> Maybe so, but the complaint review board says otherwise. > His officers may have had the "reasonable suspicion" to > take pictures, but they clearly didn't have the right to > continue to do so after being told not to by an officer > of the court
Being an officer of the court doesn't give a lawyer some super power or authority to give unilaterally binding orders to other citizens.
She could ask the cops to stop questioning her client, but if they keep questioning anyway, the only consequence is that whatever the client says is inadmissible at trial.
Likewise, the chief was correct-- just as citizens can legally photograph anything they want in a public place, so can the cops. Being told "stop" by a defense attorney doesn't strip them of that right, nor does that attorney's status as an "officer of the court" place her in a position of superior authority over the police.
> Because these folks are in prison, and as we all know > everybody in prison is guilty
Yes, actually. The vast majority of them are. The implication here is that because of that minuscule percentage that aren't guilty of that for which they've been incarcerated, I'm somehow supposed worry about how much all the rest of the murderers, rapists, embezzlers, and thieves are being charged to make phone calls?
> 'Companies are responsible for breaking their own > security anytime someone with the 'proper paperwork' > comes knocking, and if they refuse for any reason they > should be punished until they comply.'
A judge can issue an order requiring me to make the sun rise in the west instead of the east from now on. Doesn't mean I'll somehow be able to alter the spin of the planet. There are some things that are just immune to court orders, and math is one of them. 2+2 does not equal fifteen just because a judge orders it to.
The issue with Apple is that they're being forced to modify the OS to disable the phone's lock-out feature, not break encryption.
With WhatsApp, there is no operating system to modify. The user's data is just encrypted. Period. There's no modification of the app which the company can write that will magically decrypt what has already been encrypted. Without the key (which the company does not have), there's nothing they can do.
> Nope, your right do not disappear just because you left > the country.
Nor does one have a right to Miranda warnings or a fair trial when engaged in a combat theater adhering to the enemy, against the United States.
> I hope you get Droned as a terrorist the next time you > make a trip abroad
Ah, there's that famous tolerance and sensitivity I've heard so much about. Someone disagrees with you and you hope they are killed for it, using the very method to which you are supposedly so vociferously opposed.
You're a real peach, that's what you are.
(Oh, and just for the record, I travel abroad quite a bit and I have zero worries that my government will assassinate me while doing it, for the simple reason that I have not taken up arms against the United States in a combat zone.)
> one of the things that helps to limit levels of > aggression that are unethical is the expense of > conducting that aggression.
That sounds good in theory, but where does it stop?
Armor (tanks, troop transports, etc.) confers a vast cost advantage against an enemy that is not so equipped. Should we be morally or legally prohibited from giving our troops the protection of armored vehicles because the enemy generally doesn't have them, so that we can feel the cost of combat more acutely?
Heck, if that's the criteria, then aircraft of *any* kind should be off limits, since the enemies with which we are currently engaged have no air resources at all.
No, I categorically reject the notion that our troops shouldn't enjoy every protection and advantage we can give them when they are ordered to march into danger and risk their lives on our behalf. Military combat is not meant to be a fair fight. The goal is to overwhelm and destroy the enemy quickly and completely, with as little cost to your own side as can be managed.
> Obama used it against a U.S.citizen. Bush never did.
When US citizens are sitting with the enemy in foreign lands, plotting and carrying out operations against US troops in a theater of combat, I couldn't give a good goddam what passport they are carrying. They're valid military targets.
We sure as hell don't need to start putting our military in the position of having to call time-outs during overseas operations so an FBI agent can run out onto the battlefield and read some guy his Miranda rights before we can shoot at him.
There's nothing in the Constitution that requires our military to treat an engaged enemy on the field of combat differently based on his citizenship or nationality.
You don't want to be droned from the sky while you're sitting with ISIS in a hut in Ramallah plotting how to kill your fellow Americans? There's an absolutely foolproof way to keep that from ever happening to you: Don't go to Ramallah and sit in a hut with ISIS and plot how to kill your fellow Americans.
> Take, for example, the issue of extrajudicial executions > via drones ("murder from the sky"). The Obama > administration embraced this strategy gleefully, after it > was started by the previous administration of George W. > Bush.
How in the hell was this started by George Bush? We've been bombing enemy targets from the air since the invention of military aircraft, for gawd's sake.
There is *no* legal or moral difference in dropping a bomb on the enemy via drone than there is dropping that same bomb on that same enemy from a fighter plane. The only difference is where the pilot is sitting when it happens, and that has zero relevance to the operation's legality or morality.
A bombing sortie on the enemy conducted via F-16 doesn't suddenly become "murder from the sky" when done via drone.
And yes, operations conducted in the theater of combat are by definition extrajudicial. That's hardly the bad thing your tone implies. The last thing we need or want is our military commanders hamstrung by having to run to a judge to plead their case and get a warrant before being able to strike an enemy target. And more to the point, such silliness is required nowhere in the Constitution. The judiciary has *no* place whatsoever in military combat operations.
> Second, Mr. Levy is a typical American lawyer who thinks > American law rules the world.
He doesn't think American law rules the world. He thinks American law rules America, which is where Masnick, his website, and the comments at issue, are located.
> An Australian Court can also order Google to remove all > of these posts and articles.
That would be impossible, since Google doesn't own or have access to the servers on which Masnick's website resides.
> Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson's client > moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt > refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt.
Which also wouldn't be enforceable. What does Masnick care what some judge in Australia says about him being in contempt? It's not like the American government is going to allow Australian cops to come to California, put him in handcuffs, and ship him back to Oz to serve time.
"Please explain the exact circumstances in which said defamation perpetrator would be required to travel to a foreign country to face trial on charges which are perfectly legal in their own country."
"There is no extradition that I am aware of in this case, and no way Gibson could win a judgment in California, which is in the US."
Y'all are confusing criminal and civil law. Extradition only occurs for criminal cases. In civil cases, if the defendant is a foreign person or corporation, then then only money damages are at issue (not prison time), so there is no need for the court to extradite the defendant's physical body from one country to another.
If the foreign defendant loses the case, the plaintiff can seize any assets the foreign defendant has in the country to satisfy the judgment. If the foreign defendant has no assets in the country, the plaintiff has to take his judgment to the courts in the foreign defendant's country and ask them to enforce it.
In the present case, if Trkulja/Gibson do that, the US court will look at the judgment, see that it doesn't comply with US principles of free speech and due process, and reject enforcement of it under the SPEECH Act.
At no point will Masnick ever be in danger of extradition to Australia.
Spying aside, I will support the notion that people need to get their heads out of those damn phones and look where they're going.
Walking to lunch today, I was run into twice by idiots who were too busy texting to look where they were walking and one moron nearly walked into an intersection against the light and barely avoided being turned into road pizza, again had his face buried in his screen instead of eyes up, looking where he was going.