I understand that the tech industry has built itself predicated upon a certain amount of churn. Once everybody has a computer/phone/pad/etc. the industry dies...unless they can sell new ones. Therein lies the problem. The churn. Now I don't have a particular problems with churn, as every industry does it, but I do have a problem with the time parameters that have been chosen.
Now part of the difficulty is that the technology has grown tremendously during its existence. A certain part of that growth required new hardware to keep up with the new software capabilities, and the reverse as well, new hardware capabilities paved the way for new software capabilities. In some instances one could add on a piece of hardware if it didn't already exist on their system. The reverse hasn't always been true. It wasn't always possible to just add some software as some of the new software required better hardware to run properly. Some guy named Moore made some projections about this process.
Back to my issue and the time frames involved. The industry grew and expected the market to keep up, or rather depended upon the market keeping up in order for them to survive. But in that process, some things got built that were good enough. It satisfies my needs, I don't need any more. But the industry, both hardware and software (and now outside companies) find ways to take it away...because they need the churn.
Looking at the automotive industry as a sort of parallel example, cars tend to be turned in after a certain amount of time. Yet there are decades old cars still on the road. Some of them for show purposes only, but others in daily use. The ability to update or repair a car or for that matter rebuild or restore one has been around...well since they were invented. The new tech is however a bit more complex, and the ability to repair or rebuild or restore isn't always made easy by the manufacturers, and in some instances is proactively blocked and discouraged.
So, for me, I understand the first ten or twenty years of the technology boom as needing a certain amount of churn as the capabilities, both hardware and software, needed more, and the change was rapid. Today there just isn't the same amount of growth that obsoletes either hardware or software, but the mindset of the industry has not changed. They still want the same churn. The market is beginning to resist, and will likely resist more in the future.
So the question becomes, when will the industry right size itself so that it can continue to exist yet still serve the market even if they want to hang onto their stuff, hardware and/or software, for more time? As pointed out in the article and several comments, not everyone can buy a new phone every two years, and the phones (or other hardware) should be eminently repairable by any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta. It should be built to last. It will die, and it will be replaced. But that should be on our terms, not theirs.
Why isn't this AccountGuard available to everyone? What does that say about Microsoft? What does that say about whether Microsoft is meddling in politics? What isn't Microsoft telling the world about their AccountGuard program?
Call me cynical, but Microsoft's stated intentions, and their actual intentions have been different in the past.
As to whether it should be considered a campaign contribution, I don't think so, merely by the fact that they are offering it to all campaigns. That it isn't available to anyone else is suspicious in my mind.
With all the preparation and planning that went into this operation, why didn't they ask for a warrant? Did they think they wouldn't get one? If that was the case, why did they think they could get away without one?
Applying for a warrant only takes a bit of time and effort, and then some waiting while a judge makes a decision. It's not like it's hard or anything. But they decided to go without one. To what end?
What is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander
"Only 31% favoured open identities, which they feared could cause reviewers to weaken their criticisms or could lead to retaliation from authors."
The answer to this concern is more reviews. At some point, thin skinned reviewers will, via their consistent obstinacy, be found out, and either not asked to review anything else or have their reviews discounted. I would think the point is, beyond finding actual error or educating up and comers, is to validate or discredit (based upon verifiable facts and not ideology) a papers findings. If there is error, an opportunity to correct and re-review is available. If there is ideological difference, then that ideological difference can be pointed out. The church says the world is flat, no discussion. Galileo on the other hand...
"Opponents of certain types of research (for example, on genetically modified organisms, climate change and vaccines) could take critical remarks in peer reviews out of context or mischaracterize disagreements to undermine public trust in the paper, the field or science as a whole."
Who might also be characterized as trolls. If they have some scientific, fact based, quantifiable arguments, let the present those. If not, then, like trolls here, they can be deemed unreliable, and not asked to review again, while the mischaracterized arguments could be refuted with facts. Can the president be marked a troll? Ahem!
More time is needed, and if the developers don't like those economic terms, well my health and your health is worth more than their profits. I am not saying that genetics cannot lead to better things. I am saying that the testing period is much too short and possibly not critical enough. Here we get back to the investors, or shareholders wanting more today and never thinking about tomorrow. One buys a stock, new product comes out, stock price goes up, investor sells, new product kills people, company gets sued, stock prices go down, but the people that funded the original research are not impacted because they sold their stock.
Which makes a strong argument for government funding of research and not selling the patents, but licensing companies to produce a proven, and well tested product. The government gets their investment back (taxes go down, well, in my dreams, not likely the government won't find a way to spend that money on something not useful to us), and the company makes a profit. The researcher doesn't become rich, but if things are set up well, the deal could include some incentive to the researcher from the governments licensing fees. Just a thought.
I will admit that I became scared after 9/11, for a couple of days, or maybe it was weeks. Then I realized that there were several failures that allowed that to happen.
The reaction by the government, and I mean the executive and legislative branches, was merely a recognition of an opportunity. They had an agenda.
Maybe there was a significant portion of the populace who were also scared, but they were accepting the things government had to say, and not looking closer at the situation. They didn't think long term. They didn't realize what was behind the manipulation the government presented. They didn't comprehend that the press was merely puppeting what the government told them. They didn't realize the long term and very personal impacts of government actions.
Then the facts started to roll in. WMD's were a lie. Law enforcement's failure to keep track of people who the knew about that wanted to learn to fly, but not land, etc..
There are all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories out there. The problem is, some of them might not be so crazy.
That we let the government continue to rely on our supposed fear and increase the abrogation of our rights is a serious issue. Some point out that there are so many laws, many of which we don't know about (and some of them secret (what the hell is up with that, secret laws?)) that we, all of us, could commit several felonies daily, the only conclusion I can find is that the government is tracking us for the sole purpose of 'if we do something they don't like' they then have the ability to find us and charge us with 'something'. Until then, just keeping us under the pressure of whatever they are currently doing is good enough. When they want to pop you, they will.
According to our current president, this post is a good reason to jail me, if for no other reason than to keep me from pointing out...reason. Good thing the law isn't on his side...yet. But the DOJ is working on social media competitiveness. Do you really think that is about competition? Or control? It is not the DOJ's job, it is the FTC's job. Why are they stepping in? Could it be because Trump is lambasting his Attorney General for not, well I don't know because I only read the headlines, but lambaste it was. Push here, get reaction there. It does not matter to them what they push, so long as the reaction leads to what they want. Power and control.
It's not that such software exists. It's who is allowed to use it, and how they use the information.
The government should not be allowed to, at any level without a warrant (though even that brings up the question of how to particularize such an action), though the NSA certainly does. The other entities that do should be prosecuted. Under what law you say? And there is where Congress fails us.
That we are visible in public is not an issue, that someone collects and uses our movements is. The courts have said that placing a GPS device on someones car requires a warrant. How is this different?
That you have nothing to hide is not the issue. The issue is privacy. Some argue that the Constitution does not specify privacy, but then we look at the 4th Amendment (and there may be other Amendments that refer to privacy obliquely).
So, so far as the Internet is concerned, I put up with certain shenanigans, though I use a VPN. In public however, with respect to the government, I don't want them in my shorts. Let them get a warrant. Let them come after me, if they have a reason to. But letting them go after everyone, just because they travel, is a non sequitur, an excuse, an imposition, a grab for power which will lead to whatever the next step is. We don't want this step, or the next.
When someone (or maybe their lawyers) smell an opportunity to cash in, the deeper the pocket(s) the more they ask for.
To me, those someones have been listening to the rhetoric about how dangerous violent gaming can cause people to be violent. The problem is it was a game around football. And while there is a certain amount of violence in football, it is not like a first person shooter game, or other actually violent games. To me, a deranged person showed up to a public event and did bad things. Trying to place liability on the promoters of the contest is just trying to leverage the deep pockets for a payday.
As an aside, I belonged to a chef's association who in conjunction with the NRA (National Restaurant Association, there is no trademark in acronyms) produced culinary salons during their annual convention. A culinary salon is basically an art exhibit where the exhibits are edible (but not eaten). The exhibitors, culinarians of all stripes including students showed up as early as 3:00 am to set their displays up.
On one occasion this event took place in the convention center of a unionized hotel. The personnel working the convention center claimed they had to carry everything from the loading dock to the display tables. I explained to them that 'everything' were works of art, and delicate. I also mentioned that those doing the carrying, also carried knives. Knives for cooking or carving, but I wasn't that specific. Interestingly, the union folks backed down quickly. There was no actual potential for violence, but the culinarians would not have allowed anyone else to handle their displays.
I can see more power for a power hungry agency looking for greater head trips. I can see bigger budgetary requests because they want to spend more money, though given how well the TSA has done at its job I think it might be difficult to justify (how many terrorists has TSA caught?). DHS personnel won't make any more money because they take pictures of everyone or ask for their papers. They don't get a cut of transportation expenditures by citizens.
There might be some greed from any company hoping to supply equipment, but isn't that the tail wagging the dog?
Re: If the rules say you always lose, why not try different rules?
There is at least one problem with your theory. The prosecutors who fail to a) get an indictment from a grand jury, or b) are so enthralled with the law enforcement folks they work with that they fail to make their case, even when it is easy.
The only way I know of to avoid the proprietorial misconduct, which is really hard to prove, is through the civil courts.
Or is there a way to force a prosecutor to do their jobs competently?
“We are at a critical turning point in the implementation of a biometric entry-exit system, and we’ve found a path forward that transforms travel for all travelers.”
Where did the government get the OK to transform travel for all travelers? I always thought that was the marketplaces job. New forms of travel, vacation packages, interstate commerce, etc.. What are they transforming it from and to? When did Congress give them the right to start asking for papers from everyone?
The impetus to check travelers at international boarders is more clear, though they go about it the wrong way and often for the wrong reasons. But there are no 'internal borders' within the United States (there may be some exceptions where there are checks about moving food stuffs that might contain parasites from one state to another, but those don't include facial recognition...yet).
If DHS wants some backlash, start asking for peoples papers at every state border. Just think about New York City, for example. Connecticut and New Jersey are close enough to be considered bedroom communities for New York. How many thousands (or millions) of people commute to NYC every day. How long will they stand for having their 'papers' checked twice a day? This would add many hours to ones commute.
“We are at a critical turning point in the implementation of a biometric entry-exit system, and we’ve found a path forward that transforms travel for all travelers.”
Where did the government get the OK to transform travel for all travelers? I always thought that was the marketplaces job. New forms of travel, vacation packages, interstate commerce, etc.. What are they transforming it from and to? When did Congress give them the right to start asking for papers from everyone?
The impetus to check travelers at international boarders is more clear, though they go about it the wrong way and often for the wrong reasons. But there are no 'internal borders' within the United States (there may be some exceptions where there are checks about moving food stuffs that might contain parasites from one state to another, but those don't include facial recognition...yet).
If DHS wants some backlash, start asking for peoples papers at every state border. Just think about New York City, for example. Connecticut and New Jersey are close enough to be considered bedroom communities for New York. How many thousands (or millions) of people commute to NYC every day. How long will they stand for having their 'papers' checked twice a day? This would add many hours to ones commute.
What the hell does the FCC have to do with platforms? Are they gonna try and tell me I can't use the 'seven words you can't say on TV' on the Internets? Does Pai really think he can become censorship central?
What the hell does the FCC have to do with platforms? Are they gonna try and tell me I can't use the 'seven words you can't say on TV' on the Internets? Does Pai really think he can become censorship central?
1 a : fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose : competent
b : having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions (as for an office or employment) : eligible
2 : limited or modified in some way qualified approval
Let's start with 1b. When the Supreme Court pulled qualified immunity out of their collective asses, did they bother to mention the specific requirements to earn immunity eligibility? If they didn't, isn't it up to the lower courts to establish those requirements, at least until the Supreme's say otherwise?
This isn't to say that the whole concept isn't seriously bogus.
As for definition 2, the Appellate Courts weaseling about there being no precedent isn't the type of limitation that should be intended, as the article points out. I believe that one of the purposes of Appellate Courts is to ESTABLISH precedent. They take the district courts rulings upon appeal and make decisions as to whether the law was followed, establishing precedent.
Could it be that since the whole concept was made up and that there is no law spelling out what qualified immunity is or isn't is causing those courts such consternation that they cannot logically work their way out of the conundrum? Or are they just not brave enough to go ahead and establish a precedent that might be overturned.
The Supreme Court is now hearing about half the cases they used to, but even before the supreme slowdown, the chance of getting a Appellate decision reviewed by them was/is seemingly small. What are they afraid of?
I know someone is going to go off the boards and claim it is all graft, but I don't think Appellate Judges are as susceptible to graft as lower court judges might be. There might be political leanings, due to the appointment process, but where is the politics in qualified immunity? Or are all politicians looking for ways to 'uniquely' for the first time screw someone over?
Re: Re: Is no one else disturbed by the transport medium?
Two things. The important thing about digital document format for law enforcement is the ability to prove that it is the original unedited document. As for the reading of old documents, try LibreOffice.
It is ridiculous. They, like some law enforcement, have either forgotten how to do their jobs, are too lazy to do their jobs, or don't want to spend the money for hum-int, or consider hum-int too dangerous.
Things worked in the past but that means that all their sources and methods have been exposed and are no longer useful. This new technique means they can sit in their cushy offices, get the bad guy (aka anyone they deem bad, evidence or no and that includes people they just don't like), and have coffee all at the same time.
On the post: Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
An appeal to satire
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
It's the business model
Now part of the difficulty is that the technology has grown tremendously during its existence. A certain part of that growth required new hardware to keep up with the new software capabilities, and the reverse as well, new hardware capabilities paved the way for new software capabilities. In some instances one could add on a piece of hardware if it didn't already exist on their system. The reverse hasn't always been true. It wasn't always possible to just add some software as some of the new software required better hardware to run properly. Some guy named Moore made some projections about this process.
Back to my issue and the time frames involved. The industry grew and expected the market to keep up, or rather depended upon the market keeping up in order for them to survive. But in that process, some things got built that were good enough. It satisfies my needs, I don't need any more. But the industry, both hardware and software (and now outside companies) find ways to take it away...because they need the churn.
Looking at the automotive industry as a sort of parallel example, cars tend to be turned in after a certain amount of time. Yet there are decades old cars still on the road. Some of them for show purposes only, but others in daily use. The ability to update or repair a car or for that matter rebuild or restore one has been around...well since they were invented. The new tech is however a bit more complex, and the ability to repair or rebuild or restore isn't always made easy by the manufacturers, and in some instances is proactively blocked and discouraged.
So, for me, I understand the first ten or twenty years of the technology boom as needing a certain amount of churn as the capabilities, both hardware and software, needed more, and the change was rapid. Today there just isn't the same amount of growth that obsoletes either hardware or software, but the mindset of the industry has not changed. They still want the same churn. The market is beginning to resist, and will likely resist more in the future.
So the question becomes, when will the industry right size itself so that it can continue to exist yet still serve the market even if they want to hang onto their stuff, hardware and/or software, for more time? As pointed out in the article and several comments, not everyone can buy a new phone every two years, and the phones (or other hardware) should be eminently repairable by any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta. It should be built to last. It will die, and it will be replaced. But that should be on our terms, not theirs.
On the post: Saudi Government Outlaws Satire; Violators To Face Five-Year Prison Sentences
Re:
To that end, other than hair color and primary language, what's the difference?
Oh, right, Trump hates Muslims, but then bin Salman probably hates Christians and Jews.
On the post: Microsoft Wants Confirmation That Helping Politicians Not Get Hacked Isn't An Illegal Campaign Contribution
Re: If only
On the post: Microsoft Wants Confirmation That Helping Politicians Not Get Hacked Isn't An Illegal Campaign Contribution
There are other questions
Why isn't this AccountGuard available to everyone? What does that say about Microsoft? What does that say about whether Microsoft is meddling in politics? What isn't Microsoft telling the world about their AccountGuard program?
Call me cynical, but Microsoft's stated intentions, and their actual intentions have been different in the past.
As to whether it should be considered a campaign contribution, I don't think so, merely by the fact that they are offering it to all campaigns. That it isn't available to anyone else is suspicious in my mind.
On the post: Court Shuts Down Feds' Attempt To Expand The 'Border Search' Exception To Cover Inland GPS Monitoring
Proper planning prevents piss poor performance
Applying for a warrant only takes a bit of time and effort, and then some waiting while a judge makes a decision. It's not like it's hard or anything. But they decided to go without one. To what end?
On the post: Leading Biomedical Funders Call For Open Peer Review Of Academic Research
Re:
On the post: Leading Biomedical Funders Call For Open Peer Review Of Academic Research
What is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander
The answer to this concern is more reviews. At some point, thin skinned reviewers will, via their consistent obstinacy, be found out, and either not asked to review anything else or have their reviews discounted. I would think the point is, beyond finding actual error or educating up and comers, is to validate or discredit (based upon verifiable facts and not ideology) a papers findings. If there is error, an opportunity to correct and re-review is available. If there is ideological difference, then that ideological difference can be pointed out. The church says the world is flat, no discussion. Galileo on the other hand...
Who might also be characterized as trolls. If they have some scientific, fact based, quantifiable arguments, let the present those. If not, then, like trolls here, they can be deemed unreliable, and not asked to review again, while the mischaracterized arguments could be refuted with facts. Can the president be marked a troll? Ahem!
Personally, I have some problems with genetically modified organisms. My problem isn't that they are genetically modified, but that we don't actually know enough to deem them safe. Give some organism 50 or so years in a closed environment, then we might know. I don't have sufficient faith in companies who have dramatic economic interest in approving something as being beneficial to mankind to believe them. Look at roundup for example. Monsanto pushed the chemical for years and made a lot of money, but in the end.... How long did that take? Well it seems Monsanto introduced roundup in the 1970's and this court case finished in 2018. So forty years or so?
More time is needed, and if the developers don't like those economic terms, well my health and your health is worth more than their profits. I am not saying that genetics cannot lead to better things. I am saying that the testing period is much too short and possibly not critical enough. Here we get back to the investors, or shareholders wanting more today and never thinking about tomorrow. One buys a stock, new product comes out, stock price goes up, investor sells, new product kills people, company gets sued, stock prices go down, but the people that funded the original research are not impacted because they sold their stock.
Which makes a strong argument for government funding of research and not selling the patents, but licensing companies to produce a proven, and well tested product. The government gets their investment back (taxes go down, well, in my dreams, not likely the government won't find a way to spend that money on something not useful to us), and the company makes a profit. The researcher doesn't become rich, but if things are set up well, the deal could include some incentive to the researcher from the governments licensing fees. Just a thought.
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree, have an insightful vote.
I will admit that I became scared after 9/11, for a couple of days, or maybe it was weeks. Then I realized that there were several failures that allowed that to happen.
The reaction by the government, and I mean the executive and legislative branches, was merely a recognition of an opportunity. They had an agenda.
Maybe there was a significant portion of the populace who were also scared, but they were accepting the things government had to say, and not looking closer at the situation. They didn't think long term. They didn't realize what was behind the manipulation the government presented. They didn't comprehend that the press was merely puppeting what the government told them. They didn't realize the long term and very personal impacts of government actions.
Then the facts started to roll in. WMD's were a lie. Law enforcement's failure to keep track of people who the knew about that wanted to learn to fly, but not land, etc..
There are all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories out there. The problem is, some of them might not be so crazy.
That we let the government continue to rely on our supposed fear and increase the abrogation of our rights is a serious issue. Some point out that there are so many laws, many of which we don't know about (and some of them secret (what the hell is up with that, secret laws?)) that we, all of us, could commit several felonies daily, the only conclusion I can find is that the government is tracking us for the sole purpose of 'if we do something they don't like' they then have the ability to find us and charge us with 'something'. Until then, just keeping us under the pressure of whatever they are currently doing is good enough. When they want to pop you, they will.
According to our current president, this post is a good reason to jail me, if for no other reason than to keep me from pointing out...reason. Good thing the law isn't on his side...yet. But the DOJ is working on social media competitiveness. Do you really think that is about competition? Or control? It is not the DOJ's job, it is the FTC's job. Why are they stepping in? Could it be because Trump is lambasting his Attorney General for not, well I don't know because I only read the headlines, but lambaste it was. Push here, get reaction there. It does not matter to them what they push, so long as the reaction leads to what they want. Power and control.
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Re: Re: Re:
The government should not be allowed to, at any level without a warrant (though even that brings up the question of how to particularize such an action), though the NSA certainly does. The other entities that do should be prosecuted. Under what law you say? And there is where Congress fails us.
That we are visible in public is not an issue, that someone collects and uses our movements is. The courts have said that placing a GPS device on someones car requires a warrant. How is this different?
That you have nothing to hide is not the issue. The issue is privacy. Some argue that the Constitution does not specify privacy, but then we look at the 4th Amendment (and there may be other Amendments that refer to privacy obliquely).
So, so far as the Internet is concerned, I put up with certain shenanigans, though I use a VPN. In public however, with respect to the government, I don't want them in my shorts. Let them get a warrant. Let them come after me, if they have a reason to. But letting them go after everyone, just because they travel, is a non sequitur, an excuse, an imposition, a grab for power which will lead to whatever the next step is. We don't want this step, or the next.
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Re: Re: Dear Frogs the Water is Boiling
To me, those someones have been listening to the rhetoric about how dangerous violent gaming can cause people to be violent. The problem is it was a game around football. And while there is a certain amount of violence in football, it is not like a first person shooter game, or other actually violent games. To me, a deranged person showed up to a public event and did bad things. Trying to place liability on the promoters of the contest is just trying to leverage the deep pockets for a payday.
As an aside, I belonged to a chef's association who in conjunction with the NRA (National Restaurant Association, there is no trademark in acronyms) produced culinary salons during their annual convention. A culinary salon is basically an art exhibit where the exhibits are edible (but not eaten). The exhibitors, culinarians of all stripes including students showed up as early as 3:00 am to set their displays up.
On one occasion this event took place in the convention center of a unionized hotel. The personnel working the convention center claimed they had to carry everything from the loading dock to the display tables. I explained to them that 'everything' were works of art, and delicate. I also mentioned that those doing the carrying, also carried knives. Knives for cooking or carving, but I wasn't that specific. Interestingly, the union folks backed down quickly. There was no actual potential for violence, but the culinarians would not have allowed anyone else to handle their displays.
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Re: Re: Department of Homeland Stasi
There might be some greed from any company hoping to supply equipment, but isn't that the tail wagging the dog?
On the post: Appeals Court Judge: Qualified Immunity Is A Rigged Game The Government Almost Always Wins
Re: If the rules say you always lose, why not try different rules?
The only way I know of to avoid the proprietorial misconduct, which is really hard to prove, is through the civil courts.
Or is there a way to force a prosecutor to do their jobs competently?
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Department of Homeland Stasi
Where did the government get the OK to transform travel for all travelers? I always thought that was the marketplaces job. New forms of travel, vacation packages, interstate commerce, etc.. What are they transforming it from and to? When did Congress give them the right to start asking for papers from everyone?
The impetus to check travelers at international boarders is more clear, though they go about it the wrong way and often for the wrong reasons. But there are no 'internal borders' within the United States (there may be some exceptions where there are checks about moving food stuffs that might contain parasites from one state to another, but those don't include facial recognition...yet).
If DHS wants some backlash, start asking for peoples papers at every state border. Just think about New York City, for example. Connecticut and New Jersey are close enough to be considered bedroom communities for New York. How many thousands (or millions) of people commute to NYC every day. How long will they stand for having their 'papers' checked twice a day? This would add many hours to ones commute.
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Department of Homeland Stasi
Where did the government get the OK to transform travel for all travelers? I always thought that was the marketplaces job. New forms of travel, vacation packages, interstate commerce, etc.. What are they transforming it from and to? When did Congress give them the right to start asking for papers from everyone?
The impetus to check travelers at international boarders is more clear, though they go about it the wrong way and often for the wrong reasons. But there are no 'internal borders' within the United States (there may be some exceptions where there are checks about moving food stuffs that might contain parasites from one state to another, but those don't include facial recognition...yet).
If DHS wants some backlash, start asking for peoples papers at every state border. Just think about New York City, for example. Connecticut and New Jersey are close enough to be considered bedroom communities for New York. How many thousands (or millions) of people commute to NYC every day. How long will they stand for having their 'papers' checked twice a day? This would add many hours to ones commute.
On the post: Ajit Pai Coddles Big Telecom, Demonizes Silicon Valley
Expanding the mandate much?
On the post: Ajit Pai Coddles Big Telecom, Demonizes Silicon Valley
Expanding the mandate much?
On the post: Appeals Court Judge: Qualified Immunity Is A Rigged Game The Government Almost Always Wins
Where is the qualified in qualified immunity?
Let's start with 1b. When the Supreme Court pulled qualified immunity out of their collective asses, did they bother to mention the specific requirements to earn immunity eligibility? If they didn't, isn't it up to the lower courts to establish those requirements, at least until the Supreme's say otherwise?
This isn't to say that the whole concept isn't seriously bogus.
As for definition 2, the Appellate Courts weaseling about there being no precedent isn't the type of limitation that should be intended, as the article points out. I believe that one of the purposes of Appellate Courts is to ESTABLISH precedent. They take the district courts rulings upon appeal and make decisions as to whether the law was followed, establishing precedent.
Could it be that since the whole concept was made up and that there is no law spelling out what qualified immunity is or isn't is causing those courts such consternation that they cannot logically work their way out of the conundrum? Or are they just not brave enough to go ahead and establish a precedent that might be overturned.
The Supreme Court is now hearing about half the cases they used to, but even before the supreme slowdown, the chance of getting a Appellate decision reviewed by them was/is seemingly small. What are they afraid of?
I know someone is going to go off the boards and claim it is all graft, but I don't think Appellate Judges are as susceptible to graft as lower court judges might be. There might be political leanings, due to the appointment process, but where is the politics in qualified immunity? Or are all politicians looking for ways to 'uniquely' for the first time screw someone over?
On the post: Louisiana Police Appear To Be Using A Hoax Antifa List Created By 8Chan To Open Criminal Investigations
Re: Re: Is no one else disturbed by the transport medium?
On the post: Five Eyes Surveillance Agencies Say Encryption Is Good, Except When It Keeps Them From Looking At Stuff
Re:
Things worked in the past but that means that all their sources and methods have been exposed and are no longer useful. This new technique means they can sit in their cushy offices, get the bad guy (aka anyone they deem bad, evidence or no and that includes people they just don't like), and have coffee all at the same time.
Next >>