The polices were summoned, therefore they had to investigate. If they absolutely felt the need to harass someone it should have been the person who summoned them needlessly. Their job in this situation was simply to inform each party that no law was being broken at this time and to leave. If the officers were in doubt as to the laws involved they could easily radio in and get assistance with the details.
Thank you Alien...absolutely correct.
Based on California laws (where I am,) if I was faced with a similar situation, I would have given both parties a chance to state their case (and I wouldn't mind the camera, it protects me as much as it protects them,) then would have thanked the person giving lemonade away (without a snarky comment about code enforcement...let code enforcement handle their own stupidity,) and then told the RP that I saw no evidence of a crime, and have no probable cause to arrest, but if he'd like to file a report I'd be happy to take the report (with a reminder that filing a false police report is a misdemeanor.) Chances are...he'd walk away angry.
But one thing to remember, as much as I am gun-ho for rights...the officer is coming into a middle of a fight between an adult and a person who looks like an adult, but is acting like a two-year old. Many police officers get into the "make the pain go away," and will much rather push folks away who shouldn't be pushed away just to make the problem go away. They think if they can separate the parties, then no big deal. And a guy giving away lemonade can give lemonade away anywhere, right? They want to get on with their day so they can get home, and paperwork just makes their day longer... It isn't right, but it is something that most cops do just to get through the day.
The guy is clearly an instigator, trying to get on camera, and trying to get a rise out of people. He's the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run.
Man, you hit the nail on the head with that one. Gosh. Let me see:
George Washington was clearly an instigator, trying to get England to leave the US alone and trying to get a rise out of people. There were people loyal to England at the time that really didn't like him. He was the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run!
I am truly sorry for the millions who have died for the freedoms that you seem so willing to squander today.
It seems that (as usual) the content copying industry has it's collective head up its ass when it comes to pricing. The biggest benefit of eBooks IMO is the ability of an author to route around said content copying industry.
I have an ebook reader, and I agree. I find it easier to buy the paperback, scan it in using a camera, and convert it into an ebook myself than pay the prices they are charging (not that I have actually done that yet.) Thank you agency pricing...which should be illegal (if a company buys a physical book for $8, and then marks it down %30 to sell it, making up the difference in volume, why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same with ebooks. Why do we continue to allow the publisher to dictate the price for ebooks just because they are different than dead tree versions.)
Copyright should be treated the same regardless to whether it is physical or electronic, and agency pricing should go away. But then again, unlimited length copyrights and stupid anti-trust attitudes should go away too.
As I understand from the original techdirt article shut down mobile phone service the reason was a protest was to take place at the station.
Actually, the original protest was because of an individual who was shot and killed by BART police. BART shut down the cell phone service in order to stop that protest, which sparked another protest.
It seems that Bart offers cell phone service as part of a benefit of using their system similar to how one might use WiFi at Starbucks.
It does seem like BART thinks that they are doing that as a service to their patrons. However, I wonder whether the legal system will agree. However, since cell phones are specifically covered by the law, and interrupting them is specifically prohibited by federal and state law, the courts might not see them as wifi.
I don't understand why BART didn't just ban them from the stations. With the exception of the 1st amendment protections of lawful assembly on public property...if BART is not public property (I believe it is,) they would be well within their rights to issue a trespassing order and send the protesters on their way. I was not present so I don't know if any damage occurred, and I haven't read any reports that the mob itself was unruly, except that some arrests were made (but arrests can be made for many reasons even during a peaceable demonstration.)
And it doesn't matter if it is a bunch of unkempt white kids, black men in expensive suits, or anyone else...the first amendment allows for peaceable demonstrations.
It's a freaking opinion, not a fact, and if the pro-copyright people did the same thing in an article, Mike would be all over them like a pig on slop.
Nobody, except for you, has said that it was fact.
The title was "A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal"
So, from an English standpoint, the sentence says: A Legal Analysis (as in an opinion based on a legal interpretation) For (in otherwords, this is an argument for the following,) Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal (the premise of the argument.) I realize you can't comprehend English...it is one of your many foibles.
Show me were Mike said that it was fact...or that I said it was fact, or anyone else. If you even read the article, I know, too many words confuse and frighten you, but the original author doesn't even say it is fact. They are stating their opinion, and then using facts to back it up...something you have never done so I can understand why you have such a big problem with it.
The cited case is Alabama supreme court, so it is simply not binding either federally or in california.
Correct, but People v Brophy was tried in California.
The California Court of Appeals further found that Earl Warren, then the California Attorney General, could not order the phone company to discontinue service to a person the Attorney General suspected of running a gambling operation by use of the telephone. - From the referenced article.
Also, there is Ca PC 591.5...which is a misdemeanor charge, "A person who unlawfully and maliciously removes, injures,
destroys, damages, or obstructs the use of any wireless communication device with the intent to prevent the use of the device to summon assistance or notify law enforcement or any public safety agency of a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Dude, you don't get it. It isn't ME VERSUS HIM. It's that his is an OPINION, not a fact.
Yes, TAM, you are right. However, luckily for all of us, we know your opinion is based on half-truths, made-up facts, and misunderstanding of the law. The lawyer has quite a bit more experience and learning, and thus I think it is safe to say that most of us value his opinion over yours.
As for 4th amendment, the point is due process. Seems that the title declares them guilty without a trial. Perhaps you could like to try to correct me on that too?
Maybe this will help since you appear to be a moron in a hurry (The Amendments that Keep the Government from Taking Away Your Natural Born Rights):
1st Amendment: Right to religion, speech, press, assemble, and petition the government.
The government may not stop me from worshiping who I want, saying what I want, printing what I want, going to a public place with a bunch of my friends, and asking the government to fix itself. Sure, if I hurt someone else in the process, I am responsible, but otherwise the government cannot stop me.
2nd Amendment: Right to Bare Arms.
Government cannot take away my ability to fight for my first amendment rights. Some within government argue that the right only is extended to government militias, but that hasn't turned out well in challenges to the supreme court.
3rd Amendment: Prohibits Quartering of Soldiers out of War Time.
Because, if they can just put a soldier in your house, they can take away your 1st and 2nd amendment rights too.
4th Amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants.
Has nothing to do with due process, except maybe that it defines what the process is for a warrant. A police officer can search or seize evidence in plain sight, or under exigent circumstances (which can be abused) but they cannot go on fishing expeditions through your property looking for evidence unless they follow the rules.
5th Amendment: Protects the right of due process, prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
Ah, Due process...here it is. Not the fourth one, but the fifth one (and is extended in the 6th, 8th and 14th ones.)
6th Amendment: Protects right to fair and speedy trial by jury of peers, right to notification of accusations, confront the accuser, and obtain witnesses and council.
The anti-anti-Kevin Mitnick amendment...the government cannot hold you in jail indefinitely without trial, and the government needs to tell you what they think you did, and allow you to get a lawyer and build your defense.
8th Amendment: Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive fines and bail.
What copyright maximalists would love to see disappear in the Thomas case. The punishment needs to fit the crime, and needs to be usual and not extreme.
14th Amendment: Extends amendments to all persons in the borders of the United States, both citizens and those visiting from foreign countries. Contains Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.
So that guy who is here illegally in the US has equal protection under the law to the amendments as those who are here legally or who are citizens. And more due process for all.
No need. It isn't illegal, it is illegal in the writers opinion.
Says the anonymous coward who doesn't even know the difference between the Fourth Amendment (against search and seizure) and the First Amendment (freedom of speech and assembly.)
Sorry dude...I'll take the opinions of a Telecom/Consumer Rights lawyer over your opinion any day.
The surest way to piss off the American people is to bilk the American taxpayer for billions of dollars. The surest way to lose the next election is to leave billions of dollars of federal money on the table.
Done and done...and nobody was pissed off. *WE* paid for that bandwidth, in the form of higher taxes and tariffs, and were bilked out of billions of dollars from the telecom industry that instead spent the money on hookers and blow for the congressmen, and nobody lost their job.
E911, broadband, information superhighway...all projects where congress handed the telecom companies billions, and their solution is capping our cellphones at 2GB or cable/DSL-modems at 250GB a month.
Actually, since the government is assuming control of those corporations when they "buy them out", it is more "National Socialism" that we're talking about there.
Personally, I agree that these two businesses are being foolish and closed minded (and really, really HORRIBLE in the story I linked), but it's their choice. As a result of that choice, I would choose to not do business with them if they were in my area. That’s the price they pay for ‘being right’.
The problem I have with this whole business is that these same people who are making these choices are the ones who sue folks for defamation when it is reported in reviews of the company. They want to make their bed, but they don't want to sleep in it. I would make the same choice as you, if I knew, but if they threaten you about telling it to everyone and we don't hear, then bad business practices are allowed to continue.
Then again, I am a little more direct...I see this posting to twitter as a cowardly approach, and if I heard a bartender saying something I didn't like, I would tell him. Then again, I let a lot of stuff slide too, and maybe he was just having a bad day...but if I heard it a couple times I'd let him know I didn't think it was appropriate.
Yeah TAM, I can see you doing that. Man, I only say this as a friend, you got to get a life. This Mike stalking can't be good for your health. We care about you; get some help.
Dude...lighten-up. Take some meds. I get trapped from time to time myself by this system. If you weren't so rabid to stick it to someone, you're post will get approved fairly quickly and you are right as rain.
Almost all of the royalties BMI and ASCAP collect go to the artists.
Almost all of the royalties BMI and ASCAP collect go to the artists that paid their membership dues. You have to register with BMI and ASCAP before you receive a share.
I think Open source has to be viewed as a state of mind of philosophy. Otherwise, if you view it in "closed source" terms it's clear exploitation.
Absolutely agree...though I'd go one step further and say that yes, it is exploitation, but voluntary exploitation. Not all exploitation is bad, and in this case, the programmer is well aware of what they are doing and what they are giving up and give it up freely (which is what I think Nina is saying.) However, I've heard people use this same argument to me when discussing my open source activities. Luckily my employer is very happy with my "side-learning," but I've heard people say that open source causes all sorts of problems for the companies that employ hobby open source programmers because they split their efforts and the employer isn't getting full efficiency from the programmer because of this (which is stupid...I believe, and I see from others too, that I am more efficient at my real job because I am more experienced and have a wider scope than others that don't have those experiences.)
I write open-source to scratch an itch, or to do something that I want to do...I get paid to do monkeywork, and as far as I am concerned, I have far more fun scratching itches than the monkeywork I do at work. If I was paid to do the open-source work...I am not sure I'd have as much fun (though it would be nice to have more time to spend on my open source stuff...but I'd probably waste it on fixing up my house or other stuff.)
I believe Mr. Levine is absolutely correct. Humanity went down-hill the moment we discovered fire and the wheel. Why can't you guys see it! We were happier when we lived in Africa, swung from the trees, and got eaten by lions. Technology never made anyone any happier.
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you Alien...absolutely correct.
Based on California laws (where I am,) if I was faced with a similar situation, I would have given both parties a chance to state their case (and I wouldn't mind the camera, it protects me as much as it protects them,) then would have thanked the person giving lemonade away (without a snarky comment about code enforcement...let code enforcement handle their own stupidity,) and then told the RP that I saw no evidence of a crime, and have no probable cause to arrest, but if he'd like to file a report I'd be happy to take the report (with a reminder that filing a false police report is a misdemeanor.) Chances are...he'd walk away angry.
But one thing to remember, as much as I am gun-ho for rights...the officer is coming into a middle of a fight between an adult and a person who looks like an adult, but is acting like a two-year old. Many police officers get into the "make the pain go away," and will much rather push folks away who shouldn't be pushed away just to make the problem go away. They think if they can separate the parties, then no big deal. And a guy giving away lemonade can give lemonade away anywhere, right? They want to get on with their day so they can get home, and paperwork just makes their day longer... It isn't right, but it is something that most cops do just to get through the day.
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re:
Man, you hit the nail on the head with that one. Gosh. Let me see:
George Washington was clearly an instigator, trying to get England to leave the US alone and trying to get a rise out of people. There were people loyal to England at the time that really didn't like him. He was the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run!
I am truly sorry for the millions who have died for the freedoms that you seem so willing to squander today.
On the post: Author Says eBooks Will Hurt Authors Because Of Royalty Rates
Re: Re: Re:
I have an ebook reader, and I agree. I find it easier to buy the paperback, scan it in using a camera, and convert it into an ebook myself than pay the prices they are charging (not that I have actually done that yet.) Thank you agency pricing...which should be illegal (if a company buys a physical book for $8, and then marks it down %30 to sell it, making up the difference in volume, why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same with ebooks. Why do we continue to allow the publisher to dictate the price for ebooks just because they are different than dead tree versions.)
Copyright should be treated the same regardless to whether it is physical or electronic, and agency pricing should go away. But then again, unlimited length copyrights and stupid anti-trust attitudes should go away too.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Bill of Rights?
Actually, the original protest was because of an individual who was shot and killed by BART police. BART shut down the cell phone service in order to stop that protest, which sparked another protest.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Bill of Rights?
It does seem like BART thinks that they are doing that as a service to their patrons. However, I wonder whether the legal system will agree. However, since cell phones are specifically covered by the law, and interrupting them is specifically prohibited by federal and state law, the courts might not see them as wifi.
I don't understand why BART didn't just ban them from the stations. With the exception of the 1st amendment protections of lawful assembly on public property...if BART is not public property (I believe it is,) they would be well within their rights to issue a trespassing order and send the protesters on their way. I was not present so I don't know if any damage occurred, and I haven't read any reports that the mob itself was unruly, except that some arrests were made (but arrests can be made for many reasons even during a peaceable demonstration.)
And it doesn't matter if it is a bunch of unkempt white kids, black men in expensive suits, or anyone else...the first amendment allows for peaceable demonstrations.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody, except for you, has said that it was fact.
The title was "A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal"
So, from an English standpoint, the sentence says: A Legal Analysis (as in an opinion based on a legal interpretation) For (in otherwords, this is an argument for the following,) Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal (the premise of the argument.) I realize you can't comprehend English...it is one of your many foibles.
Show me were Mike said that it was fact...or that I said it was fact, or anyone else. If you even read the article, I know, too many words confuse and frighten you, but the original author doesn't even say it is fact. They are stating their opinion, and then using facts to back it up...something you have never done so I can understand why you have such a big problem with it.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re:
Correct, but People v Brophy was tried in California.
The California Court of Appeals further found that Earl Warren, then the California Attorney General, could not order the phone company to discontinue service to a person the Attorney General suspected of running a gambling operation by use of the telephone. - From the referenced article.
Also, there is Ca PC 591.5...which is a misdemeanor charge, "A person who unlawfully and maliciously removes, injures,
destroys, damages, or obstructs the use of any wireless communication device with the intent to prevent the use of the device to summon assistance or notify law enforcement or any public safety agency of a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor."
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, TAM, you are right. However, luckily for all of us, we know your opinion is based on half-truths, made-up facts, and misunderstanding of the law. The lawyer has quite a bit more experience and learning, and thus I think it is safe to say that most of us value his opinion over yours.
As for 4th amendment, the point is due process. Seems that the title declares them guilty without a trial. Perhaps you could like to try to correct me on that too?
Maybe this will help since you appear to be a moron in a hurry (The Amendments that Keep the Government from Taking Away Your Natural Born Rights):
1st Amendment: Right to religion, speech, press, assemble, and petition the government.
The government may not stop me from worshiping who I want, saying what I want, printing what I want, going to a public place with a bunch of my friends, and asking the government to fix itself. Sure, if I hurt someone else in the process, I am responsible, but otherwise the government cannot stop me.
2nd Amendment: Right to Bare Arms.
Government cannot take away my ability to fight for my first amendment rights. Some within government argue that the right only is extended to government militias, but that hasn't turned out well in challenges to the supreme court.
3rd Amendment: Prohibits Quartering of Soldiers out of War Time.
Because, if they can just put a soldier in your house, they can take away your 1st and 2nd amendment rights too.
4th Amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants.
Has nothing to do with due process, except maybe that it defines what the process is for a warrant. A police officer can search or seize evidence in plain sight, or under exigent circumstances (which can be abused) but they cannot go on fishing expeditions through your property looking for evidence unless they follow the rules.
5th Amendment: Protects the right of due process, prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
Ah, Due process...here it is. Not the fourth one, but the fifth one (and is extended in the 6th, 8th and 14th ones.)
6th Amendment: Protects right to fair and speedy trial by jury of peers, right to notification of accusations, confront the accuser, and obtain witnesses and council.
The anti-anti-Kevin Mitnick amendment...the government cannot hold you in jail indefinitely without trial, and the government needs to tell you what they think you did, and allow you to get a lawyer and build your defense.
8th Amendment: Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive fines and bail.
What copyright maximalists would love to see disappear in the Thomas case. The punishment needs to fit the crime, and needs to be usual and not extreme.
14th Amendment: Extends amendments to all persons in the borders of the United States, both citizens and those visiting from foreign countries. Contains Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.
So that guy who is here illegally in the US has equal protection under the law to the amendments as those who are here legally or who are citizens. And more due process for all.
On the post: A Legal Analysis For Why BART's Mobile Phone Shutdown Was Illegal
Re: Re: Re:
Says the anonymous coward who doesn't even know the difference between the Fourth Amendment (against search and seizure) and the First Amendment (freedom of speech and assembly.)
Sorry dude...I'll take the opinions of a Telecom/Consumer Rights lawyer over your opinion any day.
On the post: Will John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. Agree To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bill Next Month?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fight lobby with lobby?
Done and done...and nobody was pissed off. *WE* paid for that bandwidth, in the form of higher taxes and tariffs, and were bilked out of billions of dollars from the telecom industry that instead spent the money on hookers and blow for the congressmen, and nobody lost their job.
E911, broadband, information superhighway...all projects where congress handed the telecom companies billions, and their solution is capping our cellphones at 2GB or cable/DSL-modems at 250GB a month.
On the post: Modern Art: $5 Million Worth Of Unauthorized Downloads On A Hard Drive On Display
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contents of the PDF file.
Actually, since the government is assuming control of those corporations when they "buy them out", it is more "National Socialism" that we're talking about there.
Great, now you made me go an godwin the thread.
On the post: Woman Kicked Out Of A Restaurant For Complaining About Bartender On Twitter
Re: Not on Twitter, but...
The problem I have with this whole business is that these same people who are making these choices are the ones who sue folks for defamation when it is reported in reviews of the company. They want to make their bed, but they don't want to sleep in it. I would make the same choice as you, if I knew, but if they threaten you about telling it to everyone and we don't hear, then bad business practices are allowed to continue.
Then again, I am a little more direct...I see this posting to twitter as a cowardly approach, and if I heard a bartender saying something I didn't like, I would tell him. Then again, I let a lot of stuff slide too, and maybe he was just having a bad day...but if I heard it a couple times I'd let him know I didn't think it was appropriate.
On the post: Yet Another 'Rogue Site' List Proposed, This Time With YouTube Right On Top
Re:
s/Mike/Tim/
On the post: Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'?
Re:
Yeah TAM, I can see you doing that. Man, I only say this as a friend, you got to get a life. This Mike stalking can't be good for your health. We care about you; get some help.
On the post: Dear MPAA: Stomp Your Feet And Repeat It As Many Times As You Want, But Infringement Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright & rights
Dude...lighten-up. Take some meds. I get trapped from time to time myself by this system. If you weren't so rabid to stick it to someone, you're post will get approved fairly quickly and you are right as rain.
On the post: Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs
Re: Re: Re:
Almost all of the royalties BMI and ASCAP collect go to the artists that paid their membership dues. You have to register with BMI and ASCAP before you receive a share.
On the post: Is Open Source Exploitative?
Re: Maybe open souce can buy you happiness
Absolutely agree...though I'd go one step further and say that yes, it is exploitation, but voluntary exploitation. Not all exploitation is bad, and in this case, the programmer is well aware of what they are doing and what they are giving up and give it up freely (which is what I think Nina is saying.) However, I've heard people use this same argument to me when discussing my open source activities. Luckily my employer is very happy with my "side-learning," but I've heard people say that open source causes all sorts of problems for the companies that employ hobby open source programmers because they split their efforts and the employer isn't getting full efficiency from the programmer because of this (which is stupid...I believe, and I see from others too, that I am more efficient at my real job because I am more experienced and have a wider scope than others that don't have those experiences.)
I write open-source to scratch an itch, or to do something that I want to do...I get paid to do monkeywork, and as far as I am concerned, I have far more fun scratching itches than the monkeywork I do at work. If I was paid to do the open-source work...I am not sure I'd have as much fun (though it would be nice to have more time to spend on my open source stuff...but I'd probably waste it on fixing up my house or other stuff.)
On the post: State Department Spent $1.2 Billion On An Asset Monitoring System... That Ignores All Non-Windows Equipment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course
I find the power button works well.
On the post: The Latest Entrant Into The Economically Clueless, Luddite 'Internet Is Evil' Book Category
Re: Re: One thing I object to
I agree. While I don't agree with Mr. Levine's view of the world, I must say that my impression of him as a human being just jumped through the roof.
On the post: The Latest Entrant Into The Economically Clueless, Luddite 'Internet Is Evil' Book Category
Levine is right!
/sarcasm, if you haven't figured it out.
Next >>