Name one legitimate reason to have $100,000 dollars in US currency in your backseat. I'm pretty sure if you actually did have a reason, it would be returned or you could sue for it. Weren't you just arguing that Italy's laws are different then the US, but now you are using the US as an example? Also, was there even probable cause to take them down? We have that in the US too, but you may not have it in Italy. If you have that much money in cash, it is very likely you are breaking the law, likely drugs. You're still banned, troll, and you're running out of ammo too.
Unfortunately, no jury is allowed to know of jury nullification. If a juror is suspected of having knowledge of JN, they will be replaced. If the jury is informed of JN by the defense, the judge will declare a mistrial. More than that, the judge will blatantly lie to the jury in his instructions and tell them that if the prosecution proves that the defendant did what they're accused of, they MUST find them guilty.
Agreed. I wonder, will historians look back at computer science before 2010 and marvel at the 'charming naivete' of engineers, and will this period be known as the start of the weaponization of one the most collaborative disciplines?
The more strictly centralized the powerstructure is in a system, the more responsibility each piece of the chain has for subordinates. Since "shit falls downward", the more responsibility you can put on your subordinate, the less of the blame you will take and therefore the bigger your chances of promotion even after an "incident". By not taking the concerns from Snowden up or writing him off as a troublemaker to superiors they are protecting their CV from universally bad effects: - In case Snowden is getting persecuted the superior of Snowden would have to answer for why he let his subordinate do as he did, without informing his supeirior of the potential problems with him. - Should Snowdens concerns be taken at face value and acted upon, the result would be a critique of the specific department and the shit that will inevitably drip down on him from his superiors.
Not rocking the boat is just good judgement from a carreer perspective...
Look shitbag, the existence of due process and its application are two different things. Where is the due process when you are stopped for a traffic violation and $100,000 in US currency sitting in your back seat is seized? There's no trial, no court order, just some fool in power yelling "DRUGS!!!" at the top of his lungs.
Your due process comes after the seizure.
The point of the article was to whip up unthinking dolts like yourself into a lather by "revealing" some new and nefarious threat to freeloading. Now, please return to your seat on the short bus for the journey home.
Not for nothing, but if you check out some of the other laws listed in that chapter of the state laws (Chapter 272: CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER) then this thing about photography doesn't seem too out of place. For example: Adultery (Sec. 14) Section 14. A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
Fornication (Sec 18) (What? Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars. )
Not to nitpick, but was the RIAA (not MPAA) who came up with the "making available" doctrine, and got a judge to buy it, in Capitol Records v. Thomas.
"The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
No, video evidence IS admissible in court... with the victims you're robbing being the defendant and you being the victim testifying against them!
Prosecutor: Now, explain what the sex obsessed Mrs. Smith did to you.
Home Robber: Well, I had just broken into her house and grabbed $10,000 from her safe when I... I... saw her hidden camera blinking, aimed at my crotch!
Mrs Smith: This is ridiculous! He just admitted he broke into my house and stole $10,000, he should be getting charged with a crime not me!
Prosecutor: Shut up you mean sex obsessed old lady!
Judge: I've heard enough. Mrs. Smith there's no crime more vile then a sexual pervert trying to secretly record inappropriate pictures of others just to get their sexual high! I sentence you to 30 years in jail, and you have to register as a sex offender for violating this poor innocent man's rights!
There isn't a way to be absolutely sure you're secure, at least until you're suffering a breach and someone is proving that you aren't. Being secure is a moving target; there is no shortage of work required to keep up with the latest known threats (emphasis on known.)
Outrage/dissatisfaction over saying 'pretty sure' is tilting at windmills and shows a lack of understanding on the subject matter.
Eh, I see a significant amount of difference between "[..] fully clothed breasts, buttocks and genitals." and "[...] the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing"
The law seems to be pretty specific about the attempt to circumvent clothing. Children running through your back yard to stomp your daisies? Unless you're putting your security cameras underground pointed straight up a skirt, you're not attempting to circumvent any clothing. As for the nanny example... unless they're intentionally 'accidentally' flashing every potentially-camera-hiding thing in your home, it's not going to happen. The wording seems to be pretty clear-cut on positioning the camera in a way that would reveal parts of someone's body that they have covered. It's not about secretly taking a photo of a person, but about secretly taking a photo of a person up their skirt/kilt, or down their shirt. "It is now unlawful to secretly record images of fully clothed breasts, buttocks and genitals. Full stop." is a blatant lie.