True, but they are expected to recuse themselves from the situation as needed. Carmichael did not, or at least the article alludes to him never doing so in the past.
Anyone notice the officer enters into record that he was driving while using his cell phone? I don't know about NC, but it some places that alone will earn you a ticket.
Are our tax dollars really being wasted on cases that are nutty before they are even filed? When someone files a claim this silly, can the court order costs to be recouped back to the level of government that wasted time with it? Are there even costs to recoup?
I get it, people are angry at ISIS (usually for good reason), and they can't face someone on the other side of the planet, so they attack what they can... no matter how foolish it is and inaccurate the target may be, but the rest of us shouldn't be on the hook to tell these people they are wrong and wasting resources.
Will it matter by then? The sheriff's office will have possession of this guys electronic devices for how long before someone outside the parish gets a chance to review any of the legalities involved?
That's the thing with corrupt agents of the justice system, once they complete step 1 (arrest/impound), you are constantly playing catch-up and they hold all the cards.
Second, as for the harm done, remember that just a few seconds earlier Holder was admitting that these programs did very little of value? To then spin it around and claim that some sort of "darkness" was created because of this seems pretty silly. And, yes, it probably did harm some relationships, but is that really Snowden's fault... or the fault of what the leaks revealed about what the US government was doing in the first place?
Let's provide an analogy that government officials can understand...
Congressman John Doe cheats on his wife, effectively ruining his marriage, even if his wife hasn't found out yet. The friend of Mrs. Doe, Jackie, finds out 2 years later, and informs Mrs. Doe. According to Holder, Jackie is now responsible for ruining their marriage and should go to jail for adultery.
I admit to never having used AirBnB, so I'm not clear on all that they offer.
CDA 230 was not written as a Get out of Jail Free card. If it's illegal to do something on the phone (like set up rentals for unlicensed properties), it's still illegal to do it on the Internet.
I would agree, illegal offline is still illegal online, the addition of "on a computer" doesn't change the action, the technology is merely a tool. I just want to make sure the correct parties are blamed for their respective actions (illegal or otherwise).
I thought the same thing. If the Work is a prop, then doesn't fair use cover review/criticism, which is what using it as a prop in a comedy routine would be?
I disagree. I could potentially rent out my property without using AirBnB, and would still fall into the crosshairs of what these cities are complaining about.
Really, the property owner is the company, and AirBnB is a vendor they've contracted (in some fashion) to facilitate transactions and bookings with their clients/customers. AirBnB isn't responsible for the property owner following applicable laws.
Several hotels I've used, and LOTS of local restaurants, don't manage their bookings themselves, but redirect you to a 3rd party site (e.g. OpenTable.com). AirBnB is not much different, except you start at the AirBnB site instead of the property's site.
"...but the government has a justifiable right not to turn the information over to the defense?"
My problem is that the government doesn't have rights to my knowledge. The People have rights, the government is granted powers by the People, which can be revoked by the People (albeit, unlikely given the current state of the nation).
The exact same thing use to be true for HBO with their HBO Go, you were required to be a TV subscriber.
These days, HBO offers HBO Now, which is it's own subscription that does not require a TV subscription. I can only hope more channels will do these and abandon the cable gatekeepers. Although, that might create a new problem, where people have 5, 10, or 20 separate subscriptions to manage.
Myst?
Yelling Fire!
Re: Re:
Ban Breathing
“Terrorists are using Twitter,” Rep. Poe added, and “[i]t seems like it’s a violation of the law.”
Terrorists are breathing air! This seems wrong, we should ban air!
(untitled comment)
Wasted Costs?
I get it, people are angry at ISIS (usually for good reason), and they can't face someone on the other side of the planet, so they attack what they can... no matter how foolish it is and inaccurate the target may be, but the rest of us shouldn't be on the hook to tell these people they are wrong and wasting resources.
Re:
That's the thing with corrupt agents of the justice system, once they complete step 1 (arrest/impound), you are constantly playing catch-up and they hold all the cards.
Shoulders of Voters?
Re: Re: Make America Great Again
Re: MailInIsTheOnlyWayToGo
(I ask knowing full well that I have no confirmation of that even with the scanned paper ballots in my district.)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Let's provide an analogy that government officials can understand...
Congressman John Doe cheats on his wife, effectively ruining his marriage, even if his wife hasn't found out yet. The friend of Mrs. Doe, Jackie, finds out 2 years later, and informs Mrs. Doe. According to Holder, Jackie is now responsible for ruining their marriage and should go to jail for adultery.
Re: Um...no.
A legally purchased gun can be used to illegally murder someone, it doesn't make the initial purchase any more or less legal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are some differences
CDA 230 was not written as a Get out of Jail Free card. If it's illegal to do something on the phone (like set up rentals for unlicensed properties), it's still illegal to do it on the Internet.
I would agree, illegal offline is still illegal online, the addition of "on a computer" doesn't change the action, the technology is merely a tool. I just want to make sure the correct parties are blamed for their respective actions (illegal or otherwise).
Re:
Re: Re: There are some differences
Really, the property owner is the company, and AirBnB is a vendor they've contracted (in some fashion) to facilitate transactions and bookings with their clients/customers. AirBnB isn't responsible for the property owner following applicable laws.
Several hotels I've used, and LOTS of local restaurants, don't manage their bookings themselves, but redirect you to a 3rd party site (e.g. OpenTable.com). AirBnB is not much different, except you start at the AirBnB site instead of the property's site.
Roadside Confession
(untitled comment)
Or potentially neither, and simply passing on the article as his own when it was written by one of his masters at the RIAA?
Then again, if that were the case, maybe that's still considered lying?
Re:
My problem is that the government doesn't have rights to my knowledge. The People have rights, the government is granted powers by the People, which can be revoked by the People (albeit, unlikely given the current state of the nation).
Re: Re: Would cut, but cannot figure how to
The exact same thing use to be true for HBO with their HBO Go, you were required to be a TV subscriber.
These days, HBO offers HBO Now, which is it's own subscription that does not require a TV subscription. I can only hope more channels will do these and abandon the cable gatekeepers. Although, that might create a new problem, where people have 5, 10, or 20 separate subscriptions to manage.
More comments from GrooveNeedle >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GrooveNeedle.
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