in challenging Trumps executive authority, these corporations are opening the door to having their own executive authority castrated. There is not an executive decision that does not have an impact on one or more groups of people, some claiming privilege based on identity politics.
Imagine, a retail company decides to raise its prices. The executives of that company may find themselves targets of lawsuits claiming that those price increases create "disparate impacts".
Do we want every executive decision second guessed by the judicial system?
Be careful of what you ask for. These executives may find-out that they have opened Pandora's Box and will regret it.
I bought "CIV V" many years ago, I did not accept the the TOS but there where no instructions for getting a refund. Even after contacting Take-Two Interactive they refused to refund the money. One would think, on a DRM protected game, that when the TOS are not accepted you could return the game.
Anyway, the credit card company was reasonable and gave me a courtesy refund.
A better approach, restore copyright to its original intent and eliminate the automatic unsupervised ability of a private company to have quasi-judicial powers to force the removal of content without any judicial review.
It keeps amazing me that those in leadership positions who are supposedly intelligent keep thinking that there is a "secure" backdoor. It is a total fiction, as hackers have demonstrated. When will those proponents of a backdoor ever learn? Apparently never since this story keeps repeating.
Furthermore, the contention is made that backdoor are necessary to get those evil criminals. Two quick points.
1. The backdoor proponents seem to ignore the obvious fact that there a perfectly legitimate uses for unbreakable encryption.
2. In the name of "security and fighting crime", the encryption proponents ignore civil rights on the pretext of making it "easier" for law enforcement to do its job. We should not give-up civil rights to make life easier for law enforcement.
The Democrats can solve the problem of voter ID themselves. All they have to do is set-up a registry where those who lack the required documentation can have a Democratic operative pick them up and help them through the process.
If the Democrats are not willing to assist those who have problems, then the Democrats have no right to complain.
Obama, on national TV, when asked about illegals voting (nationwide) refused to explicitly state that non-citizens do not have a right to vote. His silence on this easy to answer issue can be assumed to imply that he would be comfortable with non-citizens voting.
Trick question, I obviously do not disagree with the concept of "making it easier to vote". But there is a slippery slope concerning the meaning of "easier to vote". How much "easy" should we have? There are rationale limits.
OK, in terms of voter fraud being a truth independent of the Democratic party, you have a point. But the reason for me stating it that way - is that this is a Democratic mime which they are now making a 180 on by demanding a recount to "verify the election". Obviously, if fraud is not a serious problem as advocated by the Democrats, the recount is unnecessary.
On your last point concerning so-called voter suppression, I will have to respectfully disagree. Voter suppression is simply a deplorable manufactured mime by the Democrats. In fact, the Democrats could easily overcome this so-called voter suppression by directly helping those who are being "suppressed".
"Lawyers from Southern Coalition for Social Justice asked a federal judge late Wednesday to reject a lawsuit questioning the verification of voters who used same-day registration to cast ballots. The filing was done by some of the same lawyers and advocates who successfully sued to overturn parts of a wide-ranging elections law enacted by Republicans in the General Assembly.
They're opposing a lawsuit filed this week by the conservative Civitas Institute. Civitas says the state cannot finish counting votes until it verifies addresses of voters who used same-day registration. A hearing is scheduled next week."
The Democrats have gone to great extremes to remove virtually all impediments to voting. Furthermore, the Democrats have advocated that voter fraud is inconsequential and would not have an adverse effect on voting. The Democrats have lost the election (in terms of the electoral college) and they are now outraged and want to "know the truth". Well, if they where really concerned about the "truth" the Democrats would not be so adamantly opposed to the creation of paper trails that would document the eligibility of the voters.
In North Carolina the Democrats are attempting to frustrate a Republican attempt at a recount concerning the Governor's election. If Democrats were really concerned about the truth, they would support the recount.
Trump won the election, so criticisms evaluating Trumps potential impacts on civil liberties and surveillance are germane. Nevertheless, had Hillary won; there would have been a high probability that an article similar to this one would have been written. Hillary, was unabashedly for "BIG" government. That simplicity implies greater erosion of civil liberties and greater surveillance.
On one occasion, Hillary was asked about encryption; her response indicated that she did not understand encryption and couched her answer in gobbledygook worthy of many science fiction scripts.
Blaming Russia is a distraction. It is part of a new "Red Scare" (not meant as a pun), where the DNC/Hillary/Obama are frantically attempting to vilify and denigrate anyone who opposes the Democratic party.
The Democrats were caught. They were forced into creating a bogeyman (which is the hacking) to mislead the public into blaming the Russians instead of the vile comments made by the Democrats. The issue really isn't the hacking but the content of the emails, which is disgraceful.
It seems that the Democrats, at least in California, are attempting to pass laws that achieve political goals. In another instance, the Democrats attempted to pass a law, which some assert, would allow criminal charges to be placed against someone who criticizes global warming.
Thankfully, the proposal has been dropped. What continues to amaze me is that the positive legitimate uses of encryption are purposely ignored by those proposing a so-called "back door".
The issue of encryption also raises "slippery slope" concerns. The argument is made that encryption has to be weak to facilitate law enforcement. By that train of logic, search warrants should be abolished as an impediment to "facilitating law enforcement".
I hope that those proposing a "back door" will finally give-up based on logic. Unfortunately, I suspect that after a suitable waiting period, those proposing weak encryption will once again hysterically start beating the war drums and foaming at the mouth.