I'd like the FCC to relieve ME of the onerous burden of paying unnecessary fees, and needing to take a lot of time to find all the hidden gotchas that will now be even easier to hide in ISP service contracts.
Let's make them really cry. They don't want right to repair legislation? OK, instead let's revise DMCA 1201 so that it only applies to activities done for the explicit purpose of copyright infringement.
Bloomberg is wrong about what true patriotism is. It is supporting the values that make our nation what it is (supposed to be). Those values come with risks, but they're worth it. This is understood by those who really believe in our way of life.
Since they want to revise the NSL rules, maybe they should be revised to forbid their use for this purpose. Anyone want to bet that Congress will act in support of the people they're supposed to represent? I'll offer very good odds...
We need to start electing judges based on what people would do in situations like these if we want to see these situations stop. I may not have the traditional legal background to be a judge, but if a case like this came before me, it would be: no immunity for you, go directly to jail and stay there for a very long time. Maybe I'd be a better judge than some of those that are currently on the bench, even without the traditional, legal background.
I love the idea behind this amendment, but the text seems to have massive loopholes.
First we have this: ... none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by an officer or employee of the United States to query a collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person identifier.
Ok, so an officer or an employee of the United States can't do it, but what about a contractor?
Now this part: none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate or request that a person (as defined in section 101(m) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(m))) alter its product or service to permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101(f) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(f))) of any user of such product or service for such agencies.
It only mentions the NSA and the CIA. What about the FBI, DEA, ATF, etc?
I think it's critical to place strong limits on these powerful agencies. The spirit of the amendment seems to be good, but letter seems like it needs some improvement.
When I read about threats like these, it makes me wonder how they can fail to violate the professional ethics rules and standards that I'm sure lawyers must be accountable for complying with. Specifically, how can they possibly be allowed to threaten legal actions that they know stand no chance of going anywhere, using the fact that the other party can't afford to respond to their advantage. Seems like the kind of unethical behavior that should result in some disbarments.
The amendments to the constitution are intended specifically to be restrictive to the government. Just look at the preamble to the bill of rights for clear proof of that.
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
These additional restrictions were added to prevent misconstruction or abuse of power by the government, and to increase the public's confidence in the government. Maybe our elected officials and a majority of judges forgot that.
When our government decides it doesn't have to play by the rules we go from good guys vs. bad guys, to bad guys vs. bad guys.