> If you stay here to attend a wedding and leave us > a negative review on any internet site you agree > to a $500. fine for each negative review.
I've never understood how these people even think they can enforce this sort of thing. If I stayed there and really wanted to post a negative review, I'd just get my wife or son or next door neighbor to do it for me.
"My friend stayed at the Union Street Guest House last weekend, and you wouldn't believe what happened to him..."
The person posting the review isn't the person who stayed at the inn and agreed to the contract, so they have no recourse against him. Such a simple way around these things, it's a wonder why they even bother even if there was no such thing as the Streisand Effect.
> I think it's funny as fuck you're rallying a defense for > a bunch of officers who aren't scared of gangsters or > hardened criminals, but are wetting their pants at the > sight of a guy whose most dangerous weapon is his > camera
I won't rally in defense of cops who go out and confront guys like this and try and take their camera or arrest them on bogus charges like "disorderly conduct", but it's a proven and indisputable fact that "pre-operational target surveillance" has been conducted in almost every terrorist attack on a government building, both domestically and overseas-- to include the Oklahoma City bombing, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the US Embassy bombing in Nairobi, and the 911 WTC attack itself. In every case, the attackers or those working with them spent time around the target buildings engaged in the exact same kind of photography that Jeff Gray does, filming security posts and CCTV locations, loading docks and delivery schedules, traffic patterns, the coming and going of personnel, etc.
Is it Gray's right to do this? Sure.
But just because it's his right, should law enforcement essentially be required to do nothing when they see someone doing the very thing that attackers worldwide have been proven to do before engaging in mass murder?
Imagine what would happen if some guy like Tim McVeigh who actually *did* have the intent to kill hundreds of people was seen walking around a federal building the week before he detonated a truck bomb and murdered hundreds of people, and the security/police at the building did nothing. They recognized that his behavior fit the well-established pattern of terrorist pre-operational target surveillance, but they did nothing about it. They didn't approach him and talk to him, they didn't identify him, they never ran his license tag. Nothing. Just stood there and waved as the terrorist walked around planning his slaughter. After the building blew sky high and hundreds of corpses were being pulled out of the rubble, the government would be absolutely *crucified* for its spectacular incompetence, and rightly so.
Should these guys, who purposely engage in behavior that mimics the behavior of known attackers, be accosted and have their cameras seized and be arrested on bullshit trumped-up charges? Nope.
But at the same time, you can't expect the people whose job it is to protect these buildings to do *nothing* when they see someone who's acting like an attacker. If you want to act like a terrorist, I don't think it's a tremendous burden on your 1st Amendment right to film government buildings for a cop to quietly run your car registration (if he can see your license tag) and name through a database. If you come back clean, no criminal history, no TECS record showing you like to vacation in Syria, and it's clear you're just an activist trying to goad the cops into doing something they shouldn't, then have at it, film away. Case closed.
No rights are absolute. Society, through the courts, always balances competing interests when determining the extent of any right. The rest of society has a right not to be blown up that's every bit as important as Gray's right to take pictures of security gates (or whatever) around a police station.
> The EU would have enforcement power because Google > has operations in Europe, and possesses assets there.
Which Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al, should sell off and abandon. Leave their search engines and services available for EU citizens to access on the internet, but get out of those countries physically.
And then they can ignore all this bullshit from the EU courts. Let the judges impotently pound their gavels and demand whatever they want. They won't get it. Leave those governments with one option: either completely block these immensely popular services nationwide and suffer the repercussions from their citizens, or leave it all the fuck alone and let people be free.
> The EU can't violate the First Amendment because it only applies > to the US government.
No, it applies to *any* government action if taken against US citizens in the US. In this case, the EU is a government acting against a US company and attempting to censor speech inside the US. That brings them under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment.
> Leaving the kid unattended when you know > it'll only be a few minutes and conditions > nearby are safe? Not bad parenting.
There was another recent case that wasn't included here where a mother was arrested/fined/cited/whatever for leaving her 13-year-old kid in the car while she went in shopping-- at the *kid's* request. Girl didn't want to be dragged around the store and probably thought sitting in the car snapchatting or tweeting would be more enjoyable.
Some busybody shopper reported a child alone in a car to the cops, next thing you know, mom is in criminal trouble.
We're talking about a kid who has the ability to OPEN THE DOOR AND GET OUT if she gets to hot. Or likely had the keys and could have turned on the AC.
What's next? Are we gonna arrest parents for letting their 17-year-old kid spend time alone in a car that they're old enough to drive because they're still technically a minor?
When the hell did sanity and common sense go out the window when it comes to this kind of thing? It's like I woke up one day and everyone-- from the schoolteachers, to the cops, to the D.A.s, to the average citizen-- has just lost their minds when it comes to stuff like this.
> It was a rather obvious effort to create FTC problems for > competitors, though it's understandable that a company on > the firing line is tempted to point out others doing the same > thing.
It's more than understandable that they were just tempted. It's a perfectly legitimate response from anyone, where the government steps in and says, "You can't do this", to point out that, "Hey, everyone else is doing the same thing, why are you only coming after me?"
> in other words, they are trying to hide their > identity in order to access material that is otherwise > not available to them (for reasons like Geo blocking)
Which is not a crime or even a civil offense. The fact that Warner Bros., for example, doesn't want me to watch a streaming video while I'm in France doesn't obligate me to abide by their wishes. They're free to try and block me, but if I bypass the block by making it appear I'm somewhere else, I've committed no offense.
Same with region coded DVD players. I'm under no obligation-- either legal or moral-- to abide by the entertainment industry's marketing window strategy, and if I unlock my DVD player so that it can play discs from any region in the world, that's perfectly legal, even though it subverts their business plan.
Business plans are not laws and they don't bind anyone outside of the business to abide by them.
> The reasons don't have to be nefarious, they don't > have to be doing truly bad things... but on a very > basic level shows what Tor is used for.
Yeah, it can be used to give a little power back to people to nullify the negative effect of a lot of corporate shenanigans. In other words, it can be used to negate the bad things that others are doing.
> He would only have to know that his action (to open > the node to anyone and everyone) is likely to lead to > some sort of criminal activity being conducted over it.
That same standard could be applied to hold ISPs criminally liable for anything customers do. Given the amount of crime conducted on the open internet, an ISP would have to know that by offering the public internet access, it would likely to lead to some sort of criminal activity being conducted over their network at some point.
> Scary that these people vote, and more > terrifying is that they think Twitter rage > can change anything. They can totally solve > all of the worlds problems with an online > petition, FB likes, or tweeting loud enough.
Well, when you have the actual State Department responding to humanitarian crises and terror attacks with "hashtag diplomacy" instead of actual diplomacy, this is what you get.
> If the government can't prove you own the data, or > doesn't know where the data is located, it can't force > you to use the labor of your mind to incriminate yourself.
Whenever the government runs into a 'possession' stumbling block, it just presumes everyone involved possesses the item in question and charges everyone with it.
Happens all the time with drugs found by cops when they pull over cars on the side of the road. If none of the driver/passengers admits to possession, they all get charged with possession.
Also with minors possessing alcohol in situations like a house party. If the alcohol is there but no one is actually holding it or drinking it when the police arrive, they charge every minor in the house with possession of it.
Seems the same end-run around due process would apply to your cloud data scenario. If they can't prove possession by any one person who has access, they'll just charge everyone who has access with possession of the incriminating data.
Voila! Problem solved, 'cause we all know that the most important thing is that the police should not have to work overly hard to make their cases.
> Think about it. Under your theory, the government could > not ever compel you to produce your business records > because they might demonstrate that you were conducting > some other illegal activity.
And under your theory, it seems the government could compel you to produce all illegal drugs in your possession (and hold you in contempt if you refuse to tell the police where they are), because the drugs themselves are evidence and not testimony.
> Of course that could lead to having something encrypted > turning into "obstruction of justice"
Even if encryption in and of itself were criminalized, if I was a criminal, I'd rather serve five years for that, than 25 years for child porn, or murder, or whatever else the unencrypted files would prove I did.
> If you have relevant documents in your locked file > cabinet, you can't refuse a subpoena for those > documents on 5th amendment grounds.
No, but you can't be forced to physically open the cabinet, either. If you won't do it, the police can bring in a locksmith or use some other means to force the cabinet open, but you don't have to help them.
Using your own analogy, the government is free to 'cut the lock off the computer' by breaking the guy's encryption (if it can), but just as with a locked file cabinet, he shouldn't be forced to help them. The only difference here is that the defendant locked his cabinet up pretty darned good. I don't see how the quality of the lock changes the legal analysis, however.
> This is a ruling that cannot be allowed to stand....
If it does stand, then it seems like people with encrypted info they don't want the government to see need to use encryption software that either provides access to different files based on which password is entered, or which nukes the entire drive if a password isn't entered within a predetermined period of time.
> However, how would they prevent me from selling a coffee > mug with the name "Redskins" on it? Or a jacket?
They can't. But they can prevent you from selling that mug or jacket with the name "Redskins" combined with the team colors (for which they still have a valid trademark), and the team's font style (for which they still have a valid trademark), and the team's Indian-head logo (for which they still have a valid trademark), and the word "Washington" (for which they still have a valid trademark if used in the context of the team).
So yeah, you can sell your mug with the word "Redskins" on it, but it can't be maroon and gold, and it can't also have the Indian-head logo and it can't say "Washington". So if all you can sell is off-color mugs and jackets that don't look anything at all like the team's regalia, why would I, as a fan, buy them from you when I can get the real thing from the team's official store?
In other words, who's gonna want to show up on game day wearing a blue hat with just the word "Redskins" on it printed in Helvetica font?
> Now you see. If everyone can knock off your brand then.... > it would behoove you to change the brand
You don't seem to understand much of what's being said here. The point is, even without a trademark on the Redskins name, "everyone" won't be able to sell team merchandise because the team still has protection for all the *other* aspects of their brand.