First off I'll say that anything to do with marijuana in general is getting sort of old, but until the law is passed stating it as being perfectly legal to own, produce, sell and consume the substance, there's very little you can do about it.
From the facts mentioned, there was a drug dealer. The cops had reasonable assumption that the dealer was in the apartment, either from an eye-witness or anonymous tip or otherwise. While I agree that obtaining the warrant would have been the best case scenario, they smelled marijuana (which the possession of, is illegal) and decided to make contact with the suspected apartment. After stating their business (It's the cops), they waited and heard a scuffle - immediately upon making their presence known, after which they made a snap judgement and broke in. Once inside: "They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search."
Sadly, the ends justify the means. Not to say the drugs weren't planted or that the cops could be bad people, but this (to me at least) sounds perfectly reasonable.
I agree. The vague use of "cyber security" and "national security" mean nothing to the general populace. If the government wants to continue using these terms for blanket loop-holes, then they will need to release a statement with clear and concise definitions that will not change when under the scrutiny of a certain beholder.
Video-taping anyone in candid has a "chilling effect" on the person being recorded. I agree with Mr. Pasco in that regard, however there are no legal bounds that say you can't film them. However, I draw the line in some of the videos wherein the police ask the man to leave them alone to their business and the camera-man takes the juvenile stance basically saying, "Make me!" while spouting their right to film.
By reading the legal document, the legalese points towards the original 6 "artists/designers" having copyright documentation. Also it cites that the defendant has knowledge of the origin, but has never officially credited the work as being inspired by the direct authors thereof, only that they previously existed, nor does she ask permission towards the use of the patterns.
Though we like to pretend that it comes down to decency, what supersedes this is capital gain. If the [transformative] artwork profits, it would decently be at the behest of the creator, however it is not - I'll beg to notion that the defendant consulted her lawyers prior to tasking the art in question and was told that it would be [transformative] and thus irrelevant for permissive rights.
The kill-switch mentioned above would be the only defense that Aaron's could claim. Of course the laptop would have to be equipped with a mobile card or have access to the internet in the first place to make it transmit the signal. Unless the computer user does a secure wipe of the HDD, they are liable to send over any and all information back to the company.
This opens up an even greater case of privacy that is itself so boiled up in grey area all ready.
This reminds me of a family getting ready to have a child, they 'child-proof' everything in the home, the car, etc. all to benefit the possibility of the child meeting with the inevitable curiosity to poke metal objects into those slots in the wall.
Except this is in the case of trying to 'idiot-proof' everything we do. All agree that it's stupid to talk, text or otherwise look away from the road while driving, but people do what they want, trying to make a law requiring something frivolous just to prevent troll lawyers from taking advantage of non-accountability.
Stakeholders are defined as a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest in something. This isn't an expounded concept of interest, such as that you like this band or enjoy watching that movie - the investment would also have nothing to do with the average person as simply purchasing the item is a limited licensing for the use of said item. These licenses don't give you inherent power of the choices made regarding future use of these items as a whole.
If I understand, you want the collective people to have a larger purpose in the overall stake in our laws within the government, as befits the future generations of our people. I agree with this ideal, we should be able to have a stronger voice on such things, but until such time as there is a convenient outlet to such changes, nothing will come to pass.
We have to face the facts here, the American mentality is generally to be as opinionated as possible, while they can get away with it, once they are asked to step up and well, pun intended, fight for their right to party, they quake and run away in tears. It's simply too much to ask for.