This is not a new revenue stream for AT&T. After all, they're merely switching from charging the customer to instead charge the data provider.
Except...wait...it would be a new revenue stream if they double-dip, charging both the customer and the data provider. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what they plan to do, since double-dipping will be almost impossible to prove.
Judge Korman's statement ("Surely, Pascal Abidor cannot be so naive to expect that when he crosses the Syrian or Lebanese border that the contents of his computer will be immune from searches and seizures at the whim of those who work for Bassar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah.") is worse than a cop-out.
The argument is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Yes, the laptop might be searched by another country. That is not relevant to this country, and its constitution, and the respect of this country's government to the rights of its citizens that are guaranteed by that constitution.
To include this is actually judicially incompetent: In effect, the judge is saying, "If you had appropriately accounted for the way that country behaves, you wouldn't have a problem with your rights being violated by this country."
It's just the same as if he told a rape victim, "If it hadn't been for your wearing that too-short dress, your rapist wouldn't have made you pregnant."
Can we come up with some kind of Godwin's Law for, "because...9/11"? So that anyone who uses that phrase automatically loses the debate and the debate is over?
"...somewhat transient looking individuals." What the hell kind of BS is that? Activists must now dress in 3-piece suits and tuxedos, and evening gowns with heels?
I suspect this privilege is common, to prevent interference in the duty of lawmakers by law enforcers.
The same or a similar privilege exists in Nebraska: Legislators cannot be arrested while travelling to or from a legislative session. I don't exactly know about "during" but I suspect it's basically identical.
The government has no problem with double-think. A perfect example is privacy, which they breach with bland disregard when it's to their advantage...but when it's to the people's advantage, all of a sudden, "We must protect individual privacy!" There are dozens of other examples of this type of double-think; all it takes is a us-versus-them mentality and a guileless expression.
What should we suppose this "pre-check" process entails? Hmmmm... Probably investigation of your associates, affiliations, speeches, religion, and writings to make sure you don't have any inappropriate beliefs; a check to make sure you don't have any scary WMD's...ooops...guns; and a search of anything they deem necessary to make sure you aren't one of those infernal dissenters...ooops...terrorists including, probably, your house, your car, your computer, your bank records, and anything else they can think of.
Complete surrender of your First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights. For which you may get nothing, since if they refuse your application you have no recourse; not even to get an explanation.
Even if you are accepted, that's not the end of it: You signed away your Rights permanently. Because if you don't renew your membership, or if you try to withdraw from the program, well, that's suspicious, right? Probable cause for a warrant to conduct a review, just to see what you're up to.
And the best part is, you applied to give up your Rights.
On the post: AT&T's 'Sponsored Data' Program An Admission That Data Caps Have Nothing To Do With Congestion
Not a New Revenue Stream ... or is it?
Except...wait...it would be a new revenue stream if they double-dip, charging both the customer and the data provider. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what they plan to do, since double-dipping will be almost impossible to prove.
On the post: Former NSA Chief Claims Snowden Has 'Infinitely Weakened' Agency; Ignores Questions About Legality Of Backdoors And Exploits
Dividing by Infinity
On the post: Court Says Border Searches Of Your Computer Are Okay Because You Shouldn't Keep Important Info On Your Computer
Irrelevant, Irrelevant
The argument is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Yes, the laptop might be searched by another country. That is not relevant to this country, and its constitution, and the respect of this country's government to the rights of its citizens that are guaranteed by that constitution.
To include this is actually judicially incompetent: In effect, the judge is saying, "If you had appropriately accounted for the way that country behaves, you wouldn't have a problem with your rights being violated by this country."
It's just the same as if he told a rape victim, "If it hadn't been for your wearing that too-short dress, your rapist wouldn't have made you pregnant."
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
A Godwin's Law for 9/11
On the post: Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge
Ban
On the post: Oklahoma Cops Think Falling Glitter Might Be A Biochemical Attack, Book Protesters On 'Terrorist Hoax' Charges When It Isn't
Dumbest Thing I Ever Heard
On the post: Twitter Implements Forward Secrecy; Says It 'Should Be The New Normal'
2%
On the post: Statutory Damages Strike Again: AFP & Getty Told To Pay $1.2 Million For Using Photo Found Via Twitter
What a surprise
On the post: WA Legislators Get A Free Pass On Speeding Tickets During Legislative Sessions
Common?
The same or a similar privilege exists in Nebraska: Legislators cannot be arrested while travelling to or from a legislative session. I don't exactly know about "during" but I suspect it's basically identical.
On the post: Court Tells Journalist Barrett Brown He And His Lawyers Can't Talk To The Press Any More
Re: Definition of Media
On the post: Fire Sale: TSA Now Offering You Your Civil Liberties For A Fee!
Pay to Lose Your Rights
Complete surrender of your First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights. For which you may get nothing, since if they refuse your application you have no recourse; not even to get an explanation.
Even if you are accepted, that's not the end of it: You signed away your Rights permanently. Because if you don't renew your membership, or if you try to withdraw from the program, well, that's suspicious, right? Probable cause for a warrant to conduct a review, just to see what you're up to.
And the best part is, you applied to give up your Rights.
Next >>