Had anyone from the civilian sector tried a similar stunt, they'd be looking at criminal charges for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.
Also of note, the fact that they were able to get away with such an action, and the IG basically just went with it, shows just how much power, authority, and most importantly oversight the IG actually has, and that amount would seem to be 'effectively none'.
NSW Council of Civil Liberties president Stephen Blanks said public confidence in the police was being "undermined" by an inability to acknowledge the occasions when "it does the wrong thing."
"How deep in police culture is this willingness to break the law?" he asked. "Even after they have been caught out, it would appear no adverse consequences are going to be suffered by those responsible because the illegal actions are supported by police at the most senior level."
No matter what the country, it seems the problem with the police remains the same. They care more about protecting their own, no matter how bad the actions are, than protecting their reputations and relationship with the public.
So long as they continue to prioritize protecting their own over protecting the public from their own, people will continue to be fully justified in not trusting them and wanting to have as little to do with them as possible.
For example if I claim to own Mickey mouse and I don't that's not penalty of perjury. If I claim to represent Disney when I don't that's penalty of perjury.
Meaning the 'penalty' clause is completely useless. Anything and everything can be demanded taken down, and when it turns out the one issuing the demands doesn't own the thing in question, they can just say 'I made a mistake'(or even better, 'My bot made a mistake') and it doesn't matter how much damage was caused, they're off the hook.
But I suppose that's what you get when the law is specifically written to be as one-sided as possible, where the penalties only go one way.
Doubt it, it seems like he just flat out doesn't understand the subject or cares to.
He's comparing disconnecting people from the internet based upon accusations to him taking away his kid's toys because he's watching YT vids instead of doing homework. That shows a glaring indifference and/or ignorance of just what all the internet is used for currently beyond just 'watching videos'.
“The Marshals hunt down and apprehend the most despicable and violent people. When you engage in that type of mission, it wasn’t intended to be pretty and it won’t be pretty,” Mr. Adler said. “We don’t want the great work the Marshals Service does to devolve into bad reality TV or a sequence of bad YouTube videos.
If the 'not pretty' stuff is what the suspect is doing/has done, then they should be all for it. More evidence, video this time, making it far easier to secure a conviction and put the 'despicable and violent' people behind bars.
Objecting to more evidence seems rather counter-productive, unless the 'not pretty' stuff is what the marshals are doing, in which case the videos are needed even more, to stop them from committing such actions. Just because the suspect may be 'despicable and violent', doesn't mean they get to return the favor.
Silly person, the laws don't apply to those that buy them and rule on them, they only apply to the little people. A company could have dozens of instances of someone, whether employee or not, using their connection for infringing activity, and you can be sure that they'd never lose their connection.
On the positive side, I'm sure that 90% of the LEOs out there are secretly thrilled that the rest of us are coming up with ways to start weeding out their asshole coworkers.
Highly unlikely. If they cared about removing the rot from within their ranks, they've had decades to do it. They haven't, which is one of the reasons such recording apps have been popping up, in an attempt to address the fact that police have shown no interest in holding their own accountable, which means if the public wants it done, they have to do it themselves.
Theoretically filing a bogus DMCA claim is supposed to be treated as perjury, which carries a potential prison sentence.
In practice however, the already joke of a law has been weakened to such a degree that unless the one who made the claim flat out admitted, in court, before the judge and several witnesses, that they had considered what they were filing against, determined that it was not theirs and/or was protected as fair use, and knowingly filed the claim anyway, the most they'll face is a slap on the wrist for their 'mistakes'.
If on the other hand they did all of the above they'd get a slap on the wrist and a pathetically small fine, because can't use the law to punish DMCA abuse, that would be going too far! /s
"I see no problem barring someone from using the phone on accusations alone, they can always write."
So we've got what could be a very important case for the internet, being judged by someone who seems to have absolutely no interest and/or knowledge about it, and who apparently sees it as little more than a way to watch youtube vids.
When, to be blunt, idiots and/or liars claim that tech companies are 'refusing to work with police and the government', and that if only they'd stop being so 'antagonistic' towards the calls for breaking encryption a solution could be found that would allow the 'good guys' in, but keep the 'bad guys' out, they reveal that their 'enemy' is not the tech companies, but a much more troublesome foe:
No amount of wishing, no laws or calls for 'co-operation' or threats of 'do it on your own or be forced to do it by law' will change the underlying fact, a fact that they are either dishonestly ignoring, or just too clueless to know:
There is not, and never will be, such thing as secure broken encryption or 'good guys only' security vulnerabilities.
At this point there is absolutely no excuse for anyone in the government or police speaking on the matter not to have done enough research to know this, so I can only assume that they know full well that they are demanding the impossible, and yet continue to lie and claim that it is possible, if only those dastardly tech companies would try harder.
Those that claim that it's possible for a 'golden key' system to be created, that claim that it's possible to weaken security such that only certain individuals can take advantage of the glaring vulnerability are either fools or liars, and need to be called out on it either way.
Because clearly he's responsible for Comcast being so crap, right? And the fact that there's no real competition in the area, allowing for Comcast to get away with it's rubbish customer service, also totally his fault. And since everyone knows it's dirt cheap and easy to move, it's his own fault if he doesn't want to go through the insignificant, barely noticeable hassle in doing so so he can move to an area where he doesn't have to deal with Comcast.
Nope, obviously it's his fault for not expecting Comcast to be so incompetent, and either not moving away or not moving in to an area that they have an effective if not actual monopoly in.
The point of asking in such situations, even though legally they don't actually need to, is to avoid situations like this where the band makes a big stink over the matter, and uses it as an opportunity to attack a stance or position of the politician.
A couple of phone calls to make sure that the band isn't likely to take the opportunity to give the campaign a PR black-eye would be a trivial bit of work compared to what they have to do when something like this happens, and they now have to deal with a very public fight between campaign and band.
Great idea, I assume you'll be paying for that then? Finding him a new job, new house, paying all the costs involved in moving, selling the house, buying the new one, so he can move to an area with more competition?
Even that wouldn't be enough so long as the majority of their customers have no viable alternative for internet access. You can treat your customers as bad as you want so long as they need what you're selling, and they have no other choice but to buy from you.
Introduce some real competition into the market, and only then will they start to care about keeping their customers happy.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something...
... when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
Admitting that they had all the data that they needed and still failed to stop the attack might lead to some people asking just why such a failure of a program is still in place. There's only so much you can 'fix' something before it becomes obvious that it's never going to work, and needs to be replaced by something else.
They know this full well, and they know that if they admit it it's likely to lead to a whole lot of the money and power that they currently enjoy being taken from them, so of course they'll continue to insist that the only possible response is to double down on the same failed programs, to grab more data, get even more hay to dig through.
Their jobs, power, and money is on the line, why would they ever say anything other than 'We need more'?
While looking at just how 'effective' such mass spying may, or (as the evidence shows) may not be in finding would-be-terrorists can make for a nice counter-argument against those that claim the programs are effective, it misses a much more important point:
It does not matter how effective the methods are, if they violate the rights of the public.
People have used the 'camera in every house' example before, as it really does show how flawed the logic being deployed by the spy agencies is. A camera in every room of every house would drastically cut down on various types of crimes, both preventing crimes from happening, and allowing them to be found and solved, far exceeding the 1.2 percent of 'useful leads' that Stellarwind apparently managed when it was up and running, yet other than the voyeuristic among the government and police force, you'd likely be hard pressed to find anyone who would accept the trade-off.
Why? Because some trade-offs are simply not worth the cost.
Even if the programs were effective at their stated purpose, that of preventing terrorist attacks, they would still not be justified given the cost in privacy and rights.