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.
On Android, when you install a 3rd party keyboard, you'll get a notification about how the developer can intercept what you type (SwiftKey anyone?).
That's sorta how keyboards work.
If the keyboard can't intercept keystrokes (what you are typing), then the keyboard won't function. If it's not allowed to intercept keystrokes, it can't receive input from the touchscreen and then translate that into a keystroke (a, b, c...) to be sent to/from the application that's using the keyboard (browser, SMS app, etc.).
The problem arises when a keyboard app can:
1) intercept keystrokes (i.e. do its job);
2) access communications interfaces (bluetooth, 3/4/X/G, USB, thunderbolt, IR, WiFi).
Therefore a developer of the keyboard, in addition to legitimately intercepting the keystrokes, could also illegitimately forward those on through the communications interfaces.
Of course, there are legitimate reasons for forwarding on the keystrokes - cloud-based handwriting/voice recognition, and so on.
Or, you could draw lines through the bad part of the agreement, initial by each line, sign the amended contract and hand it to them. Unless they see you scribbling in it, they're unlikely to read what you did, and if they accept the signed agreement back and then give you service, they've accepted the contract.
Any such amendment made on the copy of a contract must be initialed by all parties. If an alteration is initialled by only one party, it is not a valid alteration and the unaltered contract is in force. Otherwise alterations could be made unilaterally by only 1 party after the contract had already been signed.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.
Saying "go find it yourself" doesn't meet the burden of proof on the person making a claim.
government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website
Because the former would require significantly more resources - manpower, money - and harm the political donations and kickbacks from a major industry - Hollywood - and embarrass more wealthy and powerful people - again Hollywood - than the latter.
While it would be a significant political statement from those providers, it would not be technically effective to prevent access.
They could just use the standard mechanisms that are advised for downloaders or geo-block defeating or people behind regimes like China's Great Firewall - VPNs, proxies, etc.
Of course, that could open up another can of worms. I seem to recall a case (details escape me, therefore I could be completely, utterly wrong) that was reported here on TD a while back, where someone was convicted, I think under the CFAA, for bypassing those types of blocks. The accused had received C&Ds to stop accessing a service and the IP blocks were then regarded as technological access control measures (so maybe it was the DMCA?), therefore bypassing them was a breach of something-or-other.
Any website that went over to requiring a facebook account to comment on I stopped visiting. Perfect example was Techcrunch, when they went to requiring facebook I stopped visiting entirely. Even after they reversed that requirement 2(?) years later, I still don't visit the site , with the exception of reading the articles there about their policy reversal, but apart from that I've never been back. I don't trust the judgement of people who'd make such a stupid decision in the first place.