btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 10:41am


    I don't agree with arming these things, but why should one with just a camera require a warrant?

    The cops don't need a warrant to fly over your property in a plane or a helicopter, and the cameras they can attach to those aircraft are every bit as hi-tech and intrusive as what you can put on drone. Sometimes more so, because those platforms are larger and can carry much more robust equipment than a little drone can.

    It seems like this is another one of those tech panics over the fact that it's a drone, not what it's capable of actually doing.

    I've never understood this in the military context, either. People clutch their pearls and get the vapors over drone strikes, except they don't necessarily question the legitimacy of the strikes themselves, but rather that they are done with drones. The implication being they wouldn't have much of a problem with it if the military used an F-16 or an F-22 jet fighter piloted by a person to deliver the same bomb to the same target to kill the same people. It's just doing it with a drone that gets their shorts in a twist. I don't get it. Who cares *how* the bomb reaches its target? If the target is legitimate, then whether it's flown there by a drone or a plane piloted by a person is irrelevant.

    Same here. If the surveillance is legal with a helicopter, why should that legal analysis change merely because the pilot is at the other end of a signal instead of sitting in the cockpit?

  • Aug 11th, 2015 @ 3:25pm


    > Vehicles used in actual wars are coming back
    > home to be deployed against civilians.

    As none of the vehicles mentioned in the article seem to be equipped with any offensive weaponry (no mounted .50-cals, active denial systems, or anything like that), the only objection here seems to be the armor itself. And since armor is a purely defensive asset which can only be used to protect someone from being shot *at*, I'm not sure how it is being "deployed against civilians".

    Is the objection that the armor makes the police too invulnerable? That it doesn't give the civilians a fair chance to fight back and hurt the cops if they feel it's righteous to do so?

    Do we also object to the cops themselves wearing body armor? Is it just as objectionable for a cop to himself to be armored as it is for him to have a vehicle that's armored?

  • Aug 7th, 2015 @ 4:05pm

    How is this related to tech?

    Other than it captured the attention of Mr. Masnick, why is this story on tech blog?

  • Aug 3rd, 2015 @ 11:32am

    Re: Where does the jurisdiction end?

    > Would Spain try to extradite me if I'm an
    > American citizen and posted from America?

    They could try but the U.S would never allow it. It would be a simple matter to challenge any attempt to extradite an American citizen for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights in America. A first year law student could win that one.

    The Constitution does not allow other countries to nullify all the guaranteed rights that were so thoughtfully put into place, and reach into our country and pluck our citizens away for exercising them.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 9:35am

    Re: Most likely US will be hypocrites

    > they could just go to an ISDS tribunal which wouldn't care about
    > sovereign immunity.

    Sure, but that's only half the process. The other (and more important) half is collecting on the judgement.

    The ISDS might not care about the Constitution, but any attempt to enforce its judgments will have to be done through the U.S. courts, which presumably will care quite a bit what the Constitution requires.

    > The end result is that, once again, the US will just not follow through
    > with their part of treaty obligations.

    Right, and in this case that's a good thing. No treaty should ever be given superiority over or allowed to undermine the Constitution itself.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 11:08am


    > is Mark Zuckerberg really as bloody stupid as this,
    > thinking he can do this sort of thing and because
    > he gets away with it in the US, thinks he can do so
    > elsewhere?

    Do what sort of thing? Get away with what, exactly?

    You mean own a website/service and provide people with free use of it so long as they abide by the rules he sets up?

    How horrible!

    Look, Facebook isn't a public utility or anything. It's not essential for life-- I get by just fine without using the damn thing and have done for years-- and it's private property. The owners of that property have a right to set rules by which you can use *their* property. If you don't like their rules, piss off and use some other web site or service.

    Is a "real name" policy a good idea from a business standpoint? Maybe, maybe not. But it's *their* business-- they constructed the site, paid for the servers, the bandwidth, the employees to run it, etc.-- so *they* have the right to make the rules for the people who use it. For FREE no less.

  • Jul 25th, 2015 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > seizing the assets of illegal businesses is not on par with
    > those other things

    What exactly was illegal about this man's business? -back/

  • Jul 23rd, 2015 @ 2:50pm


    > that's just legal... sorry

    > asset forfeiture proceedings are legal

    So was slavery. So was Prohibition. So were the Alien & Sedition Acts.

    Lots of things were legal until we grew up and realized they were wrong and put a stop to them.

  • Jul 23rd, 2015 @ 11:20am


    > the Supreme Court has held that civil forfeiture DOES NOT violate the Due Process Clause.

    The Supreme Court is wrong.

    The Supreme Court once ruled that interning people in concentration camps and seizing everything they owned based on nothing more than their ethnicity didn't violate the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court once ruled that separate-but-equal was constitutionally a-okay.

    The Supreme Court was wrong in those cases and they're wrong here. There's simply no way to square the idea of the government taking people's property from them based on nothing but a mere accusation with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The fact that the government has disingenuously twisted itself into logical pretzels and constructed bizarre legal fictions to justify its opporessive behavior does not cure what it is an obvious constitutional violation to anyone with even 3rd-grade level intelligence.

  • Jul 22nd, 2015 @ 4:09pm


    > > In asset forfeiture cases, since the government
    > > is technically filing the lawsuit against the stuff,
    > > arguing that the stuff itself is guilty,

    > How can he or his assets be complicit under the law of
    > a country he has never stepped foot inside?

    I've always thought it would be interesting to challenge this crap using the government's own legal fiction and bullshit games against it.

    If they're going to perversely argue that property-- inanimate objects, or even more bizarre, ones and zeroes in computer somewhere-- is somehow "guilty" of the crime charged, to the point of even listing the property as the actual defendant in the case, then make the government *prove* the property guilty of all the required elements of the crime, which in most cases involves an element of intent.

    In other words, make the government prove that house or that boat or that money *intended* to traffick in drugs or contraband.

    Without intent there's no guilt. Seizure denied.

  • Jul 17th, 2015 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re: Trespassing

    > "That's a nice McDonalds you got there. Be a
    > shame if something were to happen to it. You
    > know how long emergency service response times
    > can be in this area...."

    "Snort my taint. I'll hire private security. Now fuck off."

  • Jul 17th, 2015 @ 8:22am

    Re: Re: Lights

    > In the old days, theaters had ushers with flashlights
    > for this purpose.

    Ushers didn't point their flashlights right in the eyes of the other patrons. They pointed their flashlights at the floor to help people see the stairs.

  • Jul 17th, 2015 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm pretty sure inconsiderate boneheadedness has been around for centuries.

    > Active cell phone jammers are illegal to operate
    > even within your own property.

    No shit. That's what we're talking about-- the reasons for that.

  • Jul 16th, 2015 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: I'm pretty sure inconsiderate boneheadedness has been around for centuries.

    For those massive multiplex theaters that are surrounded by a couple of acres of parking lot, I'm sure they could easily dial down their blocking so that it encompasses mostly just the building, with whatever bleed-over still well within their property lines.

  • Jul 16th, 2015 @ 9:33am

    Re: I'm pretty sure inconsiderate boneheadedness has been around for centuries.

    > One option is to build Faraday cages into
    > theater architecture. San Francisco's Cliff
    > House (a restaurant, not a theater) is built
    > in that way, and there's no service whatsoever
    > while in the building.

    I'm all for this idea, since the FCC refuses to allow private property owners to control this nonsense in the most direct way, by jamming the frakking things, passive blocking is definitely something I'd consider when building a theater or concert hall.

    I'm sure some braindead cell addict would claim that's a violation of their constitutional right to text and their right to annoy everyone around them, and there'd be an equally braindead judge somewhere that would take such a complaint seriously.

  • Jul 16th, 2015 @ 9:29am


    It seems to be getting worse and worse in movie theaters, too. The new trend seems to be people who walk into the theater (late, after the lights have gone down, of course) with the app on that turns their flash into a flashlight, shining it into everyone else's eyes as they look for their seats.

    It's enraging beyond belief. I wonder how people managed to find a seat in a theater before cell phones?

  • Jul 16th, 2015 @ 9:20am


    Since the McDonald's is not public property, it's legally absurd that the city could charge a customer with trespassing without the cooperation of the restaurant. Otherwise, all the reporters would have to do is call the manager to the stand and have him testify, "No, I didn't ask them to leave and they were not trespassing in my restaurant."

    Case dismissed.

  • Jul 16th, 2015 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Who is pressing charges for trespass?

    > Wouldn't that be dangerously close to, if not
    > arguably a, violation of the rarely invoked
    > Third Amendment?

    No, if anything it would be a 5th Amendment violation-- taking private property for a public purpose without just compensation.

  • Jul 2nd, 2015 @ 8:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump

    I must have missed the meeting where everybody decided that having actual national borders is a violation of basic human rights. (But only for the U.S.-- every other country can have borders with no problem.)

  • Jul 2nd, 2015 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Sure but not based on law enforcement requests.

    Cite me the case law, statute, regulation, or code that prohibits a business from declining to do business with someone based on a law enforcement request.

More comments from btr1701 >>