Before proceeding with a no-knock warrant, officers must flip a fair quarter having heads and tails. If the result of the flip is tails, the officers shall carefully record that no-knock was not used, to permit statistical reporting by no-knock go and no-go.
If the result is tails, the procedure may be repeated for the same warrant, but each occurrence of tails shall be recorded as above.
Seems like a straightforward rule to determine who to punish. Let's see...
1. Everyone uses Microsoft Windows. (Well, not everyone, but close.) 2. That means Microsoft Windows is used by murderers, druggies, robbers, politicians, rapists, and investment banks. 3. So Microsoft is responsible for all that crime!
No wonder we have so much crime! We need to lock up Microsoft!
Or, on the other hand, we could recognize the idea that software companies are responsible for how the users employ their software as: The. Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Of course it is, "equal parts ridiculous, pathetic and dangerous," that the government would impose a gag order to avoid backlash and/or embarrassment.
It is also my estimation that avoiding backlash and/or embarrassment accounts for around 85% of the times that the government imposes a gag, asserts "national security", or says it "can't invade someone's privacy".
The FOIA was supposed to have prevented the government from hiding malfeasance and incompetence, the primary causes of embarrassment and backlash. But it's been effectively gutted because they just wave "National Security" and FOIA is gone.
To me, personal privacy excuses are especially annoying because the government doesn't care at tinker's curse about it. They violate it often enough when it's to their advantage, but when they will be embarrassed, "Oh, gee, poor _____'s privacy, it's soooo sacrosanct!" Hypocrites.
This is because the three-letter agencies don't think like you or I--especially not the dark agencies like the NSA.
See, if you or I become suspicious of someone: we might study them for a while and, if our suspicions don't seem to be confirmed, we will discard them as unfounded.
For these intelligence guys, suspicions are never unfounded; merely unproven. If they become suspicious of someone, they dig into the data they have to confirm those suspicions. Failure to confirm means...they haven't collected enough data.
This means more surveillance is required, but the more surveillance, the more people to be suspicious of...and the more surveillance that is needed. If they have a recording of every word you speak and write--video of every second of your life right down to your time on the toilet--and it still doesn't prove their suspicions, well, that just means they need to collect data with Smart Pipe technology (satire video, NSFW).
What is a surprise is that they haven't been sued before this. One case escapes me at the moment, but the other one...
The one where the Fox affiliate changed the chant for the protest group, was very malicious. Absence of malice wouldn't protect them in that case, and I really hoped the organizers of the demonstration would sue on behalf of all the participants.
Basically, Fox (and it's affiliates) is getting so sloppy with its advocacy that it's turning into a lawsuit magnet.
We desperately need to rein this in; if for no other reason than to eliminate government duplication, waste.
I mean, how many copies are there? NSA, CIA, DEA, FBI, DOJ, DIA, DHS, Secret Service, NYPD,...there's got to be thousands of copies of this data. Because everyone's gotta have it and none of them will share.
The old guard is truly going insane, isn't it? Oh, yes, they love the internet for all the surveillance it gives them of every waking second of the citizens.
But beyond that, the internet is just tearing down everything the old guard stood for. Controlled news, controlled music distribution, controlled publication, and controlled national secrets; controlled knowledge. That knowledge they just can't control anymore.
They won't get even a wrist slap. Instead, the taxpayers will get another bill from a damaged citizen.
The problem with that is that it doesn't affect the individuals that committed the infraction.
I suggest that when someone's rights are violated, that each of the violators be required to pay 1% of the award, within limits of not less than $100 (1% of a $10,000 award) nor more than $10,000 (1% of a $1 million award).
Let's see their enthusiasm for violating civil rights when their pocketbook is picking up the tab along with the taxpayers.
I've though that this should be handled through a "use it or lose it" law. The broadband providers have argued for years that communities shouldn't "compete" with them by doing their own broadband.
The response should be a law giving the broadband companies until a moratorium date to establish broadband service. For example, "Commercial providers have until Jan 1, 2018 to provide broadband in all communities of 5,000 or more people. If no provider has done it for a given community by then, it is presumed commercial providers are not interested and the community will be allowed to provide it themselves."
In other words, commercial providers need to stop delaying. They can have their cake, but only if they're going to eat it. We've been protecting them for 15 years now; it's time they proved their interest in pursuing the opportunity.
It has been held that terrorism is to accomplish political aims by instilling fear. But it never has and never will: instead it instills obstinate determination.
There are two kinds of "terrorists" those who know this and those too stupid to know this. The former do it anyway for self gain (such as revenge) and are therefore criminals. The latter, being stupid, get arrested.
So the "terrorists" who matter are really just criminals. There is no meaningful distinction between the bomber, and the hothead who shoots up his office because the boss fired him.