While I respect you, and trust you that this is a most unusual case, I'm bothered by the fact the court record was not only sealed but removed. Was this done at the request of the person who filed the lawsuits in question? If so, I don't think they've learned anything, they're still abusing the courts.
In searching to find the case Starke referenced, I discovered that's not how it works. Often you have to sue the child, and win, to get the child's parent's home owners insurance to cover the claim. (If it happened at their home.) And if you win, it's the insurance company that has to pay the judgement, not the child's parents.
This seems all kinds of fucked up, but it's not too surprising. Insurance companies can be pretty scummy. I wouldn't be surprised if they require this at times in the hopes the injured party won't be willing to file the lawsuit. After all, that saves the insurance company money.
Re: Re: So you get shot if you comply and you get shot if you don't.
The cops have been treating the public like the enemy for years and years now. That started after a cop being shot after he pulled someone over. Despite that being an isolated incident, they decided to treat it like a declaration of war and started training all cops to treat anyone they deal with as an enemy.
Eventually this was always going to backfire on them. If you treat people like the enemy, they start treating you as the enemy too. The army learned this the hard way in Iraq. They changed their tactics and it paid off with fewer deaths. The cops continue to do the stuff the army learned was a great way to get more soldiers killed.
If anyone's actually surprised that some isolated individuals are now acting like the enemy the police considers them, they haven't paid any attention to recent history. (Which, sadly, probably includes most cops.) There's still time for the cops to change. If they do it won't continue to get worse. But if they don't, there's probably going to be more and more shootings both by cops and of cops. I don't think anyone wants it to come to that.
Re: 'Sacrifices must be made. Your rights for instance, those have got to go'
The CBP probably will be just fine in court, but the doctor... he's likely in deep shit. Only an x-ray was ordered, the doctor failed to have that done, then did the physical exams. I'm sure the CBP encouraged him to do this, but legally? They're going to claim the doctor did it on his own initiative. He's wide open to both malpractice and civil lawsuits.
The doctor's malpractice insurance is unlikely to cover this either. The exams were unnecessary medically, not even ordered by anyone (at least via paper trail), and malpractice insurance doesn't cover cases like that. There's a very good chance he could end up losing his license to practice medicine over this even.
Too bad probably not a damn thing will happen to the CBP agent.
When my grandfather died, Mom inherited his house. He'd had cable TV there for a long time, but Comcast still required a tech to come out to setup cable TV/Internet/phone for my parents. Even though the house was already wired up for cable. At least in that case they went ahead and ran a new drop while they were at it, and we took the opportunity to have them put a second cable in on the other side of the house, mostly because the computers are on that end of the house.
Having a tech come to activate TV/Internet/Phone is standard operating procedure for Comcast and houses now. The difference probably is that you're in an apartment.
So in trying to show open source doesn't help, he also bashed their code reviews.
I know he was trying to show that being open source doesn't find all bugs, but he also proved that their "internal and external review of [their] code to ensure that it is secure" is ALSO not good enough when he said that particular bug "was NOT detected by any audit of the source code" So ditching open source is an improvement how exactly? All he "proved" there was security is hard, and that less people will be looking for bugs now. That certainly sounds less secure than the previous version by any measure.
While I don't have a Yubikey, this is enough to make sure I don't get one. I'll look to another provider, as I just don't find Yubico trustworthy now. The explanation for why doesn't actually explain why. It comes across as nothing but a justification for a decision made for other reasons. I notice the very first comment is suggesting Yubico's been forced to put in a backdoor. It's really hard to dismiss that type of thing as paranoia nowadays and Yubico's handling of this is not doing anything to reduce people's paranoia.
That may not work actually. Microsoft has pushed out multiple versions of KB3035583, and if you had a prior version, uninstalling it just rolls back one version. The GWX Control Panel guy discovered that. (There's a TL;DR version at the bottom of the post that sums everything up.)
That would require the district attorney to press criminal charges. And given the extremely cozy relationship DAs have with police departments country-wide, that's not going to happen. And they can't even try to file charges themselves, they'd have to go to... the police department that already cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.
So while I agree, the system protects the cops and there's no way this will happen. Which is just disgusting.
Or just someone who feels like they're being mistreated/overlooked for raises or promotions/etc. Don't have to be in danger of being fired to be pissed off enough to report them. I've certainly taken enough bullshit from some employers that I can understand someone deciding to report them and "get even" a bit.
Not going to feel a bit sorry for him when we hear in a couple of months how he's stuck on terrorist watch lists and/or no-fly lists and can't get off them. Because you know he's already on them due to this.
Oh god, CNN is so fucking bad about that. They autoplay videos on mobile too! And basically don't give a shit when people complain. I try to find another news source whenever possible, even when I'm not on mobile.
I don't believe they've thought all this through. If they truly are such special snowflakes they need even their names hidden, isn't that just admitting they're a bunch of wimps? We seem to have a police force that's utterly terrified of the public. And that think they're both above the law and special citizens who get extra rights.
How about if you don't want to be at risk, don't take a job where risk is a daily fact of life.
They brought this on themselves with insider trading
Sorry, this one is a self-inflicted wound. It's not just that they're popular now, and not just that they've apparently been buying up nearly all the advertising around sports. It's mostly because of the big insider trading scandal. It seems employees of one company would use the info they got to play the other company's games to win huge money. And it was both companies doing it to each other. See here.
So no sympathy for these guys, they brought this one on themselves.
No, we don't have to define the legal line as a specific age. Doing so has all kinds of problems, beyond situations like this one. The better way would be to simply require that the law determine (using psychologists/etc.) whether the potential victim was capable of consenting, regardless of age. This would be harder, but would nicely handle situations like developmentally disabled adults who are not capable of giving consent, yet with existing laws are assumed to be able to. (It would also handle situations where someone is mentally mature, but young.)
But like I said, this is harder, so it'll never happen. The "justice" system just wants quick and easy prosecutions, not actual justice.