> 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.
> Nope, your right do not disappear just because you left > the country.
Nor does one have a right to Miranda warnings or a fair trial when engaged in a combat theater adhering to the enemy, against the United States.
> I hope you get Droned as a terrorist the next time you > make a trip abroad
Ah, there's that famous tolerance and sensitivity I've heard so much about. Someone disagrees with you and you hope they are killed for it, using the very method to which you are supposedly so vociferously opposed.
You're a real peach, that's what you are.
(Oh, and just for the record, I travel abroad quite a bit and I have zero worries that my government will assassinate me while doing it, for the simple reason that I have not taken up arms against the United States in a combat zone.)
> one of the things that helps to limit levels of > aggression that are unethical is the expense of > conducting that aggression.
That sounds good in theory, but where does it stop?
Armor (tanks, troop transports, etc.) confers a vast cost advantage against an enemy that is not so equipped. Should we be morally or legally prohibited from giving our troops the protection of armored vehicles because the enemy generally doesn't have them, so that we can feel the cost of combat more acutely?
Heck, if that's the criteria, then aircraft of *any* kind should be off limits, since the enemies with which we are currently engaged have no air resources at all.
No, I categorically reject the notion that our troops shouldn't enjoy every protection and advantage we can give them when they are ordered to march into danger and risk their lives on our behalf. Military combat is not meant to be a fair fight. The goal is to overwhelm and destroy the enemy quickly and completely, with as little cost to your own side as can be managed.
> Obama used it against a U.S.citizen. Bush never did.
When US citizens are sitting with the enemy in foreign lands, plotting and carrying out operations against US troops in a theater of combat, I couldn't give a good goddam what passport they are carrying. They're valid military targets.
We sure as hell don't need to start putting our military in the position of having to call time-outs during overseas operations so an FBI agent can run out onto the battlefield and read some guy his Miranda rights before we can shoot at him.
There's nothing in the Constitution that requires our military to treat an engaged enemy on the field of combat differently based on his citizenship or nationality.
You don't want to be droned from the sky while you're sitting with ISIS in a hut in Ramallah plotting how to kill your fellow Americans? There's an absolutely foolproof way to keep that from ever happening to you: Don't go to Ramallah and sit in a hut with ISIS and plot how to kill your fellow Americans.
> Take, for example, the issue of extrajudicial executions > via drones ("murder from the sky"). The Obama > administration embraced this strategy gleefully, after it > was started by the previous administration of George W. > Bush.
How in the hell was this started by George Bush? We've been bombing enemy targets from the air since the invention of military aircraft, for gawd's sake.
There is *no* legal or moral difference in dropping a bomb on the enemy via drone than there is dropping that same bomb on that same enemy from a fighter plane. The only difference is where the pilot is sitting when it happens, and that has zero relevance to the operation's legality or morality.
A bombing sortie on the enemy conducted via F-16 doesn't suddenly become "murder from the sky" when done via drone.
And yes, operations conducted in the theater of combat are by definition extrajudicial. That's hardly the bad thing your tone implies. The last thing we need or want is our military commanders hamstrung by having to run to a judge to plead their case and get a warrant before being able to strike an enemy target. And more to the point, such silliness is required nowhere in the Constitution. The judiciary has *no* place whatsoever in military combat operations.
> Second, Mr. Levy is a typical American lawyer who thinks > American law rules the world.
He doesn't think American law rules the world. He thinks American law rules America, which is where Masnick, his website, and the comments at issue, are located.
> An Australian Court can also order Google to remove all > of these posts and articles.
That would be impossible, since Google doesn't own or have access to the servers on which Masnick's website resides.
> Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson's client > moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt > refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt.
Which also wouldn't be enforceable. What does Masnick care what some judge in Australia says about him being in contempt? It's not like the American government is going to allow Australian cops to come to California, put him in handcuffs, and ship him back to Oz to serve time.