Translation back to How the Law is Supposed to Work:
Man previously arrested for smuggling cigarettes, found in another state with lots of cash. Police confiscate cash without probable cause and retain it in violation of forfeiture procedures, and with actual knowledge that he wanted it back.
Demanding due process is not "libertarian uberspeak".
But Twitter is not "a person", unless there's some Citizen's United-esque legal definition out there.
Not new, no. "Person" in a legal context means something more like "entity". That's why there's the term "natural person" to distinguish an actual human from other things the law refers to as persons, such as corporations (I don't known if there are others).
An individual cannot file a civil rights action until they prove enough instances where similarly situated persons have faced the same violation.
That's not true, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution protect individuals, not just groups. You can see this is the case by the very lawsuit in question. It is not a class action, it is about this one incident.
Do you have any proof for this "Microsoft decides they should come back" actually happens?
I never claimed that it has happened, so I'm not sure why you're asking for proof of that. I'm just pointing out these things:
A: Windows Update can update the registry (I think this is true though I haven't verified) B: Windows can be configured to automatically install whatever updates Microsoft chooses (I think this is the default configuration)
Given these facts, if a system is so configured it naturally follows that Microsoft can undo your solution whenever it wants. Will they do so? How much do you trust them not to?
I would consider it if skype, which I need for work, was at all functional on Linux. Maybe there's a distro where it works but on Mint on the machine I've tried it on it's completely broken. Since it's owned by Microsoft, I don't expect that situation to improve.
Every other person seems to believe the police are corrupt, are hiding or manufacturing evidence, are lying on every report they write, are intentionally trying to harass and screw over over the piblic, etc. So, trying to talk rationally with people that have that mindset is futile, but for everyone else, I'll offer some insight.
Obviously not all police are like that, but there are way too many stories of police corruption, dishonesty, and violence.
Gone are the days when people trusted the word of a police officer.
With good reason. Police are just like anyone else - likely to lie to protect their interests.
The rest of your comment - good information. Body cameras are not only not a magic bullet, but probably more expensive and difficult than is generally recognized.
I would say whether it's "too much" of a hardship depends on the department's budget. They can only spend money they've been allocated, and if they don't have personnel available to do the work, then it can't get done. If whoever controls the purse strings wants this done, they have to make sure it's funded.
But it is asinine to assume that any company (even a large one such as Blizzard) would be "okay" with licensing out their game when they have little or no control over its administration. That would expose them to a degree of liability that their lawyers would never allow.
First, that's what limitation of liability agreements are for. Second, lawyers have to do what their clients tell them, not the other way around.