This is true...well except for the remote phone exploits that allow phones (both mobile and landline) mic's to be surreptitiously turned on to turn the phone into a bug even tho it's not being actively used.
Or maybe you've got Siri or hello google on, which means the mic's has to always be on (to detect the spoken keywords) therefore available for eavesdropping.
Or smart TV's or games consoles with embedded cameras and mic's also potentially always on by design listening in (or watching) any conversation in their pickup range. Tablets and laptops the same.
Or hell, maybe they'll start putting mic's into smart light bulbs or toasters so you can voice control even more.
Unless you consciously take steps to ensure there are no mic's in the vicinity, it can be pretty hard to actually have a completely private conversation these days even if you aren't specifically under surveillance (in which case there are bugs and shotgun/laser mic's to also content with...tho the latter are pretty easy to defeat if you are paranoid to be concerned about them).
Considering that the most intrusive mass surveillance is done under direct personal presedential authorisation, e.g. EO 12333 amongst others, then there are no impediements, such as the legislature, or committees, or the cabinet, in the way at all. It has mostly been authorised via direct personal presedential decree, therefore can be removed by the presedent personally withdrawing that decree (Executive Order).
Purchasing BOTs are such a ciritical issue. I'm glad they fixed the financial bots, known as High Frequency Traders (HFC), the ones that distort the entire market and can cause hundreds of millions of dollars damages to the market in minutes, first before moving onto entertainement ticket purchasing bots...oh wait, never mind.
Some level of corporate personhood is necessary to be able to hold them liable.
I believe that other paths could have been taken to be able to hold corporations liable than the shortcut, or the legal fiction, of declaring corporations as persons.
As I understand it, the legal fiction of saying that corporations were people arose out of contract law, where only people could enter into, and be bound by/liable for contracts. Which worked fine when the only business types of the era were individuals, families where you had a head of a family (e.g. Venetian trading families, noble families, etc.) who could enter into contracts, or partnerships where the partners can take personal liability for contracts. However, when this new business type, the limited liability corporation, arose, there was no person, no owner, who could or would take personal liability, personal responsibility, for contracts. Therefore, technically under the law, these corporations could not enter into nor be held liable for contracts. Which means no loans (lending or borrowing), no investors, no insurance, no trading agreements, no supply agreements, no land ownership, no ownership of anything that required a contract to implement, pretty much entirely hobbled.
To get around this, and to allow the business construct of the corporation function, the courts of the day, not the legislature's, adopted the legal fiction that a corporation was a person. From that point on, as they were now legally people, corporations could enter into and be held liable for contracts.
Now, I think this was a fine, short-term common law fix to the problem. However, the legislature's got lazy and just went with this common law fix. In IT we'd call this a temporary work-around while the bug was properly fixed in code (legislation). But there never was a proper fix, the work-around was allowed to become the norm.
Legislation could have been enacted that allowed for corporations to enter contracts without them being granted personhood. Or could have been enacted that allowed them limited personhood, only applicable to contract law and for no other purposes. But since we were relyng on the common law definition that a corporation was a person, that then led to the perverse issues we have today around whether legislation, constitutions, and other existing or new laws apply or do not apply to corporations as they are people.
I mean, rather than what I think should be the de-facto situation where unless specifically included a corporation is included (opt-in), we have a situation where legislation has to be crafted to specifically exclude corporations (opt-out) if the drafters don't want to include corporations. And this is typically done by using phrasing such as natural person rather than just saying person.
Correct, but since that us not relevant to the calls of 'perjury" being made about these lawyers, I did not think it relevant on the point that the lawyers presenting a case are not committing perjury.
Nope they built OS/2 and took what they learned in the process. See Also: Video of Young Bill Gates 'We here at Microsoft believe that 0S/2 is the operating system of the 90's' (paraphrased from memory)
Windows existed long before OS/2, and GUIs long before that.
After windows 1 and 2, MS and IBM entered a partnership to make OS/2. OS/2 was basically supposed to replace the Windows line. But while OS/2 was under development and it's initial releases, Windows 3 (unlike 1 and 2) became wildly popular, especially 3.11 (aka Windows for Workgroups). Whereupon MS basically renegged on all it's OS/2 agreements (well, found legal loop-holes to leave), dumped OS/2 development and re-directed it all to Windows, leaving IBM to continue developing and supporting OS/2 alone. And did the usual MS practice of doing it's best to extinguish OS/2 (an OS it co-developed).
I doubt the Russians have any incentive to change votes.
I mean, the current US political system is just as captured as the previous Soviet system. The only difference is in the Soviet system you had to be a member of the communist party. In the US system you have to be a member of one of 2 parties.
I'd suggest the CIA or NSA have a greater vested interest in changing e-votes than the Russians.
Negotiations between corporations are usually carried out under NDAs.
Even if they aren't, if the companies keep the details confidential and don't release them to the public, then doing anything with that information is a form of insider trading.
If the negotiations weren't done under NDAs, then the companies could have released the details publically, and that would have been ok. However, by keeping the details private, not available to general stock investors and so on, they can't then selectively release the information to other people, favourite investors, friends, other competitors. That is illegal. Either it's public information available to all, investors, competitors, stock brokers, mum and dad, or it is available to no-one (besides the negotiating parties).
And on top of that, when competitors co-ordinate actions in their markets, that is anti-trust law. A goup of supermarkets can't get together and set the prices of their goods together. A group of broadcasters can't get together and set how much they will pay for shows. It's price fixing.
While the 10 commandments may have been written directly by God, no such provenance exists for the bible as a whole.
The bible is a book written by man. Containing all the flaws that implies.
It may not have changed much recently, in the last 500 or 600 years, but the bible that you read today is not the same as the bible from 1800 years ago, which was different to the one from 1600 years ago which was different from the one from 1400 years ago.
The Vatican, prior to the protestant splits, decided what is "the bible", and they have edited it, included and excluded certain parables and stories and whatnot as suited their own personal beliefs and wordly goals.
And, like any book or set of laws, it is open to interpretation. Entire wars have been fought over different interpretations of the same few lines of text. So even if the words written down don't change, what they mean or how they're viewed does change.
When people go to war, conduct genocide, pogroms, murder, torture, exile, because of different interpretations of the same language in the same book? That's madness.
The lawyers providing representation in cases do not take oaths. Nothing a lawyer says as part of their cases as representatives or the palintiff of defendent is said under oath. Otherwise they'd all be committing perjury when they make their opening statements "We will prove/disprove that it did/did not happen".
It's only witnesses called to the stand that take the oaths, and if a case, as in these examples, never actually goes to trial, no-one takes any oaths during the entire process.
I'm not saying it's not a fraud on the court, misrepresentation, but what it is not in any way, shape or form is perjury.