The first was a guy who pled guilty for possessing child porn. During the plea he tried to blame it on pop-ups and malware. The judge asked, "If it was all downloaded accidentally, why was so much of it found printed out?
The defendant said with a straight face, "Your honor, I only printed it out so I could throw it away."
The second was a guy who was accused of taking hidden-camera videos of his underage step daughter having sex with her boyfriend. Of course he only did it to make sure she was actually having sex with her boyfriend so he could talk to her about it later. He was also accused of giving her enemas when she was much younger, because according to him, she had undiagnosed bowel problems.
The last is a 50+ year old guy who was babysitting his neighbors' 9 year old daughter. He was caught in bed with her by her parents when they got home. His excuse? He got tired so he stripped completely naked and got into the parents' bed. Then when the 9 year old crawled into bed and started having sex with him in the dark, he assumed it was his 50+ year old, nearly 200 pound wife. He was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct and is currently service a life time in prison.
This all started when the Right started complaining that criminals were getting off on "technicalities." Think about that. Such complaints reduced the Constitution to being nothing more than a a mere technically. Not something real, but a collection minor and esoteric points of law that should be fixed.
The government violating the Constitution should never be seen as a trivial matter.
Snowden clearly did have other avenues. Great criminals always have a backup plan, and this is the fed's backup plan. "Whistleblowers don't need to go to the press, if something is wrong, just tell us." Who's not going to buy that?!
However, the other avenue is clearly illusory and and was designed to find out who the whisteblowers are, to keep information from going public, and to use against whistleblowers who go straight to the press. There is simply no way the plan could work as designed.
Obama currently has no credibility. It's clear he'll say anything, no matter how ludicrous, to keep us in the dark. Snowden's leak won't destroy his presidency, but it has destroyed his legacy.
Hollywood is missing out on a huge market. Movies such as V for Vendetta should be recut and released from the status quo's perspective.
In other words, there should be a Tyrant's Cut where Adam Sutler wins and single-handedly kills V. A recut of the Matrix trilogy where Neo is killed by Agent Smith. And maybe a recut of Eastwood's The Gauntlet where Clint and Sondra Locke are stopped and killed by the police.
Why is Hollywood ignoring this vast untapped market?
Unfortunately, under the law as it is now, it probably is constitutional. The police can legally stop a vehicle for any valid traffic violation, even if the traffic stop is mere pretext. E.g., Whren v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 1996 or Arkansas v. Sullivan, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2001
I realize the likely illegally obtained pretext from NSA makes this different, but it's obviously never been tested in court. For a court to find it unconstitutional, it would have to disregard and overturn a ton of contrary caselaw which supports an officer's ability to stop vehicles for any valid traffic violation. I highly doubt the United States Supreme Court would, given its current makeup.
As an attorney and with my unfortunate experience with the criminal justice system, I've noticed two types of lie detector advocates. The first type realize the tests are complete BS but skillfully use then to draw out confessions.
The second type are scary, they're absolute true believers. And like any true believer, they're dogmatic and prone to anger when confronted with actual verifiable evidence.
I'm assuming (based upon my own subjective opinion) that John Schwartz falls into the latter group.
"we used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, they must have taken "our" money."
I think it's actually worse. I think it's: "We used to be making a lot more money, they're making a lot of money now -- therefore, we must have their money."
As mentioned before, the copyright industry does not work in a free and open market. They don't care about competing or getting customers. They exist solely because the law says particular people have to pay. Because Google has money, the copyright industry has decided it should pay.
Think about it from the copyright industry's perspective. They're old men. They don't really understand the internet. And as far as they're concerned, Google is the internet. If that's true, well, make 'em pay, god damnit!