I've been amazed that Parallel Construction hasn't become a bigger issue. That there is *any* hint of extra-judicial shenanigans going on would seem, on it's face, to introduce 'reasonable doubt' to *any* court proceeding.
If it's happened once, it's happened every single time because it's impossible to prove it didn't happen.
How this isn't being handled as a 'the entire system is rigged' concept, even in the main stream press boggles my mind.
I'd happily appreciate someone explaining me off this cliff I seem to be on :)
And there are plenty of laws against video recording someone in private situations without their knowledge.
Unfortunately 'revenge' porn rarely is recording someone's sexual activities without their knowledge. The parties involved almost always know and agree to the creation of the video/pictures...at the time.
It's distributing that video later after the parties have split up that makes it revenge porn. It has nothing to do with the recording of the activities itself.
you're assuming people are only running red lights because of short yellow light times. I've got news for you, people are running them because they don't want to stop and wait 2 minutes, not because the lights are short. So increasing the yellow light times won't change that behavior.
reducing T-bone accidents IS an actual safety interest. Properly training people to react to the system would be the correct method for people slamming on their brakes.
if a 3rd party, such as you're friend or anyone/any company who doesn't have an agreement to 'not disclose', does indeed disclose, then yes you have no 4th amendment recourse.
The BIG difference here is the courts ordering the release of the 3rd party held information. That's not 'choosing' to disclose and as such you should be able to fully employ your 4th amendment rights.
Re: There is a distinction between the address an the content
I agree. Either the host is actively playing into his lack technical details, or the host is equally as stupid.
It's the difference between the address on a letter and the contents of the letter itself. (with the obvious exception that in a URL's case you can then go get the content if you wish)
Without the specific details of the program, it would likely be collecting the textual URL so they'd know which articles you visited on a site like TechDirt. For more dynamic/scripted sites it might be a bit harder to reconstruct the content that the subject actually saw from the URL and any other header data you might collect.
re: T-Mobile "Second: Why is this letter not being sent to T-Mobile, who does the exact same thing at 2GB, regardless of network usage?"
because T-Mobile tells you this as part of your contract, hell it's in their advertising. Verizon said nothing of this only that the plans were 'unlimited'. Now, later, Verizon is changing the rules on those 'unlimited' plans.
I'm trying to donate but the Beacon site is saying 'Your card was declined.'. My card issuer isn't even seeing the request so something isn't working on Beacon's side of things. I've double and triple checked my info...any ideas?
Huh, the top of the slope just got higher...and more slippery. Who'd a thunk it?
Exactly what you said, this is a canary in the coal mine moment folks. If the gov't is saying the impartial referee isn't partial because they want to make up their own rules...we're in deep deep trouble.