Right. And it's possible that this violates California's Constitution without violating the U.S. Constitution since California's may offer more (but not less) protection.
I'm not sure this warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment. Recall that the Amendment allows warrantless searches in certain circumstances, including some administrative searches, so long as they are "reasonable." From the Supreme Court:
Because the owner or operator of commercial premises in a “closely regulated” industry has a reduced expectation of privacy, the warrant and probable-cause requirements, which fulfill the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness for a government search, see O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 741, 107 S.Ct. 1492, ----, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (dissenting opinion), have lessened application in this context. Rather, we conclude that, as in other situations of “special need,” see New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 353, 105 S.Ct. 733, 750, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (opinion concurring in judgment), where the privacy interests of the owner are **2644 weakened and the government interests in regulating particular businesses are concomitantly heightened, a warrantless inspection of commercial premises may well be reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
This warrantless inspection, however, even in the context of a pervasively regulated business, will be deemed to be reasonable only so long as three criteria are met. First, there must be a “substantial” government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made. See Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S., at 602, 101 S.Ct., at 2540 (“substantial federal interest in improving the health and safety conditions in the Nation's underground and surface mines”); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S., at 315, 92 S.Ct., at 1596 (regulation of firearms is “of central importance to federal efforts to prevent violent crime and to assist the States in regulating the firearms traffic within their borders”); Colonnade Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S., at 75, 90 S.Ct., at 776 (federal interest “in protecting the revenue against various types of fraud”).
Second, the warrantless inspections must be “necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme.” Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S., at 600, 101 S.Ct., at 2539. For example, in Dewey we recognized that forcing mine inspectors to obtain a warrant before every inspection *703 might alert mine owners or operators to the impending inspection, thereby frustrating the purposes of the Mine Safety and Health Act-to detect and thus to deter safety and health violations. Id., at 603, 101 S.Ct., at 2540.
Finally, “the statute's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, [must] provid[e] a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.” Ibid. In other words, the regulatory statute must perform the two basic functions of a warrant: it must advise the owner of the commercial premises that the search is being made pursuant to the law and has a properly defined scope, and it must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers. See Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S., at 323, 98 S.Ct., at 1826; see also id., at 332, 98 S.Ct., at 1830 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). To perform this first function, the statute must be “sufficiently comprehensive and defined that the owner of commercial property cannot help but be aware that his property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes.” Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S., at 600, 101 S.Ct., at 2539. In addition, in defining how a statute limits the discretion of the inspectors, we have observed that it must be “carefully limited in time, place, and scope.” United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S., at 315, 92 S.Ct., at 1596.
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-03, 107 S. Ct. 2636, 2643-44, 96 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1987).
Do these searches meet this test? That's the question. It's not as simple as warrantless search = Fourth Amendment violation, IMO.
I see a big difference between running a streaming site like channelsurfing.net and simply linking to a video on YouTube. The law is aimed at the former, not the latter. I see no reason for regular people with links to YouTube videos to be worried.
I don't see how either Act stops interactivity or the sharing of ideas. It's one going to become a one-way stream of information. Ideas will still be free-flowing. Sounds like a bunch of FUD to me.
For fuck's sake - that's what PROTECT IP will do; make it a federal crime for linking. That means pointing to Youtube will become a felony under this "Act".
How the fuck do you not get this?
I think you're confusing the PROTECT IP Act with the other Act whose text isn't released yet. I also think you're completely confused about what either Act will do. Neither one will make it a felony to point to YouTube. The reason that sounds so ridiculous is because it is. You're buying into the FUD, it would seem.
here's how the latest bill, the PROTECT IP Bill would work. It's all about linking. I can assume you have a facebook page, am I right? And that, like everyone else, you hear a song you like, so you post a link to the song on Youtube. Well, under the above named law, that would be illegal. The song would not be cleared by its copyright holder, and thus, you would be punished, by having your facebook account shut down.
It's not so much about linking as it is about sites that are dedicated to infringement. I don't think your hypo is persuasive. People aren't going to start having their Facebook accounts closed down for linking to YouTube videos. That's silly.
Not only that, the rights holders merely have to ACCUSE a site of infringement, and the domain registrars or whoever, under the proposed law, will have to take it down in order to avoid liability. That's what's so dangerous about the law. A court won't be needed to censor a site. Just an accusation from a third party.
They would only have to take it down if so ordered by a court. And before a court issues such an order, there is due process.
It's actually worse than the Great Firewall of China. There, they censor they say for national security and other BS. In the US, it's because someone told someone else where a song was...
There they actually censor people by controlling what people can say and hear. That's censorship. What we have here is hardly comparable, IMO.
It's not even a counterargument. I'm not saying it won't break the internet. I'm simply asking why people are saying it will break the internet. I'm just curious. Seems like FUD.
But you can be held accountable for "what is at the end of a link" already, and the internet is not broken.
You can already be "silenced from a simple accusation," and the internet is not broken.
Etc. I'm hearing lots of rhetoric, but not one simple example of how I should fear the internet being "broken" by these laws. I see how things will change for pirates, sure, but that's the whole point, right?
I get the argument, but it seems misplaced. Nobody is going to be "dragged into court and charged with a felony" for linking to content like that. I think you've bought into the FUD that's going around about how linking to anything infringing will automatically be a felony. That's just silly.
The strength of the Internet comes from computers being able to freely communicate with each other. Every roadblock, every barrier to that communication weakens what makes the Internet so special.
That sounds nice and all, but can you explain in what concrete way a user such as myself will suffer when the internet is "broken" by these laws?
On the post: Brand Delusion
Re:
On the post: RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
Re:
On the post: RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
Do these searches meet this test? That's the question. It's not as simple as warrantless search = Fourth Amendment violation, IMO.
On the post: Doing A Google Search For 'Blonde' A Firable Offense For High School Teacher
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That still doesn't explain how either Act will "break" the internet.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your insult might actually carry weight if it was backed with an argument. Standing alone, your insult is meaningless and only makes you look "dense."
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How the fuck do you not get this?
I think you're confusing the PROTECT IP Act with the other Act whose text isn't released yet. I also think you're completely confused about what either Act will do. Neither one will make it a felony to point to YouTube. The reason that sounds so ridiculous is because it is. You're buying into the FUD, it would seem.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's quite a stretch to turn a bill aimed at streaming sites into FUD like this. Give me a break.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re:
It's not so much about linking as it is about sites that are dedicated to infringement. I don't think your hypo is persuasive. People aren't going to start having their Facebook accounts closed down for linking to YouTube videos. That's silly.
Not only that, the rights holders merely have to ACCUSE a site of infringement, and the domain registrars or whoever, under the proposed law, will have to take it down in order to avoid liability. That's what's so dangerous about the law. A court won't be needed to censor a site. Just an accusation from a third party.
They would only have to take it down if so ordered by a court. And before a court issues such an order, there is due process.
It's actually worse than the Great Firewall of China. There, they censor they say for national security and other BS. In the US, it's because someone told someone else where a song was...
There they actually censor people by controlling what people can say and hear. That's censorship. What we have here is hardly comparable, IMO.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re:
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re:
You can already be "silenced from a simple accusation," and the internet is not broken.
Etc. I'm hearing lots of rhetoric, but not one simple example of how I should fear the internet being "broken" by these laws. I see how things will change for pirates, sure, but that's the whole point, right?
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re:
Ars has an article out today about the bill I believe you (and others) are so paranoid about: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/new-bill-upgrades-unauthorized-internet-streaming-to -a-felony.ars
The bill is aimed at sites that stream content, i.e., sites dedicated to infringement. Hyperlinks are just fine, and they will continue to be so.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re:
That sounds nice and all, but can you explain in what concrete way a user such as myself will suffer when the internet is "broken" by these laws?
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Re: Re:
Because if this law gets passed I would have just made Masnick and myself felons by posting that link.
Which law are you talking about? And how do you figure that linking to YouTube would become a criminal act? I think you are mistaken.
On the post: The PROTECT IP Act Is About The Old Media Industry Going To War With The Internet
Next >>