'I sit in the minority who appreciate the removal of comments from news sites... Trying to wade through that shit to find the one or two decent comments isn't anyone's definition of "a pleasant experience".'
I don't understand. You'd prefer not to read the comments at all? Then why not... refrain from reading the comments at all? If you prefer to read the article and not the comments, you can do just that regardless of whether there's a comment section down at the bottom or not.
I understand if you just can't help but dive into the comment section-- really, I do. But wouldn't it be better to have a browser setting, or a separate page, to remove that temptation while still allowing discussion for those who want it?
Police lie under oath. Police officers who perjure themselves are rarely punished. Police informants are often paid in drugs or reduced sentences, and will say anything their handlers want to hear. Lab technicians in forensics labs are rewarded according to how much their results help the police, and can falsify results for years -- even at an implausible rate -- without being caught. Police "drug-sniffing" dogs will "react" when their handlers want them to, and are not removed from service for false positives. Warrants are often issued on the basis of all of the above.
If you find yourself on a jury, remember these facts.
I've been asking for years why we don't a control policy at these police-affiliated, District-Attorney-influenced labs:
"You will be analyzing specimens taken from crime scenes and from suspects in custody, but occasionally some of them will actually be control samples prepared by the Public Defender's office. If you return one false positive, your career is over and the Public Defender's office gets your pension."
A "reasonable demand"? Quite apart from unintended consequences, additional legal complications that discourage young people from going into video-making, and arguments about the free market and freedom of expression, that phrase is just weird in this context.
You want to make it illegal to make video without subtitles (and/or audio description for the blind)? You want to require creators to provide such addenda for their works, even works made years ago, even creators who are unknown, living abroad, or dead?
Well, that would be about as logical as a lot of other law. Copyright law is full of such charming eccentricities, and the whole ADA seems to be founded on the premise that no shop at all is better than a shop without a wheelchair ramp, which I've never quite understood.
But I have an alternative suggestion; as long as we're handing out exemptions from the ADA, let's just give a general one to non-physical services.
A) A young Muslim man. B) A convicted murderer with knowledge of explosives. C) A pilot from Düsseldorf who has passed background checks with basically no red flags.
At some point we must face facts; people who sound the scariest aren't necessarily the greatest risks, and our intuition just isn't very good when it comes to very rare events.
And note that the scary convicted murderer with knowledge of explosives didn't actually cause any trouble at all on board the plane. So the only evidence we have indicates that there is no harm in letting such people fly (or walk free in the street, for that matter), and that the TSA doesn't measurably improve public safety whether it does "its job" or not.
"...Last month the company made a really bold move in announcing that it would provide free legal support for any other startups sued by AGIS..."
Oh, that's interesting. It sounds like a principled stand (and maybe at heart it is), but it's also eminently practical: it could be a death sentence for AGIS, which would make a fine deterrent against any other troll thinking about trying to take a bite out of Life360.
The next step is for the trolls to change their behavior; if a company is big and fierce enough to mount this defense, a smart troll will not want to mess with it (or at least it won't want to be the first to mess with it, and being second isn't worth much since a competent troll leaves its victim right at the edge of bankruptcy).
Also, if AGIS finds itself cornered, it may try to fold and reappear under a different name; Hulls might want to consider extending his declaration of war to any troll acting at the direction of Kenyon & Kenyon, or at least letting word get around that he'll consider it, which would be almost as effective.
Now we're talking about laws to prevent the police from collecting such data; if we pass such laws, the police will still do it. In a few years, anyone will be able to sift through a huge volume of publicly-available camera footage (security cams, body cams, dashboard cams, bike cams, traffic cams, phone selfies, quadcopter video, whatever) with a common OCR app and produce similar results. We can pass laws against it, for all the good that will do. The government will talk about requiring that all cameras recognize license plates and blur them-- with predictable results.
We're not far from the appearance of the same thing with facial recognition; snap a picture of a face that interests you, then scan the distributed archives to see where and when that face has appeared in photos or video over the past ten years, anywhere in the world. The government will try to forbid this, but also to have it.
I really don't see that we can do much about this.