Hence the reason they don't consider that aspect of bodycams to be a worthwhile trade, because they stand to gain almost nothing, while standing to lose quite a lot.
If it's the word of a cop over the word of a citizen regarding an accusation against a cop, innocent or guilty, the vast majority of the time the court/'Internal investigation' is going to side with the cop, and dismiss the charges. Bodycam footage doesn't really change this. If they were innocent, then bodycam footage isn't going to somehow make them more innocent.
However, if they're guilty of what they're being accused of, suddenly bodycam footage becomes all sorts of problematic, as it's no longer just 'Citizen said X happened' vs 'Officer said Y happened', there's real evidence that can be examined, and it's more difficult to just brush it under the rug.
Put simply, bodycam footage can help against bogus charges against police, but given how the deck is already stacked in their favor, it's not like they really needed the help. At the same time though, it can be used to verify legitimate charges, and that is something the corrupt cops really don't care for, hence the pushback.
Nonsense, everyone knows that any communications must clearly and concisely spell out exactly what is meant, so that should police and/or government agencies want to know what is being said, they don't have to worry if what's written is what's intended to be conveyed. I mean come now, just because they murdered a bunch of people, do you really think they would have been willing to break the law by communicating in a manner that the spies couldn't understand them?
This is the same reason it's illegal to communicate in person with someone unless a police or government official is nearby to listen in and is able to ask for clarifications to anything said, because it's absolutely forbidden for criminals to communicate in private or otherwise in a fashion that official voyeurs can't understand them, and since it's impossible to know ahead of time who might be a criminal, no-one is allowed to communicate in private.
Distract the audience with something flashy in one hand, while you do the actual trick with the other.
In this case, they threw a fit over one program, which is apparently completely redundant, so that when it was 'beaten', people would think that something had actually been done, when in fact the indiscriminate spying wouldn't even suffer so much as a pause, as other programs continued on, same as before.
So long as they can keep any potential lawsuits focused on specific programs, rather than the spying as a whole(and good luck getting a judge to grant standing on that, given how hard it is with known programs), even if they 'lose' it doesn't really matter, as they just close one program and start up another.
While it's important to fight the individual spying programs, it's equally important to realize that the problem will persist until the idea of general, indiscriminate spying itself is dealt with, along with the secret 'courts' making secret 'laws' that allows such to continue.
Lucky them, they don't have to. They just need to dangle the threat of 'If you cut our budget, and/or get rid of our spying programs, and something gets through, you will get the blame for it' in front of the politicians, very few of which are going to be willing to 'risk' their careers to protect the rights of the public.
You seem to be having fun beating on the 'they let it happen' drum, so let me point something out for you: It doesn't matter if they did or not.
Let me repeat that in case you missed it: It does not matter if they knew about the attack and let it happen, or if they honestly missed it, with regards to the topics of encryption/mass spying
Whether they deliberately let the attack through, or just flat out missed it in the piles of junk data is a moot point, what matters is that the indiscriminate spying failed, utterly, to do anything against a group that did everything short of mailing their plans to the police ahead of time(print yes, mail no), meaning it's clearly a complete and utter failure, and all the justifications for it of 'We need to spy on everyone to stop attacks like this!' are rubbish. And if the justifications are nothing but empty words, then the programs, and the calls for increasing them, now have no ground beneath them other than 'We really like spying on everyone's personal communications'.
That is the important part, pointing out that the justifications for the mass-spying is crap, and the calls for undermining security even more so, because neither is apparently helping them even against those that are practically trying to be caught. And if you take away the justifications, then the programs they are supporting should be removed as well.
Re: Re: "It's not our fault we had too much hay to sift through to find them in time! Completely unrelated, we need more hay."
They failed in their stated goals, that of preventing such attacks, exposing the justification of 'We need to spy on everyone in order to protect you' as complete crap. They had the needed information, those responsible weren't even trying to hide, and all the indiscriminate mass-spying did absolutely nothing to stop them, and if it can't stop people that incompetent, then clearly the programs are useless and need to be shut down.
If they can't even catch people who take no real security precautions, the idea that they would do any better against those that do is a joke without a punchline.
Maybe, but given how those throwing hysterical fits over how the (non-existent) encryption of the attackers was such a problem have acted so far, I'd expect them to flat out ignore this report, just like they've flat out ignored all the other evidence showing how encryption had nothing to do with the failure to stop the attack.
They haven't let such trifles as 'evidence' and 'facts' get in the way of their grab for more power so far after all, why would they start now?
"It's not our fault we had too much hay to sift through to find them in time! Completely unrelated, we need more hay."
Given how out in the open the attackers operated, the law enforcement and intelligence community failed massively in not stopping this. No wonder they're grasping at straws to find something to blame, even if it had nothing to do with the attacks.
Which makes those using the attacks for their own gains reprehensible for two reasons. They're using tragedy for their own gain in trying to get even more power than they already have, as well as trying to shift the blame for their own incompetence onto something they would really like to see crippled, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with their failure.
They failed, and it's entirely possible that a big reason for that is that their voyeuristic obsession meant that they had too much junk info to sort through to spot the important bits in time. Rather than admit that though, or even admit that they failed at all, they double down, and insist that their failure means that people should be made even less safe, as though that would make things better for anyone but them and other criminals that don't have badges.
Those that insist that the patent system is all sunshine and roses, without any downsides, will either just ignore the issue, pretending it's not happening, or find some way to claim that while this is an abuse of the patent system, when applied 'properly'(that is used against small companies/inventors rather than large companies) the patent system is infallible, and nothing but good.
The problem isn't incomplete online records. It's that people will link to the arrest or accusation story - and ONLY to the arrest or accusation story - but not to the exoneration story from weeks or months later.
Which would be sleazy to be sure, but I think I'd prefer that over the alternative, that of forced speech, where if you don't want to be on the hook for linking to potentially damaging speech, you have to post any 'updates' or 'corrections' that pop up later on.
I'd prefer someone being able to be scummy, over people having to worry about legal threats should they not post the 'correct' info, whether intentionally or not.
Everyone knows the proper way to object to bad patents and/or the crappy patent system is to say that there are bad patents in general, without actually pointing out any specific examples to support your claim.
Pointing out specific examples of failures of the patent system is completely uncalled for. Issuing vague, non-specific claims that it's bad in general is both more professional, and more likely to get people to agree.
FCC needs to be passed through Congress, not a fucking regulatory agency where shit has even less of a chance of sanity.
If it were up to congress to write the rules, I can guarantee you that if the rules were written at all(given how much they bicker like children), they'd have been tailor made by and for the cable companies, with utterly useless 'rules' and 'limits.
In case you thing that's unrealistic, it's pretty much exactly what they tried to do when the whole Title II shenanigans were going on, proposing laughable rules that would have been even more pathetic than the previous ones.
The problem isn't so much the rules as enforcing them. The best consumer-protection law in existence doesn't mean squat if the ones in charge of enforcing it are looking the other way when it's violated, and alternatively even a weak consumer-protection law can be sufficient if it's enforced well and consistently.
"should not unreasonably interfere with the access to someone who is trying to get to an edge provider and an edge provider who is trying to get to a consumer.
'Pay to bypass the completely unnecessary cap/limit' should absolutely be seen as violating the above for example, as it introduces obstacles in the path of both customers and service providers that exist solely for monetary gain, and have nothing to do with keeping the network clear.
If caps aren't a problem, nothing related to them is going to be
The problem is that the FCC apparently sees caps as a good thing, rather than a blatant cash grab by introducing an artificial and entirely greed-based limit. If you see caps like that, then of course anything that allows customers to 'bypass' the artificial obstruction is going to be seen as a good thing.
It's helping people avoid the (completely unnecessary) caps, what's not customer friendly about that? /s