Re: Police, the only people to have the constitutional rights
This.
The only reason that the way cops are treated when accused of wrongdoing appears to be official corruption isn't specifically because they are being treated that way, it's because pretty much ONLY the political elite and cops get treated that way.
That's what innocent until proven guilty, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the right to a speedy trial look like in operation. That's how the legal system is supposed to treat everyone.
Son basically, because the judges of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are behind on their readings, we have them setting a precedent that would get overturned instantly if SCOTUS grants cert to an appeal of it, but...
We can only hope the 7th Circuit catches up in their reading, realizes that contrary to their own finding, SCOTUS has in fact ruled on the matter and reverse themselves.
When you or I use the words 'competition' and 'competitive' in the context of a company, we're talking about a diverse market where customers have many choices, and companies must compete with each other on price, service, quality and so forth to attract customers.
But the word 'competitive' has a very different meaning in the corporate world. To a CEO, their corporation is competitive when it runs at a profit and holds market share. It becomes more competitive when it increases that market share (and profits). A company with a 100% monopoly would be the most competitive company it is possible to be.
Trump thinks like a CEO, so when he hears us demanding increased competition in the marketplace, does he hear that we want more choice? Or does he wonder why we're angry at him for giving us what we want: fewer choices?
If 'allowing' links to infringement is primary infringement
Then you could utterly ruin almost anyone financially, including the judge in this case, by spray painting a URL on the front of his house where the public can see it.
That would make for some pretty horrific human rights abuses when it interacts with other US laws -- it's already hard enough to sue government officials when they violate rights, but if the plaintiff would be stuck with (very likely heavily inflated) court costs after the first qualified immunity dismissal, odds are they'd be unable to afford to file the appeal that would see the dismissal reversed.
I came here to make a similar comment. Namely that it could be a lot worse than just a license plate -- imagine him getting a letter from the government ordering him to change his name (probably at his expense) to something not vulgar or offensive.
It'd be even worse if his name were simply erased from government records pending him picking a new 'acceptable' name. I've heard of similar things happening with other names. For example, there was a school some years back that refused to register kids with the surname of Hell -- German for Light.
The politicians are also complicit in getting the protests organized, by that logic. After all, if there were no roads or trains, nobody would be able to get to the protest site.
"Three, that reducing the number of major wireless competitors from four to three will somehow create more competition (false, just ask Canadians or the Irish how that works out in practice). "
Isn't precisely a lie per se, just a different definition. Perhaps not even a willful one, I could see it becoming a psychological blind spot if you use the worth competitive often enough the right way -- people hear it and think it means something specific that the speaker didn't mean.
Here's my thought: To be competitive in a marketplace has a very specific meaning for a corporation. They have to be able to claim market share from other companies, and claim enough to be profitable. As they claim a bigger share, they become more competitive in that marketplace.
So by the logic that competitive == market share, a monopoly would be the most competitive of all, and the market would be full of competition because the only company in it would be extremely competitive!
So we keep talking about increasing competition, and they don't have a clue what we mean because we use a different definition of competitive than they do. We demand increased competition, they build a monopoly to satisfy us, then are confused when we complain they aren't competing at all.
Given the sheer amount of really awful people in the world, I have to wonder if the car was actually stolen in the first place, or if the person who rented the car out disapproved of the person who was paying and reported it stolen to 'get' them?
Even if we do believe the 'a few bad apples' narrative, you preserve the barrel by instantly throwing out any bad apples you find. Because the rest of the 'a few bad apples' saying is 'spoils the barrel'.
Just looking at the contortions police departments, prosecutors, police unions, arbitrators and judges go through to avoid throwing out any bad apples, you can only draw one conclusion about that apple barrel.
I wonder, would that AG support someone who tried to claim the law authorizing subpoenas doesn't apply to documents older than the subpoena issue date? Or would he throw the book at them?
The terrifying thing (about your comment) is that TechDirt isn't a radical site unless you consider obeying the laws of the United States to be a radical position.
You're mistaken about it being a civil violation. Being in the US illegally is a misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses. There is also a civil penalty, but that's on top of the criminal one.
But if you were a cop and you did as you describe, then arrested the shopper for shoplifting because they left the grocer with what they were buying without the grocer being paid? That would be entrapment. Which is what ICE did in the story.
On the post: Mozilla Says Australia's Compelled Access Law Could Turn Staff There Into 'Insider Threats'
Re:
Given the company is not allowed to be informed of the request, it would effectively be illegal to ever fire someone for breaching security.
On the post: California AG Says Journalist Broke The Law By Obtaining A List Of Convicted Officers Via A Public Records Request
Re: Police, the only people to have the constitutional rights
This.
The only reason that the way cops are treated when accused of wrongdoing appears to be official corruption isn't specifically because they are being treated that way, it's because pretty much ONLY the political elite and cops get treated that way.
That's what innocent until proven guilty, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and the right to a speedy trial look like in operation. That's how the legal system is supposed to treat everyone.
On the post: Seventh Circuit Ignores Two Supreme Court Decisions To Hand Out Bad Precedent On Cell Site Location Info
Re: Actual Power [was Re: ]
Son basically, because the judges of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are behind on their readings, we have them setting a precedent that would get overturned instantly if SCOTUS grants cert to an appeal of it, but...
We can only hope the 7th Circuit catches up in their reading, realizes that contrary to their own finding, SCOTUS has in fact ruled on the matter and reverse themselves.
On the post: Florida Dept. Of Corrections Sued For Screwing Inmates Out Of $11.3 Million In Digital Purchases
Re: Re: Re: Re: Perfect
You think Microsoft is going to encourage people to switch to Linux when they could keep a customer instead?
On the post: Trump Administration's 'National Broadband Plan' Comically Refuses To Acknowledge A Lack Of Competition
I think it's a matter of differing definitions
When you or I use the words 'competition' and 'competitive' in the context of a company, we're talking about a diverse market where customers have many choices, and companies must compete with each other on price, service, quality and so forth to attract customers.
But the word 'competitive' has a very different meaning in the corporate world. To a CEO, their corporation is competitive when it runs at a profit and holds market share. It becomes more competitive when it increases that market share (and profits). A company with a 100% monopoly would be the most competitive company it is possible to be.
Trump thinks like a CEO, so when he hears us demanding increased competition in the marketplace, does he hear that we want more choice? Or does he wonder why we're angry at him for giving us what we want: fewer choices?
On the post: Who Needs Article 13: Italian Court Finds Facebook Liable For Hosting Links
If 'allowing' links to infringement is primary infringement
Then you could utterly ruin almost anyone financially, including the judge in this case, by spray painting a URL on the front of his house where the public can see it.
After all, he'd be 'hosting' the link!
On the post: Latest Garbage Twitter/Terrorism Lawsuit Is The Stupidest Twitter/Terrorism Lawsuit
Re: Stupid Lawsuits...
That would make for some pretty horrific human rights abuses when it interacts with other US laws -- it's already hard enough to sue government officials when they violate rights, but if the plaintiff would be stuck with (very likely heavily inflated) court costs after the first qualified immunity dismissal, odds are they'd be unable to afford to file the appeal that would see the dismissal reversed.
On the post: David Assman Invalidates Canadian Government's Reason For Refusing Him His Name-Based Vanity License Plate
Re:
I came here to make a similar comment. Namely that it could be a lot worse than just a license plate -- imagine him getting a letter from the government ordering him to change his name (probably at his expense) to something not vulgar or offensive.
It'd be even worse if his name were simply erased from government records pending him picking a new 'acceptable' name. I've heard of similar things happening with other names. For example, there was a school some years back that refused to register kids with the surname of Hell -- German for Light.
On the post: Winnipeg Man Has Vanity Plate Referencing Star Trek Recalled Over Complaints Of How Racist It Is
Re: Re: Re: Of course it's racist!
So open that their ships don't have hulls.
On the post: California DMV Rejects 1NFOS3C Vanity Plate Because Of 'Sexual Connotation'
Safe browsing
Well, safe browsing does have a lot in common with safe sex, to the extent one makes a handy metaphor for the other.
On the post: As EU Politicians Insist That It's All Just 'Bots' And 'Astroturf' Tons Of People Showing Up In Real Life To Protest
Re: Re:
The politicians are also complicit in getting the protests organized, by that logic. After all, if there were no roads or trains, nobody would be able to get to the protest site.
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Execs Continue To Hallucinate Competitors In Their Post-Merger Dreamscape
Definition of Competitive?
I think what we're seeing here:
"Three, that reducing the number of major wireless competitors from four to three will somehow create more competition (false, just ask Canadians or the Irish how that works out in practice). "
Isn't precisely a lie per se, just a different definition. Perhaps not even a willful one, I could see it becoming a psychological blind spot if you use the worth competitive often enough the right way -- people hear it and think it means something specific that the speaker didn't mean.
Here's my thought: To be competitive in a marketplace has a very specific meaning for a corporation. They have to be able to claim market share from other companies, and claim enough to be profitable. As they claim a bigger share, they become more competitive in that marketplace.
So by the logic that competitive == market share, a monopoly would be the most competitive of all, and the market would be full of competition because the only company in it would be extremely competitive!
So we keep talking about increasing competition, and they don't have a clue what we mean because we use a different definition of competitive than they do. We demand increased competition, they build a monopoly to satisfy us, then are confused when we complain they aren't competing at all.
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Re:
There were free black people even back then. But what he would not have been is a citizen -- which would preclude him being a judge.
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re: Re:
Given the sheer amount of really awful people in the world, I have to wonder if the car was actually stolen in the first place, or if the person who rented the car out disapproved of the person who was paying and reported it stolen to 'get' them?
On the post: California Sheriff's Dept. Tells Journalists It Will Cost $350,000 To Process 48 Use Of Force Cases [Updated]
Re:
Even if we do believe the 'a few bad apples' narrative, you preserve the barrel by instantly throwing out any bad apples you find. Because the rest of the 'a few bad apples' saying is 'spoils the barrel'.
Just looking at the contortions police departments, prosecutors, police unions, arbitrators and judges go through to avoid throwing out any bad apples, you can only draw one conclusion about that apple barrel.
On the post: California Sheriff's Dept. Tells Journalists It Will Cost $350,000 To Process 48 Use Of Force Cases [Updated]
Subpoenas
I wonder, would that AG support someone who tried to claim the law authorizing subpoenas doesn't apply to documents older than the subpoena issue date? Or would he throw the book at them?
On the post: Sony Using Copyright To Take Down Its Own Anti-Piracy Propaganda
Re:
Were it me, I'd immediately check my system for a rootkit after trying to view the video and failing to.
On the post: ICE Set Up A Fake College To Bust Immigrants For Trying To Legally Stay In The Country While They Earned Degrees
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's not entrapment.
The terrifying thing (about your comment) is that TechDirt isn't a radical site unless you consider obeying the laws of the United States to be a radical position.
On the post: ICE Set Up A Fake College To Bust Immigrants For Trying To Legally Stay In The Country While They Earned Degrees
Re: Re: That's not entrapment.
You're mistaken about it being a civil violation. Being in the US illegally is a misdemeanor for a first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses. There is also a civil penalty, but that's on top of the criminal one.
On the post: ICE Set Up A Fake College To Bust Immigrants For Trying To Legally Stay In The Country While They Earned Degrees
Re: That's not entrapment.
It's fraud and embezzlement on your part, yes.
But if you were a cop and you did as you describe, then arrested the shopper for shoplifting because they left the grocer with what they were buying without the grocer being paid? That would be entrapment. Which is what ICE did in the story.
Next >>