Thank you for reporting this objectively. Everybody deserves equal protection under the law.
I hope to see your further legal analysis of Project Veritas vs. New York Times. The Times is framing the as a simple, unconstitutional prior restraint case but it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas. The November 18 court decision seems to give that argument some weight.
The road in question is a poorly maintained dirt road that climbs over a mountain pass. It contains several tight switchbacks and poor road conditions. It generally requires a high clearance 4WD vehicle. There is a sign at the base telling people not to pull trailers over 35 feet long because they can't negotiate the switchbacks.
Travelers trying to bypass the I-90 closure in Glenwood canyon have routinely ignored the posted warnings. Recently, Grayhound bus attempted the ascent and was stopped when the driver ripped out the oil pan from under the engine. Passengers had to be rescued, baggage recovered, the oil spill cleaned up and the wrecked bus dealt with.
The road is not closed to local traffic because locals know that the road is for recreational use only. The problem was that phone apps were routing tourists on it to get around the Interstate-90 road closure in Glenwood canyon. The State of Colorado made a reasonable attempt to keep idiots from harming themselves.
I am Mr. Thomas Tables, father of little Bobby Tables. The cellular phone that he carries to school is mine. I own it, not Bobby. I have given little Bobby permision to use it; it was not given as a gift. I purchased it with my debit card, which is linked to my checking account. The cellular service contract is under my name and I pay the bill every month.
Please be advised that I absolutely deny the School District or any of its employees permission to inspect the contents of my cell phone. If law enforcement wants permission, tell them that I will be glad to comply as soon as they produce a search warrant.
Police have a duty to collect evidence of a crime. I'm not sure that they are required to generate evidence. Charging a drunk driver without making them blow into a tube is a cop's choice. Prosecuting a drug crime without dashcam footage weakens the prosecution case, but they're allowed to take that gamble.
Further, they are certainly not required to generate evidence of a non-crime - i.e., exculpatory evidence. IANAL, but I don't expect police to be extremely busy affirming a suspect's innocence. Police would say that's what juries are for.
The parallels between this saga and the movie Firefly are troubling. The Powers That Be haven't yet learned that they can't stop the signal and are still trying to keep a lid on the story. They'll lose.
The big difference is that they're turning the entire world into Browncoats. Mal would be proud.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Davey.
Thank you
Thank you for reporting this objectively. Everybody deserves equal protection under the law.
I hope to see your further legal analysis of Project Veritas vs. New York Times. The Times is framing the as a simple, unconstitutional prior restraint case but it appears that the Times has been actively malicious toward Project Veritas. The November 18 court decision seems to give that argument some weight.
This road is not for casual use.
The road in question is a poorly maintained dirt road that climbs over a mountain pass. It contains several tight switchbacks and poor road conditions. It generally requires a high clearance 4WD vehicle. There is a sign at the base telling people not to pull trailers over 35 feet long because they can't negotiate the switchbacks.
Travelers trying to bypass the I-90 closure in Glenwood canyon have routinely ignored the posted warnings. Recently, Grayhound bus attempted the ascent and was stopped when the driver ripped out the oil pan from under the engine. Passengers had to be rescued, baggage recovered, the oil spill cleaned up and the wrecked bus dealt with.
The road is not closed to local traffic because locals know that the road is for recreational use only. The problem was that phone apps were routing tourists on it to get around the Interstate-90 road closure in Glenwood canyon. The State of Colorado made a reasonable attempt to keep idiots from harming themselves.
GETTR "takes cybersecurity seriously."
...But not seriously enough to design it into their web site.
I own the phone, not my child
Dear School District:
I am Mr. Thomas Tables, father of little Bobby Tables. The cellular phone that he carries to school is mine. I own it, not Bobby. I have given little Bobby permision to use it; it was not given as a gift. I purchased it with my debit card, which is linked to my checking account. The cellular service contract is under my name and I pay the bill every month.
Please be advised that I absolutely deny the School District or any of its employees permission to inspect the contents of my cell phone. If law enforcement wants permission, tell them that I will be glad to comply as soon as they produce a search warrant.
No duty to generate evidence
Further, they are certainly not required to generate evidence of a non-crime - i.e., exculpatory evidence. IANAL, but I don't expect police to be extremely busy affirming a suspect's innocence. Police would say that's what juries are for.
This is going to sound corny, but...
The big difference is that they're turning the entire world into Browncoats. Mal would be proud.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Davey.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt