The thing I find most baffling about all this is... if it went to arbitration then most likely it was with an arbitrator chosen by Fox. For the outcome to be that Fox was doing something wrong makes me want to look outside to see if pigs are flying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But for the evidence, we are clean, clean, c
When they are part and parcel to a federal investigation, yes it is illegal. Every state and city has a public records law and included in those laws is text about the type of records and how long they have to be kept for.
Inglewood might be able to get away with destroying the records that exceed the retention period, but anything destroyed before its expiration date that might be needed for a court case will cause issues for the agency in question.
I would prefer the nuclear option of Google turning it all off, but realistically I don't see that happening. What I do see happening is Google paying the stupid license fees, but also charging the news companies to display their articles with a fee based on how much traffic they send to said news sites. Google will come out ahead on that simply based on the number of clicks they get.
But we'll take what we can get for now and hope the US Attorney sees the value of partial transparency, rather than just the limited downsides law enforcement will likely complain about repeatedly.
I can't believe you actually wrote that and didn't fall over laughing.
Netflix should apply Hollywood Accounting to the Bandersnatch accounting books and let the lawsuit go through. After all, no movie anywhere has ever actually netted any profit.
So if a citizen performs an act that is not currently against the law, then the law changes the government can't come back and prosecute them (assuming the act was a limited time thing and they didn't continue after the law changed).
But it is perfectly fine for the government to perform an act that is against the law (and it KNOWS this) they can claim 'Oh good faith and besides.. the law changed in the mean time.'
This so called Good Faith claim just sounds like an excuse by the various AG offices to arrest and charge someone they don't like but can't (legally) generate sufficient reason to prosecute.
Re: Well, they're firm on silencing political opponents.
You're as ever focused on anomalies, not the everyday problems of mega-corporation "platforms" illegally silencing people who are entirely within common law terms for expressing political views.
If this was GovernmentBook, owned and operated by the US Government, then yes. It would be illegal to silence people for expressing their political views. Facebook however is a privately owned company and you may use their product only in a manner that they have written rules for. If you violate their rules they are perfectly within their rights to revoke your access, even if that rule has something to do with political views.
Please remember that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, as in the government. It says nothing about a private corporation making up rules regarding it.
It's all so innocent and devoid of subterfuge the city council did it in secret with zero public notice or input.
No video or audio of the Dec. 11 council action is available on the city’s website and neither are meeting minutes or any record of the decision.
This... is almost certainly in violation of Open Meetings laws and nothing that was 'approved' at that meeting has any legal strength. I expect to see a lawsuit regarding the destruction of records sometime soon.
There will soon come a day where people who sue words like "nutjob" will find themselves unemployable and completely ostracized just like those who use things like the n-word.
So.. if I use the word nutjob or.. the other n word (nutjob? numbskull? nitwit?) I will be ostracized? Something that I have noticed is that people who get all up in arms about someone talking mean about them, are often times doing that themselves.
Civility starts with yourself, not trying to force it upon someone else.
I am continually surprised by the restraint showed by YouTube and Google over all of the legislative action being taken by European countries. I personally would have just gone straight for the nuclear option and cut of Europe from services and let their citizens raise a ruckus with their politicians.
Which we almost never see because it has to be an 'extraordinary' case before the judge will even contemplate having the big name company pay some stay at home wife filming her kid dancing to a song done by someone who fancied himself royalty.
For even more fun they can make it so that the current ad will finish playing when you hit the unpause button. Which, I suspect, will quickly lead to people hitting the unsubscribe button.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"
Jailing someone forever for contempt of court is usually jailing the person who is on trial. What they just did was grab some third party who was not involved in the Facebook v UK fight and hold him hostage till he coughed up the documents they wanted.
The hell? Do they think she filmed the incident or something? If they wanted evidence they can request location records and text messages from the provider without having to do a warrant song and dance.
have Congress include a "Fairness Doctrine" so the regulated carriers like Facebook and Twitter can't selectively censor viewpoints they don't like.
Three things. Facebook and Twitter aren't 'regulated carriers' like I think you are meaning. They do not provide access to the Internet.
Second. Facebook and Twitter are private companies and as such you have to play by whatever rules they write to use their services. If those rules include 'selectively censoring viewpoints' that go against the rules you agreed to follow, then tough luck.
Third. They tried a "Fairness Doctrine" a couple of decades ago when it came to political advertising and news coverage. It didn't work and got dropped.
The man who falsely claimed to have purchased cocaine from Talley is a nine-time felon whose criminal record includes nine convictions for theft and another five for burglary. He has also been convicted for giving a false name to police officers after an arrest, for filing a false police report, and, while behind bars, for writing a death threat to a police officer, forging another inmate’s signature on the threat, and then reporting the threat in exchange for reducing his own charges.
You know, I've heard the phrase 'It takes a thief to catch a thief' before but this... This is obscene. About the only good thing I can see from all that is there appears to be no physical violence in his record.
How I deal with robo calls is, when a call from a number I don't recognize comes in I go ahead and pick up. I just remain silent. The automated systems on the other end are waiting for someone to say something so that it knows there is a person on the other end, if it doesn't hear anything after 10 seconds it hangs up. If there is an actual person on the other end after a moment of silence they will say something.
And just how is the officer going to know the body cam has a hit? Is it going to start chirping and cause the officers to do a general detainment of everyone in front of them to find the person who set it off? Is there going to be an army of operators at some other facility who will see the camera in active stream mode to give direction to the officers? While I'm not pleased about the implications of face recognition built into the cams, I would be pleased if some of their patents actually make the damn things turn on more often. Personally I think they should turn on automatically whenever the officer turns on the flashers, or radios dispatch that they are have something they are looking into.
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Rears Its Ugly Head Again: Fox's 'False Testimony' And 'Aversion For The Truth' Leads To $179M Fine
The thing I find most baffling about all this is... if it went to arbitration then most likely it was with an arbitrator chosen by Fox. For the outcome to be that Fox was doing something wrong makes me want to look outside to see if pigs are flying.
On the post: Minnesota Judges Spent Only Minutes Approving Warrants Sweeping Up Thousands Of Cellphone Users
Re: 'Constitution limitations', apparently not required knowledg
The judge might not have been able to tell because the police submitted the request with latitude/longitude borders, not street borders.
On the post: California Court Says New Records Law Covers Past Police Misconduct Records
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But for the evidence, we are clean, clean, c
When they are part and parcel to a federal investigation, yes it is illegal. Every state and city has a public records law and included in those laws is text about the type of records and how long they have to be kept for.
Inglewood might be able to get away with destroying the records that exceed the retention period, but anything destroyed before its expiration date that might be needed for a court case will cause issues for the agency in question.
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
On the post: Seattle Newspaper Wins Federal Court Case, Opens Up Reporting On Secret Law Enforcement Surveillance
I can't believe you actually wrote that and didn't fall over laughing.
On the post: The 'Choose Your Own Adventure' People Are Suing Netflix Over 'Bandersnatch'
On the post: Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Say It's Cool If The FBI Broke The Law During Its Playpen Investigation
But it is perfectly fine for the government to perform an act that is against the law (and it KNOWS this) they can claim 'Oh good faith and besides.. the law changed in the mean time.'
This so called Good Faith claim just sounds like an excuse by the various AG offices to arrest and charge someone they don't like but can't (legally) generate sufficient reason to prosecute.
On the post: The Internet Giant's Dilemma: Preventing Suicide Is Good; Invading People's Private Lives... Not So Much
Re: Well, they're firm on silencing political opponents.
If this was GovernmentBook, owned and operated by the US Government, then yes. It would be illegal to silence people for expressing their political views. Facebook however is a privately owned company and you may use their product only in a manner that they have written rules for. If you violate their rules they are perfectly within their rights to revoke your access, even if that rule has something to do with political views.
Please remember that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, as in the government. It says nothing about a private corporation making up rules regarding it.
On the post: California Town OKs Destruction Of Police Shooting Records Days Before They Could Be Obtained By The Public
No video or audio of the Dec. 11 council action is available on the city’s website and neither are meeting minutes or any record of the decision.
This... is almost certainly in violation of Open Meetings laws and nothing that was 'approved' at that meeting has any legal strength. I expect to see a lawsuit regarding the destruction of records sometime soon.
On the post: UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
Re:
So.. if I use the word nutjob or.. the other n word (nutjob? numbskull? nitwit?) I will be ostracized? Something that I have noticed is that people who get all up in arms about someone talking mean about them, are often times doing that themselves.
Civility starts with yourself, not trying to force it upon someone else.
On the post: YouTube's $100 Million Upload Filter Failures Demonstrate What A Disaster Article 13 Will Be For The Internet
On the post: Federal Courts Aren't ATMs, Angry Judge Reminds Copyright Troll
Re: Re: Another Option
On the post: The TV Sector's Latest Bad Idea: Ads That Play When You Press Pause
On the post: To Obtain Documents About Facebook Data-Sharing, UK Gov't Seizes And Detains A US Executive Working For A Different Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"
On the post: Prosecutors Charge Suspect With Evidence Tampering After A Seized iPhone Is Wiped Remotely
On the post: Verizon Just Obliterated Ajit Pai's Justification For Killing Net Neutrality
Re: OK, go tell your congress critter
Three things. Facebook and Twitter aren't 'regulated carriers' like I think you are meaning. They do not provide access to the Internet.
Second. Facebook and Twitter are private companies and as such you have to play by whatever rules they write to use their services. If those rules include 'selectively censoring viewpoints' that go against the rules you agreed to follow, then tough luck.
Third. They tried a "Fairness Doctrine" a couple of decades ago when it came to political advertising and news coverage. It didn't work and got dropped.
On the post: The Little Rock Drug Raid Story Is A Fourth Amendment Story. But It's Also A First Amendment One.
You know, I've heard the phrase 'It takes a thief to catch a thief' before but this... This is obscene. About the only good thing I can see from all that is there appears to be no physical violence in his record.
On the post: 34 State AGs Demand The FCC Do More To End Annoying Robocalls
On the post: Body Cam Company Files Patent For Built-In Facial Recognition Tech
Next >>