Re: ANY search warrant "might result in evidence the government can use against the suspect".
The two answers you will generally get is "it contains more than a desk drawer" and "encryption means you don't even know there is a drawer" (or something like that).
However, the problem with both of those arguments is that they do not look at what the pincode generally is: equivalent to a door lock, and not much else. The courts have always held that a warrant can compel someone to produce the key or the police have the option of breaking down the door or cutting open the safe to get to the contents.
Re: Re: Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."
I don't justify their mistakes. I accept that they are human and mistakes happen. When you consider all of the hoops (flaming and otherwise) that they must jump through, and how a simple thing like forgetting to seal one evidence bag or making a mistake on a case number of a form can set someone free, it's an incredibly frustrating situation.
Police deal every day with people the rest of us would rather never see. Like a fireman who runs into a burning building, cops often have to go into a situation where people are dead, dying, trying to kill each other, and angry / confused /drugged / armed to do the same to anyone else including the police. They have to deal with liars, crooks, criminals, drug addicts, wife beaters, child abusers, and a whole long cast of people who would try the patience of the most relaxed person on the planet. Most poeple here wouldn't last a single shift dealing with the stuff they have to deal with.
So yes, they make mistakes.
So yes, they lose their cool.
So yes, sometimes they use excessive force, and yes, sometimes people die as a result.
It sucks.
The cops aren't going to do anything because you aren't rewarding any behavior except standing back and letting the criminals run free. it's much easier for them not to make the traffic stop, it's easier not to stop the drugs that might kill a friend or a family member. It's tons easier not to rush into a situation with an armed suspect and deal with it. It would be way easier just not to show up.
When they do their jobs, people cuss them out. When they don't do their jobs, people cuss them out. When they make a minor mistake, people cuss them out and perps walk. When they make a major mistake and someone dies, every back seat driver is there to review the video 100 times over saying "I would never have done that!", without understanding the context that it happens in, what all the cop had to deal with right before, or what happened to them last time in a similar situation.
I don't excuse them - I accept them as human. I wouldn't want their job, it sucks, there is little upside and plenty of people chewing the out and calling them knuckle draggers.
Paul, perhaps you just need to shut up. Seriously, you didn't read my post, you just jumped to a conclusion you like.
I said that if it's acceptable to show up to a protest in full protective gear, gas masks, carrying hockey sticks and baseball bats, what would be wrong with them showing up with machine guns?
At what point does showing up looking for a fight cross the line from protest and move along to rioting?
You would have a point if everyone was protesting peacefully, not in the middle of traffic, were not breaking windows and setting fire to businesses, not popping off rounds (Ferguson had plenty of all of this). If the police stand back and do nothing, the whole place will literally be burned to the ground, destroyed, and you and your ilk we go on about how the police are lazy fuckers who won't do anything.
They can't win.
How about you try cause and effect? If people don't show up for a protest looking like players out of Rollerball, don't show up armed and ready to resist like hell, don't try to break down barricades, burn down buildings, or hurt each other... do you think that the police will just show up and start shooting them?
There are exceptional cases where things happen on both sides. I know you will gladly point at them. Then again, I can point at any of the G7/G8 meetings of the last 20 years, and the insane tactics used by AntiFa style groups who try to infiltrate security zones, and when they don't succeed, turn around and start destroying anything in their way.
Perhaps if both sides (not just one) stepped down a bit, things would get better. But showing up looking like they want to fight and cause trouble, protesters will be met with equal if not stronger force to stop it from happening. You would bitch endlessly if the police didn't do it, especially if it was your home or your business destroyed while police sat by and watching protesters exercising their first amendment with a lighter and gas.
First off, remember that streaming video is currently the most popular use for the internet. 70% of peak US prime time traffic is streaming video. Consumers have spoken, this is how they want to use the internet.
Second, nobody is saying that video streaming services will have to negotiate with anyone to be able to deliver their product. What I said is that Verizon may deal with a Comcast or similar so that they can offer their products on each others systems with dedicated peer to assure timely delivery. NN would have forbidden that.
"Do you really want to turn the Internet into cable TV V2, and hand control over to those monopolistic corporations?"
Nope, and I am not even suggesting it. Rather I am pointing out that for consumers (who want streaming video so much) certain restrictions of NN actually are hurting rather than helping. More choice for consumers is always a good thing.
Re: "back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks"
You don't think the defendants don't do the same? The old "Dindu Nuffin" meme comes from the basic concept of someone caught red handed, and having the balls to suggest that they haven't done anything, and that the police did them wrong.
So many of the cases you see aren't about a truly innocent person caught up in the system, rather someone trying hard with a determined defense lawyer to try to find something, anything, to suggest the police failed to cross all the Ts and dot the Is.
Do you honestly think that defendants testify honestly and accurately, or do they only say exactly what their lawyer coached them to say?
The justice system is interested in justice. The participants however have their own agenda.
Let's say Comcast and AT&T want to play in each others neighborhoods. They both know they are suffering from cable cutters, so they each agree to offer IP TV style service in each others coverage areas. They work out the peering and such so that they have no problem with the "local loop" issue, because they are both supporting each other's products.
Now, was this bad for the consumer? You suddenly have twice as many options for viewing. Is this bad?
Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."
Body cameras and in car cameras have good points - and they have bad points. Officers are only too aware of what those bad points are.
Video creates a situation where back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks can bitch and complain about anything and everything that happens during a stop, and arrest, or a significant event. Very few people would be comfortable to have not only their own boss but the entire public watching over their shoulder and second guessing everything they did, and cops really are caught in a bad situation.
Literally, they cannot win.
The legal system is (some would say rightly) heavily tilted towards the defendant. If the police, officers, lawyer, court official, clerk, or any of the other people and agencies between arrest and conviction at any time fail to cross a t, dot an I, or do not say and do the exact perfect words, the defendant walks. The pressure put on officers not to make even the tiniest mistake while they are dealing with someone is so high, that in many cases it appears to be leading to them doing nothing.
"Without continuous monitoring, police are too easily tempted to commit violence or malfeasance or perjury. Even then, the cameras they have are not enough."
We are reaching the point where fewer and fewer people want to be police officers. They risk their lives, they risk their families, and they risk having to deal with endless video reviews. They deal with hardened criminals who get to walk if the officer so much as stubs their toes.
At some point, something will have to give. My guess is that within a very short time, police officers will no longer actually do anything at a crime scene, they will make a video, file a report that says "see video" and they will stop there. They won't want to deal with criminals, they won't want to try to prevent crime, and they won't want to deal with the problems of society, because they will get dragged up on the carpet for everything they do.
Can you imagine having a camera on every second of your life? Take the last of the coffee at work and don't refill it? You get dragged in front of all of your coworkers and disciplined, 1 week without pay.
Cross the street on a red light? Ticket in the mail.
Tell a little white lie to get out of a date or dinner with friends? We'll send it to them and they can hate you for the rest of your life.
I can't imagine anyone here having the attachments to be a police officer or face what they have to face.
Think about it. Were all the arrests before cameras tainted because of a "lack of evidence"? Nope.
A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement. What would you say if in the same case the camera was broken or failed to record for technical reasons? Would the case be more or less tainted? What happened if the camera's view was obstructed, or the angle to the car not correct? Do we suddenly let a guilty guy drive away?
"the cops are, apparently, allowed to do whatever the hell they want."
They aren't. it isn't "turn off the camera and start beating them in the head". They didn't hold them at gun point and make them confess. They did what they had to do, they had probably cause and used the drug dog as an additional reason to more completely search the car.
Wanting to protect their sources isn't a bad thing. There is no reason for the police to help the criminals.
By your logic, you would have no problem with them showing up with machine guns, right? After all the EXPECT A FIGHT, RIGHT?
Reality is bad things happen. But none of it justifies showing up in full gear and running around attacking businesses and people for fun. Recording it doesn't suddenly turn it into news instead of just a series or criminal acts.
Do you think the gas stations and businesses of Ferguson just spontaneously com busted?
You want to be able to say the consumer has choice? Offer them choice. Just have everyone already in the telecom world offer a selection of similar products at similar prices, peer well with each other to assure good service levels, and stop worrying. Suddenly, the consumer has a dozen "cable" providers to go along with the dozens of IP phone offerings and so on, and suddenly you all look like the good guys.
You don't have to throttle anyone else, because everyone else is giving you access to their customers as well.
Outsiders try to play? Just make sure your peering doesn't favor them and call it a day. Crappy delivery will kill them.
I was trying to figure out where there is the "right to force the police to video my stop" in the constitution. I don't see any.
Stopping the camera / disabling it is a bitch move and should be handled accordingly. But having the camera turned off in and of itself isn't a violation of rights. If that was the case, then every stop made before in car cameras were common would be a rights violation.
It's pretty hard to take serious someone who is (a) on parole already, and (b) driving with drugs in the car, and (c) in a rental car with nobody listed as the driver.
10 minutes to run a few IDs through two databases isn't excessively long, the officer could very well within reason tried to contact the rental agency as well to confirm that the car was not stolen (but yet unreported) and that one or more of the people in it were in fact allowed to drive. That could have taken much longer and would still have been reasonable.
The courts did say that excessive delays were a violation. In this case, at least from the descriptions given, they don't appear to have been unreasonable. The K9 unit arrives within 10 minutes of the initial stop, that is a pretty reasonable amount of time.
Pretty much all about nothing. The police did their job and stopped a convicted felon who may have transported illegal drugs over state lines. Rather than slapping them on the head, how about a little pat on the back?
I do enjoy posts like yours, because I can hear the scorn and moral self-righteous attitude just dripping from the edges.
Reality is slightly different.
If you go to peacefully protest, you don't need "protective gear" You are protesting passively. These guys are not. They show up with basic body armour on, masks, dark clothing, protective head gear, and the like. They show up looking for a fight - and looking to film it.
So, are they reporting the news (as a journalist would) or are the creating the news? Are they standing back and reporting what is going on, or are they in the middle of it encouraging people to do bad things for the camera to make a "better video"?
Are they reporting on protests, or are they egging people on so they can get more views on YouFaceTwitter?
There is a point where they are no longer reporting, but causing and encouraging. Where that point is, I don't know - but from what I saw on the video, they crossed it a long time before they even pushed record.
Well, let's say that they are busy making tons and tons of the same sort of request, over and over again, trying to trick the agency into disclosing two or three more words that they may forget to redact on a single copy.
Meanwhile, someone is actually trying to do a serious request to further a lawsuit or to track down something signficant. They are in line behind the thousands of near duplicate requests that have to be processed ahead of them.
Muckrock wants to be the kid in the back seat yelling "are we there yet" over and over again until you give in and give them whatever it is they want, no matter how much hard it does to others.
Overloading the system isn't helping anyone get information. it's just slowing everything down and making a mockery of the concept.
Blocking of Bittorrent and such was at the time in no small part a network congestion issue. At peak, torrent was well over 50% of the traffic on a network, and people seeding and such was driving up network congestion to a point that other customers were getting slow service. Throttling or even outrightly blocking what was causing massive network congestion shouldn't be an issue. Even under NN rules, it could have been done.
You also list Canadian and European ISPs.
Blocking 4G video on wireless networks is also very much a network congestion management thing. 2011 is a long time ago when it comes to wireless development, people pushing video over the network at that point were literally killing regular network availability for everyone else. Good network management says deal with the issue. This will be a recurring theme going forward, wireless has limits.
" “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”"
In a free and open market, companies looking to innovate do exactly that. Your paragraph, more than anything, explains why Net Neutrality wasn't good for consumers in all ways.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...
A federal department being unhelpful to state AGs on a fishing expedition would usually lead to cheering around here.
The criminal investigations, as they are right now, don't amount to very much. They may also not be within the purview of the states involved, as while there may be victims in their state, it's unlikely that the crime occurred there. There are 50 states, the chance that the victims and the person(s) who posted these up being in the same state is small.
Since it goes across state lines, and it involves a federal agency, it's also likely to be a federal matter, ie interstate wire fraud. When push comes to shove and it turns out to be two 4chan teens from estonia, the whole thing will fall apart.
What Muckrock tries to do is to get many, many people to ask for the same information, hoping that the responsive documents provides will be either non-redacted or will have redacted information in one set revealed in another.
It's an abusive way to try to circumvent the system. They should be surprised when the FBI (or any other agency) gets tired of playing their version of whac-a-mole.
Muckrock's campaign is basically the reason that FOIA requests by normal people for normal things are delayed do long. They have literally clogged the piped with their shit.
On the post: Comcast's Push For A Shitty New Net Neutrality Law Begins In Earnest
narrative?
"outlaw all of the things large ISPs never intended to do"
Yet, in other situations, you will gladly scaremonger all those things as things they were going to do.
Make your mind up already.
On the post: Another Court Says Compelled Password Production Doesn't Violate The Fifth Amendment
Re: ANY search warrant "might result in evidence the government can use against the suspect".
However, the problem with both of those arguments is that they do not look at what the pincode generally is: equivalent to a door lock, and not much else. The courts have always held that a warrant can compel someone to produce the key or the police have the option of breaking down the door or cutting open the safe to get to the contents.
On the post: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."
Your entirely spiel is basically "without context, let's damn him".
You proved my point, thanks!
On the post: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.
Re: Re: Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."
Police deal every day with people the rest of us would rather never see. Like a fireman who runs into a burning building, cops often have to go into a situation where people are dead, dying, trying to kill each other, and angry / confused /drugged / armed to do the same to anyone else including the police. They have to deal with liars, crooks, criminals, drug addicts, wife beaters, child abusers, and a whole long cast of people who would try the patience of the most relaxed person on the planet. Most poeple here wouldn't last a single shift dealing with the stuff they have to deal with.
So yes, they make mistakes.
So yes, they lose their cool.
So yes, sometimes they use excessive force, and yes, sometimes people die as a result.
It sucks.
The cops aren't going to do anything because you aren't rewarding any behavior except standing back and letting the criminals run free. it's much easier for them not to make the traffic stop, it's easier not to stop the drugs that might kill a friend or a family member. It's tons easier not to rush into a situation with an armed suspect and deal with it. It would be way easier just not to show up.
When they do their jobs, people cuss them out. When they don't do their jobs, people cuss them out. When they make a minor mistake, people cuss them out and perps walk. When they make a major mistake and someone dies, every back seat driver is there to review the video 100 times over saying "I would never have done that!", without understanding the context that it happens in, what all the cop had to deal with right before, or what happened to them last time in a similar situation.
I don't excuse them - I accept them as human. I wouldn't want their job, it sucks, there is little upside and plenty of people chewing the out and calling them knuckle draggers.
On the post: DOJ Wants Protesters & Reporter Convicted For 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul, perhaps you just need to shut up. Seriously, you didn't read my post, you just jumped to a conclusion you like.
I said that if it's acceptable to show up to a protest in full protective gear, gas masks, carrying hockey sticks and baseball bats, what would be wrong with them showing up with machine guns?
At what point does showing up looking for a fight cross the line from protest and move along to rioting?
You would have a point if everyone was protesting peacefully, not in the middle of traffic, were not breaking windows and setting fire to businesses, not popping off rounds (Ferguson had plenty of all of this). If the police stand back and do nothing, the whole place will literally be burned to the ground, destroyed, and you and your ilk we go on about how the police are lazy fuckers who won't do anything.
They can't win.
How about you try cause and effect? If people don't show up for a protest looking like players out of Rollerball, don't show up armed and ready to resist like hell, don't try to break down barricades, burn down buildings, or hurt each other... do you think that the police will just show up and start shooting them?
There are exceptional cases where things happen on both sides. I know you will gladly point at them. Then again, I can point at any of the G7/G8 meetings of the last 20 years, and the insane tactics used by AntiFa style groups who try to infiltrate security zones, and when they don't succeed, turn around and start destroying anything in their way.
Perhaps if both sides (not just one) stepped down a bit, things would get better. But showing up looking like they want to fight and cause trouble, protesters will be met with equal if not stronger force to stop it from happening. You would bitch endlessly if the police didn't do it, especially if it was your home or your business destroyed while police sat by and watching protesters exercising their first amendment with a lighter and gas.
On the post: T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, remember that streaming video is currently the most popular use for the internet. 70% of peak US prime time traffic is streaming video. Consumers have spoken, this is how they want to use the internet.
Second, nobody is saying that video streaming services will have to negotiate with anyone to be able to deliver their product. What I said is that Verizon may deal with a Comcast or similar so that they can offer their products on each others systems with dedicated peer to assure timely delivery. NN would have forbidden that.
"Do you really want to turn the Internet into cable TV V2, and hand control over to those monopolistic corporations?"
Nope, and I am not even suggesting it. Rather I am pointing out that for consumers (who want streaming video so much) certain restrictions of NN actually are hurting rather than helping. More choice for consumers is always a good thing.
On the post: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.
Re: "back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks"
So many of the cases you see aren't about a truly innocent person caught up in the system, rather someone trying hard with a determined defense lawyer to try to find something, anything, to suggest the police failed to cross all the Ts and dot the Is.
Do you honestly think that defendants testify honestly and accurately, or do they only say exactly what their lawyer coached them to say?
The justice system is interested in justice. The participants however have their own agenda.
On the post: T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's say Comcast and AT&T want to play in each others neighborhoods. They both know they are suffering from cable cutters, so they each agree to offer IP TV style service in each others coverage areas. They work out the peering and such so that they have no problem with the "local loop" issue, because they are both supporting each other's products.
Now, was this bad for the consumer? You suddenly have twice as many options for viewing. Is this bad?
On the post: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.
Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."
Video creates a situation where back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks can bitch and complain about anything and everything that happens during a stop, and arrest, or a significant event. Very few people would be comfortable to have not only their own boss but the entire public watching over their shoulder and second guessing everything they did, and cops really are caught in a bad situation.
Literally, they cannot win.
The legal system is (some would say rightly) heavily tilted towards the defendant. If the police, officers, lawyer, court official, clerk, or any of the other people and agencies between arrest and conviction at any time fail to cross a t, dot an I, or do not say and do the exact perfect words, the defendant walks. The pressure put on officers not to make even the tiniest mistake while they are dealing with someone is so high, that in many cases it appears to be leading to them doing nothing.
"Without continuous monitoring, police are too easily tempted to commit violence or malfeasance or perjury. Even then, the cameras they have are not enough."
We are reaching the point where fewer and fewer people want to be police officers. They risk their lives, they risk their families, and they risk having to deal with endless video reviews. They deal with hardened criminals who get to walk if the officer so much as stubs their toes.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fewer+people+becoming+police+officers
At some point, something will have to give. My guess is that within a very short time, police officers will no longer actually do anything at a crime scene, they will make a video, file a report that says "see video" and they will stop there. They won't want to deal with criminals, they won't want to try to prevent crime, and they won't want to deal with the problems of society, because they will get dragged up on the carpet for everything they do.
Can you imagine having a camera on every second of your life? Take the last of the coffee at work and don't refill it? You get dragged in front of all of your coworkers and disciplined, 1 week without pay.
Cross the street on a red light? Ticket in the mail.
Tell a little white lie to get out of a date or dinner with friends? We'll send it to them and they can hate you for the rest of your life.
I can't imagine anyone here having the attachments to be a police officer or face what they have to face.
On the post: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.
Re: Re:
A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement. What would you say if in the same case the camera was broken or failed to record for technical reasons? Would the case be more or less tainted? What happened if the camera's view was obstructed, or the angle to the car not correct? Do we suddenly let a guilty guy drive away?
"the cops are, apparently, allowed to do whatever the hell they want."
They aren't. it isn't "turn off the camera and start beating them in the head". They didn't hold them at gun point and make them confess. They did what they had to do, they had probably cause and used the drug dog as an additional reason to more completely search the car.
Wanting to protect their sources isn't a bad thing. There is no reason for the police to help the criminals.
On the post: T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know what a local loop is.
IP TV can be delivered over standard internet network. They bought a streaming company, which means they could offer it as a streaming product.
You don't have to have control of the local loop to deliver internet content, last time I looked.
On the post: DOJ Wants Protesters & Reporter Convicted For 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reality is bad things happen. But none of it justifies showing up in full gear and running around attacking businesses and people for fun. Recording it doesn't suddenly turn it into news instead of just a series or criminal acts.
Do you think the gas stations and businesses of Ferguson just spontaneously com busted?
Silly rabbit!
On the post: T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It
Re: Re:
On the post: T-Mobile's Getting Into Cable TV, Where Its Opposition To Net Neutrality May Come Back To Bite It
You want to be able to say the consumer has choice? Offer them choice. Just have everyone already in the telecom world offer a selection of similar products at similar prices, peer well with each other to assure good service levels, and stop worrying. Suddenly, the consumer has a dozen "cable" providers to go along with the dozens of IP phone offerings and so on, and suddenly you all look like the good guys.
You don't have to throttle anyone else, because everyone else is giving you access to their customers as well.
Outsiders try to play? Just make sure your peering doesn't favor them and call it a day. Crappy delivery will kill them.
On the post: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.
Stopping the camera / disabling it is a bitch move and should be handled accordingly. But having the camera turned off in and of itself isn't a violation of rights. If that was the case, then every stop made before in car cameras were common would be a rights violation.
It's pretty hard to take serious someone who is (a) on parole already, and (b) driving with drugs in the car, and (c) in a rental car with nobody listed as the driver.
10 minutes to run a few IDs through two databases isn't excessively long, the officer could very well within reason tried to contact the rental agency as well to confirm that the car was not stolen (but yet unreported) and that one or more of the people in it were in fact allowed to drive. That could have taken much longer and would still have been reasonable.
The courts did say that excessive delays were a violation. In this case, at least from the descriptions given, they don't appear to have been unreasonable. The K9 unit arrives within 10 minutes of the initial stop, that is a pretty reasonable amount of time.
Pretty much all about nothing. The police did their job and stopped a convicted felon who may have transported illegal drugs over state lines. Rather than slapping them on the head, how about a little pat on the back?
On the post: DOJ Wants Protesters & Reporter Convicted For 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment'
Re: Re: Re:
Reality is slightly different.
If you go to peacefully protest, you don't need "protective gear" You are protesting passively. These guys are not. They show up with basic body armour on, masks, dark clothing, protective head gear, and the like. They show up looking for a fight - and looking to film it.
So, are they reporting the news (as a journalist would) or are the creating the news? Are they standing back and reporting what is going on, or are they in the middle of it encouraging people to do bad things for the camera to make a "better video"?
Are they reporting on protests, or are they egging people on so they can get more views on YouFaceTwitter?
There is a point where they are no longer reporting, but causing and encouraging. Where that point is, I don't know - but from what I saw on the video, they crossed it a long time before they even pushed record.
On the post: It Looks Like The FBI Thought About Prosecuting FOIA Requesters After Influx Of Automated Requests
Re: Re:
Well, let's say that they are busy making tons and tons of the same sort of request, over and over again, trying to trick the agency into disclosing two or three more words that they may forget to redact on a single copy.
Meanwhile, someone is actually trying to do a serious request to further a lawsuit or to track down something signficant. They are in line behind the thousands of near duplicate requests that have to be processed ahead of them.
Muckrock wants to be the kid in the back seat yelling "are we there yet" over and over again until you give in and give them whatever it is they want, no matter how much hard it does to others.
Overloading the system isn't helping anyone get information. it's just slowing everything down and making a mockery of the concept.
On the post: Two Separate Studies Show That The Vast Majority Of People Who Said They Support Ajit Pai's Plan... Were Fake
Re: Re: Fake News
Blocking of Bittorrent and such was at the time in no small part a network congestion issue. At peak, torrent was well over 50% of the traffic on a network, and people seeding and such was driving up network congestion to a point that other customers were getting slow service. Throttling or even outrightly blocking what was causing massive network congestion shouldn't be an issue. Even under NN rules, it could have been done.
You also list Canadian and European ISPs.
Blocking 4G video on wireless networks is also very much a network congestion management thing. 2011 is a long time ago when it comes to wireless development, people pushing video over the network at that point were literally killing regular network availability for everyone else. Good network management says deal with the issue. This will be a recurring theme going forward, wireless has limits.
" “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”"
In a free and open market, companies looking to innovate do exactly that. Your paragraph, more than anything, explains why Net Neutrality wasn't good for consumers in all ways.
On the post: NY Attorney General Finds 2 Million Fake FCC Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...
The criminal investigations, as they are right now, don't amount to very much. They may also not be within the purview of the states involved, as while there may be victims in their state, it's unlikely that the crime occurred there. There are 50 states, the chance that the victims and the person(s) who posted these up being in the same state is small.
Since it goes across state lines, and it involves a federal agency, it's also likely to be a federal matter, ie interstate wire fraud. When push comes to shove and it turns out to be two 4chan teens from estonia, the whole thing will fall apart.
On the post: It Looks Like The FBI Thought About Prosecuting FOIA Requesters After Influx Of Automated Requests
https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi-officials-25423/
What Muckrock tries to do is to get many, many people to ask for the same information, hoping that the responsive documents provides will be either non-redacted or will have redacted information in one set revealed in another.
It's an abusive way to try to circumvent the system. They should be surprised when the FBI (or any other agency) gets tired of playing their version of whac-a-mole.
Muckrock's campaign is basically the reason that FOIA requests by normal people for normal things are delayed do long. They have literally clogged the piped with their shit.
Next >>