And there are plenty of laws against video recording someone in private situations without their knowledge.
Unfortunately 'revenge' porn rarely is recording someone's sexual activities without their knowledge. The parties involved almost always know and agree to the creation of the video/pictures...at the time.
It's distributing that video later after the parties have split up that makes it revenge porn. It has nothing to do with the recording of the activities itself.
you're assuming people are only running red lights because of short yellow light times. I've got news for you, people are running them because they don't want to stop and wait 2 minutes, not because the lights are short. So increasing the yellow light times won't change that behavior.
reducing T-bone accidents IS an actual safety interest. Properly training people to react to the system would be the correct method for people slamming on their brakes.
'tickets not reviewed by officer' again oversight solves this.
t-bone accidents are much much worse than rear-end accidents. And that 'slam on the brakes' behavior is a training issue, not a problem with the system.
If you knew the cameras were at every single intersection you'd learn much faster than if you only encounter them once in a while.
And dropping new technology into a largely untrained (US Drivers) group is going to breed increases in more minor rear-end accidents.
The training issue is a legitimate concern, something that could have been predicted and should be accounted for. But it's not a fault of the technology.
yeah, trying to prevent t-bone accidents is something we shouldn't try to do.
Though I suspect if you'd probably bitch about having a cop on every corner instead of these cameras...what with the massive tax increase it would require.
Any system run by corrupt people is obviously going to be bad. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, just the implementation.
Proper oversight solves every issue ever raised against the cameras.
if a 3rd party, such as you're friend or anyone/any company who doesn't have an agreement to 'not disclose', does indeed disclose, then yes you have no 4th amendment recourse.
The BIG difference here is the courts ordering the release of the 3rd party held information. That's not 'choosing' to disclose and as such you should be able to fully employ your 4th amendment rights.
Re: There is a distinction between the address an the content
I agree. Either the host is actively playing into his lack technical details, or the host is equally as stupid.
It's the difference between the address on a letter and the contents of the letter itself. (with the obvious exception that in a URL's case you can then go get the content if you wish)
Without the specific details of the program, it would likely be collecting the textual URL so they'd know which articles you visited on a site like TechDirt. For more dynamic/scripted sites it might be a bit harder to reconstruct the content that the subject actually saw from the URL and any other header data you might collect.
re: T-Mobile "Second: Why is this letter not being sent to T-Mobile, who does the exact same thing at 2GB, regardless of network usage?"
because T-Mobile tells you this as part of your contract, hell it's in their advertising. Verizon said nothing of this only that the plans were 'unlimited'. Now, later, Verizon is changing the rules on those 'unlimited' plans.
I haven't mistaken Techdirt's comments for Beacon...I've emailed them as well. But I figure the beneficiary of the donation would be fairly motivated to help resolve the issue, no?
I'm trying to donate but the Beacon site is saying 'Your card was declined.'. My card issuer isn't even seeing the request so something isn't working on Beacon's side of things. I've double and triple checked my info...any ideas?
Huh, the top of the slope just got higher...and more slippery. Who'd a thunk it?
Exactly what you said, this is a canary in the coal mine moment folks. If the gov't is saying the impartial referee isn't partial because they want to make up their own rules...we're in deep deep trouble.
I wonder if Aereo could instead of renting the antennas...sell them directly to consumers and then simply charge a monthly maintenance fee for the upkeep of the network.
If it's *my* antenna, then nobody is rebroadcasting anything.
I put copyrighted work that I legally have rights to in a file locker and stream it directly to myself. Is that a public performance?
Really trivial to see a lawyer try and compare that to this case.
I have legal rights to broadcast TV signals. Aereo simply puts them in the 'locker' of the internet stream for me.
The technology shift here is that previously the only way for many people to get decent OTA reception was through a cable. Now a competing cable exists, the internet, which has an even bigger reach.
As a resident of DC, do I have rights to the OTA broadcasts of NYC? I'd argue I do since they are free. It hasn't been a question until now since getting OTA signal from NYC to DC was prohibitive. Aereo, while not yet providing that specific service, shows how that is now trivially possible. Yet somehow that's illegal but if I were to run my own cable all the way to NYC and put an antenna on it...it would be legal?
On the post: Documents Released In Silk Road Case Add More Evidence To The 'Parallel Construction' Theory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Texas Tosses Out Law Against Peeping Tom Photographs As A First Amendment Violation
Re: Exactly
Unfortunately 'revenge' porn rarely is recording someone's sexual activities without their knowledge. The parties involved almost always know and agree to the creation of the video/pictures...at the time.
It's distributing that video later after the parties have split up that makes it revenge porn. It has nothing to do with the recording of the activities itself.
On the post: Shocking: Red Light Camera Company CEO And Chicago City Official Indicted On Corruption Charges
Re: Re: Re:
reducing T-bone accidents IS an actual safety interest. Properly training people to react to the system would be the correct method for people slamming on their brakes.
On the post: Shocking: Red Light Camera Company CEO And Chicago City Official Indicted On Corruption Charges
Re: Re: Re:
'tickets not reviewed by officer' again oversight solves this.
t-bone accidents are much much worse than rear-end accidents. And that 'slam on the brakes' behavior is a training issue, not a problem with the system.
If you knew the cameras were at every single intersection you'd learn much faster than if you only encounter them once in a while.
And dropping new technology into a largely untrained (US Drivers) group is going to breed increases in more minor rear-end accidents.
The training issue is a legitimate concern, something that could have been predicted and should be accounted for. But it's not a fault of the technology.
On the post: Shocking: Red Light Camera Company CEO And Chicago City Official Indicted On Corruption Charges
Re:
Though I suspect if you'd probably bitch about having a cop on every corner instead of these cameras...what with the massive tax increase it would require.
Any system run by corrupt people is obviously going to be bad. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, just the implementation.
Proper oversight solves every issue ever raised against the cameras.
On the post: Ron Wyden: It's Time To Kill The Third Party Doctrine And Go Back To Respecting Privacy
'choose to disclose' - key difference
The BIG difference here is the courts ordering the release of the 3rd party held information. That's not 'choosing' to disclose and as such you should be able to fully employ your 4th amendment rights.
On the post: Australia's Attorney General Says Metadata Collection Won't Track Your Web Surfing, Just The Web Addresses You Visit (Huh?)
Re: There is a distinction between the address an the content
It's the difference between the address on a letter and the contents of the letter itself. (with the obvious exception that in a URL's case you can then go get the content if you wish)
Without the specific details of the program, it would likely be collecting the textual URL so they'd know which articles you visited on a site like TechDirt. For more dynamic/scripted sites it might be a bit harder to reconstruct the content that the subject actually saw from the URL and any other header data you might collect.
On the post: Senators Slam White House For CIA Torture Report Redactions That Make It 'Incomprehensible'
Re: Re: Re:
Time for Sen Wyden to release the damn report completely unredacted.
On the post: Senators Slam White House For CIA Torture Report Redactions That Make It 'Incomprehensible'
Re:
As, no, please don't throw us (CIA) in that briar patch!
Sadly the required response should have been "Unless this resolved to our satisfaction by [date] we'll release it in it's unredacted entirety"
On the post: President Obama Claims CIA Torture Was Okay Because People Were Scared And The CIA Is A 'Tough Job'
Re: Re:
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~ James Madison
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. ~ Samuel Johnson
On the post: UK Woman Denied Passport Because Her Name Might Infringe On Disney's Copyright
She's a terrorist
On the post: FCC Is 'Deeply Troubled' By Verizon Wireless's New Throttling Plans
Re:
"Second: Why is this letter not being sent to T-Mobile, who does the exact same thing at 2GB, regardless of network usage?"
because T-Mobile tells you this as part of your contract, hell it's in their advertising. Verizon said nothing of this only that the plans were 'unlimited'. Now, later, Verizon is changing the rules on those 'unlimited' plans.
On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This
Incorrect :)
On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This
Re:
On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This
Beacon isn't taking my donation!
On the post: DOJ Claims Judge Who Trashed 'Made Up Plot' Should Be Removed For Being 'Hostile' To The Gov't
Re: Re: Re: What boggles my mind...
Exactly what you said, this is a canary in the coal mine moment folks. If the gov't is saying the impartial referee isn't partial because they want to make up their own rules...we're in deep deep trouble.
On the post: DOJ Claims Judge Who Trashed 'Made Up Plot' Should Be Removed For Being 'Hostile' To The Gov't
Re: Re: Judge Wright for the Supreme Court
On the post: Kiwi ISP Offers Service To Get Around Geoblocking As A Standard Feature
Until Apple does it
On the post: Up Is Down, Day Is Night, And Aereo's Shut Down Is 'Pro-Consumer' According To CBS CEO
Re:
If it's *my* antenna, then nobody is rebroadcasting anything.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
Really trivial to see a lawyer try and compare that to this case.
I have legal rights to broadcast TV signals. Aereo simply puts them in the 'locker' of the internet stream for me.
The technology shift here is that previously the only way for many people to get decent OTA reception was through a cable. Now a competing cable exists, the internet, which has an even bigger reach.
As a resident of DC, do I have rights to the OTA broadcasts of NYC? I'd argue I do since they are free. It hasn't been a question until now since getting OTA signal from NYC to DC was prohibitive. Aereo, while not yet providing that specific service, shows how that is now trivially possible. Yet somehow that's illegal but if I were to run my own cable all the way to NYC and put an antenna on it...it would be legal?
Next >>