So then assuming that the military will not have a major role in future UAV usage in the US, the question really is, can federal law enforcement officers use UAVs to inflict bodily harm on a person that they suspect of a crime, and if so, will they be able to do so without judicial review?
This situation would be similar to one where a US Marshal, an FBI agent, or some other federal officer shoots someone because they thought that the person was about to harm them or someone else. Who reviews those actions before the agent pulls the trigger?
What we need to think about here is this: If law enforcement officers are sent to question or arrest someone, and that person is shot in the process, that's one thing. If the officers were sent to kill the person, that's something entirely else. That's what we are facing.
When people talk about "drones", we have to sort out whether the unmanned aerial vehicles / remotely piloted vehicles are being operated by the US military or by some US law enforcement agency, such as DHS or a local sheriff's department or police department.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (last updated in 1981) and the Insurrection Act of 1807 (last updated in 2008) govern the use of the US military within the borders of the US. They prohibit the use of military resources in a law enforcement role with certain exceptions. Operating UAVs/RPVs would fall under these laws and some of the exceptions would allow for the military to operate "drones" in the US.
When UAVs/RPVs become available to federal, state, and local law enforcement, it will be a whole new world.
I believe that the President is not interested in such things as copyright and the DCMA and therefore has no knowledge of how they work or their implications. I believe that he spends most of his time worrying about how he will be able to shape the economy and American society.
Would he even understand the problem? I think not. If he does tackle the question, his answer will most likely have been given to him by his minions.
Manning is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which in some ways is more protective of defendants' rights and in some ways can mandate more severe punishment. It was signed into law in 1950 by President Truman. This is not new legislation.
Everyone who enters the US military is made aware of the UCMJ. Manning knew the risks and lost. If he was standing up for his ethical beliefs, good for him, but he should also be willing to accept the consequences.
The US has a long history of nativism {Wikipedia] where trained and talented people from other countries were denied entrance, or once on shore, were mistreated. We are seeing that same thing raise it's ugly head once again.
Be it pro sports, college sports in the US, or now the athletic-games-that-shall-not-be-mentioned, the whole point of the event is to generate revenue, and the guilty parties include the US Infernal Revenue Service which has determined the amount of money that the US medal winners must pay on the value of the gold and silver in their medals.
Congratulations on winning boys and girls! Now where's our check?
The shooting in Norway was performed by a local person who did not like some of his government's policies.
The two attacks on the world trade center were done by foreign organizations who did not and continue to not like the United States' policies.
See the difference?
I wonder if Norway would have reacted differently if a foreign organization had on two separate occasions killed over 3000 of their citizens in their largest city.
I seem to remember that the "Deadwood" mini-series held some sort of record for the most cuss words used per minute, or something like that, and also that these words were not actually used back in the 1800's. Words like f*ck, c*nt, etc...
Apparently the producers did their best to keep all the other parts of the episodes as close to that time period as possible, but unfortunately for them, the words that were shockers back in those days aren't shocking anymore, so they had to "update" the cussing.
A few years ago I bought a used Audi from someone. This vehicle was built in Neckarsulm, Germany and imported into the US. It has software in the computer, the copyright of which belongs to Audi in Germany.
Question: Can I have the seller arrested for copyright violation, get my money back, and keep the car? It's really nice...
A Bureau of Labor Statistics guy testified in front of a congressional committee the other day and agreed that bus driver jobs are considered green jobs. Since that bus driver takes people to the grocery store where they interact with other people who have IP-related jobs, couldn't the bus driver's job be counted as IP-related as well?
There you go! That one job fills a slot in two of the administration's favorite job categories! It's a double win!
In the sales world they have been indoctrinated to think view at the world this way. Look at all the TV commercials that tell you that something has a value of $X but they will sell it to you in the next 15 minutes for $Y, a terrific savings of $Z!
It doesn't matter if the item isn't "worth" $X to me. They tell me it is. Is the latest PC video game "worth" $49.99? Maybe not if there is a similar one selling for $29.99.
Using EA's analogy, if I can buy a pair of shoes at Target that meets my needs and feel really comfy, why would I pay double at Nordstroms? Other than the feeling of being superior than the folks who shop at Target, or heaven forbid, Walmart? Hahahaha...
My T-Mobile non-contract family plan still provides me with unlimited data, unlimited voice, and unlimited text and that includes tethering use for an extra $10 per month. My only issue is that I live in an area with mostly EDGE coverage so I never actually get close to 5GB per month. LOL!
BTW - I don't think that T-Mobile offers this type of account anymore, so I guess that I am one of the lucky ones with this kind of grandfathered setup.
Now I hope that readers don't think that I was saying that it was wrong for the IT world to build stuff so that even the unwashed masses can easily access all the information that is available over the 'net, it's just my observation that by creating these services (see the list of things that Rekrul posted above) we've also dumbed down the entry level for use of the 'net.
However, just because many, if not most, of the people who use the 'net these days don't have a clue about how it works, just like many people who drive cars don't have a clue about how the internal combustion engine works let along their car's computer, that doesn't mean that folks who lack the knowledge of how things work should be allowed to pass laws concerning the usage of said things.
This is no different than just about every other situation where people sit in positions of authority and make laws, rules, and regulations about how the rest of humanity should behave. Would it be a good thing to have people on a school board if they weren't able to read or write? How about placing people into positions in a regulatory agency where they would write rules about how a particular industry has to behave when they have no experience in that industry?
If the people in these positions would do the ethical thing, they would either educate themselves in the particular area or resign for the good of their subjects. Do I think that the folks in the MPAA/RIAA and their cronies (both in and out of government) will want to learn how the 'net works so that they can make money off of it without destroying it? Not in my lifetime. It's easier and less expensive to simply file law suits.
"No taxes have been paid on this income"
Since the federal government seems to be a bit short right now when it comes to funds, I hope they make a visit to these guys' bank accounts.
Hahahahahaha...
Re: Re: Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
So then assuming that the military will not have a major role in future UAV usage in the US, the question really is, can federal law enforcement officers use UAVs to inflict bodily harm on a person that they suspect of a crime, and if so, will they be able to do so without judicial review?
This situation would be similar to one where a US Marshal, an FBI agent, or some other federal officer shoots someone because they thought that the person was about to harm them or someone else. Who reviews those actions before the agent pulls the trigger?
What we need to think about here is this: If law enforcement officers are sent to question or arrest someone, and that person is shot in the process, that's one thing. If the officers were sent to kill the person, that's something entirely else. That's what we are facing.
Are these USAF UAVs or are they law enforcement UAVs?
When people talk about "drones", we have to sort out whether the unmanned aerial vehicles / remotely piloted vehicles are being operated by the US military or by some US law enforcement agency, such as DHS or a local sheriff's department or police department.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (last updated in 1981) and the Insurrection Act of 1807 (last updated in 2008) govern the use of the US military within the borders of the US. They prohibit the use of military resources in a law enforcement role with certain exceptions. Operating UAVs/RPVs would fall under these laws and some of the exceptions would allow for the military to operate "drones" in the US.
When UAVs/RPVs become available to federal, state, and local law enforcement, it will be a whole new world.
Will he understand the question?
I believe that the President is not interested in such things as copyright and the DCMA and therefore has no knowledge of how they work or their implications. I believe that he spends most of his time worrying about how he will be able to shape the economy and American society.
Would he even understand the problem? I think not. If he does tackle the question, his answer will most likely have been given to him by his minions.
This is a similar to an earlier situation from the late 50's
Check out the film "The Mouse that Roared"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared_(film)
;-)
Civil law is different than military law
Manning is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which in some ways is more protective of defendants' rights and in some ways can mandate more severe punishment. It was signed into law in 1950 by President Truman. This is not new legislation.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_Of_Military_Justice
Everyone who enters the US military is made aware of the UCMJ. Manning knew the risks and lost. If he was standing up for his ethical beliefs, good for him, but he should also be willing to accept the consequences.
The reason? Nativism...
The US has a long history of nativism {Wikipedia] where trained and talented people from other countries were denied entrance, or once on shore, were mistreated. We are seeing that same thing raise it's ugly head once again.
Sports is just another profit-oriented industry
Be it pro sports, college sports in the US, or now the athletic-games-that-shall-not-be-mentioned, the whole point of the event is to generate revenue, and the guilty parties include the US Infernal Revenue Service which has determined the amount of money that the US medal winners must pay on the value of the gold and silver in their medals.
Congratulations on winning boys and girls! Now where's our check?
Comparing apples and oranges
The shooting in Norway was performed by a local person who did not like some of his government's policies.
The two attacks on the world trade center were done by foreign organizations who did not and continue to not like the United States' policies.
See the difference?
I wonder if Norway would have reacted differently if a foreign organization had on two separate occasions killed over 3000 of their citizens in their largest city.
What about Brook Shields?
She had a unibrow years ago. She should sue.
Re: two party system, FTW!
Crony capitalism... Both major parties suffer from this malady.
How will I know if I'm a criminal?
If I sell something at a yard sale or flea market, how will I know if the item has a copyrighted something-or-another somewhere in it or on it?
Looks like eBay and Craig's List are doomed...
I'd like to see a similar study of "Deadwood"
I seem to remember that the "Deadwood" mini-series held some sort of record for the most cuss words used per minute, or something like that, and also that these words were not actually used back in the 1800's. Words like f*ck, c*nt, etc...
Apparently the producers did their best to keep all the other parts of the episodes as close to that time period as possible, but unfortunately for them, the words that were shockers back in those days aren't shocking anymore, so they had to "update" the cussing.
What about cars?
A few years ago I bought a used Audi from someone. This vehicle was built in Neckarsulm, Germany and imported into the US. It has software in the computer, the copyright of which belongs to Audi in Germany.
Question: Can I have the seller arrested for copyright violation, get my money back, and keep the car? It's really nice...
;-)
Government Statistics are Amazing
A Bureau of Labor Statistics guy testified in front of a congressional committee the other day and agreed that bus driver jobs are considered green jobs. Since that bus driver takes people to the grocery store where they interact with other people who have IP-related jobs, couldn't the bus driver's job be counted as IP-related as well?
There you go! That one job fills a slot in two of the administration's favorite job categories! It's a double win!
Re: Typical Salesman-speak
Oops - Typo in the first sentence. It should read "indoctrinated to view the world this way."
Typical Salesman-speak
In the sales world they have been indoctrinated to think view at the world this way. Look at all the TV commercials that tell you that something has a value of $X but they will sell it to you in the next 15 minutes for $Y, a terrific savings of $Z!
It doesn't matter if the item isn't "worth" $X to me. They tell me it is. Is the latest PC video game "worth" $49.99? Maybe not if there is a similar one selling for $29.99.
Using EA's analogy, if I can buy a pair of shoes at Target that meets my needs and feel really comfy, why would I pay double at Nordstroms? Other than the feeling of being superior than the folks who shop at Target, or heaven forbid, Walmart? Hahahaha...
I still have unlimited data bandwidth through T-Mobile
My T-Mobile non-contract family plan still provides me with unlimited data, unlimited voice, and unlimited text and that includes tethering use for an extra $10 per month. My only issue is that I live in an area with mostly EDGE coverage so I never actually get close to 5GB per month. LOL!
BTW - I don't think that T-Mobile offers this type of account anymore, so I guess that I am one of the lucky ones with this kind of grandfathered setup.
Re: Embed mildly broken
I saw the same message but when I signed in to Techdirt, the video appeared. Coincidence?
Re: Re: Re: Look at it from their (uneducated) viewpoint
Now I hope that readers don't think that I was saying that it was wrong for the IT world to build stuff so that even the unwashed masses can easily access all the information that is available over the 'net, it's just my observation that by creating these services (see the list of things that Rekrul posted above) we've also dumbed down the entry level for use of the 'net.
However, just because many, if not most, of the people who use the 'net these days don't have a clue about how it works, just like many people who drive cars don't have a clue about how the internal combustion engine works let along their car's computer, that doesn't mean that folks who lack the knowledge of how things work should be allowed to pass laws concerning the usage of said things.
This is no different than just about every other situation where people sit in positions of authority and make laws, rules, and regulations about how the rest of humanity should behave. Would it be a good thing to have people on a school board if they weren't able to read or write? How about placing people into positions in a regulatory agency where they would write rules about how a particular industry has to behave when they have no experience in that industry?
If the people in these positions would do the ethical thing, they would either educate themselves in the particular area or resign for the good of their subjects. Do I think that the folks in the MPAA/RIAA and their cronies (both in and out of government) will want to learn how the 'net works so that they can make money off of it without destroying it? Not in my lifetime. It's easier and less expensive to simply file law suits.