The case will be settled by the police union or even the police department, which will come out of the city's budget, which will mean taxpayers have to pay for this. Then, because the city has to pay the lawsuit, they may cut the budget of the public defender's office, where she works.
There's no incentive for police not to do things like this since they won't be held personally accountable. Oh, they shouldn't do these things because it's the right thing to do? That's a nice dream to have.
On a related note, does the movie industry think picture quality matters or not? Sony (and others) push their curved 4K TV's and super-hi-def blu-ray players for the home market, yet the MPAA still thinks it's okay to send DVD's to their screeners? Why not send them 4K TV's so they get the best viewing experience also?
And if the picture quality doesn't matter, then that would explain the MPAA's need to go after cam-corders: if people see the story, even at a crappy resolution, then they won't go see the IMAX version or buy the blu-ray.
Punishments should be a deterrent so people won't continue the behavior. A $25,000 settlement is most definitely not "punishment".
First, the government isn't really paying this out of their own pockets- it'll be the tax payers who actually pay it. Second, what's the TSA's budget: $5 billion? $10 billion? Okay, I'm exaggerating, but this amount is nothing compared to their total budget. It's like you or me getting fined $5- we'll pay it and move on.
So how is this going to deter the TSA agents from doing it again? It may be unfair to fine someone $25,000 for "just doing their job" but how about firing them? How about creating an environment where it's unacceptable to detain people just because they want to learn another language.
Is it safe to assume customer service experiences fall on a bell curve? If so, then some people will have crappy service, more people will have poor service, most people will have average service, some people will have good service, and a small percentage of people will have excellent service.
We've been hearing from all the people who have crappy service, so where are all the people who have excellent service? I know the press tends to inflate the crappy-service stories, but why doesn't Comcast itself start a marketing campaign to promote all the excellent customer service stories? Or have they just given up?
Or maybe there are people sitting around in back rooms: "You know guys, since we're pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have all these troops that we're using." "And people are getting tired of hearing about ISIS, Putin, and Iran. Is there anyone else we can turn into a bad guy and rally behind?" "How about Cuba? They've always been a good fall-back. But now Obama's making friends with them." "Has anyone used North Korea recently? Bingo- our new boogeyman, out to destroy our freedoms with their cyberattacks on American companies!" "Um, Sony is a Japanese company." "Don't bother me with the details! Let's get this war started."
Like other people are saying, how does the FBI define "gravest threat"? Some hackers hacked into an insecure *private* company, threatened "something, something, movie theaters" and suddenly this is a "grave threat".
But that's good- keep up the hyperbole and soon everyone will be so dulled by every "gravest threat" that no one will listen. It's almost like they've never heard the story about the boy who cried wolf.
On the other hand, this is excellent cover to move away from the torture report.
Like the linked article in Wired points out, the hack probably did not come from North Korea. So the first thing that security experts need to do is change the narrative: people already believe and accept that the hacking came from North Korea to the point that the headlines say "North Korea" instead of "hackers".
Like other commenters are saying, the same US government that's trying to push a connection to North Korea is the same government that pushed WMD's in Iraq.
If this were the real world, it would be like if someone was selling stolen goods and the MPAA nuked the entire neighborhood and all roads leading into the neighborhood. Oops, that person was selling stolen goods in the middle of New York City and now people can't get into the city? Well, don't blame us for nuking the bridges- that one guy should have thought about this before he stole those items.
Isn't this what might happen to YouTube if the MPAA gets their way and their lawyers decide to file complaints with Verizon instead of YouTube? Who cares if there are 999,999,999 videos that don't infringe.
You want to know how? It's what TechDirt has been saying for ages: make the product widely available for a reasonable price. Personally, I think if people are pirating something that means there's a market for it that the producer isn't fulfilling.
How did iTunes become the biggest seller of music when it's so easy to illegally download music? How does Pandora and Spotify stay in business if those evil pirates are stealing music?
Has anyone ever looked to see how many people pirated U2's "Songs of Innocence"? You know, the album that was given to everyone who had an iTunes account? What, no one pirated this album because they already got it from an official source?
And another example: Back in 2005, when the new version of "Doctor Who" started, no TV channels in the US would show it. So how did Americans see it? Yep, they illegally downloaded it. Now, BBC America (the official BBC station in the US) is showing the episodes on the same day they air in England. So why should Americans pirate the show when they can see them for free on BBC America?
Two points: 1) It seems like there are so many police-behaving-badly stories that have come out recently, it's no longer all that noteworthy I believe every story about police behaving badly is noteworthy, because like you said, this shines a spotlight on their activities. I hope society gets to the point where we don't have to report these stories simply because police no longer behave badly.
2) Look, free and open speech is immensely important Yes, free speech is very important, but it also comes with responsibility. Just like people can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, people shouldn't bait people into violent confrontations. And what about the idea of holding police officers to a higher standard than regular people? This includes behaving appropriately on social media sites like Twitter.
As the risk of "defending pornagraphy"- I think it's a slippery slope to ban anything that someone doesn't like.
Once you accept the idea that certain things can be banned, then other things can also be banned. Let's start with "pornography", then "pirate" sites, then political protest sites, then anything else that someone decides is "bad".
This is probably a rhetorical question, but since when can common phrases be trademarked? I can understand phrases used as slogans like "I'm lovin it" or "You're in good hands", but how is anyone able to secure a trademark on something that people are already using?
The bigger problem is that the people at the trademark office may be so overworked that they simply rubber-stamp this and let it go through without realizing the consquences.
And Netflix issued this statement: We'd like to thank CBS for using us as the standard on which they make their decisions. We're honored that almost 60 year old TV network would think so much of us, considering we didn't even offer streaming service 10 years ago.
The problem with a lawsuit is that it takes time to work its way through the court system. And while it's going through the system and until it's struck down (which it eventually will be), there were will be all kinds of costs involved. And guess what? These councilmen don't have to pay for the lawsuits, so what do they care how much it costs the taxpayers? After all, it's not like it's coming out of their own pockets.
It would be refreshing if lawmakers had to pay for bad laws *and laws that they know are bad* out of their salary. Why should they care if their law will be struck down in 3 or 5 years? They're still making their salary.
All those 0's that you talk about? That will come from increased property taxes because the city will have to pay off the people who sue them. Yay- higher taxes to fight an unconstitutional law that never should have been passed in the first place.
Yes, when the grocery store clerk asks you for your information, the correct answer is "No" or "You don't need that". But keep in mind that she has a job to do and she could get fired or disciplined for not collecting your zip code. Or you may hold up the entire line by arguing with a "drone"-level employee who doesn't make the rules.
So just make up a zip code and laugh it off when the cashier says she's never heard of that one before.
So is it safe to assume that these companies provide poor services and they know it, so they think the only way to stop people from talking about the poor service is to threaten them?
And how many people will read those terms and be scared by the legalese? I'm guessing a lot of people, since: 1) It's "in print" so it must be true. 2) A company wouldn't put something like that on their site if if it wasn't true and they weren't willing to do it.
Here's a free tip to the companies: if you provided good services at a fair price, you wouldn't get reviews that were so bad that you had to sue people. Unless of course, your business is actually suing people, then proceed.
As I've been reading stories about this issue, I've found that torture does work, when you define what "work" means. In this case, torturing people wasn't about getting information: it was about revenge for 9/11 and getting back at "them" for attacking us. It didn't matter that 25% of the people tortured were innocent- they were "others" that needed to be punished.
I remember watching a "best horror movies" special that had an interview with the producers of the "Saw" movies. They admitted that they did a lot of research into torture devices in the Middle Ages, most of which were too graphic for even them to use in the movies!
So what happens when Google starts reporting the searches to the UK? Will the producers of "Saw" get in trouble for looking up torture devices? Will producers looking for scientifically-accurate chemicals and bombs for their movies also be reported to the UK?
But, so what if these people are writing a fictional movie- let the police sort them out. But doesn't that take time away from investigating real threats? Or does this mean there aren't enough real threats to justify the time and expense of having a terrorism investigation unit?