> I also wonder at the kind of culture that made her feel > like she had to carry a gun with her at all times. It > seems that was justified on one occasion, but I'm glad > that's not the culture my family are subjected to.
I find it hard to believe that you don't have rapists and murderers where you live. If so, it would be the first society in all of human history to achieve that goal, and would likely be known around the world for it.
> I'm just commenting on how bizarre the thing whole thing > is from a point of view of a country that's not similarly > obsessed about such things.
What's bizarre is how you've decided that people who own and carry guns are both sexually attached to them and pretend they are penises, despite zero evidence of that being the case.
Plenty of women carry guns. Are they pretending to extend their penises, too, genius?
(Or you could just be refreshingly honest and admit that whole "fetish" and "penis extension" cliché is nothing but a lame attempt to denigrate people who own guns so its easier to dismiss their concerns.)
> The opinion doesn't go so far as to call the law unconstitutional
That's because it's not. There's nothing unconstitutional about a state outlawing texting-while-driving. If the cops pulled the guy over for speeding, and also noticed him using his phone, and asked for a consent search of it, if a time-stamped text was discovered showing he had been texting while driving, a conviction for that would be perfectly legal and constitutional.
The problem with this law is its enforceability all on its own. Without any predicate offense to justify a stop (i.e., speeding), it's impossible to enforce. That's an issue of practicality, not constitutionality.
Doesn't Indiana have a generalized "distracted driving" law, the way most states do? They should have used that as the basis for the stop, since under that law, it wouldn't matter what he was doing with his phone. If he's not paying attention to the road, he's in violation. Doesn't matter if he's fiddling with his radio, searching the web, eating a burger, or putting on makeup.
> What these school districts are demanding has always been > a student's username/login as well as their password.
This Anonymous Coward is a moron. Maybe some school district somewhere has demanded passwords and login credentials from students-- which would be illegal, by the way-- but the school that is the subject of this article is not doing that at all. All they're saying is that they're going to be watching Twitter and Facebook for signs of impending school disruptions.
No one's demanding anyone's password here.
> This is nothing but kneejerk reactions by a paranoid > school district
Behold the irony. Your knee is jerking pretty hard here, as well.
> I don't want school administrators to have access to my > children's social media accounts.
Social media, by definition, is a public forum. Everyone in the world, including people who work for your school, have access to your kids' accounts. If you let your kids post things in public, you can't then be shocked and clutch your pearls when you find out other people are reading what your kids write.
However, punishing your kids for what they post is an entirely different issue. That's a gross overreach of authority by the school.
> Maybe so, but the complaint review board says otherwise. > His officers may have had the "reasonable suspicion" to > take pictures, but they clearly didn't have the right to > continue to do so after being told not to by an officer > of the court
Being an officer of the court doesn't give a lawyer some super power or authority to give unilaterally binding orders to other citizens.
She could ask the cops to stop questioning her client, but if they keep questioning anyway, the only consequence is that whatever the client says is inadmissible at trial.
Likewise, the chief was correct-- just as citizens can legally photograph anything they want in a public place, so can the cops. Being told "stop" by a defense attorney doesn't strip them of that right, nor does that attorney's status as an "officer of the court" place her in a position of superior authority over the police.
> Because these folks are in prison, and as we all know > everybody in prison is guilty
Yes, actually. The vast majority of them are. The implication here is that because of that minuscule percentage that aren't guilty of that for which they've been incarcerated, I'm somehow supposed worry about how much all the rest of the murderers, rapists, embezzlers, and thieves are being charged to make phone calls?
> 'Companies are responsible for breaking their own > security anytime someone with the 'proper paperwork' > comes knocking, and if they refuse for any reason they > should be punished until they comply.'
A judge can issue an order requiring me to make the sun rise in the west instead of the east from now on. Doesn't mean I'll somehow be able to alter the spin of the planet. There are some things that are just immune to court orders, and math is one of them. 2+2 does not equal fifteen just because a judge orders it to.
The issue with Apple is that they're being forced to modify the OS to disable the phone's lock-out feature, not break encryption.
With WhatsApp, there is no operating system to modify. The user's data is just encrypted. Period. There's no modification of the app which the company can write that will magically decrypt what has already been encrypted. Without the key (which the company does not have), there's nothing they can do.