I think this ranking of results should be introduced as another filter, like they have a porn filter, so that the searcher can choose whether or not to see results affected by this.
I think they need to make 2 new filters.
1) Nanny State Filter - this would incorporate the existing porn filter and this new 'offensive' results filter.
2) Big Brother filter - this would do 2 things: a) filter out anything the local national government doesn't want you to see, pirate sites, electoral opposition, topics they don't want covered, i.e. a per-nation-tuned version of the Great Firewall. b) send every search query, and any resultant links clicked on, to the government, with identifying information, so the government can keep an eye on you.
3) this isn't really a filter, it's an easy way to disable all the other filters, it's called the Freedom Button. Pressing this will disable all the filters.
Then as a user you can choose, Freedom, Nanny Stage or Big Brother (or Nanny + Brother).
Custom firmware. Therefore it's not based on hardware detection.
However, there are things in the firmware that could give them away - e.g. the ISP could monitor for communications with the reporting servers if the firmware directly accesses these rather than using some obfuscation method (such as randomized proxies/VPNs etc.) or even DPI if the reporting doesn't use SSL (which I would hope it would).
The linked article stated that it took 3 weeks (usually 3-6 months, but they got a hurry-up) and he was released and charges dropped after that because there was no evidence of child-porn.
However, the long-term impact still existed, he worked as a counselor for abused teens - often sexual abuse. Therefore there was a cloud over him in this job as the police had informed his employer of the arrest. The arrest was public record, and therefore employers, especially those whose work was to do with children, counselors, teachers and so on - which is what his job was - would find that record in a police background check of him.
Not to mention that because of the arrest, social services got involved, and their records would have that he was arrested for child-porn, which could impact any future interactions that involved social services.
Beyond the initial mistake, another big issue here was that he never should have been arrested and charged in the first place.
The appropriate procedure is to serve a search warrant, take possession of any materials, examine them, and after the examination make a decision on whether he should be arrested or not. Which in this case would have been a 'not'.
It was completely inappropriate for the police to have sought out an arrest warrant prior to completing and reviewing the results of a search warrant.
If he had never been arrested, most of the issues caused would not have arisen, as it was because of the arrest that the follow-on issues occurred.
I still don't see how a court justified the idea that it's ok for cops not to know the law.
That's not quite what the judgement said, it's a bit more nuanced than that.
I had a bit of a read of it a while back after some links from here and with respect to another judgement (also noted here on TD) where a court didn't accept that the cops didn't know the law as an excuse. This apparent conflict got me reading a bit.
This latter situation was to do with a stop in some state where the excuse for the stop was because the car didn't have a passenger-side side mirror. The states laws required cars to have a passenger-side mirror, however, the law explicitly stated that that regulation only applied to vehicles that were registered in that state and did not apply to out-of-state registered vehicles, such as the target of the stop. The cops said it was an honest mistake and they didn't know that. However the judge (may have been appeals) still tossed it out, and the results of the searches due to the stop, with reference to the Supreme Court decision that people say stated that "cops don't need to know the law" noting that that case did not apply.
The gist of the discussion and ruling was that the Supreme Court case related to where an ambiguity can exist in the language of a statute and that ambiguity has been clarified or narrowed by common-law decisions in court. The cops aren't expected to be aware of all the subtle rulings, clarifications, precedents and so on that can alter or narrow the effect of a statute.
However in the example case, there was no dependency on those sorts of rulings/situations, as the statute was plain and straightforward, no ambiguity, no precedent's to refer to.
So "cops don't need to know the law" is too simplistic a summation of that Supreme Court case.
In this incident being reported, the cops merely said it was illegal and made threats based on that, they didn't actually take any physical action - no arrest, no confiscation - to prevent the filming. It was used as intimidation, rather than as an excuse to arrest.
And there are other precedents (probably more nuanced than I'm using here) that say that the police are allowed to lie to suspects. They can say "hey, what you just did is illegal and the minimum sentence for that is 3 years, but we'll forget about it if you tell us...". So them saying it is illegal to film them (when it isn't) in itself isn't illegal - although it should be.
IMO deliberately misstating the law by a law officer or other officer of the court while acting in an official capacity should be illegal.
There are incentives other than money to write books.
Or writing a textbook could be seen as a loss-leader.
Even if you don't make much money directly from the textbook, I'm pretty sure a lecturer being able to say "I literally wrote the textbook on " would make them a highly sought-after teacher. They could pick and choose the teaching positions, and it would be a leg-up on getting tenure too.
The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites. Any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office.
In this context an accommodation is synonymous with advantage and gain.