Meanwhile, the joint AT&T/Comcast Munificent Blue Ribbon panel is conducting research and providing recommendations on how to spend up to $2 billion blanketing Sacramento with legions of lobbyists.
After all, these benevolent corporations must protect the helpless citizens of California from evil government overreach.
I don't think that serves to mitigate loss of evidence.
There are procedures in place to allow video evidence to be retained for use against a suspect. When that is done, it actually makes the camera video evidentiary for every crime it records.
To put it simply: the police don't get to decide the recording is evidence for this crime and not for that crime; it becomes evidence for every crime. That's because the Constitution does not allow the police/prosecutor to pick and choose which evidence the defense can see or bring to court.
Such a procedure as you describe would be incompetent. Because you can bet the officer would drop off the recording of a guy-who-hit-an-officer (for example). If the officer can and will do that, but shrugs off the DUI-arrest recording, well the officer becomes a decider of which evidence the defense can see.
One constraint on the routine use of body cameras by all teachers is the sheer quantity of footage that would be produced, and the near-impossibility of reviewing it all.
That shouldn't actually be a problem. The local police can simply run it through their criminal analysis AI software. That will be quick and will let them know if there's anything criminal.
Senator Wyden's letter blatantly ignores the elephant in the room: that these rules don't just apply to persons entering the United States.
I live in Orlando, Florida. The center of the city is 40 miles from the east coast, 80 miles from the Tampa coast. There is nowhere in Central Florida I am not subject to these rules.
"...the terms of service for the site will be modified to allow an unlimited number of requests, no limitation on the number of requests which may be submitted by an individual,..."
Translation: "We now have an unlimited bit bucket!"
"If I have a pile of NSL's and I count them: 1...2...3...4...5...6... and then I publish that there are '6' NSL's, well then...
"Each of those NSL's is part of that count. And if you just take a properly charged magic wand and wave it over that '6' then you can scry each of the individual NSL's that made up that count.
"As you can clearly see, that would expose the contents of each of the 6 NSL's. So we must take care to keep that '6' confidential, just as we keep the NSL's confidential. That '6' is six times as secret as each NSL!
Suppose, for discussion, that the defense is short of time, money, or brains: in which case the agent-of-government may not even have come up.
So from the prosecution perspective: better not to mention it and hope it never comes up. This is how citizen rights are "innocently" violated wholesale, and it happens all the time.
Worse, it only came up because the Best Buy agent was paid. Suppose a different scenario: the Best Buy agent was cooperating to avoid prosecution for something they did. Well, that makes it all better, doesn't it, to have them directed by the FBI and no money changing hands--and also much harder for the defense to prove.
The problem is, first, the direction of a confidential agent by the FBI (whether paid, quid pro quo, or volunteer) and, second, the FBI's (repeatedly demonstrated) willingness to conceal the fact that the agent was under FBI direction.
The bottom line was that the FBI hoped it would remain unnoticed that such a relationship existed. As they see it, just bad luck that this time it got found out. Better luck next case.
If a private entity is doing something at the direction of government then that entity is an agent of the government; whether paid or not.
I don't like how the article and discussion focus on payment. A monetary exchange may make it easier to prove agency but does not, of itself, create agency.
Also, when the Best Buy Surveillance Agency violates a citizen's rights, it is not legally responsible: the solicitor of that agency relationship (the FBI) is the guilty party.
Before: OCE had many branches to its mission. It couldn't focus on one thing, it had to spread its attention across many activities. I.e., its mission was weak and unfocused.
Now: OCE has one mission: counting staples. Its focus is sharpened and its attention is no longer divided: stronger mission!
It's perfectly simple: you just need to understand congressional/management speak. Especially the means by which any BS can be made to sound like it's new and improved garden soil.
Are you saying that a headline like, "Microsoft Acknowledges Consumer Frustration but Refuses to Admit Wrongdoing", would be unfair to poor, poor Microsoft?
They did not "admit" any such thing. The word "mishandled" is neither an apology nor an admission. It can mean anything from "we were wrong" to "we underestimated your idiocy."
Why is the author assuming they are admitting they were wrong? Why are you?
Why are you all kissy-kissy with Microsoft in this non-story? Are you getting a gratuity for this?
A statement that, paraphrased, "We noticed that we pissed some people off," is not anything like an apology unless the word "sorry" is in there somewhere.
On the post: San Francisco Ponders The Largest Community Broadband Network Ever Built
Blue Ribbon Competition
Meanwhile, the joint AT&T/Comcast Munificent Blue Ribbon panel is conducting research and providing recommendations on how to spend up to $2 billion blanketing Sacramento with legions of lobbyists.
After all, these benevolent corporations must protect the helpless citizens of California from evil government overreach.
On the post: Court Says Cops Can't Testify In Case After Destroying Footage Of DUI Arrest
Re: How police cameras work
I don't think that serves to mitigate loss of evidence.
There are procedures in place to allow video evidence to be retained for use against a suspect. When that is done, it actually makes the camera video evidentiary for every crime it records.
To put it simply: the police don't get to decide the recording is evidence for this crime and not for that crime; it becomes evidence for every crime. That's because the Constitution does not allow the police/prosecutor to pick and choose which evidence the defense can see or bring to court.
Such a procedure as you describe would be incompetent. Because you can bet the officer would drop off the recording of a guy-who-hit-an-officer (for example). If the officer can and will do that, but shrugs off the DUI-arrest recording, well the officer becomes a decider of which evidence the defense can see.
On the post: CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption
Re:
Only...how do you know NSA/CIA hasn't bought a bunch of security holes in Qubes OS?
On the post: UK Schools Experiment With Police-Style Body Cameras To Tackle 'Low-level Background Disorder'
Chilling the children
That shouldn't actually be a problem. The local police can simply run it through their criminal analysis AI software. That will be quick and will let them know if there's anything criminal.
...what do you mean, "chilling effect"?
On the post: Sen. Wyden Wants Answers From New DHS Head, Introducing Legislation To Create Warrant Requirement For Border Phone Searches
Can't see the elephant
I live in Orlando, Florida. The center of the city is 40 miles from the east coast, 80 miles from the Tampa coast. There is nowhere in Central Florida I am not subject to these rules.
Not even in my bed.
On the post: FBI Changes FOIA Policies, Tries To Route More Requesters To Fax Machines, Mailboxes
Bit bucket
Translation: "We now have an unlimited bit bucket!"
On the post: Congress Tries Once Again To Require Warrants To Search Emails
Amnesty
On the post: Vizio Fined $2.2 Million For Not Telling Customers Their TVs Were Spying On Them
Re: $2.2, $1.2 or $22 mil?
On the post: Twitter Reveals Two National Security Letters After Gag Orders Lifted; Rightly Complains About Gag Orders
A government wizard explains
"Each of those NSL's is part of that count. And if you just take a properly charged magic wand and wave it over that '6' then you can scry each of the individual NSL's that made up that count.
"As you can clearly see, that would expose the contents of each of the 6 NSL's. So we must take care to keep that '6' confidential, just as we keep the NSL's confidential. That '6' is six times as secret as each NSL!
"It might seem fanciful, but magic is real!"
On the post: Why Making A Peace Sign In Public Is Now A Security Risk
Upcoming government solution
Surprised no one in here thought of this. You can bet it's occurred to government bozos.
On the post: Chinese Officials With Government Access To Every Kind Of Personal Data Are Selling It Online
Backwards
Here in the USA, we do it right: the private sector sells personal information to government officials for HUGE prices, no questions asked.
On the post: Court Documents Appear To Confirm The FBI Is Using Best Buy Techs To Perform Warrantless Searches For It
Re:
So from the prosecution perspective: better not to mention it and hope it never comes up. This is how citizen rights are "innocently" violated wholesale, and it happens all the time.
Worse, it only came up because the Best Buy agent was paid. Suppose a different scenario: the Best Buy agent was cooperating to avoid prosecution for something they did. Well, that makes it all better, doesn't it, to have them directed by the FBI and no money changing hands--and also much harder for the defense to prove.
The problem is, first, the direction of a confidential agent by the FBI (whether paid, quid pro quo, or volunteer) and, second, the FBI's (repeatedly demonstrated) willingness to conceal the fact that the agent was under FBI direction.
The bottom line was that the FBI hoped it would remain unnoticed that such a relationship existed. As they see it, just bad luck that this time it got found out. Better luck next case.
On the post: Court Documents Appear To Confirm The FBI Is Using Best Buy Techs To Perform Warrantless Searches For It
Best Buy Surveillance Agency
If a private entity is doing something at the direction of government then that entity is an agent of the government; whether paid or not.
I don't like how the article and discussion focus on payment. A monetary exchange may make it easier to prove agency but does not, of itself, create agency.
Also, when the Best Buy Surveillance Agency violates a citizen's rights, it is not legally responsible: the solicitor of that agency relationship (the FBI) is the guilty party.
On the post: FCC Report Clearly Says AT&T & Verizon Are Violating Net Neutrality -- And Nobody Is Going To Do A Damn Thing About It
Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has long had a bizarre, distorted, and inaccurate view of what net neutrality actually is.
You left out "self-serving".
On the post: Congressman Goodlatte Decides To Refill The Swamp By Gutting Congressional Ethics Office... But Drops It After Bad Publicity
Strengthening the mission --The Mgt.
Now: OCE has one mission: counting staples. Its focus is sharpened and its attention is no longer divided: stronger mission!
It's perfectly simple: you just need to understand congressional/management speak. Especially the means by which any BS can be made to sound like it's new and improved garden soil.
On the post: Microsoft Finally Admits Its Malware-Style Windows 10 Upgrade Sales Pitch Went Too Far
Re: Re: Re: Re: Smooches for Microsoft
"Microsoft Acknowledges Consumer Frustration but Avoids Admission of Wrongdoing"
That would be an entirely accurate title, wouldn't it?
On the post: Microsoft Finally Admits Its Malware-Style Windows 10 Upgrade Sales Pitch Went Too Far
Re: Re: Re: Re: Smooches for Microsoft
On the post: Microsoft Finally Admits Its Malware-Style Windows 10 Upgrade Sales Pitch Went Too Far
Re: Re: Smooches for Microsoft
Why is the author assuming they are admitting they were wrong? Why are you?
Microsoft partisans much, hmmmm?
On the post: Microsoft Finally Admits Its Malware-Style Windows 10 Upgrade Sales Pitch Went Too Far
Smooches for Microsoft
Why are you all kissy-kissy with Microsoft in this non-story? Are you getting a gratuity for this?
A statement that, paraphrased, "We noticed that we pissed some people off," is not anything like an apology unless the word "sorry" is in there somewhere.
On the post: FDIC Latest Agency To Claim It Was Hacked By A Foreign Government
Tissue of security
"Them durn furriners! Why they gotta keep exposing our tissue of lies?!"
Next >>