One additional thing that bothers me about this is that there's dozens of witnesses who see this crime being committed, and did nothing. And in this case, I can't blame them. Stopping a cop who is committing a crime is itself a crime, and one that can have you summarily executed on the spot, or, I suppose if you're lucky, spend a long time in prison and have your life ruined.
The instant that woman gained the ire of a renegade policeman her fate was sealed. And I think we all know what will happen to that officer.
How do we get these actions to stick to politicians? So that any time someone talks about them, people think "Oh yeah, the one that wants my cable bill to be twice the cost of my car payment".
I find public transportation useful, but never pleasant. You sacrifice a lot of intangibles when you use it. You give up any shred of privacy. You are completely at the mercy of an oft-inscrutable schedule (at least in the USA). You are exposed to all sorts of unpleasantness (dirty stations, drunk passengers, pickpockets and thieves, etc.) What you get in return may be worth it, but it's still not without cost.
If you could find a way to give people a bit of privacy and a lot more cleanliness, I think you'd find a lot more people willing to ride.
Hello ThatFatMan, perhaps you'd care to elucidate? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Certainly you can understand, I hope, why the layman such as myself sees the USPTO as a problem wherein software and human genes can be so easily patented.
What bothers me most about this isn't the crimes being committed by police, it's how completely unremarkable the watching officers are. This is not a new thing to them, this is just another day at the office.
The victim was extremely wise/fortunate that her evidence was transmitted off-site (seriously, everyone should do that), but how many people do you think aren't that fortunate?
Does anyone harbor any hope that all of the arrests from these criminal officers are going to be reviewed? (especially for 'missing' evidence)
I'm not kidding, aren't members of SEA ORG essentially held against their will and forced to work for the church? And isn't he, as the de facto #2 of Scientology quite responsible for their status?
As far as I can tell, the DoJ faces absolutely no repercussions for failing to comply. At most they might lose a case they probably don't care that much about. But at best, they destroy incriminating evidence that could be used to help wrestle privacy back from an out of control agency.
I suspect the DoJ either knew full well the end result of this, or else assumed that the SCOTUS would just side with them after political pressure. My money is on the former, which says to me that they sacrificed these court cases in order to protect the evidence from becoming public. ie: the secrets are more important to them than stopping criminals.
On the post: Behind The Veil Part 2: Let's All Look At Comcast's Customer Retention Playbook For Its Employees!
Why not honesty?
On the post: Internal Affairs Departments, District Attorneys' Offices Helping Keep Bad Cops From Being Held Accountable
Good and Bad
On the post: If You Want To Know How Supporting Techdirt Can Help Shift The Debate In Washington DC, Read This
Just pledged
On the post: Epiphany: Rep. John Conyers Realizes Mid-Hearing That His Copyright Position Contradicts His Stand Against Overcriminalization
Begins to see the light
Lobbyist: "Here's your donation check for this year."
Rep Conyers. "Thank you, feeling better already."
On the post: Verizon Gets Snarky, But Basically Admits That It's The One Clogging Its Networks On Purpose
Ok then.
On the post: California Highway Patrol Seizes Medical Records Of Woman An Officer Was Caught On Tape Beating
The instant that woman gained the ire of a renegade policeman her fate was sealed. And I think we all know what will happen to that officer.
On the post: Snowden Says NSA Employees 'Routinely' Passed Around Naked Photos That Had Been Intercepted
Re:
On the post: Why Does Rep. Marsha Blackburn Want To Block You From Having Competitive Broadband?
Serious question
On the post: DailyDirt: Can Public Transportation Ever Make Everyone Happy?
If you could find a way to give people a bit of privacy and a lot more cleanliness, I think you'd find a lot more people willing to ride.
On the post: DC Court Confirms That Government Agents Can Abuse US Citizens' Rights With Impunity If They Leave The Country
Is the reverse, therefore true?
On the post: Peoria Mayor Continues To Defend Police Raid Of Twitter User's Home, Threatens To Sue For Defamation
On the post: Court Rejects Request That Secret NSA Evidence Used Against Terrorism Suspect Be Shared With Suspect's Lawyers
Re: *sigh*
On the post: Did US Send CIA Rendition Jet To Europe In The Hope Of Grabbing Snowden?
Liberty and Justice for All
On the post: Elon Musk Destroys The Rationale For Patents, Opens Up All Of Tesla's
Re: Smart
On the post: Using Drones To Soar Above 'Ag-Gag' Laws
On the post: Forget The FCC: Should We Be Looking To The FTC To Save An Open Internet?
Re: Dear Mikey
On the post: Chicago Cops Being Sued After Being Caught On Tape Physically And Verbally Abusing A Massage Parlor Employee
Upsetting
The victim was extremely wise/fortunate that her evidence was transmitted off-site (seriously, everyone should do that), but how many people do you think aren't that fortunate?
Does anyone harbor any hope that all of the arrests from these criminal officers are going to be reviewed? (especially for 'missing' evidence)
On the post: Why Has Tom Cruise's Reputation Faltered? Pshh, Because Of The Internet, Of Course!
Isn't Tom a slaver?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org
Maybe jumping on a couch isn't what we should care about?
On the post: DOJ Admits It's Still Destroying Evidence In NSA Case; Judge Orders Them (Again) To Stop; DOJ Flips Out
Repercussions
So why *wouldn't* they destroy the evidence?
On the post: EFF Tells Court That The NSA Knowingly And Illegally Destroyed Evidence In Key Case Over Bulk Surveillance
Smells fishy to me
Next >>