Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 4:59pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except your statement was:
"Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies."
Which means that we have already been found guilty. And no, being accused is one thing, being found guilty is another. Your statement isn't an accusation, it is an assertion that the deed is done. As Ehud pointed out above you left out the word potentially which means what you said is a done deal. Try this on for size:
The Census Bureau does not collect data on the legal status of the foreign born."
Apparently not, so what does legal residence have to do with anything with regard to the Census? Now I will grant you that some illegal residents might see interacting with the government to be some sort of dangerous and therefore not want to participate because they do not know, understand, or trust the above statement. But getting counted will change some things, regardless of your attitude.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 4:29pm
Re: So... amend the constitution?
Doesn't it depend upon why one doesn't have Internet access? No ISP in the area is one complaint. High prices due to a lack of competition is another complaint. There are also issues with ISP's claiming there is access in a particular area when there actually isn't. There is also the concept that some people find a way to conduct their lives without the Internet, even if some opportunities are not available in the brick and mortar world.
In your Constitutional Amendment that will make Internet access a human right, which of these barriers to access do you intend to ameliorate, and how?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 4:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have already stated that every adult is guilty, so why do you need more evidence? You have apparently already had a trial and conviction for each and every adult in the US, multiple times because as you stated, we are already guilty.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:54pm
Re: Re: Re:
While I agree there are enough useless laws in the US to make it very difficult to not break one, I think your assertion that "Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies." is faulty, even if just an overstatement for emphasis.
For example, what multiple felonies am I guilty of? Make sure you include proof, as in the US people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 2:45pm
Public service paid for by the public
"Jarrod Bruder, the executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association who frequently lobbies for law enforcement interests at the Statehouse, said that without the incentive of profit from civil forfeiture, officers probably wouldn't pursue drug dealers and their cash as hard as they do now.
If police don't get to keep the money from forfeiture, "what is the incentive to go out and make a special effort?" Bruder said. "What is the incentive for interdiction?""
There is another prime example for why people who get paid by taxes should not have access to union representation. We pay the taxes, the taxes pay the government employees, the government employees pay the union with our tax dollar supplied wages, so by extension, we are paying the unions. The unions are bat shit crazy out of control, and using our money to spew their vitriol.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 8:22am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The concept of value is in the eye of the beholder, or possessor. What is of value to you or me may not be the same as what is a value to him. He thinks his shit has value. So much value that he offers his used toilet paper for sale.
From his rantings it appears others do not. Rather than facing that fact he screams piracy...louder and louder and louder, yet he still cannot be heard.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Feb 2019 @ 7:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
"My work changed the world, and the registered copyrights prove it."
There we have it. He wrote a book called 'My Work Changed the World, and So Can You', and sent in a copyright registration. His book states that all you have to do is write a book that says how you can change the world by telling others how to write a book about how they can change the world with different words, and become a multi gazillionaire overnight, if there aren't any pirates (all sales final, no refunds). If you don't succeed, see pirates. If you do succeed, where's my cut?
His problem is he bought a book about how he too could change the world and...
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Feb 2019 @ 6:48pm
Re: smartphone Contacts baffle me
It's a big question for the OS owners. Why do they allow this? For one thing, they benefit, but at some point the backlash will hurt them as well.
One of the problems with free is that commerce still needs to take place. With groups like Wall Street (as a euphemism for investors) demand ever increasing profits and the providers of 'free' stuff need to find new ways to provide those profits. So the tension is between satisfying investors and mollifying upset users. This tension needs to be broken, and in favor of the privacy of users, rather than in favor of investors.
I hate to think of the consequences of asking for regulation for a couple of reasons. The first is that regulation shouldn't be necessary for corporations to do the right thing, as apposed to doing things right. The second is a lack of trust for any current legislative body to do either the right thing, or to do things right. I fear what they might come up with as a legislative proposal.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Feb 2019 @ 7:11am
It's ours, give it to us, for free, and in a timely manner
In a system that is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, charging for data owned by the people, whether it is Pacer or FOIA requests or any other data or information held by the government in our name is simply a bureaucratic manipulation to keep data from the people.
The only time information about the government should be withheld from the people, any people, is when it actually has to do with national security (or possibly ongoing investigations, when those investigations are actually ongoing), and then there should be a short sunset (maybe 10 years? or when the investigation is no longer ongoing, or is otherwise blocked) to the hold on that information. Remember that much of what keeps us safe are deterrents that are widely known. If no one knows we have nukes, then they aren't deterrents, and that information is released publicly in the interest of national security.
The definition of national security should be severely limited and have huge repercussions to those who attempt to misuse it, and all who participate in the misuse or a cover up of the misuse, whether for embarrassment or any other reasons, trivial or not. Ongoing investigations need to have activity, activity that can be demonstration regularly in order to be considered ongoing.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Feb 2019 @ 6:48pm
Re: Create a database outside of police control...
There are already various citizen committees that 'oversee' police forces. Unfortunately they don't have much power, and if they did, what about the potential for retribution?
There is a need for a Federal Government agency that protects Civil Rights and other Constitutional protections against government exigencies. The DoJ is supposed to do that, but by policy, at least for now, they won't. And when they have, in the past, they were lackluster in their efforts, fellow law enforcement considerations one presumes, but there may be other reasons for their failure to do their jobs.
The effort needs to be attributed with significant power. Power to subpoena, power to request warrants, power to question political positions, and in the whole with the protection of citizens, not law enforcement, in mind. Being a part of the Government, selection, at least of the head people, is a problem. Election doesn't work, appointment by the Executive doesn't work, so how the achieve this is certainly problematic.
Governments tend to want to protect their selves, and any agency that is subject to political pressure, in any way, it liable to protect the Government first, and the people second. This is wrong.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Feb 2019 @ 3:58pm
Wording matters, offer to claim more excuses
"...the change in the law applies to all disclosable records..."
Thus directing law enforcement agencies to claim that the records are a part of an ongoing investigation even when the cases have been closed otherwise. Or, and maybe more pertinent, they will come up with other reasons that the records are not disclosable such as, we nuked them, or we don't have records for that incident, or it's a personnel matter, or the question is beyond the statue of limitations, or...none of which are legitimate excuses. Even the nuked records should be made available. There is a back up somewhere, or there are printed records, or there are court cases, or personnel proceedings, or entries in an officers record, etc..
They are employed by the public and all records, past or present should be accessible, unless they are legitimately part of an ongoing investigation, the law says so. Secrecy such as 'confidential informants' should not be a constraint against the public knowing what is going on. CI's might be pertinent to one case or another, but should not have immunity from identification, or investigation, forever.
Then there is the record of officers lying on the witness stand. These should be an integral part of qualifying any testimony given by these officers in any future litigation, and actually prevent them from testifying, as they are known liars.
I would prefer it to be otherwise, but not that lying officers get the benefit of the doubt, but that officers conducted themselves in such a way that they did not need to lie on the witness stand. It's gonna take a long time to get there.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 5 Feb 2019 @ 7:02am
Re: what's the downside?
Think about it. While they might be looking for you, they will also investigate your aunts, uncles, grandparents, parents, children, cousins, etc.. Do they deserve to be part of a fishing expedition if it is you they are looking for? Then there is the problem that DNA floats around and cross contamination happens all the time. Just because some DNA is found at a crime scene does not mean the provider of that DNA was even ever there. Now, about those fishing expeditions...
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Feb 2019 @ 4:06pm
What will the DoJ do in their spare time?
"This time around, the city will have zero support from the DOJ, which, as a matter of policy under this administration, will not act as an enforcer for federal consent decrees or open investigations of law enforcement agencies found to be perpetually violating the rights of the people they're supposed to be protecting."
It certainly appears that as a matter of policy the US DoJ is refusing to enforce Federal law. By that reasoning, what is there left for the DoJ to do? Right, help the FBI create terrorist incidents and counter espionage. How many employees do they have? Seems like they have too little work to do.
It also leaves one to wonder if the DoJ isn't going to enforce Federal Law, who will?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Feb 2019 @ 6:47pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Following on the FUNNY Friday Fracas:
At the risk of feeding a troll: We cannot debate with you or your kind because you don't listen. You and your kind also do not display any capability of reason. Cognizant counter arguments are presented, yet later in the day, or the next day, or the next the same tired, inapplicable arguments that have no merit are re-argued, ad nauseam. So, what do you expect?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Feb 2019 @ 4:16pm
Re: Re: Following on the FUNNY Friday Fracas:
You left out the difference between a public forum (aka the public square) and a privately owned forum that allows not only the public to comment, but gives the moderation function to the public. Something said troll has a hard time getting his head around.
In addition there is a big difference between the government being required to let the people speak (1st Amendment speech rights) and some anonymous troll being able to force people to listen. He seems to think the 1st Amendment requires Mike's privately owned forum that allows public comments to require Mike's followers to listen to his drivel. It doesn't.
More importantly, nothing that you or I say will change his position. He is either paid to take that position, or is deluded to the point that he actually believes his very precarious and untenable positions.
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except your statement was:
Which means that we have already been found guilty. And no, being accused is one thing, being found guilty is another. Your statement isn't an accusation, it is an assertion that the deed is done. As Ehud pointed out above you left out the word potentially which means what you said is a done deal. Try this on for size:
Then take your aggressive prosecutors and shove them squarely up your ass as I am not the one being obtuse.
On the post: Lack Of Internet Access Threatens 2020 Census Success And The Future Latino Voting Power
Re: Re: Re: Latinos avoid the census
Does participation in the Census require legal residence?
Apparently not, so what does legal residence have to do with anything with regard to the Census? Now I will grant you that some illegal residents might see interacting with the government to be some sort of dangerous and therefore not want to participate because they do not know, understand, or trust the above statement. But getting counted will change some things, regardless of your attitude.
On the post: Lack Of Internet Access Threatens 2020 Census Success And The Future Latino Voting Power
Re: So... amend the constitution?
Doesn't it depend upon why one doesn't have Internet access? No ISP in the area is one complaint. High prices due to a lack of competition is another complaint. There are also issues with ISP's claiming there is access in a particular area when there actually isn't. There is also the concept that some people find a way to conduct their lives without the Internet, even if some opportunities are not available in the brick and mortar world.
In your Constitutional Amendment that will make Internet access a human right, which of these barriers to access do you intend to ameliorate, and how?
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have already stated that every adult is guilty, so why do you need more evidence? You have apparently already had a trial and conviction for each and every adult in the US, multiple times because as you stated, we are already guilty.
Go ask your teams of lawyers.
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re:
Don't you mean while on the job but not doing their jobs?
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Re: Re: Re:
While I agree there are enough useless laws in the US to make it very difficult to not break one, I think your assertion that "Every single adult in America is guilty of multiple felonies." is faulty, even if just an overstatement for emphasis.
For example, what multiple felonies am I guilty of? Make sure you include proof, as in the US people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
On the post: Sheriffs' Union Boss Says Officers Have No Reason To Do Their Job If They Can't Score Forfeiture Cash On The Side
Public service paid for by the public
There is another prime example for why people who get paid by taxes should not have access to union representation. We pay the taxes, the taxes pay the government employees, the government employees pay the union with our tax dollar supplied wages, so by extension, we are paying the unions. The unions are bat shit crazy out of control, and using our money to spew their vitriol.
On the post: Italy Tells Rest Of EU To Drop Articles 11 And 13 From The Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The concept of value is in the eye of the beholder, or possessor. What is of value to you or me may not be the same as what is a value to him. He thinks his shit has value. So much value that he offers his used toilet paper for sale.
From his rantings it appears others do not. Rather than facing that fact he screams piracy...louder and louder and louder, yet he still cannot be heard.
On the post: Italy Tells Rest Of EU To Drop Articles 11 And 13 From The Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Killing of Patreon and their Ilk
There we have it. He wrote a book called 'My Work Changed the World, and So Can You', and sent in a copyright registration. His book states that all you have to do is write a book that says how you can change the world by telling others how to write a book about how they can change the world with different words, and become a multi gazillionaire overnight, if there aren't any pirates (all sales final, no refunds). If you don't succeed, see pirates. If you do succeed, where's my cut?
His problem is he bought a book about how he too could change the world and...
On the post: The 3rd Party Doctrine: Or Why Lawyers May Not Ethically Be Able To Use Whatsapp
Re: smartphone Contacts baffle me
It's a big question for the OS owners. Why do they allow this? For one thing, they benefit, but at some point the backlash will hurt them as well.
One of the problems with free is that commerce still needs to take place. With groups like Wall Street (as a euphemism for investors) demand ever increasing profits and the providers of 'free' stuff need to find new ways to provide those profits. So the tension is between satisfying investors and mollifying upset users. This tension needs to be broken, and in favor of the privacy of users, rather than in favor of investors.
I hate to think of the consequences of asking for regulation for a couple of reasons. The first is that regulation shouldn't be necessary for corporations to do the right thing, as apposed to doing things right. The second is a lack of trust for any current legislative body to do either the right thing, or to do things right. I fear what they might come up with as a legislative proposal.
On the post: Multiple Parties (Including The Author Of The Law Governing PACER) Ask Court To Stop PACER's Screwing Of Taxpayers
It's ours, give it to us, for free, and in a timely manner
In a system that is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, charging for data owned by the people, whether it is Pacer or FOIA requests or any other data or information held by the government in our name is simply a bureaucratic manipulation to keep data from the people.
The only time information about the government should be withheld from the people, any people, is when it actually has to do with national security (or possibly ongoing investigations, when those investigations are actually ongoing), and then there should be a short sunset (maybe 10 years? or when the investigation is no longer ongoing, or is otherwise blocked) to the hold on that information. Remember that much of what keeps us safe are deterrents that are widely known. If no one knows we have nukes, then they aren't deterrents, and that information is released publicly in the interest of national security.
The definition of national security should be severely limited and have huge repercussions to those who attempt to misuse it, and all who participate in the misuse or a cover up of the misuse, whether for embarrassment or any other reasons, trivial or not. Ongoing investigations need to have activity, activity that can be demonstration regularly in order to be considered ongoing.
On the post: Author Of California's Public Records Law: The Law Covers Old Police Misconduct Files, Not Just The New Ones
Re: Create a database outside of police control...
There are already various citizen committees that 'oversee' police forces. Unfortunately they don't have much power, and if they did, what about the potential for retribution?
There is a need for a Federal Government agency that protects Civil Rights and other Constitutional protections against government exigencies. The DoJ is supposed to do that, but by policy, at least for now, they won't. And when they have, in the past, they were lackluster in their efforts, fellow law enforcement considerations one presumes, but there may be other reasons for their failure to do their jobs.
The effort needs to be attributed with significant power. Power to subpoena, power to request warrants, power to question political positions, and in the whole with the protection of citizens, not law enforcement, in mind. Being a part of the Government, selection, at least of the head people, is a problem. Election doesn't work, appointment by the Executive doesn't work, so how the achieve this is certainly problematic.
Governments tend to want to protect their selves, and any agency that is subject to political pressure, in any way, it liable to protect the Government first, and the people second. This is wrong.
On the post: Author Of California's Public Records Law: The Law Covers Old Police Misconduct Files, Not Just The New Ones
Wording matters, offer to claim more excuses
Thus directing law enforcement agencies to claim that the records are a part of an ongoing investigation even when the cases have been closed otherwise. Or, and maybe more pertinent, they will come up with other reasons that the records are not disclosable such as, we nuked them, or we don't have records for that incident, or it's a personnel matter, or the question is beyond the statue of limitations, or...none of which are legitimate excuses. Even the nuked records should be made available. There is a back up somewhere, or there are printed records, or there are court cases, or personnel proceedings, or entries in an officers record, etc..
They are employed by the public and all records, past or present should be accessible, unless they are legitimately part of an ongoing investigation, the law says so. Secrecy such as 'confidential informants' should not be a constraint against the public knowing what is going on. CI's might be pertinent to one case or another, but should not have immunity from identification, or investigation, forever.
Then there is the record of officers lying on the witness stand. These should be an integral part of qualifying any testimony given by these officers in any future litigation, and actually prevent them from testifying, as they are known liars.
I would prefer it to be otherwise, but not that lying officers get the benefit of the doubt, but that officers conducted themselves in such a way that they did not need to lie on the witness stand. It's gonna take a long time to get there.
On the post: Mississippi Governor Extends Middle Finger To Constitution On Twitter While Applauding Asset Forfeiture
When drug dealers bandits with badges have taken over your neighborhood, call a Constitutional scholar and see how that works out for you.
Fixed that for you Governor!
On the post: DNA-Matching Company Decides To Open Its Doors To The FBI Without Bothering To Inform Its Users
Re: what's the downside?
Think about it. While they might be looking for you, they will also investigate your aunts, uncles, grandparents, parents, children, cousins, etc.. Do they deserve to be part of a fishing expedition if it is you they are looking for? Then there is the problem that DNA floats around and cross contamination happens all the time. Just because some DNA is found at a crime scene does not mean the provider of that DNA was even ever there. Now, about those fishing expeditions...
On the post: Federal Court Approves Reforms Targeting The Chicago Police Department
What will the DoJ do in their spare time?
It certainly appears that as a matter of policy the US DoJ is refusing to enforce Federal law. By that reasoning, what is there left for the DoJ to do? Right, help the FBI create terrorist incidents and counter espionage. How many employees do they have? Seems like they have too little work to do.
It also leaves one to wonder if the DoJ isn't going to enforce Federal Law, who will?
On the post: Minnesota Lawyers Board Asks State Supreme Court To Smack Paul Hansmeier Around A Bit
Re:
It would be a short video...And then he met John Steele.
/s
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Following on the FUNNY Friday Fracas:
At the risk of feeding a troll: We cannot debate with you or your kind because you don't listen. You and your kind also do not display any capability of reason. Cognizant counter arguments are presented, yet later in the day, or the next day, or the next the same tired, inapplicable arguments that have no merit are re-argued, ad nauseam. So, what do you expect?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Following on the FUNNY Friday Fracas:
You left out the difference between a public forum (aka the public square) and a privately owned forum that allows not only the public to comment, but gives the moderation function to the public. Something said troll has a hard time getting his head around.
In addition there is a big difference between the government being required to let the people speak (1st Amendment speech rights) and some anonymous troll being able to force people to listen. He seems to think the 1st Amendment requires Mike's privately owned forum that allows public comments to require Mike's followers to listen to his drivel. It doesn't.
More importantly, nothing that you or I say will change his position. He is either paid to take that position, or is deluded to the point that he actually believes his very precarious and untenable positions.
Point being: don't feed the trolls.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gasket
Point proven!
Next >>