You could well be right about that. The FBI collects crime statistics, but their only source of those are the annual and monthly reports by police departments.
If police departments are reporting an increase in officers being charged with crimes and citing video evidence as to why they had to charge them, that WOULD tend to look like video is causing officer crimes from a purely statistics view.
After all, to a bureaucrat, problems don't exist until someone officially takes notice of them, and then the problem was created by the official notice. This is why people with a bureaucratic mentality tend to attack whistleblowers, people who find serious bugs in products, etc.
"no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition of any part of India either through any space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles, or any other means whatsoever."
That doesn't seem to be aimed entirely at Google Maps. That reads to me as if someone going on the internet and looking at Google Earth without a license from the government would be subject to a Rs. 10,000,000 fine every time they visited the site.
It's also worth noting that part of Roddenberry's contracts specifically public-domained any possible trademarks on things like tricorders -- the man didn't want to inadvertently prevent the creation of a real tricorder with a trademark on a fictional one.
I wonder what that does to certain copyrights the studios are claiming?
The obvious solution is to base removal of negative reviews on defamation law. If someone sues the reviewer for libel and wins, the review should be removed by Yelp.
Since Yelp is in the business of publishing reviews, the ability of a company to silence someone they wronged simply by paying Yelp a fee presents a problem -- an honest company can wind up with a worse reputation on Yelp than a completely crooked one, simply because the honest one doesn't pay someone to lie for them.
Yes it does, but he wasn't concealing it if it was in his luggage. Concealed refers to how you carry it on your person, not merely failing to superglue it to your forehead while it is in your possession.
If use of a device or method would be illegal for a private citizen to use, then police use will require a warrant.
After all, there are no warrantless law enforcement exemptions to harassment, stalking, wiretapping, trespassing, burglary, computer hacking or peeping tom laws. Even the warrantless law enforcement exemption to breaking & entry laws requires that there actually be an on-going emergency.
Under current law, the company would be completely liable.
Unless Burr & Feinstein write some sort of liability shield into their bill, any company that complies with it would likely be out of business shortly after the black hats crack the backdoor. They'd go bankrupt trying to defend against all the lawsuits.
A further example of Feinstein's hypocrisy is that for many years she held one of the seldom-seen California concealed gun permits.
Yes, the woman who insists that guns have no legitimate use, that they exist solely to commit murders and are useless for any other purpose owned and carried a gun for self defense purposes.
When called on it, she got rid of it. But it's worth noting that her security detail IS still armed with items that are useless for defending people and can only be used to murder innocents. Or at least, that's what she claims about them regularly anyway.