If you regularly deposit more than $10K in cash, that's suspicious and might be criminal, and so must be reported. If you regularly deposit less than $10K in cash, that's suspicious and might be criminal, and so must be investigated.
Jeepers, so do I get to be my own sub-category? "Big-screen TV but no cable households"?
/Nope, not even at $0.01 a month introductory/try-out price for cable. I don't want to encourage or support the dreck that's on cable - 'reality' TV, the same friggin' episode of BBT twelve times a day on twelve different channels, and the Golf Channel(wtf?). //Do have Netflix, though. And TWIT. And an antenna.
And what were the meaningless survey question? Here..
If they had called me and asked these questions below, I'd have verbally spanked them for asking misleading or irrelevant questions, and then ask why were they setting up false dichotomies. Bonus: asking question that there's no way I can know the answer. Grrr.
From Rasmussen's site: National Survey of 1,000 Adults Conducted November 11-12, 2014 By Rasmussen Reports 1* How closely have you followed recent news reports about so-called Internet “neutrality” issues? 2* Should the Internet remain “open” without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television? 3* How concerned are you that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda? 4* What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition? 5* How often do you go online and use the Internet?
6* (Answered by 908 American Internet Users) How would you rate the quality of your Internet service?
7* (Answered by 908 American Internet Users) How private are your Internet communications now? 8* (Answered by 908 American Internet Users) How likely is it that the government has monitored the Internet activity of you or a member of your family? 9* Is it any longer possible to guarantee that an individual’s Internet searches will remain private? NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Quoting from the intro: Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms directs courts to exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence where, having regard to all the circumstances, its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Thus, it effectively changes the common law which would admit all reliable relevant evidence regardless of how it was obtained. The ‘end justifies the means’ philosophy of the common law has been replaced by one that values truth, but not at the expense of the repute of the administration of justice.
The balancing act the courts must perform is further explained at page 25.
But more importantly, why isn't the 'good faith' argument available to defendants? Especially defendants who, to quote another commenter from months ago, have based their actions on research by y'know, watching 'Bones' and NCIS? Mike? Anyone? Bueller?
If the police can use a good faith exception to legitimate their illegal activity, then the accused should be able to use a good faith argument that (s)he thought that their activity was legal.
Quoting Hon. Gerard Mitchell: "Purpose of s. 24(2) The purpose of s. 24(2) is to maintain the rule of law and the values underlying the charter. It is not meant to punish police misconduct or to compensate an accused for violation of his or her rights. The objective of s. 24(2) is systemic. Its focus is long term, prospective and societal. [Emphasis added] The concern is less with the particular case than on the impact over time of admitting evidence obtained by infringing constitutionally protected rights. .. Disrepute by Admission Police conduct violating charter rights already brings disrepute to the justice system. The concern of s. 24(2) is to avoid adding to that disrepute by admitting the fruit of illegal state conduct into evidence. .. The “disrepute” being referred to in s. 24(2) is disrepute in the local community. The administration of justice does not have to be brought into disrepute on a national scale before courts may interfere to protect the integrity of the process within which they operate. Trial judges have to be concerned for the reputation of the administration of justice in the community with which they deal on a daily basis. Thus, a court in a particular case must determine what the long-term impact on the repute of the administration of justice in the community where it operates would be if evidence obtained under similar circumstances was to be regularly admitted. [The police and the courts in the 'States are definitely way past that test, seen from outside the country.]
The threshold for exclusion under s. 24(2) is lower than the “community shock” test advanced by Lamer J. in his dissenting opinion in R. v. Rothman. That is because s. 24 involves consideration of a breach of the supreme law of the land and because the French version, which is equally official, only requires that the evidence “could” bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
In the 'States, you're not allowed to bypass DRM/software. So if Keurig forces you to use their coffee (y'know, 'cuz otherwise it's illegal) then they would have to supply the coffee for free.
In Quebec, on the other hand, the warranty wouldn't be voided.
52. The merchant or the manufacturer shall not make the validity of a conventional warranty conditional upon the consumer using a product which is identified by brand name, unless at least one of the three following conditions is fulfilled: (a) the product is supplied to him free of charge; (b) the warranted goods will not function properly unless that product is used; (c) the conventional warranty forms the object of a separate contract entered into for valuable consideration. 1978, c. 9, s. 52.
As it has been shown over and over, Keurig DRMed coffee makers work just fine with non-Keurig coffee pods. So...is Keurig supplying pods for free in Québec? Or providing some other 'valuable consideration'?
Further, could the confessor claim that it was just a performance? And merely fiction, satire, or overacting? (Yeah, I know there are other laws covering this.)
On the post: Die Another Eh: What Does It Mean Now That James Bond Is In The Public Domain In Canada?
Die another eh?
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Unconventional Christmas
Wireless Christmas Tree lights?
/ironically enough, these old-style lights are only safe-ish on new-style, metal trees.
On the post: IRS Drops Its Asset Forfeiture Case Against Owner Of Small, Cash-Only Restaurant
Let me see if I got this right:
If you regularly deposit less than $10K in cash, that's suspicious and might be criminal, and so must be investigated.
On the post: Canadian Law Enforcement Agency Dropping Cases Rather Than Deal With New Warrant Requirements For ISP Subscriber Info
Re: If they were willing to drop the cases rather than fill out paperwork,..
"...that tells you that these cases weren't really important/necessary/legitimate."
Sigh...
On the post: Canadian Law Enforcement Agency Dropping Cases Rather Than Deal With New Warrant Requirements For ISP Subscriber Info
If they were willing to drop the cases rather than fill out paperwork,..
On the post: After Calling Cord Cutting 'Purely Fiction' For Years, Nielsen Decides Just Maybe It Should Start Tracking Amazon, Netflix Viewing
"zero TV households"?
/Nope, not even at $0.01 a month introductory/try-out price for cable. I don't want to encourage or support the dreck that's on cable - 'reality' TV, the same friggin' episode of BBT twelve times a day on twelve different channels, and the Golf Channel(wtf?).
//Do have Netflix, though. And TWIT. And an antenna.
On the post: Misleading Rasmussen Poll Helps Prop Up Bogus Net Neutrality Partisan Divide
And what were the meaningless survey question? Here..
From Rasmussen's site:
National Survey of 1,000 Adults
Conducted November 11-12, 2014
By Rasmussen Reports
1* How closely have you followed recent news reports about so-called Internet “neutrality” issues?
2* Should the Internet remain “open” without regulation and censorship or should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?
3* How concerned are you that if the FCC does gain regulatory control over the Internet it will lead to government efforts to control online content or promote a political agenda?
4* What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition?
5* How often do you go online and use the Internet?
6* (Answered by 908 American Internet Users) How would you rate the quality of your Internet service?
7* (Answered by 908 American Internet Users) How private are your Internet communications now?
8* (Answered by 908 American Internet Users) How likely is it that the government has monitored the Internet activity of you or a member of your family?
9* Is it any longer possible to guarantee that an individual’s Internet searches will remain private?
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
On the post: DailyDirt: In The Long Run, We're All Dead
What are the odds?
Falling out of your bed:
2,000,000:1
A shark:
3,700,000:1
An asteroid:
74,817,414:1
By ISIS:
100,000,000:1 - if you're American.
If you're Muslim, it's 160,000:1.
Think about it, if you're on non-Muslim American, you're about a third more likely to be killed by an asteroid than by ISIS.
On the post: Sexual Relationship With A Minor, Theft Of Services And Destruction Of Evidence Nets Police Officer One-Year Prison Sentence
Why Do You Have A Town Of 300 Residents...with 100 Police Officers?
I'm willing to pay them, just so I can call myself a policeman if it means I get a stack of 'Get Out of Jail Free' cards!
On the post: DailyDirt: Beyond Simple Mice And Touchscreens
Re: Someone's been watching too much Minority Report
On the post: Part Of CIA Torture Report May Finally Be Released Next Week, As More Details Leak
Re: Executive Summary
On the post: Part Of CIA Torture Report May Finally Be Released Next Week, As More Details Leak
The first link is over-linkified, Mike.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-senate-report-on-cia-interrogation-is-about-to-reignite-debate-o ver-the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden
On the post: The Exception Is The Rule: How The Government's 'Good Faith' Efforts Are Destroying The Fourth Amendment
Re: Re: What's sauce for the goose...
http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/S_24_09.pdf
Quoting from the intro:
Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms directs courts to exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence where, having regard to all the circumstances, its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Thus, it effectively changes the common law which would admit all reliable relevant evidence regardless of how it was obtained. The ‘end justifies the means’ philosophy of the common law has been replaced by one that values truth, but not at the expense of the repute of the administration of justice.
The balancing act the courts must perform is further explained at page 25.
But more importantly, why isn't the 'good faith' argument available to defendants?
Especially defendants who, to quote another commenter from months ago, have based their actions on research by y'know, watching 'Bones' and NCIS? Mike? Anyone? Bueller?
On the post: The Exception Is The Rule: How The Government's 'Good Faith' Efforts Are Destroying The Fourth Amendment
What's sauce for the goose...
The USA desperately needs something like Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if you ask me.
Quoting Hon. Gerard Mitchell:
"Purpose of s. 24(2)
The purpose of s. 24(2) is to maintain the rule of law and the values underlying the charter. It is not meant to punish police misconduct or to compensate an accused for violation of his or her rights. The objective of s. 24(2) is systemic. Its focus is long term, prospective and societal. [Emphasis added] The concern is less with the particular case than on the impact over time of admitting evidence obtained by infringing constitutionally protected rights.
..
Disrepute by Admission
Police conduct violating charter rights already brings disrepute to the justice system. The concern of s. 24(2) is to avoid adding to that disrepute by admitting the fruit of illegal state conduct into evidence.
..
The “disrepute” being referred to in s. 24(2) is disrepute in the local community. The administration of justice does not have to be brought into disrepute on a national scale before courts may interfere to protect the integrity of the process within which they operate. Trial judges have to be concerned for the reputation of the administration of justice in the community with which they deal on a daily basis. Thus, a court in a particular case must determine what the long-term impact on the repute of the administration of justice in the community where it operates would be if evidence obtained under similar circumstances was to be regularly admitted.
[The police and the courts in the 'States are definitely way past that test, seen from outside the country.]
The threshold for exclusion under s. 24(2) is lower than the “community shock” test advanced by Lamer J. in his dissenting opinion in R. v. Rothman. That is because s. 24 involves consideration of a breach of the supreme law of the land and because the French version, which is equally official, only requires that the evidence “could” bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
On the post: Australian Spy Agency Reaches Out And Touches Self In Warrantless Wiretap Misfire
Re: Answers that
..we've traced the call, it's coming from inside the house..
On the post: Antitrust, DRM & Coffee: Is It Illegal For Keurig To Lock Down Its Brewers?
Re: Re: Not quite the same but..
In Quebec, on the other hand, the warranty wouldn't be voided.
On the post: Antitrust, DRM & Coffee: Is It Illegal For Keurig To Lock Down Its Brewers?
Not quite the same but..
52. The merchant or the manufacturer shall not make the validity of a conventional warranty conditional upon the consumer using a product which is identified by brand name, unless at least one of the three following conditions is fulfilled:
(a) the product is supplied to him free of charge;
(b) the warranted goods will not function properly unless that product is used;
(c) the conventional warranty forms the object of a separate contract entered into for valuable consideration.
1978, c. 9, s. 52.
As it has been shown over and over, Keurig DRMed coffee makers work just fine with non-Keurig coffee pods. So...is Keurig supplying pods for free in Québec? Or providing some other 'valuable consideration'?
On the post: Nintendo Bricks Wii U Consoles Unless Owners Agree To New EULA
Re: Staying to PC
On the post: Lawyer Says It's Copyright Infringement To Use Her Own Blog Posts Against Her In Disciplinary Proceedings
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former NSA Head Says You Can Avoid Government Spying By Using This One Simple Trick
There's another way to avoid Government Spying.
Next >>