btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 2:41pm

    Re: There's merit to the notion.

    That isn't what Christenson said. He said: "for the SUSPECT's words to be admissible in court, it has to be on camera. Otherwise, its presumed to be perjury."

    So he's not talking about charging the cop with perjury for off-camera statements. He's advocating charging the *defendant* with perjury for repeating anything in court that wasn't captured on camera at the time of the arrest.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 7:55am

    Re: sounds weird

    > if you cannot do your job right while recording, what you
    > really mean is you just cannot do your job at all.

    That's not true. As I mentioned above regarding the use of informants, the use of an always-on camera makes it impossible to do that (very important) part of the job at all.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 7:53am

    Re: Presumption of Violence

    > Oh, and if it is a suspect, for the suspects words to be
    > admissible in court, it has to be on camera. Otherwise, its
    > presumed to be perjury.

    That makes no damn sense. You're advocating charging someone with perjury because the cop didn't capture their statements on his camera when they made them?

    So under your system, a cop rolls up on me and arrests me for drug possession. I say I didn't do it but the cop hasn't turned on his camera. When we get to court, I testify that I claimed I didn't do it at the scene but since my words weren't caught on the cop's camera, now I get charged with perjury also?

    Every time I read the comments here at TechDirt, I'm continually grateful that these people aren't actually running anything of consequence in society.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Privacy

    Yes, they do, for the reasons stated above-- just because your face is blurred doesn't mean you can't be identified.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:33pm

    Re: Re: What magic is this

    > If the city thought you were holding out on
    > them, they would come to your house and inventory.

    Not without a warrant they wouldn't.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: What magic is this

    > The issue is, most states won't let you
    > have a car registered out of state for very
    > long, if you stay there for x amount of time,
    > where x varies by state but is often only a
    > couple of months.

    California is absurd-- it's two weeks. They apparently expect you to be at the DMV** registering your car and changing your license before you're even done unpacking your moving boxes.

    **And now that we're giving drivers licenses to illegals, the lines at the DMV can literally last up to 12-14 hours long.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:28pm

    Re:

    Sounds like people who owe vehicle taxes in Hampton Roads need to make sure they park their car inside their garage or some other private lot whenever possible.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:26pm

    Re:

    > They can't wait up to one year to get their
    > money and back interest -- when the taxpayer
    > comes in to get their tags renewed they need to
    > use "valuable" LEO time

    I suspect these taxes are city/county property taxes, not state DMV registration fees, and as such won't show up in the state computers when the person renews their tags.

    When I lived in Virginia, not only did I have to pay my state DMV registration fee, but my county assessed a vehicle property tax on top of it. You had to go into the county office and pay for a special window sticker that proved you'd paid your yearly county vehicle tax.

    I drew the line when my city decided it didn't have enough money to spend and added a *third* vehicle tax on top of the other two. Since I was only going to be living in Virginia for two more years, I just ignored it and figured I'd deal with the consequences if they happened to nail me during that time. I knew the odds were slim that they would (and they never did) because I lived in a high-rise with a secure garage and my car spent 90% of its time off city streets and away from the eyes of the enforcers.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 3:09pm

    Privacy

    > A small amount of redaction (face-blurring, etc.)
    > would address the privacy concerns.

    No, it wouldn't. People's voices would still be on the recording. That combined with the content of what is actually said, and with a readily identifiable location in the background (street intersection, landmark, etc.) all would be more than enough to identify the person in the recording.

    Additionally, working informants is a key aspect of policing and way that a significant number of crimes are solved. If the cops can't turn off the cameras, no informant with half a brain will ever talk to a cop again knowing he's being recorded.

    > After all, reality TV pioneer COPS has run for years
    > with minimal privacy complaints and that's all it's
    > ever used.

    That's because COPS requires people sign waivers to appear on camera. Even the face-blurred people sign a waiver. You can choose to let them air the footage with the blur or without, but either way, you have to sign a release or they don't use the footage at all.

  • Mar 7th, 2015 @ 8:02am

    Re: Methinks...

    And the threat of a lawsuit is pretty dangerous if Cuthbert really did have an affair with the other player. If the station or the original tweeter call their bluff and say, "So go ahead and sue us", the players and the actress will open themselves up to discovery and have lawyers picking through their private lives with a microscope. If she really did cheat, not only will all that be made public, it will invalidate their defamation claim, since truthful information cannot be legally defamatory.

  • Mar 7th, 2015 @ 7:58am

    Re:

    > A network must be held responsible for any slanderous
    > information it chooses to broadcast.

    Depends on if it's actually defamatory. If she really did bang the other player, then it's true and by definition not defamation.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 11:45am

    Right...

    > This would give the Grady "Showboat" Judds
    > of Florida law enforcement all the reason
    > they need to send ad hoc anti-piracy task
    > forces all over the US to shut down infringing
    > sites.

    If I was running a server in Idaho and some Florida cop showed up and attempted to shut me down, I'd laugh my ass off, tell him to go pound sand, and have *him* arrested for trespass and harassment if he refused to leave.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 11:43am

    Jurisdiction

    > And it would potentially force any number
    > of site owners worldwide to give up their
    > anonymity. The bill isn't limited to sites/site
    > owners residing in Florida. All it says is
    > "electronic dissemination… to consumers in
    > this state." If a website can be accessed from
    > Florida, it conceivably falls under the jurisdiction
    > of this proposed law.

    No, it wouldn't. If I'm living in California, or Japan, or Italy, I don't subject myself to Florida's jurisdiction merely by putting a website up on the internet.

    That's ridiculous. Florida doesn't have jurisdiction throughout the known universe, no matter what idiotic laws it may pass or what they say.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Tim Cushing, closet racist?

    > Granted someone always finds a way around because
    > the Internet is so dynamic but eventually when the person
    > is caught they are severely dealt with at my base.

    For gawd's sake, the easiest way around it is to just take out your frakking personal iPhone or iPad and watch all the porn you can stomach on it with absolutely zero oversight or chance of being caught-- from an IT perspective, that is. You could always be physically caught if someone walks in on you while you're watching it.

    My agency's computers are so locked down that approximately 50% of the links on the Drudge Report are blocked on any given day, and those are all mainstream news sites. For some reason, we've blocked the entire country of Australia. If the URL ends in .au, it's blocked. So what do I do? I use my iPhone for most of my daily internetting, especially when I get a hankering for some kinky kangaroo porn.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction

    They're not above the law in this case. These laws simply don't apply to them because they're not convicted criminals in prison.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction

    Why would the guards, judges, cops, and court staff be subject to these restrictions? They're not convicted felons in prison.

    I don't agree with the way this has been implemented, but it's asinine to suggest that guards and judges should have to live under the same rules and restrictions as prison inmates.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 8:53pm

    Re:

    > She appealed it all the way to the Ninth Circuit,
    > so it's not like she didn't fight it.

    "All the way"? You make it sound like a long and involved journey. It's just the next step up from the bottom. After the district (trial) court, you appeal to the circuit court of appeals, in this case the 9th Circuit.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 8:45pm

    Re: Registry

    In Georgia, there doesn't have to be any nexus to sex whatsoever to land you on the sex offender registry.

    A couple years ago, prosecutors there wanted to put a habitual thief on the sex offender registry. His lawyer, quite reasonably, objected, pointing out that stealing TVs and cash and jewelry has nothing to do with sex.

    The Georgia Supreme Court said that doesn't matter. The state can put you on the sex offender registry for anything crime it likes and you have no legal recourse.

  • Feb 12th, 2015 @ 7:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Insurnace

    > Can't afford both? Well then, do without!

    Exactly. Do without. You're not entitled to a car in this world.

    I did without for many years when I was younger for precisely that reason. I could barely afford a car, but I couldn't afford the insurance and other costs, so I did without, and still managed to get where I needed to go.

    What I didn't do is whine about it, break the law, and justify it with my personal sob story.

  • Feb 12th, 2015 @ 6:47pm

    Green

    Honestly, I never gave this much thought. Green vs. blue was always just a way for me to tell whether I was sending a free iMessage vs. an SMS text that would count against my monthly total (before I switched to unlimited, then it didn't make any difference).

More comments from btr1701 >>