Those homes have approximately the same square footage as Andersen. However, they are located in a less desirable (more condensed homes, busy streets, by Willow Creek Church, by a cemetery and less desirable golf course)
>in a state where private citizens making a citizen's arrest can legally use any degree of force to enforce the arrest that a police officer could to enforce an arrest.
Had Paul Stephens or his cousin attempted to make a citizen's arrest, that deputy would have murdered them.
(Which is not to say that the combination of abysmal customer service and poor communication skills is unique to startups, but with most companies -- outside the cable/mobile phone/ISP realm -- it's not yet standard.)
Internet of Shit meets Startup Culture (Who needs customer service people, or a communications team? They'd just get in the way.), with sadly predictable results.
Just contact my rep's office. (She's generally very good, and I'm guessing she'll be on the right side of this, but it can't hurt to give positive reinforcement, especially since she's on the House Judiciary Committee.)
No one's going out of their way to cut the deaf or blind out of the international conversation, but demanding all US sites be compliant with the DOJ's requirements is like demanding all books be made available in Braille and audio format. It's something only a few publishers can afford to do.
You (the general you) don't have to go out of your way to cut deaf or blind people out of the conversation. You just have to keep on doing what you always have, and the conversation will forever be exclusionary.
It's worth noting that just about every gain in access for people with disabilities in education, public businesses, accommodation, etc (including those we all now take for granted) came about not because the free market saw a need and met it, but because lawsuits or other concerted (and usually adversarial) action made it happen.
Applying accessibility requirements to all sites may be overkill, but a state university -- a public institution -- should be held to the highest standard. I'd argue that this is an endeavor that merits additional (and specifically designated) federal funding. Make it a "space race", but to incentivize development of non-proprietary technology to make video -- and the Web in general -- more accessible.
So when the courts wouldn't allow terrorists from coming in, that was good as they are always right, but when courts want to search an iPhone, that is bad and they are always wrong?
That's the thing, though. It wasn't a court that authorized the search. Had border agents actually gotten the courts involved by seeking a warrant as required by the 4th Amendment, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Thanks to the vagueness of the threat claim, we now have a very public massively-crowdsourced effort to figure out how laptops and Kindles could be dangerous in a cabin but not in a hold, while phones would be fine either way.
Along the way someone will figure it out, then find a way to make phones equally as dangerous, at which point say goodbye to all electronics in-flight.
We'd be forced to go back to paper and pencil. But pencils are very pointy, so we'd probably have to stick to crayons. But crayons could contain all sorts of scary ingredients, so we could only bring on-board TSA-approved crayons purchased post-security. Or possibly only in-flight, just to be safe.
Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. These don't sound like unintended consequences after all.
I have no family and I'm independently wealthy. I'll make it my mission in life to fuck with the authorities. If they grab me at the border, watch for me.
If you're independently wealthy and would like to help other people who aren't, you could file suit (but while at the border/around CBP, act in a way that makes your suit more likely to succeed).
Or you could just fuck with the authorities. But that doesn't help anyone else who isn't wealthy, who might be subject to violence based on their background, who has family, or who is otherwise vulnerable.
I'll be traveling internationally next month. I don't plan to wipe my phone or use a disposable phone. (My phone doesn't have anything especially sensitive on it. And I'll be logging out of all apps etc.)
I also have no plans to surrender my password to CBP. (Easy for me to say now, I know. I hope I'd manage to commit to that when confronted with the possibility of my phone being seized and me being detained for a day or two.)
But then I have the privilege of knowing that I'm unlikely to be targeted by CBP in the first place, not because of any special virtue I have, but simply because of my name and my appearance. Others aren't so fortunate.
We can hope that maybe someone who is not in a vulnerable position (wrt citizenship, employment, family, finances, or anything else) is able/willing to challenge this in court.
But we know (1) the people most likely to be targeted for abuse are the people worst equipped to fight back and (2) there's no guarantee a court challenge would prevail.
On the post: Zillow Sued By Homeowner Because Its Estimate Is Lower Than The Seller Wants To Sell The House For
Horror of horrors
Gods, no! Anything but that!
On the post: Deputy Loses Immunity For Battering Arrestee, Tightly Handcuffing Him For Three Hours As 'Punishment'
Re: Re:
Had Paul Stephens or his cousin attempted to make a citizen's arrest, that deputy would have murdered them.
On the post: Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account
Re: All bad is good as long as it's our people doing it.
Did you even bother to look at the twitter account, which explicitly states "Not the views of DHS or USCIS"?
You don't get to use the power of the courts to do it.
On the post: Twitter Sues Homeland Security Over Attempt To Unmask 'Alt' Immigration Twitter Account
On the post: Garage Door Opener Company Bricks Customer Hardware After Negative Review
Re:
On the post: Garage Door Opener Company Bricks Customer Hardware After Negative Review
On the post: Privacy And National Security Concerns Play Second Fiddle To Administration's Attempts To Control The Narrative
Re: Re:
There's no reason the Trump Administration can't be both incompetent and evil. In fact all evidence points to that.
On the post: Congress Leaks Draft Bill To Move Copyright Office Out Of The Library Of Congress
Re: Re: Despairing point of view
On the post: University Puts 20,000 Lectures Behind A Registration Wall In Response To DOJ Pressure On Website Accessibility Compliance
You (the general you) don't have to go out of your way to cut deaf or blind people out of the conversation. You just have to keep on doing what you always have, and the conversation will forever be exclusionary.
It's worth noting that just about every gain in access for people with disabilities in education, public businesses, accommodation, etc (including those we all now take for granted) came about not because the free market saw a need and met it, but because lawsuits or other concerted (and usually adversarial) action made it happen.
Applying accessibility requirements to all sites may be overkill, but a state university -- a public institution -- should be held to the highest standard. I'd argue that this is an endeavor that merits additional (and specifically designated) federal funding. Make it a "space race", but to incentivize development of non-proprietary technology to make video -- and the Web in general -- more accessible.
On the post: Should You Have Any 4th Amendment Rights In An Airport?
Re:
That's the thing, though. It wasn't a court that authorized the search. Had border agents actually gotten the courts involved by seeking a warrant as required by the 4th Amendment, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
On the post: Homeland Security Starts Banning Laptops & Tablets On Planes From The Middle East
Re: Unintended consequences
On the post: Homeland Security Starts Banning Laptops & Tablets On Planes From The Middle East
Unintended consequences
(assuming the threat is real)
Thanks to the vagueness of the threat claim, we now have a very public massively-crowdsourced effort to figure out how laptops and Kindles could be dangerous in a cabin but not in a hold, while phones would be fine either way.
Along the way someone will figure it out, then find a way to make phones equally as dangerous, at which point say goodbye to all electronics in-flight.
We'd be forced to go back to paper and pencil. But pencils are very pointy, so we'd probably have to stick to crayons. But crayons could contain all sorts of scary ingredients, so we could only bring on-board TSA-approved crayons purchased post-security. Or possibly only in-flight, just to be safe.
Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. These don't sound like unintended consequences after all.
On the post: Homeland Security Starts Banning Laptops & Tablets On Planes From The Middle East
Another possible explanation is that this is about economic protectionism rather than actual protection against terrorism. ...
Or maybe this is just one more cynical ploy to hurt travelers from Muslim-majority countries.
On the post: Things Looking Even Worse For Prenda's Paul Hansmeier: Bankruptcy Fraud On Deck
Re:
In fairness to Hansmeier, $180,000 in cash hidden under his bed is not a problem.
$180,000 in cash found under his bed is.
On the post: Things Looking Even Worse For Prenda's Paul Hansmeier: Bankruptcy Fraud On Deck
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Learning to Love Copyright
Long live sarcasm.
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re: Re: Green card
1. AAA
2. ACLU
...
:-)
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re: Green card
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re:
If you're independently wealthy and would like to help other people who aren't, you could file suit (but while at the border/around CBP, act in a way that makes your suit more likely to succeed).
Or you could just fuck with the authorities. But that doesn't help anyone else who isn't wealthy, who might be subject to violence based on their background, who has family, or who is otherwise vulnerable.
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re: Re: Wiping phone
I also have no plans to surrender my password to CBP. (Easy for me to say now, I know. I hope I'd manage to commit to that when confronted with the possibility of my phone being seized and me being detained for a day or two.)
But then I have the privilege of knowing that I'm unlikely to be targeted by CBP in the first place, not because of any special virtue I have, but simply because of my name and my appearance. Others aren't so fortunate.
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re: Wiping phone
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic-devices-its-compli cated
We can hope that maybe someone who is not in a vulnerable position (wrt citizenship, employment, family, finances, or anything else) is able/willing to challenge this in court.
But we know (1) the people most likely to be targeted for abuse are the people worst equipped to fight back and (2) there's no guarantee a court challenge would prevail.
This is all such bullshit.
Next >>