> Yglesias says there's "no public interest" in documents > that don't contain official policy directives, etc.
Huh? I just did a text-search through that article and the phrase "no public interest" does not occur once.
I think you are mischaracterizing his argument in the general and the fact that you fake-quote him in the specific makes me even less trusting of your analysis.
I agree with much of what you say later, but the above is somewhat nit-picking. Yglesias may not have put "no" and "public interest" together in that exact way, but Cushing's read of Yglesias' article is hardly unfair. He shouldn't have put the phrase in quotes, but it isn't a mischaracterization.
For example, Yglesias says,
Treating email as public by default rather than private like phone calls does not serve the public interest.
and
But while the press and the public are unquestionably interested in this stuff, it is fundamentally not in the public interest to routinely know about them
And Yglesias goes on to say largely what Cushing says that he said.
Just to be clear, there is a big difference between A) an investigation finding that Mrs. Clinton did not do anything for which she would likely be convicted if she were prosecuted and B) an investigation showing that "she did nothing wrong". The former is generally where most investigations stop. And rightly so, because it isn't the government's place to put people on trial when it doesn't think it can really prove they did it. But, at the other end of the spectrum from people assuming that an accusation means the accused must have done something wrong, people also need to understand that being unable to prove a criminal act in a court of law is not the same as concluding that nothing slimy happened.
The FBI's investigation into the email issue is a good example of this. The FBI's conclusion was (roughly) that she did plenty "wrong" but nothing that merited an indictment.
The deceptive marketing charge seems pretty straightforward here...
... and, obviously, my thinking that means that I know nothing of the legal criterion that justify deceptive marketing or false advertising charges.
But, that case would seem to be pretty strong. The service that they are marketing as "unlimited" is very limited. And, not just in the sense that available technology puts limits on what can be reasonably offered. It's limited in a way that is so transparently artificial that the company itself markets another (upcharged) plan that is actually less limited.
In other words, they can't even say, "Well, it's not unlimited unlimited, but it's as unlimited as it can be." Offering the other plan is effectively admitting that the base "unlimited" plan is not only more limited than required by technology, but there's so much of a market for a better option that they are selling it!
I wonder how quickly this practice would stop if Internal Affairs (or federal/state equivalent) used such tactics against the folks wearing the badges? In other words, suppose IA contrived a situation in which an officer with, say, a history of excessive use of force, being creative with suspects' supposed actions and "confessions", and a penchant for "commandeering" valuable goods for personal use, would be called to the scene of a crime. But, unknown to the corrupt cop, the "perp" was actually an actor who was well trained to verbally taunt the officer but to never actually resist arrest and the whole scene was on camera and scripted to temp the target. (To be sure, I certainly wouldn't want to be in the role of the "suspect".)
Now, make things analogous to what happens in these fake stash house stings. Plan out the scenario to make sure the cop was likely to offend and offend in ways that are the worst violations of both law and proper police procedure. For instance, hint at rumors that the "suspect" has a record and might be involved in drug sales or something similar; make sure the corrupt cop thinks his partners were unlikely to report him and who would sign whatever he put in the police report; his body cameras were the type that could be turned off when he wanted (but they really stay on); ensure contraband is nearby like a gun or drugs that he could plant on the "suspect"; make sure there are iPhones, loose cash, and so on at the scene to tempt sticky fingers; etc. In other words, set up the scam so that every possible thing that could make the corrupt cop look corrupt was likely to happen and those things were all calculated to show him violating the law and proper procedure in the most egregious way.
Would the folks who think these stash house stings are such a great idea feel the same way if those tactics were used to target their own?
The argument that gamers are stupid because some fraction of gamers continue to patronize companies that produce games that they like but that also enforce (or try to enforce) rules and employ business tactics that the gamers do not like is a weak argument. First, there are gamers who boycott various game companies because they don't like their rules. Second, one can dislike one aspect of something and still like the other aspects of it enough to decide that, on balance, it's still worth doing. Deciding that costs are outweighed by benefits doesn't necessarily make someone an idiot.
And, of course, another weakness in the argument is that the same reasoning leads to what most would agree with overbroad conclusions when applied elsewhere. For instance, many ISPs (e.g. Comcast, AT&T, etc.) have rules and employ tactics that their customers don't like. Is every customer of theirs an idiot? Or are people deciding that what they are getting is worth the price of what they have to put up with? Or (even more likely) are customers deciding that they don't have time to keep track of and be outraged by every unlikable thing done by anyone with whom they do business.
(And, of course, there are some people who literally have no choice in whether to purchase some product/service from a given company. But, the vast majority do.)
End the ridiculous length of this sort of IP ownership !
Limit ownership of various characters and so on to 20ish years and be done with it. This certainly would not resolve the whole issue, but it would ameliorate much of it immensely. After that time is up, the characters are public domain. This notion that various characters are owned by this or that entity for what has essentially become multiple human lifespans is ridiculous. Create a cool/popular character or setting and the creator and his licensees have a couple decades to make their money on it. After that, they had better hope that they have done a good enough job that people are convinced they can do it better than others can (which might be the case).
The claims of movie studios and other licensees that they couldn't make films or other content featuring the characters that fans love is nonsense. The difference is that both those studios and others would be able to create that content. They would have to compete in terms of cost and quality. That's really what they don't want.
I heard this "the end of licensing would be the end of the character" argument over and over when the various licensing agreements meant that Warner / DC Comics gets another basically unending years of exclusive licensing of Superman. The company line was that, without those deals, they couldn't put out Superman comics and would not be able to make Superman movies. Of course, that is kryptonian baloney. They could perfectly well continue to publish Superman comics and produce Superman movies without exclusivity. They would just be competing with others who could also put out their own Superman comics and movies. The threat (and the lie) is that without the exclusive licensing, Superman would disappear. But, the reality is that Superman fans would likely have way more Superman content without those licensing deals, just not all from Warner / DC. And, quite frankly, lots of the non-Warner stuff would likely be better.
I really do wonder what their probable cause was. IMO, they need to establish more solid evidence that she was actually carrying drugs than just having been a U.S. citizen coming back from Mexico. As best I can tell, their basis for suspicion is so outrageously overbroad that pretty much anyone coming back into the U.S. would be subject to this sort of assault.
I know that the best she can probably hope for is to win some cash in a civil suit. But, really, this needs to go back before the Supreme Court. The idea that the 4th amendment doesn't exist at/near the border is utter nonsense and those people wearing black robes are paid to say so.
It's not easy to decide what sort of punishment is appropriate for these molesters. 10 years in prison? Only 5? Tough call.
When I think about this happening to a wife, sister, daughter... none of that seems like enough. They are like most bullies - they did it because they knew no one would punish them. Put their heads on pikes and it won't happen again. But, in the world we live in, they will argue that they had the legal authority to do it because blah, blah, drugs, blah, blah, terrorism. And, even if they didn't actually have the authority, qualified immunity which, despite not being anywhere in the constitution or in a statute, seems to be government code for "we work for the government, so grab your ankles, citizen."
Just to be clear, in a Google News search a minute ago, I haven't run across this story in any of the big mainstream news outlets, Fox, CNN, New York Times, etc. The sneer quotes apply equally to any of their coverage of incidents like this.
Meanwhile, it might be a little premature to conclude that Fox would particularly not want to cover this. Obama's Border Patrol agents' dehumanizing treatment of an 18-year-old girl would be both a good news story and serve to poke holes in the laughable delusion of Dem/Repub partisans that their "side" would never let things like this happen.
Of course they would let it happen. And, if it goes to court, they will be arguing that it was not improper that they did it and they will vigorously resist any attempt to take away their authority to do it again.
Downsizing would be a blessing here. The fed motto is: If what we are trying is clearly a fail, it must be underfunded. The feds very rarely seem to downsize either problems or failed solutions to them.
DEA = Contender for least constitutional federal agency
Is there any part of DEA that doesn't connote "very bad joke with dangerous punchline"? At least this story didn't end with the DEA killing someone because a lying sack of... ahem... "confidential informant" claimed that a person at a different address sold him a bag of weed or some pills.
Oh, and, sorry ATF, you are putting up a valiant effort to take the bottom spot. But, the DEA edges you out.
How is what the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided different from saying that the Bureau of Prisons can haul this guy back into prison for pretty much anything? I am serious. It seems to be saying that a released prisoner has no rights (even those listed in the Bill of Rights) unless they have been specifically adjudicated and confirmed for prisoners. It should be obvious that everyone has all of their rights unless they are specifically taken away, not the opposite. The default assumption shouldn't be no-rights-until-confirmed.
Meanwhile, before tossing someone back into prison, the government should at least have to establish that he is violating some actual law that is currently on the books.
BTW, we need a serious reexamination of qualified and absolute immunity. No law degree here, but my understanding is that those were both largely made up out of whole cloth and have pretty much no statutory basis. They are behind much of the lack of accountability that enables misbehavior by law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and (apparently) prison officials.
The FBI et al. as the top producer of terrorism in the US ?
At some point, we have to ask: If most of the "terrorist plots" being prosecuted by the feds are plots that were conceived, promoted, and enabled by the feds themselves, then aren't the feds the number one terrorist organization in the country? I am not claiming to know the statistics (if they are even tabulated), but I think it's a relevant question. If, for instance, the FBI is saying it stopped 30 terrorist plots last year, then we need to ask: For how many of those plots is there convincing evidence that the plot would have have actually been carried out (or even existed at all) if the FBI hadn't taken an active hand in advancing it? 20 of the 30? 10 of the 30? 3 of the 30?
BTW, I mention this not to be cute, but to get it out there that this may be an effective way to present the problem in terms that more people can understand. People are often willing to overlook outrageous policy if they think it's the only way to address a problem. But, they might be less inclined to do so if it becomes clear that the problem is largely one created by the policy and that same policy is very much blurring the lines between the purported good guys and bad guys.
Hehe. I recall a similar learning experience. I think the obvious conclusion is true: Parents willing to deter misbehavior produce kids who don't misbehave as much.
The problem in cases like the one in the post is that, effectively, no one plays the role of the strict disciplinarian when law enforcement misbehaves. The higher-ups in the police are lax parents and either ignore misbehavior or hand down ineffective (deterrent) punishments; the courts take the marshmallow parent position that "He didn't know" or "He's a nice boy, but he forgets"; and - sad to say - we, the public, are no better when we refuse to force our politicians to take a "tough on crime and tough on police misbehavior" position.
Police: D'oh! What we did was *almost* legal. What we wanted was to be *barely* legal.
It always strikes me that law enforcement types think it's perfectly okay to stretch the meaning of what they can legally do. But, when some non-LEO is doing that, they deserve to be treated like the scum of the earth. How can it not negatively effect law enforcement when police spend so much effort coming up with ways to circumvent the law?
(Admittedly, these LEOs know they will suffer zero consequences for these shenanigans, so this sort of thing should hardly be a surprise.)
Also, it seems that a huge fraction of these incursions against the 4th amendment are due to drug cases. I don't do drugs and I don't it's generally a great thing to do. But, it drives me crazy that my rights are shredded because law enforcement thinks its the only way to effectively combat "drug crimes". I would legalize all of them just to take away so many excuses for poor law enforcement behavior.
Point of clarification. The first ten Articles constitute the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is...an amendment to the original 10. This does not diminish the importance of the Fourth or any other amendment, but amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights. All of them together make up the Constitution.
It's late here, but that sounds like you are saying that the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not what we call the U.S. Bill of Rights. I am pretty sure that they are.
They don't want the amount known because they learned nothing from the phone
The fact that they don't want the cost to unlock the phone known at all makes me suspect that they got very little useful evidence from the phone.
Consider: If it was a large amount and they got no further significant leads from the unlocked phone, then they look like idiots for trying to bully Apple into unlocking it. And, it would contradict their narrative that the sky will fall if they don't have all the data all the time. And, important FBI allies like Feinstein and Burr are re-exposed as idiots for using this as an example in their currently-comatose proposal to outlaw secure (non-backdoored) encryption. Those results mean the cost stays covered-up as long as they can fight off the FOIA requests/suits.
On the other hand, they would be happy to release the amount to unlock the phone if they got some great evidence from the phone that they didn't have otherwise. Even if it was millions of dollars, that would only bolster their claim that they don't have the expertise to do this kind of unlocking and they need a back door because getting such critical evidence is prohibitively expensive without it.
So, in all likelihood, they spent a lot of our money and - surprise! - got zilch. No one at the DOJ wants to write that press release.
I am not seeing how that puts this case into the "specific" category. Yes, the site owners knew that there were a couple scumwads that visited the site using other people's accounts to cause mayhem. Even if the site knew it was the same two perps each time (and I have no idea if they did), the site still doesn't have a specific suspect to warn about, since the perps contacted the models from different accounts each time. So, all that existed was a general knowledge that the site could be used for perps' scheme and no warning to give anyone except that "Someone who contacts you about modeling might not be who they claim to be." Doesn't seem very useful.
Maybe Colorado should update the "Thank you for visiting Colorado" signs that are next to some highways as drivers leave the state. The new ones could say,
Thank you for visiting Colorado. Remember: "I am invoking my right to remain silent" and "No, I do NOT consent to any searches."
They are really more interested in the money anyway
The legalization of marijuana in a few states has led to some interesting law enforcement problems. To date, most of the "solution" appears to be camping out on the borders and seizing drugs from travelers headed out of the state.
Out of the state? I would be curious what fraction of people targeted for this scam are people headed into Colorado, as was the case here. Probably the majority. Why? Because the travelers have the cash on the way in and have the much-harder-for-LEOs-to-turn-into-cash pot on the way out. If the deputies were targeting people on the way out (that is to say, the motorists most likely to have drugs instead of cash), they probably would have gotten a legit bust. But, since they are after the cash, they will have to come up with a different ruse.
On the post: Vox: If The Clinton Email Scandal Has Taught Us Nothing Else, It's That Email Should Be Exempt From FOIA Requests
Re: Could Have Been Better
I agree with much of what you say later, but the above is somewhat nit-picking. Yglesias may not have put "no" and "public interest" together in that exact way, but Cushing's read of Yglesias' article is hardly unfair. He shouldn't have put the phrase in quotes, but it isn't a mischaracterization.
For example, Yglesias says,
and
And Yglesias goes on to say largely what Cushing says that he said.
On the post: Vox: If The Clinton Email Scandal Has Taught Us Nothing Else, It's That Email Should Be Exempt From FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Jeebus Tim
The FBI's investigation into the email issue is a good example of this. The FBI's conclusion was (roughly) that she did plenty "wrong" but nothing that merited an indictment.
On the post: How Is This Not A Net Neutrality Violation, Sprint?
The deceptive marketing charge seems pretty straightforward here...
But, that case would seem to be pretty strong. The service that they are marketing as "unlimited" is very limited. And, not just in the sense that available technology puts limits on what can be reasonably offered. It's limited in a way that is so transparently artificial that the company itself markets another (upcharged) plan that is actually less limited.
In other words, they can't even say, "Well, it's not unlimited unlimited, but it's as unlimited as it can be." Offering the other plan is effectively admitting that the base "unlimited" plan is not only more limited than required by technology, but there's so much of a market for a better option that they are selling it!
On the post: Judge Says Stash House Sting Operations Allow Prosecutors To Be Judge, Jury, And Executioner
What if the targets of such "stings" were cops ?
Now, make things analogous to what happens in these fake stash house stings. Plan out the scenario to make sure the cop was likely to offend and offend in ways that are the worst violations of both law and proper police procedure. For instance, hint at rumors that the "suspect" has a record and might be involved in drug sales or something similar; make sure the corrupt cop thinks his partners were unlikely to report him and who would sign whatever he put in the police report; his body cameras were the type that could be turned off when he wanted (but they really stay on); ensure contraband is nearby like a gun or drugs that he could plant on the "suspect"; make sure there are iPhones, loose cash, and so on at the scene to tempt sticky fingers; etc. In other words, set up the scam so that every possible thing that could make the corrupt cop look corrupt was likely to happen and those things were all calculated to show him violating the law and proper procedure in the most egregious way.
Would the folks who think these stash house stings are such a great idea feel the same way if those tactics were used to target their own?
On the post: Checking In: Blizzard Still Suing Hack/Cheat Makers For Copyright Infringement? Yup!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, of course, another weakness in the argument is that the same reasoning leads to what most would agree with overbroad conclusions when applied elsewhere. For instance, many ISPs (e.g. Comcast, AT&T, etc.) have rules and employ tactics that their customers don't like. Is every customer of theirs an idiot? Or are people deciding that what they are getting is worth the price of what they have to put up with? Or (even more likely) are customers deciding that they don't have time to keep track of and be outraged by every unlikable thing done by anyone with whom they do business.
(And, of course, there are some people who literally have no choice in whether to purchase some product/service from a given company. But, the vast majority do.)
On the post: As CBS/Paramount Continue Lawsuit Over Fan Film, It Releases Ridiculous & Impossible 'Fan Film Guidelines'
End the ridiculous length of this sort of IP ownership !
The claims of movie studios and other licensees that they couldn't make films or other content featuring the characters that fans love is nonsense. The difference is that both those studios and others would be able to create that content. They would have to compete in terms of cost and quality. That's really what they don't want.
I heard this "the end of licensing would be the end of the character" argument over and over when the various licensing agreements meant that Warner / DC Comics gets another basically unending years of exclusive licensing of Superman. The company line was that, without those deals, they couldn't put out Superman comics and would not be able to make Superman movies. Of course, that is kryptonian baloney. They could perfectly well continue to publish Superman comics and produce Superman movies without exclusivity. They would just be competing with others who could also put out their own Superman comics and movies. The threat (and the lie) is that without the exclusive licensing, Superman would disappear. But, the reality is that Superman fans would likely have way more Superman content without those licensing deals, just not all from Warner / DC. And, quite frankly, lots of the non-Warner stuff would likely be better.
On the post: Customs Agents, Local Doctor Subject 18-Year-Old To Vaginal, Rectal Probing In Search Of Nonexistent Drugs
There are NO Fourth Amendment Free Zones !
I know that the best she can probably hope for is to win some cash in a civil suit. But, really, this needs to go back before the Supreme Court. The idea that the 4th amendment doesn't exist at/near the border is utter nonsense and those people wearing black robes are paid to say so.
On the post: Customs Agents, Local Doctor Subject 18-Year-Old To Vaginal, Rectal Probing In Search Of Nonexistent Drugs
Appropriate punishment ?
When I think about this happening to a wife, sister, daughter... none of that seems like enough. They are like most bullies - they did it because they knew no one would punish them. Put their heads on pikes and it won't happen again. But, in the world we live in, they will argue that they had the legal authority to do it because blah, blah, drugs, blah, blah, terrorism. And, even if they didn't actually have the authority, qualified immunity which, despite not being anywhere in the constitution or in a statute, seems to be government code for "we work for the government, so grab your ankles, citizen."
On the post: Customs Agents, Local Doctor Subject 18-Year-Old To Vaginal, Rectal Probing In Search Of Nonexistent Drugs
Meanwhile, it might be a little premature to conclude that Fox would particularly not want to cover this. Obama's Border Patrol agents' dehumanizing treatment of an 18-year-old girl would be both a good news story and serve to poke holes in the laughable delusion of Dem/Repub partisans that their "side" would never let things like this happen.
Of course they would let it happen. And, if it goes to court, they will be arguing that it was not improper that they did it and they will vigorously resist any attempt to take away their authority to do it again.
On the post: DOJ Drops Stupid Drug Trafficking Charges Against FedEx After Judge Criticizes Its 'Novel Prosecution'
Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Drops Stupid Drug Trafficking Charges Against FedEx After Judge Criticizes Its 'Novel Prosecution'
DEA = Contender for least constitutional federal agency
Oh, and, sorry ATF, you are putting up a valiant effort to take the bottom spot. But, the DEA edges you out.
On the post: Court Says Free Speech Rights For Prisoners Not 'Clearly Established,' Gives Pass To Retaliatory Actions By Officials
"You have rights when we say you have rights" ?
Meanwhile, before tossing someone back into prison, the government should at least have to establish that he is violating some actual law that is currently on the books.
BTW, we need a serious reexamination of qualified and absolute immunity. No law degree here, but my understanding is that those were both largely made up out of whole cloth and have pretty much no statutory basis. They are behind much of the lack of accountability that enables misbehavior by law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and (apparently) prison officials.
On the post: The FBI Says Its Homegrown Terrorist Stings Are Nothing More Than A Proactive Fight Against 'Going Dark'
The FBI et al. as the top producer of terrorism in the US ?
BTW, I mention this not to be cute, but to get it out there that this may be an effective way to present the problem in terms that more people can understand. People are often willing to overlook outrageous policy if they think it's the only way to address a problem. But, they might be less inclined to do so if it becomes clear that the problem is largely one created by the policy and that same policy is very much blurring the lines between the purported good guys and bad guys.
On the post: Court Tells Cops They Can't Seize Luggage And Send It Hundreds Of Miles Away In Hopes Of Generating Probable Cause
Re:
The problem in cases like the one in the post is that, effectively, no one plays the role of the strict disciplinarian when law enforcement misbehaves. The higher-ups in the police are lax parents and either ignore misbehavior or hand down ineffective (deterrent) punishments; the courts take the marshmallow parent position that "He didn't know" or "He's a nice boy, but he forgets"; and - sad to say - we, the public, are no better when we refuse to force our politicians to take a "tough on crime and tough on police misbehavior" position.
On the post: Court Tells Cops They Can't Seize Luggage And Send It Hundreds Of Miles Away In Hopes Of Generating Probable Cause
Police: D'oh! What we did was *almost* legal. What we wanted was to be *barely* legal.
(Admittedly, these LEOs know they will suffer zero consequences for these shenanigans, so this sort of thing should hardly be a surprise.)
Also, it seems that a huge fraction of these incursions against the 4th amendment are due to drug cases. I don't do drugs and I don't it's generally a great thing to do. But, it drives me crazy that my rights are shredded because law enforcement thinks its the only way to effectively combat "drug crimes". I would legalize all of them just to take away so many excuses for poor law enforcement behavior.
On the post: Court Tells Cops They Can't Seize Luggage And Send It Hundreds Of Miles Away In Hopes Of Generating Probable Cause
1st 10 amendments == Bill of Rights (in U.S.)
It's late here, but that sounds like you are saying that the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not what we call the U.S. Bill of Rights. I am pretty sure that they are.
On the post: FBI Won't Tell Me How Much It Paid To Break Into Syed Farook's iPhone, Saying It Might Jeopardize Its Investigation
They don't want the amount known because they learned nothing from the phone
Consider: If it was a large amount and they got no further significant leads from the unlocked phone, then they look like idiots for trying to bully Apple into unlocking it. And, it would contradict their narrative that the sky will fall if they don't have all the data all the time. And, important FBI allies like Feinstein and Burr are re-exposed as idiots for using this as an example in their currently-comatose proposal to outlaw secure (non-backdoored) encryption. Those results mean the cost stays covered-up as long as they can fight off the FOIA requests/suits.
On the other hand, they would be happy to release the amount to unlock the phone if they got some great evidence from the phone that they didn't have otherwise. Even if it was millions of dollars, that would only bolster their claim that they don't have the expertise to do this kind of unlocking and they need a back door because getting such critical evidence is prohibitively expensive without it.
So, in all likelihood, they spent a lot of our money and - surprise! - got zilch. No one at the DOJ wants to write that press release.
On the post: Appeals Court Doubles Down On Dangerous Ruling: Says Website Can Be Blamed For Failing To Warn Of Rapists
Re: Re: General knowledge vs Specific
On the post: Nebraska Drug Warriors Lose Bust Thanks To Jurisdictional Limits On Criminal Conspiracy Charges
To make Colorado more tourist-friendly...
On the post: Nebraska Drug Warriors Lose Bust Thanks To Jurisdictional Limits On Criminal Conspiracy Charges
They are really more interested in the money anyway
Out of the state? I would be curious what fraction of people targeted for this scam are people headed into Colorado, as was the case here. Probably the majority. Why? Because the travelers have the cash on the way in and have the much-harder-for-LEOs-to-turn-into-cash pot on the way out. If the deputies were targeting people on the way out (that is to say, the motorists most likely to have drugs instead of cash), they probably would have gotten a legit bust. But, since they are after the cash, they will have to come up with a different ruse.
Next >>