Lance 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (11)
-
On the post: A Mess In The House: Dirty Pool As Rep. Schiff Inserts Loophole To Help The FBI Spy On You
-
On the post: Thinking Of Privacy As A Property Right Will End Badly
Lance ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2019 @ 12:26pmIt's probably impossible to "walk things back" at this point, but things should never have been allowed to get this far. We needed Congress to pass a law a long time ago (most appropriately in 1978 after the "third party doctrine" came into being) banning the divulging (for profit or not) of your information without an individualized waiver for every instance. Then, when the web came around, the selling of private info and tracking people around the web would have been non-starters. By now, huge companies are making a lot of money off of our info, and many smaller companies only exist to do so. Pretty hard to fix anything with all of them lined up against it.
-
On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom
Lance ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 11:51amRe: Kavanaugh
Just a reminder...In Bush V. Gore the Equal Protection Clause argument was 7-2. That's what ended things. The 5-4 part was whether there was an available alternative that could be used prior to the deadline. Also, 3 judges concurred that the Fla SC had erred, essentially making that part of the case 8-1. It wasn't actually a close case at all. The close part (5-4) was basically the liberal wing hoping a continued recount would de-legitimize Bush. It wouldn't have worked anyway, as nearly all who have studied the issue agree Bush would have held on.
-
On the post: Store Owner Sues Baton Rouge Police For Seizing His CCTV Recording Of Alton Sterling Shooting
Lance ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2016 @ 08:04pmRe: police detention
They may only detain you for a very short period of time (during which you may end the encounter when you wish) unless they can articulate a specific, reasonable belief that you may have committed a prosecutable offense. They can't accost you on the street and decide to talk to you (or make you sit in a car) for hours. They can't extend a traffic stop by more than a few minutes, because traffic violations are not crimes. Having access (we assume) to the video that was recorded in the store is clearly not a crime. Even refusing to hand it over would not be actionable. The only way they could legally detain him is if they caught him trying to alter or delete the video after they identified it as potential evidence. There is no way they had reason to believe he had committed a crime. What they did is at least false imprisonment. If they were concerned about destruction of evidence, they can hang around and make sure he doesn't delete anything while they get a warrant. They can't interfere with him otherwise. it is a clear violation of his civil rights, which is a crime by the police. We all know charges won't be filed, but that doesn't change the facts.
-
On the post: Ross Ulbricht Pulls Out A 4th Amendment Defense For Pretty Much Everything
Lance ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2014 @ 04:39pmThe article is incorrect in saying that his objections are based upon the recent Riley/Wurie cases. Those cases ruled that the police can't search through your data, upon arrest, without getting a warrant. In this case, the police DID get warrants. He is arguing that the warrants did not, as required by 4th amendment jurisprudence, list EXACTLY what they were looking for and how it tied into the specific crime being investigated. The defense is arguing that the warrants were simply to seize and examine the electronics without restriction, hoping to find something incriminating. That would arguably make it a "general" warrant, which is unconstitutional.
-
On the post: It's Come To This: Commentators Arguing That The Press Commits A Crime In Exposing NSA Surveillance
Lance ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2013 @ 02:11pmI reject his premise. Greenwald didn't violate 18USC798. The information release was not "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States" because WE are the United States, and WE need to know our gov't. is doing this crap. Neither was it "for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States".
So no law has been violated. I do agree that it is a first amm. violation to prosecute the publisher if he did not personally break a law in obtaining the information. -
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Lance ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2013 @ 10:29amtsarnaev-and-miranda
This is pertinent:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/
The anon in comment 17 is, while being an ass about it, quite correct.
It is not a violation of anyone's rights to skip Miranda, it simply means those statements cannot be admitted into a court proceeding unless they are later repeated after the warning.
While it has no reason to be publicized, the police do this on a smaller scale every single day. It is common to talk to a suspect before the Miranda caution trying to elicit important information about criminal activity. -
On the post: New Missouri Law May Make It Illegal To Friend Your Former Teachers On Facebook
Lance ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 11:08amThe law doesn't do what's being discussed here. It says written policies must be implemented regarding social networking sites. There are no restrictions in the law regarding them. Perhaps those policies will attempt to restrict friending somehow, but there's no indication of that in this law.
It says a teacher can't have his/her own "work-related" site that is not accessible by admins and parents. Further, it says a teacher's personal website (non-work related) must be available to all, or zero current/former students. No exclusive access for any particular student.
That's all it says. -
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Lance ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 01:09pmRe: Re:
I'm not prepared to declare it failed, but it needs to be pared back to the original creation. "Useful arts" was a term used to reference artisans, not artists. It was for craftmanship and manufacture. Science included things like philosophy and Literature (which I find highly questionable, but there you have it). There was never any basis for covering paintings, advertising, or photography among most other things. I don't really believe a good argument can be made that society needed to provide copyright protection to pictures.
-
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Lance ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2011 @ 12:44pmRe:
I don't see the trip-wire argument working for Caters. In that case, the photographer has set up all the elements (field, depth, light, etc.) and has a near 100% expectation of getting the shot when an animal appears. He is taking the picture using remote control. In this case, he did not take the picture, either remotely or physically. Had the animal not pushed the button, there is no picture. The only way to claim any ownership here is by saying "It's my camera, my picture.", which probably everyone in this forum already knows does not actually confer copyright ownership.
-
On the post: National Intelligence Director Wants Access To All Internet Communications
Lance ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2008 @ 11:39am"would grant the federal government the right to monitor..."
Could we please use the proper (and clarifying) term of "power" instead of "right". It is impossible for a government to have or obtain a "right". Only an individual can have a right to anything. A governmental power is simply a recognized ability to legally override an individual right. Misusing the terminology in this way is a tactic to make people see power grabs as a trade-off of rights- yours vs. the govt who is trying to protect everyone. This tactic is fairly successful with the general public, and we should be vigilant in attacking it wherever it appears. Stories like this (as well as any commentary about them) need to make it clear to everyone that the govt is attempting to seize more power.
Schiff
I think the question near the end about Schiff is actually very simple. He knows that everything associated with the Trump campaign surveillance was political and not about crime or protecting American citizens. He believes that the surveillance in the bill at issue is necessary to thwart terror and protect citizens. So, the two issues are completely disconnected in his mind. He would never consider the abuses toward the executive branch to be relevant in deciding what to do about actual crime.