Perez doesn't just need remedial police procedure training so he'd know what reasonable suspicion and probable cause mean, he also needs remedial elementary school math -- after all, he believes that stopping 30 people over 8 years, catching 3 people with contraband (10%) means that it's more than 50% likely that everyone driving on that road over those years was carrying contraband.
After all, to search a vehicle or make an arrest requires probable cause, which is 'more likely than not' -- aka more than 50%.
Or possibly the DA is hoping the defendant runs out of money and either gets punished through bankruptcy, or has to give up on the appeal and plead guilty.
This. Another example is that if you tried to structure a pension plan the way the US government currently operates social security, you'd get the cell next to Bernie Madoff for running a Ponzi scheme.
I wonder what will happen if someone, somewhere, gets their device hacked this way at a government facility, or who occupies an important official post. Perhaps in France, or a French ambassador to Japan.
Will France hack the Japanese government right back?
Given how frequently they rule in ways that contradict Supreme Court rulings, it's almost as if federal district court judges are unaware that they are subordinate to SCOTUS.
But that'd be silly, since they'd have to know that to be competent to pass the bar, right?
You're mistaken about what retroactive means in this context, Mason.
The Constitution prohibits laws that punish people for things they have done in the past, yes. But this is not that sort of law.
The retroactivity of this law means that it applies to all records ever created that are the types of records the law covers. Police have records created before 1/1/2019, so those records are now public records. But denying people access to those records during the time they weren't public isn't going to get anyone fired or prosecuted, because that would be unconstitutional.
However, after 1/1/2019, denying access those records to someone with a right to access them has become illegal, and punishing someone for breaking the law after it went into effect is not an unconstitutional retroactive law.
For example, suppose the anti-gun movement succeeds, amends the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment and passes a law banning possession of guns for people who aren't government officials. It would be unconstitutional to throw people in prison for owning guns while it was legal to own guns, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional to throw people in prison because they owned guns after the law went into effect. Like the California records law, the gun ban in this example would apply to guns manufactured and bought before the ban went into effect -- that's the sort of retroactive we're talking about here.
Re: Re: Just another nail in the coffin of California based comp
This. But it's unlikely to be enforceable for long, since other states can and will sue in federal court if California tries to enforce it across state borders.
And crossing federal borders is unconstitutional for a state, since that authority is reserved to the federal government.
Re: Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
Actually, given the way the EU parliament has greater power than the US Congress, and the US was able to enact the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, the EU might actually be able to force Google to buy licenses.
Of course, even a huge multi-national corporation like Google will quickly go broke in a country that requires them to buy every single copyright license in the world, so that would likely be an excellent way to cause <i>all</i> search engines to pull out of the EU.
No doubt the EU government will then complain about EU citizens not being able to use any search engines.
I mean, it's a federal law. How does a state court have any jurisdiction to decide if federal law -- supremacy clause and all -- actually applies to people in that state?
I've always wondered how, given that our government is a representative republic and our officials represent us rather than own us, the government can be sovereign over its own bosses.
That would be like claiming that your boss can't discipline you if you screw up as an employee because you own a couple shares of company stock. And yet, courts just eat this crap up.
If the news links are hosted in the US, and Google has no presence on European servers, it would be impossible to make Google pay anything, because the US has a law that automatically throws out foreign court judgments that would violate the US constitution.
Reporting or commenting on news is a first amendment right.
Since when is it malicious compliance to obey the law? That's the very definition of being law-abiding.
Since when is it malicious compliance to decide not to lose millions or billions of Euros every year to provide a free service that only benefits the people attempting to pass legislation to bleed you dry? Google is a business, businesses are supposed to be making money. If they can't do that in a given market, they'll find a different market -- that's just good sense.
Unlikely to work. Somehow, the officials who are the representatives of the people rather than being the leaders or masters of those people have sovereign immunity when called to account by those people.
On the 'bright' side, if you ever discover content you created being used without being licensed by a company and they laugh off your attempts to get them to pay up, you can nuke their entire internet presence by DMCAing their registrar.
Problem one: they didn't post a video of a school shooting.
Problem two: MSNBC, CNN and Fox have all posted videos of shootings, yet no one (except you) is insisting their offices should be raided by armed police and that all the people inside be murdered by the police.
Problem three: Quite a few movie production studios have posted videos of shootings -- I'd imagine you've gone to see at least one at a movie theater at some point in your life. Are you seriously claiming that those studios should be shot up by police?!?
It's worth noting that if merely providing internet connectivity is inducing infringement, then almost every town and city in the country is guilty of inducement as well.
After all, if the internet service installer couldn't drive to the primary infringer's house, and the local utility district didn't authorize electrical service...
My guess on what happened was that whoever was in charge of testing used their own Tumblr corporate account. So the system gave them a pass because the guy who can approve or reject content posted the content in question.
You see this sort of thing all the time in things like Google Docs or other cloud services -- the permissions and security on something are so transparent to the usual users that they forget it's there. But when they try to share a link, the person they shared with doesn't have permission. And instead of thinking 'oh, I need to give him permission' when the problem arises, the person instead thinks 'he must be doing something wrong, it works fine for ME!'
On the post: Appeals Court Says A Person Driving A Registered Vehicle On A Public Road Is Not 'Reasonably Suspicious'
Remedial Training Classes
Perez doesn't just need remedial police procedure training so he'd know what reasonable suspicion and probable cause mean, he also needs remedial elementary school math -- after all, he believes that stopping 30 people over 8 years, catching 3 people with contraband (10%) means that it's more than 50% likely that everyone driving on that road over those years was carrying contraband.
After all, to search a vehicle or make an arrest requires probable cause, which is 'more likely than not' -- aka more than 50%.
On the post: Appeals Court Says A Person Driving A Registered Vehicle On A Public Road Is Not 'Reasonably Suspicious'
Re: Re: They appealed this?
Or possibly the DA is hoping the defendant runs out of money and either gets punished through bankruptcy, or has to give up on the appeal and plead guilty.
On the post: New Japanese Law Lets Government Hack IOT Devices, Warn Owners They're Vulnerable
Re:
This. Another example is that if you tried to structure a pension plan the way the US government currently operates social security, you'd get the cell next to Bernie Madoff for running a Ponzi scheme.
On the post: New Japanese Law Lets Government Hack IOT Devices, Warn Owners They're Vulnerable
Hacking IoT vs Hackbacks?
I wonder what will happen if someone, somewhere, gets their device hacked this way at a government facility, or who occupies an important official post. Perhaps in France, or a French ambassador to Japan.
Will France hack the Japanese government right back?
On the post: Federal Judge Says Boycotts Aren't Protected Speech
Re:
Given how frequently they rule in ways that contradict Supreme Court rulings, it's almost as if federal district court judges are unaware that they are subordinate to SCOTUS.
But that'd be silly, since they'd have to know that to be competent to pass the bar, right?
On the post: Some Small But Important Techdirt Updates
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defaults
It's actually pretty easy. Every wiki does that.
On the post: California Cops Continue To Pretend New Public Records Law Allows Them To Erase Years Of Past Misconduct From The Record
Re:
The Constitution prohibits laws that punish people for things they have done in the past, yes. But this is not that sort of law.
The retroactivity of this law means that it applies to all records ever created that are the types of records the law covers. Police have records created before 1/1/2019, so those records are now public records. But denying people access to those records during the time they weren't public isn't going to get anyone fired or prosecuted, because that would be unconstitutional.
However, after 1/1/2019, denying access those records to someone with a right to access them has become illegal, and punishing someone for breaking the law after it went into effect is not an unconstitutional retroactive law.
For example, suppose the anti-gun movement succeeds, amends the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment and passes a law banning possession of guns for people who aren't government officials. It would be unconstitutional to throw people in prison for owning guns while it was legal to own guns, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional to throw people in prison because they owned guns after the law went into effect. Like the California records law, the gun ban in this example would apply to guns manufactured and bought before the ban went into effect -- that's the sort of retroactive we're talking about here.
On the post: Dozens Of Privacy Experts Tell The California Legislature That Its New Privacy Law Is Badly Undercooked
Re: Re: Just another nail in the coffin of California based comp
And crossing federal borders is unconstitutional for a state, since that authority is reserved to the federal government.
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re: Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
At least twice the cost of the license seems like a good starting point to me.
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re: Google would rather lose-lose if not TOTAL control.
Of course, even a huge multi-national corporation like Google will quickly go broke in a country that requires them to buy every single copyright license in the world, so that would likely be an excellent way to cause <i>all</i> search engines to pull out of the EU.
No doubt the EU government will then complain about EU citizens not being able to use any search engines.
On the post: In Which We Warn The Wisconsin Supreme Court Not To Destroy Section 230
Why does a state court have a say at all?
On the post: Judge Recommends Vacating The Sentence Of One Of The FBI's Handcrafted Terrorists
Re: Re:
That would be like claiming that your boss can't discipline you if you screw up as an employee because you own a couple shares of company stock. And yet, courts just eat this crap up.
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Wrong
Reporting or commenting on news is a first amendment right.
On the post: Google Shows What Google News Looks Like If Article 11 Passes In The EU Copyright Directive
Re:
Since when is it malicious compliance to decide not to lose millions or billions of Euros every year to provide a free service that only benefits the people attempting to pass legislation to bleed you dry? Google is a business, businesses are supposed to be making money. If they can't do that in a given market, they'll find a different market -- that's just good sense.
On the post: County Agrees To Pay $390,000 To Students Arrested By A Sheriff 'Just To Prove A Point'
Re: Is it possible to countersue?
Somehow.
On the post: It Is Both Ridiculous And Dangerous To Make Domain Registrars Liable For Content On Domains
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Students Make A Video Depicting A School Shooting; Sheriff Decides Everyone Needs To Have Their Rights Violated
Re:
Problem two: MSNBC, CNN and Fox have all posted videos of shootings, yet no one (except you) is insisting their offices should be raided by armed police and that all the people inside be murdered by the police.
Problem three: Quite a few movie production studios have posted videos of shootings -- I'd imagine you've gone to see at least one at a movie theater at some point in your life. Are you seriously claiming that those studios should be shot up by police?!?
Your argument fails on every possible level.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Apple Can't Be Held Liable For A Car Crash Caused By Someone Reading Text Messages
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Magistrate Judge Says Grande Shouldn't Be Able To Use The DMCA Safe Harbors Because It Didn't Really Terminate Infringers
Inducing Infringement
After all, if the internet service installer couldn't drive to the primary infringer's house, and the local utility district didn't authorize electrical service...
On the post: Filters Suck Out Loud: Tumblr's Porn Filters Flag Tumblr's Examples Of Allowed Content
Re:
You see this sort of thing all the time in things like Google Docs or other cloud services -- the permissions and security on something are so transparent to the usual users that they forget it's there. But when they try to share a link, the person they shared with doesn't have permission. And instead of thinking 'oh, I need to give him permission' when the problem arises, the person instead thinks 'he must be doing something wrong, it works fine for ME!'
Next >>