1) Like you said, it's human nature not to wipe hard drives clean. So, yes, there's a chance that an auctioned hard drive will contain illegal material... as well as financial and other person data. Oh, look, there's the guy's Quicken file with all his bank information. Oh, look, when the browser is opened, it's still logged into Facebook, Twitter, and all the illegal sites.
2) The bigger issue is how we, as a society, are treating sexual offenders so badly. Now, don't get me wrong, these crimes are horrible and the offender should be punished when found guilty. But we never see these laws for violent offenders. Let me rephrase the proposal:
The bill would allow the court to seize and sell items, excluding hard drives, that are used by murderers and serial killers.
If someone is convicted of a sexual crime, they have to go on a registry for the rest of their life, tell their neighbors when they move into a community, and possibly have their assets seized. By comparison, a murderer can serve his 50 years, get out of jail, never have to go on a "murderer registry", never tell his neighbors, and never have his assets seized.
I give it 2 weeks before we have pictures of a mistress, we find out your wife is cheating on you, and you're 9 trillion dollars in debt. This is a mild example. I was going to say that without encryption, we'd find his iMessage texts to underage boys about gay porn. And why is it that so many legislators who think they're "crusaders" are always hiding some kind of sick secret like this?
This simple solution will restore your faith in humanity and change everything
Put simply, most of these headlines are simply clickbait: they get people excited about the story so they can form an an opinion without having to read the story. Come on, who writes an entire story about a tweet from CBS??
We should treat clickbait headlines like spam: the less we click on it, and the quicker the companies see it's not working, the sooner it'll go away.
Today CBS threatens to take all its content offline and tomorrow it'll be complaining why so many of their shows are now on the pirate and file-sharing sites. Oh, wait, people actually wanted to watch the shows that they took offline and this is the only way to do it? And now CBS and its advertisers aren't getting anything out of it?
But, like all these cases, someone had to start the case. It wouldn't need to come to a quick end if it wasn't filed in the first place.
Who are the lawyers who file such a suit? Either: 1) The lawyer is paid too much money to think for himself and simply does what the client says, even if knows they have no case. If this is true, the lawyer should be fined for an ethics violation. 2) The lawyer doesn't know any better and he actually thinks the client has a case. If this is true, the lawyer should be disbarred until he learn the law a little better.
In either case, why aren't we going after the lawyers for filing these cases? As usual, as long as the accusing company doesn't face any punishment, they'll keep pushing their lawyers to file these kinds of cases.
Why can't Office Depot keep a copy of everything written in their store? How hard is it to install something in the countertops that records a copy of people's writing? You know, to keep for up to a year "just in case".
And then cross-reference the written record with the camera surveillance so we'll know who used that countertop and when.
And don't give us any of that "my my girlfriend was writing" excuse- you were at the countertop and it should have been in your control. I don't think you tried to password-protect it.
I know this may be a little off-topic, but it's very interesting (or scary, depending on how you look at it) that people seem quick to break the constitution amendments in the Bill of Rights to get back at terrorists... except one. Can you guess which?
1: We can't let terrorists have the right to free speech. 3: (Quartering soldiers doesn't apply.) 4: We have to search everyone in case they might be a terrorist. 5: Terrorists don't deserve due process and they should give up information on themselves (preferably under torture) for everyone's good. 6: Terrorists don't deserve lawyers or a fair trial. We know they're terrorists and that's good enough. 7: (Right to a trial by jury in civil cases doesn't apply.) 8: Languishing in a prison cell without a trial isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment at all. 9 and 10: (Don't apply.)
That leaves us with the 2nd Amendment: Why, yes, anyone can have a gun. We'd never dream of stepping on anyone's rights.
Yes, terrorist videos could be used to spread the terrorist's ideas, but if they can see it, we can see it. And if we can see it, maybe we can use it to understand their mindset or even catch or stop them before something happens.
It's like banning videos of crimes on YouTube. Police can watch those videos, look for clues, and actually solve the crime... especially if the video shows something stupid like the criminal showing his face.
Banning these things only drives them further underground where they're harder to find.
So Facebook will block links to legitimate news sources, but it continues to allow spam postings? It seems like almost every day that my friends are "tagged" by spammers trying to sell Ray Ban sunglasses or football jerseys or even porn sites. And don't get me started on all the "news" sites that people link-to which contain crap, lies, hoaxes, and other misinformation.
Yet Facebook doesn't allow a link to the BBC website?! Wow.
I know the state legislators tried to outlaw the practice, but why didn't they add an amendment that tells cities that they have to share the proceeds with the state. Okay, it's still wrong and illegal for the cities to do this, but how else are they going to enforce the new law?
... I'll turn off AdBlock if they agree to stop with the annoying, scammy, and virus-laden ads. First, I don't want to see flashing Flash ads with auto-playing music while trying to look through my inbox. Second, I don't want a mortgage for 1% interest when no legit bank is offering interest rates this low. I also don't want smilies or toolbars. And I also don't want Flash ads that create a buffer overflow and install a virus... which actually happened. I originally used Yahoo Mail on IE and one day while I was checking e-mail, ZoneAlarm starting altering me that something was trying to change the registry. It was either a coincidence that Yahoo Mail was open at the time or the ad infected my computer.
So, the bottom line is that I now use Firefox and AdBlock because I no longer trust Yahoo Mail. Then combine that with Yahoo putting newsletters that I want into the Spam folder and putting spam into my Inbox. I use my e-mail at too many sites and it would be a pain to switch to GMail.
Okay, so now the TV channels will show less commercials and increase the amount of content? How, exactly, are they going to do this when they're the ones who have been pushing the content creators to make shorter shows, simply so they can run more ads?
So a production company which is used to making 43 minute programs now has to make a 44 or 45 minute show? How does this change the script or the editting or the story flow?
And before you say "1 more minute doesn't matter", tell that to channels like TBS who take that extra minute to run commercials.
Or instead of adding an extra minute of programming, how about shows bring back the 1-2 minute title/ opening credits? It seems like shows stopped running titles/ opening credits around the time the networks wanted more time for ads.
Let's go ahead with his proposal and see where it leads: 1) All sites that talk about ISIS are blocked. 2) ISIS attacks. 3) Government officials (like him) then complain that the attack could have been prevented if only the intelligence agencies found "chatter" about it on some website.
In other words, this proposal is just as dumb as telling YouTube to take down videos of criminals filming themselves, even though police agencies use the videos to track down the criminals!