Extortion, in all its forms, is the new growth business these days. This is no different than a cable provider blocking a channel during negotiations or a streaming company blocking access to media during a negotiation.
More broadly thinking, we have "buy from us or do without" monopolies and "if you want your printer to scan papers buy our ink" or get your repairs only from us" at a mere 10% above retail cost of a new device.
It's the play of the day: find someone with an arm to twist and wring that money out.
You want a reason? I'll give you a reason. Big tech has megatons of money, so they should give us some -- most of it even. That's the reason.
Before lobbyist efforts: ISP's of all sizes are being subsidized to offer service in more areas, improve service, increase competition, improve quality and meet new technical standards.
After lobbyist efforts: Give all $$$$ to big ISP now.
But prosecutors didn't dismiss the charges until March 2018, unjustifiably extending her detention in jail for a crime a crime lab said she didn't commit.
Oh, come on! They had a perfectly jusitifiable reason to hold her. They were looking for the laboratory that employs Annie Dookhan for a re-test on the sand in that stress ball.
Don't worry about the budget. I'm sure the cops will be able to confiscate sufficient assets under forfeiture, to pay for it.
The phrase "seamless parking experience" is merely one of the endless pithy variations of the core phrase "servicing you better."
service v. 2. (of a male animal) to mate with (a female animal)
That is, with their "seamless parking experience" they are "sc__wing you better."
We are surprised...
We should not be surprised: today, maximization of profit is the sole and only reason for a company's existance. If the company did not do these things the board would throw its officers out.
When the original companies (e.g the Hudson Bay Company) were licensed, the license required them to benefit the public. Until we get back to mandating that, this is the behavior we should expect to get.
No matter what rules are imposed on bodycam footage, as long as the police control that footage, there will be destruction or concealment of the evidence.
This is why it is so essential that public filming of the police by citizens be proteced by the First Amendment: so that there is evidence outside of the control of the police.
The courts and congress need to get their fingers out of their ears and declare public recording of police activity a First Amendment Right. Then they need to protect that Right by meaningful penalties that can be enforced against the police for denial of the Right, with no qualified immunity allowed.
This actually makes perfect sense.
Peaceful protest drives change. The police absolutely do not want change -- they are perfectly happy with things the way they are.
Protesters that are violent -- rioters -- can be locked up, and therefore can't change anything.
So from police perspective, peaceful protesters are far more dangerous than the violent kind.
So it makes sense that police would focus on peaceful protesters: From police perspective they offer the greatest threat to the future of policing.
The despots are always most afraid of the agents of change among their subjects.
'Anonymized Data' Is A Gibberish Term
It's not gibberish, it is a perfectly good euphemism, like 'retrenchment' for 'fired', or 'wet work' for 'murder'. Just another way of protecting delicate, snooping ears from reality.
It almost makes you wonder who writes these bills.
Supposed to be "rehabilitation" ... I blame autocorrect.
That's what those who support restitution tell us.
It will be used - indeed, probably is used, right now - to grab anyone who could be identified as present on jan 6th and inform them they can play ball or cop 20 to life on Felony Murder or similar rubberstamp bullshit...for getting caught on camera posing with the confederate flag in the middle of the building where a cop had been killed.Funny you should bring that up. That is exactly what the new riot law in Florida does: make everyone responsible for the actions of one person they didn't know and never met -- even when they had no idea what that person was going to do. Conservatives created that law. Surely you're not saying they don't know what they are doing?
Well, now that you mention it... It's only fair is it not that Cassilly, who won at any cost... Should be pursued by a prosecutor seeking to win at any cost? I mean, what goes around comes around...right?
That's because they can always transfer the blame to the citizen they were busting -- even if no crime was otherwise committed. I think "felony murder" should be done away with -- not because we don't need it for real bad guys (we do) -- but because these days, it is mostly abused just like in this case.
Only if the judge thinks the testimony is too prejudicial for the jury to ignore.
I have to second this, because the misuse is driving me bonkers. A brake is a device that slows a mechanism by friction. The device that stops a vehicle is a brake. Using the device to stop the vehicle is to brake, braking or braked, depending upon tense. A break is either an interruption (I went on break to have some coffee, I will break into their conversation) or a destructive failure of something (bones break, bottles break, your vacuum cleander will break if you try to use it to clean your lawn). In the past tense, we say these things are broken. You might say the car braked to a stop, but it is not the same thing at all to say the car has broken. Likewise, saying you will break my car will get you invited to stay away from it, because it is not at all the same as you saying you will brake the car.
I don't know why they didn't just wait until the year 2121 to hold Cassilly accountable. They could still proudly announce how they were "protecting the public" with no concerns about having to retry/release any of his victims.
Re:
You forgot... Money defrauded from customers by the invention of fictitious fees and taxes that are "passed on" to the customer.