Perhaps I'm a bit slow. (I know, I'm leaving myself open here!)
But if these cameras are IN PUBLIC, monitoring public spaces, then what privacy issues are there?
If I am in one of these areas, and I take my clothes off, I will be arrested for indecent public exposure. PUBLIC exposure. There is NO EXPECTATION of privacy in a public space, the case law is pretty settled here, isn't it?
So please explain what privacy issues you are worried about.
Sure, there may be issues of, say, blackmail, if a volunteer monitor sees a person where they should not be, with a person they shouldn't be there with, and a danger they could use surveillance tape as a tool. But that also is a danger if that volunteer were to observe that same scene as a private citizen and take a cell phone video for the same nefarious purpose!
Same situation, the person being observed is in a public place, and should be aware that their image can be captured and misused, should they be doing something they could get in trouble for. They have no expectation of privacy.
Any professional photographer has the right to take pictures in a public space. If you happen to be there, and your image is captured, it can be used in that photographer's work. Yes, pros usually try to get permission first as a legal preemptive move, but it isn't required in most places.
So I am puzzled, what privacy issues are there to these cameras? That needs closer examination!
In a courtroom, ALL evidence is subject to scrutiny by all parties, and can be examined and rebutted, witnesses can be cross-examined and re-examined by the original side (re-direct) - all ways of ensuring the information presented is fully examined by and fairly presented to whomever is making the decision, judge or jury.
The courtroom is closely controlled to ensure that the venue allows the full and fair examination of all evidence and witnesses, and prevents outside influence from intruding into the process. If necessary, a jury is sequestered to ensure their isolation from contaminating speculation in the press.
Since a judge can hardly be expected to sequester himself, he is trusted, as an officer of the court, to adhere to the rules regarding such outside influence, as are the attorneys trusted to not attempt improper contacts with either judge or jury.
This case illustrates how human nature can be expected to fail in both ways, for judge and attorney, and the only reason we are talking about it here is because of the judge's use of the web in his improper activities.
Whether he used the web for his investigation or a newspaper, his actions were improper and should be treated as such traditionally are.
OLD BUT always timely is the fable of the scorpion and the frog. It goes like this:
A scorpion asks a frog for help crossing a river. Intimidated by the scorpion's prominent stinger, the frog demurs.
``Don't be scared,'' the scorpion says. ``If something happens to you, I'll drown.'' Moved by this logic, the frog puts the scorpion on his back and wades into the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog.
The dying frog croaks, ``How could you -- you know that you'll drown?''
The point is that the Chinese Communist government is managing the news that is available to the Chinese people. There have been lots of stories on the web this week about how the current generation of Chinese young folks either do not know the significance of the occurrence or only know the official version of events.
If you don't know the truth, there's nothing to get upset about... which is why the Chicom government manages the news in China.
Ok, fine, maybe you've got a point, but the law sure as hell should be impartially applied, and doing what this judge did blows that, even the appearance of it, all to hell.
I don't know what the standards are where he works for removing judges, but he certainly should be investigated and at the very least, reprimanded.
If people get the idea that the legal system won't treat them at least fairly, the whole point of having one goes down the tubes. Yes, we all know that being able to hire better lawyers (or certainly more of them) get you a better chance to win, but most Americans at least THINK they will be treated fairly.
In bypassing the court rules as he did, this judge jeopardizes that appearance.
The real problem here is that the judge was going out of the realm of the courtroom for information.
Our system expects the judge and the jury to get their information about a case IN THE COURTROOM. The reason is that whatever is obtained outside of that venue is not controlled for veracity, accuracy or bias. The opposing side has no information on what is being accessed, thus no opportunity to refute that information or present a balancing picture.
The courtroom is a controlled environment where ALL the evidence can be presented under controlled conditions and preserved in the case of an appeal. If the judge gets half of his information from the plaintiff's website, how can the defendant present that information to an appeals court if the plaintiff then kills the site before the appeal can be heard? Both sides in the courtroom can present their evidence in the same way, under the same circumstances, eliminating the chances of conditional bias introduced by a different venue.
The rules are there because of centuries of experience in eliminating bias and making justice as impartial as possible.
Operate outside of those rules, and justice suffers fast.
"In this day and age, it's quite depressing that people in positions of authority still seem to think the tool is to blame, rather than the individuals who use them."
Perhaps you should LOOK at the vehicle. It has four wheels, two front, two back, that will catch the thing and keep it from tilting too far when it is switched off. What, you think the designers didn't think about that?
This is a fsking CONCEPT car, it is meant to show off the tech, and show what it could be used for.
And yes, this IS innovation - as opposed to the original Segway, you sit in it, you have two seats instead of one, and it is meant for a commute, NOT patrolling malls. In addition, the video they showed demonstrates it as being used as a SMART car, attached to a computer system that can meld the car into a transportation system where trains of these things go to common destinations. Motorbikes can't be used that way, nor can bicycles. This one keeps its own balance, and I don't have to stick my foot out into the weather to balance it at a stop light!
Dry in the rain? What makes you think this couldn't be fitted with a weatherproof exterior? Looks simple to me. Remember CONCEPT CAR!! Those are NEVER built in their final form, they are only meant to demonstrate the tech's feasibility in operation. They are NOT market test cars.
If I wanted a stupid golf cart, I'd buy one, but they are NOT designed for commuting, they are designed for riding around on golf courses.
So why do you seem to think that our transportation system has no problems and needs no solutions?
Millions of Americans drive individually owned cars that are designed to hold from 4 to 6 people - and drive them ALONE - in commutes that could easily be accomplished using a small electric vehicle just big enough for them and perhaps one other person, wasting who knows how much oil/gas that we now have to buy from people that hate us and all we stand for!
Our cities are stuffed full to the brim with those gas guzzling, pollution-spewing, space hogging monsters, and you seem to think that a small electric smart car wouldn't solve at least SOME of those problems? Our roads are choked by too damn many of those same cars driven by idiots that keep banging them into each other and you think that a small smart car that could take the driving job and do it better and use less road would be a waste of money?
I want to smoke some of what you are, life would be so much simpler!
Perhaps they should take one of their own concepts from another post today - the idea that this is a new recipe, taking many of the same ingredients used in older recipes, adding a few new ones and coming up with a new recipe for an old problem!
Just because it's a new recipe doesn't automatically make it bad.
I don't see the problem here. If you had seen the short video they showed on the news last night, you'd see their concept of how a small car like this could help transportation.
First, it'll do what a bike or motorcycle can't. It'll keep the weather off of you. I have a short 1.5 mile commute - and I'll stay away from vehicles that don't keep the wind, snow and rain off of me - I want to get to work dry and warm. Like MANY Americans, I am not a physically fit enough person to drive that bike up the hills many people have to commute over, so a bike is a no go from the start. Second, it takes up less space on the road and is MUCH more maneuverable than a standard car. The video shows short "trains" of these making their way down the road - an indication that they are conceived to be "smart" cars - capable of joining short trains to allow the operator to be merely a rider for much of a commute, which will hugely reduce accidents. A motorbike will never be able to do that.
Small means cheap. Less energy to move, less to store, smaller batteries. Energy costs less per trip, car is cheaper cause the batteries are smaller, less expensive. Small also means a city can fit more of them to the same amount of parking space - something many inner cities are running out of. More fit onto the same amount of road - another limited commodity!
The "concept" here is TRANSPORTATION - as in commuter transportation - which is a HUGE market. A huge percentage of Americans that commute within a city do so alone, or with only one other person. A vehicle like this is ideal for such an arrangement with very little addition - perhaps a small trunk for shopping purposes and a few comfort conveniences.
Reduce the cars Americans drive to work with to something this size - even if only 40% of them do so, and the savings in oil used alone is huge, and the additional savings to cities in increased parking space, more people fit on the roads, cleaner air and so forth are even bigger. Plus, roads would last much longer because these things would weigh MUCH less than standard cars, thus less wear on the roads.
For my short commute, I'd buy something like this in a heartbeat, if it was weatherproof. I would, of course, keep my bigger vehicle for other purposes, such as shopping for stuff that's too big for the little one, vacations that I can drive on, day trips, etc. But this kind of vehicle could replace 60% of the milage I put on that bigger car every year, making it last longer.
I wouldn't mind the speed cameras so much (and don't in front of schools) if their speed laws were in any way reasonable! MD (and Montgomery County in particular) just loves to set speeds as low as possible, then catch people exceeding those speeds. Many many roads that are multi-lane (and often parkway style with medians between directions) have ridiculously low speed limits, often as low as 30 miles per hour, where one's natural inclination is to go 45 or more - and traffic often does in general.
Yes, speed kills, but what it is that kills is the DIFFERENCE in speed between someone going faster and the idiot that insists on driving slow regardless of conditions or traffic. Obstacles, whether rolling ones such as slow drivers, or stationary ones such as speed bumps or speed cameras, disrupt the flow of traffic and increase the chances of accidents as drivers attempt to avoid those obstacles or drive around them.
I once saw a driver on a Houston Tx freeway get pulled over for driving TOO SLOW! I smiled for a week.
Given that Maryland has limited speed camera installation to places where roads intersect with either parks or schools, and they are ONLY good at reducing speed at the location where installed, I have long felt that they are only good for spot enforcement and revenue enhancement.
I DO feel that they are quite good at reducing speed in front of schools, where such has been an issue for years.
BUT Maryland has also used them for reducing speed on major roads where they have bike paths cross the road, classifying those crossings as "parks", allowing the use of the speed cameras.
Yes, this does reduce speed on those roads, but ONLY in the block where the camera is installed. After people pass the camera, speed goes back up, so a roadblock is created, sometimes creating a block long traffic jam just before you get to the camera!
Most people hate them, pictures have been taken of people hanging their butts out of the window, and even cops have been photographed giving the cameras the bird!
What do you mean "Apple still gets paid? If they have to give the customer a FULL refund but only demand 70% from the developer, then they are still eating the 30% costs they are NOT asking the developer to pay. They are only asking for the 70% back that the developer got in the first place!
And isn't this a risk that any developer takes just by being in the business?? Either you produce a product people can and do like and use, or you have to give them their money back when they realize it sucks.
Welcome to the real world - what do people think - Apple will just eat the cost of returns? Not freakin' likely.
If the app store were mine, I'd have put that in the first paragraph, in big red letters.
TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
Whether you "allow" that access or not, if you leave the fsking door open, someone will get in!
Malware is chock full of not only botnet control software, but potentially, keyloggers and other bad stuff designed to steal your stuff.
So if we use your house analogy, its like going to bed at night, leaving the front porch light on, door open, and someone comes in to use your phone for illegal activity, stage attacks on your neighbor's property, and steal all your wife's jewelry as well as all your electronics, before they leave.
So yes, it IS your fault, even if you didn't give specific permission for the break-in, and the cops'll tell you you're an idiot after they take your report. The least you can do is turn the light off and close the door. Most people put locks on their doors and use those to deny easy access.
Same with your computer. Buy a security app and USE it. Update your operating system, so it'll pull the patches to stay safe as the vulnerabilities are discovered. If you don't take these elementary steps, it IS your fault if you get compromised.
The new songs are a higher bit rate, and what you are paying is the difference between the higher cost of the new version and what you paid originally for the old DRM'd lower bit rate version. At least you are getting some credit for what you already paid!
If it were up to the RIAA, they'd make you pay the entire cost all over again, just for the privilege of getting a higher bit rate song.
Geez, Apple finally dumps DRM, as folks have been clamoring for for years, and they still get dumped on. Can't make anybody happy.
There was an interesting report of a small ISP in Louisiana that basically told the reporter (from CNN, I think) that he has gotten several requests from the RIAA for information on his customers regarding file sharing. He said that these requests cost him money, because he has to detail techs to locate that information.
When he gets those requests, he asks them, "What is your billing address?" He said he rarely gets a return call.
He knows he is protected by the law as an ISP, and they cannot sue HIM, so he's just telling them to pay up for the service they are requesting from him.
He said he loses upwards of $1400 on a lost contract if he cuts a customer off, plus whatever bad vibes that customer sends out to friends and family. He is a small ISP, struggling to make it, so he is NOT liable to cut anybody off without solid proof, which he says the RIAA has not provided yet on anybody.
Another exception is "inevitable discovery". If it can be shown that your investigation would have inevitably uncovered the information or illegal material by other means than the illegal search, the evidence can be retained.
But that is pretty tough to show. First, you have to have an ongoing investigation that fairly covers the subject based upon the likelihood of illegal activity. You can't just start investigating just because the guy has a record or because he looks shady...
What if publicizing a secret exposes a technique you used to elicit an opponent's secrets? Perhaps a source he didn't know you had? Or a hole in his security you were actively taking advantage of? If that exposure caused that opponent to close that hole, or eliminate that source, that could "endanger national security", couldn't it? If what we were watching was potentially dangerous, like Iran enriching uranium... or terrorists making bombs...
I could think of lots of reasons that publicizing a piece of information could do harm to our very secret efforts to keep an eye on those that dislike us or actively plan things to hurt us or attack us.
As for number one, if one has a surveillance effort, and you have been watching certain citizens that are alleged to be involved in treasonous activities, you wouldn't want ALL of that surveillance information to be publicized - much of it would be irrelevant to your investigation (probably hours and hours of it), and there would be nuggets of very private information that could harm that person if exposed, such as banking information, or perhaps information that he/she was involved in an affair - that could even harm a third party.
Use your imagination - Ann Landers would tell you that whatever you can imagine couldn't possibly be as interesting or likely as what people really are doing!!
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
what issues?
But if these cameras are IN PUBLIC, monitoring public spaces, then what privacy issues are there?
If I am in one of these areas, and I take my clothes off, I will be arrested for indecent public exposure. PUBLIC exposure. There is NO EXPECTATION of privacy in a public space, the case law is pretty settled here, isn't it?
So please explain what privacy issues you are worried about.
Sure, there may be issues of, say, blackmail, if a volunteer monitor sees a person where they should not be, with a person they shouldn't be there with, and a danger they could use surveillance tape as a tool. But that also is a danger if that volunteer were to observe that same scene as a private citizen and take a cell phone video for the same nefarious purpose!
Same situation, the person being observed is in a public place, and should be aware that their image can be captured and misused, should they be doing something they could get in trouble for. They have no expectation of privacy.
Any professional photographer has the right to take pictures in a public space. If you happen to be there, and your image is captured, it can be used in that photographer's work. Yes, pros usually try to get permission first as a legal preemptive move, but it isn't required in most places.
So I am puzzled, what privacy issues are there to these cameras? That needs closer examination!
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
that's the point
The courtroom is closely controlled to ensure that the venue allows the full and fair examination of all evidence and witnesses, and prevents outside influence from intruding into the process. If necessary, a jury is sequestered to ensure their isolation from contaminating speculation in the press.
Since a judge can hardly be expected to sequester himself, he is trusted, as an officer of the court, to adhere to the rules regarding such outside influence, as are the attorneys trusted to not attempt improper contacts with either judge or jury.
This case illustrates how human nature can be expected to fail in both ways, for judge and attorney, and the only reason we are talking about it here is because of the judge's use of the web in his improper activities.
Whether he used the web for his investigation or a newspaper, his actions were improper and should be treated as such traditionally are.
On the post: Is Anyone Actually Surprised That China Has Blocked Social Media Sites For Tiananmen Anniversary?
frog and scorpion
A scorpion asks a frog for help crossing a river. Intimidated by the scorpion's prominent stinger, the frog demurs.
``Don't be scared,'' the scorpion says. ``If something happens to you, I'll drown.'' Moved by this logic, the frog puts the scorpion on his back and wades into the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog.
The dying frog croaks, ``How could you -- you know that you'll drown?''
``It's my nature,'' gasps the sinking scorpion.
On the post: Is Anyone Actually Surprised That China Has Blocked Social Media Sites For Tiananmen Anniversary?
not the point
If you don't know the truth, there's nothing to get upset about... which is why the Chicom government manages the news in China.
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
yes but
I don't know what the standards are where he works for removing judges, but he certainly should be investigated and at the very least, reprimanded.
If people get the idea that the legal system won't treat them at least fairly, the whole point of having one goes down the tubes. Yes, we all know that being able to hire better lawyers (or certainly more of them) get you a better chance to win, but most Americans at least THINK they will be treated fairly.
In bypassing the court rules as he did, this judge jeopardizes that appearance.
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
however
Our system expects the judge and the jury to get their information about a case IN THE COURTROOM. The reason is that whatever is obtained outside of that venue is not controlled for veracity, accuracy or bias. The opposing side has no information on what is being accessed, thus no opportunity to refute that information or present a balancing picture.
The courtroom is a controlled environment where ALL the evidence can be presented under controlled conditions and preserved in the case of an appeal. If the judge gets half of his information from the plaintiff's website, how can the defendant present that information to an appeals court if the plaintiff then kills the site before the appeal can be heard? Both sides in the courtroom can present their evidence in the same way, under the same circumstances, eliminating the chances of conditional bias introduced by a different venue.
The rules are there because of centuries of experience in eliminating bias and making justice as impartial as possible.
Operate outside of those rules, and justice suffers fast.
On the post: Why Are AGs Targeting Craigslist Rather Than Newspapers Or Other Websites?
blaming the tool
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
This has been going on for a while!
On the post: Keep It Simple, Segway -- Don't Team Up With GM
Re: Re: The Segway as applied to transportation
This is a fsking CONCEPT car, it is meant to show off the tech, and show what it could be used for.
And yes, this IS innovation - as opposed to the original Segway, you sit in it, you have two seats instead of one, and it is meant for a commute, NOT patrolling malls. In addition, the video they showed demonstrates it as being used as a SMART car, attached to a computer system that can meld the car into a transportation system where trains of these things go to common destinations. Motorbikes can't be used that way, nor can bicycles. This one keeps its own balance, and I don't have to stick my foot out into the weather to balance it at a stop light!
Dry in the rain? What makes you think this couldn't be fitted with a weatherproof exterior? Looks simple to me. Remember CONCEPT CAR!! Those are NEVER built in their final form, they are only meant to demonstrate the tech's feasibility in operation. They are NOT market test cars.
If I wanted a stupid golf cart, I'd buy one, but they are NOT designed for commuting, they are designed for riding around on golf courses.
On the post: Keep It Simple, Segway -- Don't Team Up With GM
Re: solution in search of a problem
Millions of Americans drive individually owned cars that are designed to hold from 4 to 6 people - and drive them ALONE - in commutes that could easily be accomplished using a small electric vehicle just big enough for them and perhaps one other person, wasting who knows how much oil/gas that we now have to buy from people that hate us and all we stand for!
Our cities are stuffed full to the brim with those gas guzzling, pollution-spewing, space hogging monsters, and you seem to think that a small electric smart car wouldn't solve at least SOME of those problems? Our roads are choked by too damn many of those same cars driven by idiots that keep banging them into each other and you think that a small smart car that could take the driving job and do it better and use less road would be a waste of money?
I want to smoke some of what you are, life would be so much simpler!
On the post: Keep It Simple, Segway -- Don't Team Up With GM
so true
Just because it's a new recipe doesn't automatically make it bad.
On the post: Keep It Simple, Segway -- Don't Team Up With GM
not a segway
First, it'll do what a bike or motorcycle can't. It'll keep the weather off of you. I have a short 1.5 mile commute - and I'll stay away from vehicles that don't keep the wind, snow and rain off of me - I want to get to work dry and warm. Like MANY Americans, I am not a physically fit enough person to drive that bike up the hills many people have to commute over, so a bike is a no go from the start. Second, it takes up less space on the road and is MUCH more maneuverable than a standard car. The video shows short "trains" of these making their way down the road - an indication that they are conceived to be "smart" cars - capable of joining short trains to allow the operator to be merely a rider for much of a commute, which will hugely reduce accidents. A motorbike will never be able to do that.
Small means cheap. Less energy to move, less to store, smaller batteries. Energy costs less per trip, car is cheaper cause the batteries are smaller, less expensive. Small also means a city can fit more of them to the same amount of parking space - something many inner cities are running out of. More fit onto the same amount of road - another limited commodity!
The "concept" here is TRANSPORTATION - as in commuter transportation - which is a HUGE market. A huge percentage of Americans that commute within a city do so alone, or with only one other person. A vehicle like this is ideal for such an arrangement with very little addition - perhaps a small trunk for shopping purposes and a few comfort conveniences.
Reduce the cars Americans drive to work with to something this size - even if only 40% of them do so, and the savings in oil used alone is huge, and the additional savings to cities in increased parking space, more people fit on the roads, cleaner air and so forth are even bigger. Plus, roads would last much longer because these things would weigh MUCH less than standard cars, thus less wear on the roads.
For my short commute, I'd buy something like this in a heartbeat, if it was weatherproof. I would, of course, keep my bigger vehicle for other purposes, such as shopping for stuff that's too big for the little one, vacations that I can drive on, day trips, etc. But this kind of vehicle could replace 60% of the milage I put on that bigger car every year, making it last longer.
Another savings!
On the post: Maryland Ramps Up Traffic Cameras... But For Safety Or Revenue?
speeding in MD
Yes, speed kills, but what it is that kills is the DIFFERENCE in speed between someone going faster and the idiot that insists on driving slow regardless of conditions or traffic. Obstacles, whether rolling ones such as slow drivers, or stationary ones such as speed bumps or speed cameras, disrupt the flow of traffic and increase the chances of accidents as drivers attempt to avoid those obstacles or drive around them.
I once saw a driver on a Houston Tx freeway get pulled over for driving TOO SLOW! I smiled for a week.
On the post: Maryland Ramps Up Traffic Cameras... But For Safety Or Revenue?
limited installation options
I DO feel that they are quite good at reducing speed in front of schools, where such has been an issue for years.
BUT Maryland has also used them for reducing speed on major roads where they have bike paths cross the road, classifying those crossings as "parks", allowing the use of the speed cameras.
Yes, this does reduce speed on those roads, but ONLY in the block where the camera is installed. After people pass the camera, speed goes back up, so a roadblock is created, sometimes creating a block long traffic jam just before you get to the camera!
Most people hate them, pictures have been taken of people hanging their butts out of the window, and even cops have been photographed giving the cameras the bird!
On the post: Apple Making Developers Pay Up For Any Refunded iPhone Apps?
wait a minute
What do you mean "Apple still gets paid? If they have to give the customer a FULL refund but only demand 70% from the developer, then they are still eating the 30% costs they are NOT asking the developer to pay. They are only asking for the 70% back that the developer got in the first place!
And isn't this a risk that any developer takes just by being in the business?? Either you produce a product people can and do like and use, or you have to give them their money back when they realize it sucks.
Welcome to the real world - what do people think - Apple will just eat the cost of returns? Not freakin' likely.
If the app store were mine, I'd have put that in the first paragraph, in big red letters.
TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
On the post: Did The BBC Break The Law By Exposing Botnets?
bad analogy
Malware is chock full of not only botnet control software, but potentially, keyloggers and other bad stuff designed to steal your stuff.
So if we use your house analogy, its like going to bed at night, leaving the front porch light on, door open, and someone comes in to use your phone for illegal activity, stage attacks on your neighbor's property, and steal all your wife's jewelry as well as all your electronics, before they leave.
So yes, it IS your fault, even if you didn't give specific permission for the break-in, and the cops'll tell you you're an idiot after they take your report. The least you can do is turn the light off and close the door. Most people put locks on their doors and use those to deny easy access.
Same with your computer. Buy a security app and USE it. Update your operating system, so it'll pull the patches to stay safe as the vulnerabilities are discovered. If you don't take these elementary steps, it IS your fault if you get compromised.
On the post: Arizona County Ditches Speed Cameras, Saying They Made Roads More Dangerous
great!
On the post: Lame: Apple Charging $0.30 Per Song To Ditch DRM
on the other hand
The new songs are a higher bit rate, and what you are paying is the difference between the higher cost of the new version and what you paid originally for the old DRM'd lower bit rate version. At least you are getting some credit for what you already paid!
If it were up to the RIAA, they'd make you pay the entire cost all over again, just for the privilege of getting a higher bit rate song.
Geez, Apple finally dumps DRM, as folks have been clamoring for for years, and they still get dumped on. Can't make anybody happy.
On the post: RIAA's New Policy Isn't About Deterrence, It's About Sidestepping Due Process
stand up ISPs
When he gets those requests, he asks them, "What is your billing address?" He said he rarely gets a return call.
He knows he is protected by the law as an ISP, and they cannot sue HIM, so he's just telling them to pay up for the service they are requesting from him.
He said he loses upwards of $1400 on a lost contract if he cuts a customer off, plus whatever bad vibes that customer sends out to friends and family. He is a small ISP, struggling to make it, so he is NOT liable to cut anybody off without solid proof, which he says the RIAA has not provided yet on anybody.
Good for him.
On the post: Is A Conviction Constitutional If It's Based On Evidence From An Unconstitutional Search?
another exception
But that is pretty tough to show. First, you have to have an ongoing investigation that fairly covers the subject based upon the likelihood of illegal activity. You can't just start investigating just because the guy has a record or because he looks shady...
On the post: Why Was The Restraining Order On RealDVD Kept Secret?
example
What if publicizing a secret exposes a technique you used to elicit an opponent's secrets? Perhaps a source he didn't know you had? Or a hole in his security you were actively taking advantage of? If that exposure caused that opponent to close that hole, or eliminate that source, that could "endanger national security", couldn't it? If what we were watching was potentially dangerous, like Iran enriching uranium... or terrorists making bombs...
I could think of lots of reasons that publicizing a piece of information could do harm to our very secret efforts to keep an eye on those that dislike us or actively plan things to hurt us or attack us.
As for number one, if one has a surveillance effort, and you have been watching certain citizens that are alleged to be involved in treasonous activities, you wouldn't want ALL of that surveillance information to be publicized - much of it would be irrelevant to your investigation (probably hours and hours of it), and there would be nuggets of very private information that could harm that person if exposed, such as banking information, or perhaps information that he/she was involved in an affair - that could even harm a third party.
Use your imagination - Ann Landers would tell you that whatever you can imagine couldn't possibly be as interesting or likely as what people really are doing!!
Next >>