With all due respect, yes, we can deem that "If there is no video, there is conclusive evidence of officer misconduct!" with the whole "If these things are properly kept charged, they will record... full stop!"
Yes, it would open up a legal avenue for censorship but it would ALSO open up a legal avenue for people like myself to more easily, without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer, get defamatory stuff taken off the internet.
There is TONS of stuff slandering my name online, taking comments I made in the past and 'cut and pasting' them together to say something that I did not say or even intimate.
There needs to be some way to fix that issue of defamatory and slanderous posts without making someone bankrupt themselves by having to hire a lawyer.
Except how were they supposed to do something about it? Facebook is NOTORIOUSLY hard to get a profile off, especially if it has accurate information in it like person's birthdate, home address, etc. Near impossible unless you are a police organization is how I put it in an earlier post and that is quite accurate.
Except that the 'on notice' here was basically telling the parents "Your child put up this Facebook page, take it down!" with no evidence given (unless I missed something) that the child in question was actually the one who put it up.
With the EASY ability to fake being someone else today on the internet? I would not trust that X was done by person Y unless you had a videotape of the person putting up the page in question.
IP addresses? Too easy faked. MAC Addresses? Ditto. Let's not even bring up TOR, I2P, etc.
Exactly, Mike. People always say that "Parents have control over their children's actions!" but unless you threaten them with broken bones and serious burns if they do X or Y, you cannot control them.
Sooner or later they suss out that you doing that is a crime in and of itself and you are using hyperbole, i.e. empty threats, so they dismiss you.
Better thing to do is to tell children why they should not do X or Y very early and unless they are causing PHYSICAL injury to someone else (key term there, the P word) or damage to PHYSICAL property not their own? There is nothing wrong with 'harassing' someone morally. Yes, it is dickish in the extreme but it is not something that we should be criminalizing unless you want those laws to be WIDELY overstretched, considering how vague the politicians love to make these laws.
Then it is time to change the laws then, to make it so that if the parents KNOW about their children doing something and can actually do something to make it stop (and it is actually illegal and not just a bunch of "I don't like what you are doing so stop it or I will punish you!") then they can be held responsible.
Until then? Sorry, not going to be held responsible. I have already seen cases in Maryland where once the parents of X 'delinquent' child proved they did all they could? They were ABSOLVED of responsibility for their child's actions and court cases against them were thrown out.
Except that in this case, the parents in question HAD NO IDEA THAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE DOING THESE THINGS UNTIL NOTIFIED! To then try to punish them for not being frigging SEERS is insanity in my opinion and that of my lawyer boss, who would GLADLY take this case if he had a license to practice law in that part of the country to hammer it through that "Parents know about it before the child does it or during? They can be held responsible. Parents did not know about it before the child does it or during? Parents cannot be held responsible!"
No, there should not be a similar statute in all 50 states and those statutes should be challenged. It is basically expecting parents to be mindreaders and seers with their children, something that NO ONE is with ANYONE.
Those laws go too far towards the stupidity of "We have to hold someone responsible and since under the legal doctrine we cannot hold the children responsible, we will go after the adults!"
There are some times where while the children cannot be held legally responsible and fined, they should be put under court-ordered supervision if the parents were negligent. In this case, I do not know how you can say the parents were negligent.
It is legal precedent that should have never been made. If the parents know what their children are doing? Okay, THEN they can be held liable for it. However, if the parents do not know, as was the case here, they should NOT be held liable for what they did not know about.
Well, to play Devil's Advocate, part of that was because of the SoL laws that limit how much time after learning of a crime the cops have to prosecute it. I believe for criminal copyright infringement it is something like 5 years.
Yep, just cannot say that "Hey, the judicial got it wrong and gets it wrong more often than not!" along with the whole "There is a punking lot on the books that should not be illegal today and is religious/other morality trying to be forced on people through fiat of law when they are harming no one but themselves and usually not even themselves!"
Exactly.... this is not simply the server in question sending back "We do not support encryption!" This is something actively changing the packet while in transit falsifying the "We do not support encryption!" when the server in question is saying "Yeah, we support encryption, turn it on!"
Anonymous, look at what they have been doing..... then try to tell me that they did not basically say that by their actions. They have been playing fast and loose with what the law actually allows from day one, second one, MILLI-SECOND one.
Plus, they have to prove that he KNEW that the person was committing a crime and did not ban/remove the things in question when he was informed.
Which Kim Dotcom did and which the DMCA SPECIFCALLY said was all he had to do. Remove the things when informed of them, NOT proactively screen for them, which the people writing the DMCA realized was IMPOSSIBLE to do.
Except that some of these laws are oversteps and overreaches that conflict with other laws and rights.... so, when that is the case, breaking the law is not just legally justified, it is morally justified as well.
"Da law is da law" is the argument that mouth-breathing retards use who have absolutely no critical thinking skills. And yes, that seven letter r-word is the correct one to use in this case.... it might even be KIND to those people.