Given the way the laws have changed regarding liability for new medicines in recent years, there is a very real concern about dangerous medications. This extends to new vaccines.
We don't necessarily know whether the cure is worse than the disease. Granted, the diseases are pretty damned bad, but... that won't help anyone who runs into a bad batch of vaccine.
We are, in effect, beta testing vaccines on our children. The first sign of trouble might be years or decades down the road, far too late to do anything about. The claims of autism have been debunked, but autism is not the worst thing a bad batch of medicine can do to someone.
With the successful eradication campaigns against diseases making awareness of those diseases a distant memory, the hazards of dangerous medications becomes a far more immediate threat to children. Parents are supposed to protect their kids, not use them as laboratory animals.
It goes well beyond that. You know those wiretap laws that police love to arrest videographers for violating? Given how a Stingray works, use of one violates those as well as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (since a smartphone is also a portable computer).
Those laws ALREADY require a warrant, but for some reason NO ONE in authority has been holding police accountable for all of those felonies.
We don't need a new law requiring a warrant for Stingrays, we just need prosecutors to enforce the dozens of laws we already have that make use of a Stingray a crime.
This makes me wonder -- if you tracked down the monkey and got his hand print on a contract declaring the photo to be in the public domain in exchange for a bag of fruit, just imagine the havoc it would cause for those claiming to be acting on the monkey's behalf.
Given that the definition of celebrity is a bit vague, and someone can become a celebrity for all sorts of reasons, wouldn't this mean that if, say, a police department released someone's identifying information (name and photo/mug shot) in a press release, they would be committing a criminal act in California unless they had permission from the person to do so?
Everybody does this. The US puts ISDS into treaties and expects nobody will ever use it against them. Democrats/Republicans issue abusive executive orders or pass abusive legislation on the presumption that the other party will NEVER retake office and use those abusive new powers against them.
Why should copyright maximalists be any different? Especially given their claims that it's EASY to avoid committing copyright violations. If they actually believe their own propaganda on that, it's not surprising that they'd routinely trip over copyright laws and cruel & unusual statutory damages.
Legally unethical? I suppose that's one way to describe it. OF course, by that standard, most crimes are merely 'legally unethical' as well, from armed robbery to murder.
Title 18, Section 241 & 242 define the crime of violating constitutional rights under color of law, such as the fourth amendment one their warrantless, non-exigent seizure of the video represents.
Section 241 is the conspiracy statute, 242 is for individual violations. Since few police act alone, Section 241 seems to apply here better than 242. At the level of violation of rights the seizure of the video represents, every officer involved is criminally liable under federal law for a crime that has a maximum sentence of ten years in prison or a $10,000 fine or both.
While it's rare for a federal prosecutor to press those charges, it's good to remember than anything you can win a federal civil rights lawsuit over IS an actual for-real crime under Title 18 of the US Code.
Humans are generally very good at killing what they consider to be an existential threat. North Americans are better at it than most.
Police are trained and conditioned by their fellow officers to believe they are under existential threat every instant they are doing their jobs, whether they actually are or not. But there is a growing awareness of this, that police will shoot you and claim self defense no matter how meek and submissive you are -- which is an existential threat to everyone who is not a cop (and even to fellow cops, given how often they shoot eachother due to accident or misidentification).
We are rapidly approaching a point where police will pose such an enormous, immediate, existential threat to everyone around them that opening fire on them on sight will meet all of the legal tests for whether an act of force is legitimately self defense.
Courts being as corrupt as they are, they'll probably reject such arguments, even as the letter of the law makes such a conclusion inescapable.
Citizens have power of arrest too in many states -- 49 out of 50 states have some form of citizen's arrest, often encoded into statutes. Only North Carolina entirely lacks citizen's arrest.
If ignorance of the law but a good faith belief you are following it turns false arrests legitimate, then it would necessarily do so for citizen's arrests too, under the equal protection clause of the constitution.
See a cop do something you believe is against the law? Arrest them! It doesn't matter whether it actually is illegal or not in those jurisdictions where judges give cops carte blanch if they have good faith.
In those places where a mere arrest for certain things carries pre-trial, extra-judicial penalties, you can REALLY mess someone up this way.
SWAT teams enforcing laws and court orders is a pretty sizable bargaining chip. Especially in the EU where the government has more of a monopoly on force than in the USA.
The government does not need to bargain with people to get them to obey the law.
Tech companies don't need to be sovereign states to make a profit, nor do they need to be sovereign to innovate. If they don't want to innovate or make new profits, someone else will and then the old dinosaur telecom companies will be just a footnote in history.
The thing is, Net Neutrality does nothing except codify into law the voluntary agreements that already exist on the internet and ALWAYS HAVE. Go look up what RFC means in the context of the internet, it will be an eye-opener for you.
They're ALREADY being paid to provide services, but now they're threatening to cut people off from the services they are already paying (often exorbitantly) for if they aren't paid twice. IF they get it enshrined in law that they must be paid twice, what's to stop them from wanting to be paid three times? Four? Fifty? Greed is endless.
If they were using new technology to provide a faster channel for premium content, that would be one thing -- I'd pay more for that myself. But that's not what they're doing. What the companies was to do is slow down everybody's connection unless they get paid extra for the NORMAL SPEEDS they are already providing. Net Neutrality is simply saying that people should get what they have already paid for, without having to pay multiple times for a single product.
Two things to consider -- Citizen's Arrest is a thing that exists in statutes in Texas and police have less freedom to act than a private citizen does when it comes to use of force, because police are bound by the Constitution in ways private citizens are not.
If it is a lawful act for police to kill a man in cold blood because waiting for him to drop from thirst, hunger or exhaustion is too hard and making an arrest is too inconvenient, what does that say for citizen's arrests?
See a crime being committed, decided a citizen's arrest is too much work, draw gun and open fire? If what the police just did in Dallas wasn't murder, then neither would this be murder!
Further, police are not exempt from arrest, either by police or private citizens. If the system rules the assassination by bombing a lawful, justified act then they will have also made it legal to shoot a cop if you see him committing an arrestable offense!