Seems like there are a couple layers of "there's no there there" in this case. What the target of the lawsuit said was nonsense. Nevertheless, the plaintiff likely knows there is negligible basis for her suit.
Having never heard of the unnamed plaintiff in this article, I looked her up briefly. In terms of media and freedom of speech issues, it seems odd to me that a strong Trump supporter is also a critic of police authority, particularly with regard to photographing the police. If I hadn't heard about her in this lawsuit context, I might have thought that she was cast in a vaguely similar mold as Radley Balko or Carlos Miller. Live and learn.
Except that no one is claiming any obligation to preserve people's abandoned objects or any data on them. If your thing is melting down locked objects from junkyards, knock yourself out. Similarly, re-using or recycling various media isn't in relevant to the discussion here, since the government isn't searching the items as part of any recycling process.
The question is whether the government should treat any object that it can claim as "abandoned" as an opportunity for a fishing expedition. Keep two things in mind. First, the objects in question were locked and were understood (incorrectly in this case) to not have retrievable data on them. Second, this incentivizes government claims that something was abandoned whether or not they knew that it really was.
Some folks (including the courts) seem to be taking a hard-line view against when it's reasonable to expect privacy in this case, often ignoring that the defendant "abandoned" his phone only after he thought that the phone was locked and then ruined because of water damage, which he assumed made data on it inaccessible and possibly gone. Obviously, his assumptions about technology were incorrect, but was he really wrong to expect that his data would remain private?
In other words, if one thinks the media is effectively destroyed, doesn't that mean one can reasonably expect that no one can access the data on it? This isn't a trivial issue and people's ignorance and misconceptions about technology play an important role here. The fact that Techdirt readers are more technically aware than average doesn't mean that the law shouldn't make some allowance for the average person's technical sophistication, or lack thereof.
Meanwhile, what data is recoverable from "abandoned" media changes with technology. Do you shred your paper documents? Is that enough? I am certain that software either exists or could be written that would take high resolution images of appropriately spread out shreddings and reassemble them into a document. So, when the cops troll through someone's trash without a warrant and use that software to recreate a document that is used against someone in court, are we going to be so quick to say that the lack of warrant was okay because the document was abandoned and there is no expectation of privacy for it?
Similarly, there is technology that can recover or partially recover erased data from magnetic media, even when it has been overwritten. If you toss out an old laptop, even after long formatting its drive, is it okay for the court to rule that you had no expectation of privacy and that the government didn't need a warrant to fish for evidence on your old device?
An important distinction is that he thought that the information on the phone was inaccessible anyway. The analogy is more along the lines of: If the owner thought that the contents of the locked safe had caught fire and burned up, is he obligated to keep the safe indefinitely to maintain his expectation of privacy?
I think slowgreenturtle's point is that telecom service is among the types of goods and services that charities could effectively subsidize for the truly needy. (Many would say that federal courts or a national military organization are examples of things that would be difficult to effectively fund by charity.)
Whether or not you agree with his point, taking that to imply that all taxpayer-funded government services should be funded charitably is a stretch. Not that I have any idea where slowgreenturtle stands on that, but that isn't what he said. There are certainly plenty of people who look at SS, Medicaid, and other federal systems funded by taxpayers and conclude that they are bad ideas in the long-term. There are certainly economists who don't think that the funding for those things can continue the way it has, since projected outlays outpace projected revenue by tens of trillions of dollars over the next few decades.
Federal Government No Less Immune to Regulatory Capture than State Governments
Even if one agrees that this new federal appointee is an asshat who isn't doing his job (and perhaps thinks that his job shouldn't exist), what's going on here is not a big surprise. Regulatory capture isn't solely an affliction of state or local governments and it never has been. Regulatory capture is an affliction that affects whichever body is doing the regulating, at any level of government.
One can justifiably bemoan examples of telecom regulatory capture at the state level. But, let's not pretend that putting the feds in charge of more things will mitigate the issue. Despite the fact that Pai's actual intention may be to undermine this telecom welfare program by kicking regulation down to the states, there is actually a better chance for states to respond to voters than the feds. To be clear, many states have slipped sweetheart legislation through for the telecoms. But, with some public attention, the states can fix that and I suspect the fact that they haven't is largely due to the fact that the public remains largely unaware that their politicians have been bought off in this way. If it became a campaign issue, then the practice would stop and could potentially be reversed.
If this hasn't become a campaign issue in state elections, I would be betting it's because both incumbent and challenging candidates are happy to take donations from AT&T, Comcast, etc. and let them "contribute" to the legislative process while they are in office. If this issue gets enough sunlight, that is less likely to be the case. In other words, when a politician thinks, "I can run an ad accusing my opponent of taking money from Comcast and then sponsoring legislation written by Comcast that raised voters' Internet bills!" then there is a chance to roll back some of this nonsense.
But, rest assured that this is far less likely to become a campaign issue at the federal level. For one thing, no senator or representative is going to be held accountable for what Pai does. And, the same is true of the president. Among the vast majority of voters, no one knows who the FCC chairman is or what he does and no one is going to vote for or not vote for the president based on what his FCC chair did regarding some program that most people haven't heard of and don't care about.
Expecting politicians to be more responsive to voters at the federal level than at state or local levels is a mistake.
Does Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), the bill's author know that his bill runs afoul of the 1st amendment and he just does not care, is he cynically just posturing, or is he woefully ignorant of the free speech issue?
For those who don't know assemblymember Chau is an attorney and ran a law firm for some time before his election to the legislature. So, draw any conclusions with that in mind.
By the way, if the government is doing something that seems like it might be unconstitutional, then the default view of the courts should be that the government cannot do it, not the other way around. A court "deferring" to the government about what the government can do and what it can keep secret makes a joke of the whole idea of checks and balances between the branches.
The court seems to be saying it doesn't know enough to judge whether something the government is doing is legitimate. How does that translate into "the government wins"? If the court doesn't know enough to decide, then the government has not succeeded in making its case. If I am accused of some misbehavior and I tell the court, "Well, you don't know enough about my secret activities to judge them and I refuse to explain them to you because they are secret," what are my odds of winning that case?
The court seems to be saying, essentially, it's okay to gather phone records and otherwise surveil citizens without a warrant (NSLs) by claiming "national security". When asked to detail how it choses to use this surveillance authority, it says, "We can tell you because... national security." Just as bad, the court decides that it won't review whether or not the national security claim is legitimate. Allowing the government to avoid scrutiny by using "national security" as a win button at every level of challenge is judicial folly.
Whether or not the government is using surveillance properly in any given case, the fact that it knows it can hide what it is doing by chanting "national security" whenever its actions are questioned means that abuses will go undetected. The fact that the government knows its abuses will go undetected guarantees that they will happen. Its pretty much a textbook example of why we value transparency in government: It's not that the government is necessarily always abusing its authority, it's that if it knows it can abuse its authority and not be caught, then it definitely will abuse its authority.
The problem with tasers (or at least _one_ problem) is that they are a physical assault, but they aren't thought of that way by police or by most citizens. Basically, using a taser on someone should be considered in the same light as a take-down hold or a punch in the face. As long as officers consider the taser to be an "easy button" for compliance, it will be abused.
BTW, as with many things, a good way to determine how to think about a particular police procedure (tasing, choke holds, etc.) is to answer how the police would see it (i.e. what would the charges be) if a non-LEO used it on an officer.
The more effective, technologically simpler, more robust, and ultimately cheaper solution is to simply have the camera always on. That way we (mostly) obviate police statements like, "Sure, the video seems to show the officer yelling at and then shooting an unarmed suspect. But, we should believe the officer when he claims that, seconds before the camera started rolling, the suspect was acting in a deadly and life-threatening manner."
And, fine, let there be a button that the cop can push that turns off the camera for five minutes for potty breaks. As long as the rule is clear that it's grounds for termination to use said button when responding to a call, talking to a witness/suspect, etc.
Or the Institute for Justice which has helped victims of asset forfeiture before. I assume that Justice Thomas' invitation to challenge these laws on constitutional grounds (instead of the mostly procedural grounds that seem more typical) has IJ and similar organizations salivating.
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
No offense, but that is missing the point. It shouldn't matter that you wouldn't want to keep in your possession the asset that is being seized through this outrageous process. And, it is well worth noting that 1) assets are seized when the owners are en route to a bank or other "safe" location for the asset and 2) there is no safe location for the asset, since civil asset forfeiture is often used on items found at people's homes, apartments, etc. or the target's home itself.
I would agree if the companies that make the devices did not have government granted monopolies preventing others from manufacturing spare parts.
You may have a point here, but one has to wonder how far to go down that road. The goal of various patent protections (which I agree are government-granted monopolies) is to incentivize (via profit) for a limited time the development of novel goods. If the state starts attaching strings to that, where does it stop? As one example of many, if this rationale becomes the norm for new mandates, how long until the same reasoning is used to force Apple (and everyone else) to add backdoors to their encryption? Years? Months? Either way, it's a matter of when and not if it will happen.
In addition, it's easy to talk about using patents as the hook for other mandates when the target is a giant corporation like Apple. But, there are plenty of patent applicants who are little guys hoping a patent will let them to get a product to market before some giant who can manufacture it cheaper and market it better grabs the idea. Let's be 100% clear: If patents (and any IP) become to the hook to attach other mandates to something, then it is inevitable that regulatory capture will soon become prominent and the big boys and their lobbyists will ensure that the mandates favor them over potential competition. If your great idea for a new widget comes with all sorts of other mandates, many of which are intended to make it harder for you to compete with the International Widget Corporation, there is no doubt that many inventors will decide not to bother.
Like many similar ideas well-intended regulations to help consumers, the actual outcome is likely to be very different than the intent.
This is a thread where most people are very much in favor of being able to buy parts to repair or pay someone else to repair (somewhat) expensive consumer devices. Given that, I'm not sure it's really "libertarian extreme" to think that there is a market for repairable gear repairs services and that those who try and sell such gear/services will find customers.
For big ticket items like cars, where being able to repair components can extend the usable life of the item for decades, it's worth it. I think auto manufacturers who tried to sell cars that no one could fix would find the many customers veering toward other cars.
However, making things repairable often raises the price of those things substantially. That's just a manufacturing reality, especially when a primary selling point of many of these devices is how light and compact they are. Ask any engineer about the trade-offs in manufacturing with permanent joining techniques (welds, epoxies, etc.) versus non-permanent ones (screws, clips, etc.). As I say, depending on the product, it can be worth it. But, that isn't true of every product.
In addition, if this extends to being forced to provide spare parts (and presumably a distribution chain for them), I would agree with Chris that this is going too far. If someone wants to go into the business of repairing iPhones, good on them. If they insist the government force Apple to make available everything to needed to be in the iPhone repair business, then they can take a hike.
The legislators who truly support the bill needs to be saying right now is that anyone who doesn't vote to override the veto was never really interested in reform. The non-overriders were just looking for cover because this government activity is so obviously heinous to the public.
Don't let them have that cover. Don't let them imply that they were willing to do take a step in the right direction when all they were really willing to do was glance in the right direction and then walk away.
Make it clear that not voting to push the bill past the veto is the same as never having voted to pass it in the first place. The question is not, "Did you vote for the bill?" it's "Did you support the bill after the veto?"
This notion that they need to find a compromise is BS. Efforts to fix something utterly unjustifiable require no compromise with efforts to keep the unjustifiable in place.
We'll see how people react. Will they understand that it's the expansion of government power itself which is bad, because it will eventually be abused, regardless of who's in power when the expansion occurs? Or, will they just criticize the "other team" and/or argue that this is all the more reason that everyone should vote for their side?
The Patriots (and other trademark trolls) are idiots about this, but...
The real problem is the trademark system and the USPTO. The very notion that someone can get any kind of legal protection for some obvious phrase because they happened to register for it first is idiocy and it encourages this sort of trolling. This is a case (and seems common in this regard) where those phrases could apply to dozens of organizations across scores of sports and non-sports. They should have to make an affirmative showing that the phrase in question should only reasonably apply to their brand/product/team before the USPTO even considers the application. For example, they should have to show that the phrase would only reasonably be associated with the Patriots and not the next (or previous) team that gets a 19-0 record or has an undefeated season. And, then, the claim should be evaluated critically. Basically, one real or likely valid counter-example should result in denial of the application. And, if it is granted, the clear precedent needs to be that the exclusivity is to be applied narrowly (only to within the narrow market of the trademark holder) and only to protect against a strong implication of commercial association with the trademark holder.
I think the Patriots and similar companies deserve to be thought of as slimy for engaging in these sorts of IP antics. But, the rules and the bureaucracies that administer them encourage the antics in creating a system where there is little to lose and much to gain with these nonsense trademarks. If we want this sort of thing to stop, then 1) stop granting the applications willy-nilly and 2) don't make them such an broad and easy-to-abuse legal hammer.
Since no one in this thread has stated that what happened in Flint is the reason to "abolish" the EPA, one needn't look further than your post for examples of inferences to which one might sarcastically refer as iron-clad logic.
Someone mentioned Flint as a counter to the suggestion that there are other mechanisms for dealing with certain problems than simply the government agencies whose names or ostensible missions is to deal with those problems. I don't think there is any logically fallacy in pointing out that Flint doesn't really illustrate the point. Especially since Flint is an example of municipal and state government agencies not doing the job they were supposed to. To think that federal agencies are immune from such failings is, IMO, folly.
On the post: To Avoid Being Cut Out Of The Market, US Tech Companies Are Allowing Russian Vetting Of Source Code
Ahem..
From the last paragraph...
Let me clarify that a tad
On the post: That Lawsuit About A Tweet... Is Both A Publicity Stunt And An Attack On Free Speech
BS Lawsuit Over BS Tweet
Having never heard of the unnamed plaintiff in this article, I looked her up briefly. In terms of media and freedom of speech issues, it seems odd to me that a strong Trump supporter is also a critic of police authority, particularly with regard to photographing the police. If I hadn't heard about her in this lawsuit context, I might have thought that she was cast in a vaguely similar mold as Radley Balko or Carlos Miller. Live and learn.
On the post: Court Says Password Protection Doesn't Restore An Abandoned Phone's Privacy Expectations
Re: Re: Re: analog analogy
Except that no one is claiming any obligation to preserve people's abandoned objects or any data on them. If your thing is melting down locked objects from junkyards, knock yourself out. Similarly, re-using or recycling various media isn't in relevant to the discussion here, since the government isn't searching the items as part of any recycling process.
The question is whether the government should treat any object that it can claim as "abandoned" as an opportunity for a fishing expedition. Keep two things in mind. First, the objects in question were locked and were understood (incorrectly in this case) to not have retrievable data on them. Second, this incentivizes government claims that something was abandoned whether or not they knew that it really was.
On the post: Court Says Password Protection Doesn't Restore An Abandoned Phone's Privacy Expectations
In other words, if one thinks the media is effectively destroyed, doesn't that mean one can reasonably expect that no one can access the data on it? This isn't a trivial issue and people's ignorance and misconceptions about technology play an important role here. The fact that Techdirt readers are more technically aware than average doesn't mean that the law shouldn't make some allowance for the average person's technical sophistication, or lack thereof.
Meanwhile, what data is recoverable from "abandoned" media changes with technology. Do you shred your paper documents? Is that enough? I am certain that software either exists or could be written that would take high resolution images of appropriately spread out shreddings and reassemble them into a document. So, when the cops troll through someone's trash without a warrant and use that software to recreate a document that is used against someone in court, are we going to be so quick to say that the lack of warrant was okay because the document was abandoned and there is no expectation of privacy for it?
Similarly, there is technology that can recover or partially recover erased data from magnetic media, even when it has been overwritten. If you toss out an old laptop, even after long formatting its drive, is it okay for the court to rule that you had no expectation of privacy and that the government didn't need a warrant to fish for evidence on your old device?
On the post: Court Says Password Protection Doesn't Restore An Abandoned Phone's Privacy Expectations
Re: analog analogy
On the post: FCC Boss Takes Aim At Efforts To Bring Broadband To The Poor
Re: Re: Another Perspective
Whether or not you agree with his point, taking that to imply that all taxpayer-funded government services should be funded charitably is a stretch. Not that I have any idea where slowgreenturtle stands on that, but that isn't what he said. There are certainly plenty of people who look at SS, Medicaid, and other federal systems funded by taxpayers and conclude that they are bad ideas in the long-term. There are certainly economists who don't think that the funding for those things can continue the way it has, since projected outlays outpace projected revenue by tens of trillions of dollars over the next few decades.
On the post: FCC Boss Takes Aim At Efforts To Bring Broadband To The Poor
Federal Government No Less Immune to Regulatory Capture than State Governments
Even if one agrees that this new federal appointee is an asshat who isn't doing his job (and perhaps thinks that his job shouldn't exist), what's going on here is not a big surprise. Regulatory capture isn't solely an affliction of state or local governments and it never has been. Regulatory capture is an affliction that affects whichever body is doing the regulating, at any level of government.
One can justifiably bemoan examples of telecom regulatory capture at the state level. But, let's not pretend that putting the feds in charge of more things will mitigate the issue. Despite the fact that Pai's actual intention may be to undermine this telecom welfare program by kicking regulation down to the states, there is actually a better chance for states to respond to voters than the feds. To be clear, many states have slipped sweetheart legislation through for the telecoms. But, with some public attention, the states can fix that and I suspect the fact that they haven't is largely due to the fact that the public remains largely unaware that their politicians have been bought off in this way. If it became a campaign issue, then the practice would stop and could potentially be reversed.
If this hasn't become a campaign issue in state elections, I would be betting it's because both incumbent and challenging candidates are happy to take donations from AT&T, Comcast, etc. and let them "contribute" to the legislative process while they are in office. If this issue gets enough sunlight, that is less likely to be the case. In other words, when a politician thinks, "I can run an ad accusing my opponent of taking money from Comcast and then sponsoring legislation written by Comcast that raised voters' Internet bills!" then there is a chance to roll back some of this nonsense.
But, rest assured that this is far less likely to become a campaign issue at the federal level. For one thing, no senator or representative is going to be held accountable for what Pai does. And, the same is true of the president. Among the vast majority of voters, no one knows who the FCC chairman is or what he does and no one is going to vote for or not vote for the president based on what his FCC chair did regarding some program that most people haven't heard of and don't care about.
Expecting politicians to be more responsive to voters at the federal level than at state or local levels is a mistake.
On the post: Tell California Assembly Not To Ignore The First Amendment As It Tries To Ban Fake News
Does the bill's author know...
For those who don't know assemblymember Chau is an attorney and ran a law firm for some time before his election to the legislature. So, draw any conclusions with that in mind.
On the post: Court Says FBI Doesn't Have To Hand Over Its Rules For Surveilling Domestic Journalists
The court seems to be saying it doesn't know enough to judge whether something the government is doing is legitimate. How does that translate into "the government wins"? If the court doesn't know enough to decide, then the government has not succeeded in making its case. If I am accused of some misbehavior and I tell the court, "Well, you don't know enough about my secret activities to judge them and I refuse to explain them to you because they are secret," what are my odds of winning that case?
On the post: Court Says FBI Doesn't Have To Hand Over Its Rules For Surveilling Domestic Journalists
The court seems to be saying, essentially, it's okay to gather phone records and otherwise surveil citizens without a warrant (NSLs) by claiming "national security". When asked to detail how it choses to use this surveillance authority, it says, "We can tell you because... national security." Just as bad, the court decides that it won't review whether or not the national security claim is legitimate. Allowing the government to avoid scrutiny by using "national security" as a win button at every level of challenge is judicial folly.
Whether or not the government is using surveillance properly in any given case, the fact that it knows it can hide what it is doing by chanting "national security" whenever its actions are questioned means that abuses will go undetected. The fact that the government knows its abuses will go undetected guarantees that they will happen. Its pretty much a textbook example of why we value transparency in government: It's not that the government is necessarily always abusing its authority, it's that if it knows it can abuse its authority and not be caught, then it definitely will abuse its authority.
On the post: New Accountability Add-On Triggers Cameras When Police Officers Unholster Their Guns
Re: Need more tasers
BTW, as with many things, a good way to determine how to think about a particular police procedure (tasing, choke holds, etc.) is to answer how the police would see it (i.e. what would the charges be) if a non-LEO used it on an officer.
On the post: New Accountability Add-On Triggers Cameras When Police Officers Unholster Their Guns
The more effective, technologically simpler, more robust, and ultimately cheaper solution is to simply have the camera always on. That way we (mostly) obviate police statements like, "Sure, the video seems to show the officer yelling at and then shooting an unarmed suspect. But, we should believe the officer when he claims that, seconds before the camera started rolling, the suspect was acting in a deadly and life-threatening manner."
And, fine, let there be a button that the cop can push that turns off the camera for five minutes for potty breaks. As long as the rule is clear that it's grounds for termination to use said button when responding to a call, talking to a witness/suspect, etc.
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case, But Justice Thomas Questions Constitutionality Of Asset Forfeiture
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case, But Justice Thomas Questions Constitutionality Of Asset Forfeiture
Re: I don't understand travelling with huge amounts of cash
No offense, but that is missing the point. It shouldn't matter that you wouldn't want to keep in your possession the asset that is being seized through this outrageous process. And, it is well worth noting that 1) assets are seized when the owners are en route to a bank or other "safe" location for the asset and 2) there is no safe location for the asset, since civil asset forfeiture is often used on items found at people's homes, apartments, etc. or the target's home itself.
On the post: Apple Wants To Stop You Fixing Your iPhone And iPad: Source Says It Will Testify Against 'Right To Repair' Legislation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may have a point here, but one has to wonder how far to go down that road. The goal of various patent protections (which I agree are government-granted monopolies) is to incentivize (via profit) for a limited time the development of novel goods. If the state starts attaching strings to that, where does it stop? As one example of many, if this rationale becomes the norm for new mandates, how long until the same reasoning is used to force Apple (and everyone else) to add backdoors to their encryption? Years? Months? Either way, it's a matter of when and not if it will happen.
In addition, it's easy to talk about using patents as the hook for other mandates when the target is a giant corporation like Apple. But, there are plenty of patent applicants who are little guys hoping a patent will let them to get a product to market before some giant who can manufacture it cheaper and market it better grabs the idea. Let's be 100% clear: If patents (and any IP) become to the hook to attach other mandates to something, then it is inevitable that regulatory capture will soon become prominent and the big boys and their lobbyists will ensure that the mandates favor them over potential competition. If your great idea for a new widget comes with all sorts of other mandates, many of which are intended to make it harder for you to compete with the International Widget Corporation, there is no doubt that many inventors will decide not to bother.
Like many similar ideas well-intended regulations to help consumers, the actual outcome is likely to be very different than the intent.
On the post: Apple Wants To Stop You Fixing Your iPhone And iPad: Source Says It Will Testify Against 'Right To Repair' Legislation
Re: Re:
This is a thread where most people are very much in favor of being able to buy parts to repair or pay someone else to repair (somewhat) expensive consumer devices. Given that, I'm not sure it's really "libertarian extreme" to think that there is a market for repairable gear repairs services and that those who try and sell such gear/services will find customers.
For big ticket items like cars, where being able to repair components can extend the usable life of the item for decades, it's worth it. I think auto manufacturers who tried to sell cars that no one could fix would find the many customers veering toward other cars.
However, making things repairable often raises the price of those things substantially. That's just a manufacturing reality, especially when a primary selling point of many of these devices is how light and compact they are. Ask any engineer about the trade-offs in manufacturing with permanent joining techniques (welds, epoxies, etc.) versus non-permanent ones (screws, clips, etc.). As I say, depending on the product, it can be worth it. But, that isn't true of every product.
In addition, if this extends to being forced to provide spare parts (and presumably a distribution chain for them), I would agree with Chris that this is going too far. If someone wants to go into the business of repairing iPhones, good on them. If they insist the government force Apple to make available everything to needed to be in the iPhone repair business, then they can take a hike.
On the post: Chris Christie Says Asset Forfeiture Transparency Is Bad For Law Enforcement, Vetoes Unanimously-Supported Bill
The veto non-overriders were never supporters
The legislators who truly support the bill needs to be saying right now is that anyone who doesn't vote to override the veto was never really interested in reform. The non-overriders were just looking for cover because this government activity is so obviously heinous to the public.
Don't let them have that cover. Don't let them imply that they were willing to do take a step in the right direction when all they were really willing to do was glance in the right direction and then walk away.
Make it clear that not voting to push the bill past the veto is the same as never having voted to pass it in the first place. The question is not, "Did you vote for the bill?" it's "Did you support the bill after the veto?"
This notion that they need to find a compromise is BS. Efforts to fix something utterly unjustifiable require no compromise with efforts to keep the unjustifiable in place.
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
The reaction will be telling...
We'll see how people react. Will they understand that it's the expansion of government power itself which is bad, because it will eventually be abused, regardless of who's in power when the expansion occurs? Or, will they just criticize the "other team" and/or argue that this is all the more reason that everyone should vote for their side?
On the post: Nine Years Later, Patriots Get '19-0' And 'Perfect Season' Trademarks, Despite Doing Neither
The Patriots (and other trademark trolls) are idiots about this, but...
The real problem is the trademark system and the USPTO. The very notion that someone can get any kind of legal protection for some obvious phrase because they happened to register for it first is idiocy and it encourages this sort of trolling. This is a case (and seems common in this regard) where those phrases could apply to dozens of organizations across scores of sports and non-sports. They should have to make an affirmative showing that the phrase in question should only reasonably apply to their brand/product/team before the USPTO even considers the application. For example, they should have to show that the phrase would only reasonably be associated with the Patriots and not the next (or previous) team that gets a 19-0 record or has an undefeated season. And, then, the claim should be evaluated critically. Basically, one real or likely valid counter-example should result in denial of the application. And, if it is granted, the clear precedent needs to be that the exclusivity is to be applied narrowly (only to within the narrow market of the trademark holder) and only to protect against a strong implication of commercial association with the trademark holder.
I think the Patriots and similar companies deserve to be thought of as slimy for engaging in these sorts of IP antics. But, the rules and the bureaucracies that administer them encourage the antics in creating a system where there is little to lose and much to gain with these nonsense trademarks. If we want this sort of thing to stop, then 1) stop granting the applications willy-nilly and 2) don't make them such an broad and easy-to-abuse legal hammer.
On the post: Trump Muzzles Federal Employees; Reporters Start Asking For Leaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hm
Since no one in this thread has stated that what happened in Flint is the reason to "abolish" the EPA, one needn't look further than your post for examples of inferences to which one might sarcastically refer as iron-clad logic.
Someone mentioned Flint as a counter to the suggestion that there are other mechanisms for dealing with certain problems than simply the government agencies whose names or ostensible missions is to deal with those problems. I don't think there is any logically fallacy in pointing out that Flint doesn't really illustrate the point. Especially since Flint is an example of municipal and state government agencies not doing the job they were supposed to. To think that federal agencies are immune from such failings is, IMO, folly.
Next >>