to keep all those cool assets; they'll have to fork some back to him. Does anyone outside of DEA have a problem with that?
Next >>