"In many jurisdictions, use of recording devices without the consent of both parties is unlawful."
But in many jurisdictions it is not. In every such jurisdiction, Union members should record union-busting activities, using their own app.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, so this needs legal consideration, but it has always seemed to me that if Joe is recording John, then Joe has implicitly given permission for John to record Joe. How can Joe say, "I never gave permission to record," even as Joe is recording?
Actually, this can be solved easily...and probably will be, ultimately. Congress simply passes a law stating that lab errors are incidental and cannot be reviewed; another law that protects forensics labs from external investigation; and a law that protects prosecutors from penalties for concealing exculpatory evidence. Simple. Done all the time.
After all, we've got to keep those private prison corporations profitable and also protect the reputation of our legal system.
"Yes, that's right, Verizon has yet to even admit it failed in any way,"
That's because Verizon did not fail in any way.
New York City's umbrage rings a bit hollow, when they where the party that contracted to allow Verizon to wave a chicken foot over the noodle soup and call it "chicken noodle soup". The city-Verizon contract was nothing but a sweetheart deal that Verizon wrote and the city signed-without-reading; just like the governor in Blazing Saddles signed things, la de da de doo ain't them nice bosoms.
Forget blaming Verizon: where's the accountability for the city officials who let their citizens down? The city officials who failed?
"... an acknowledgement that a dildo could be controlled remotely and an attempt to lay claim to that function exclusively."
Oh, I think this patent covers much more than dildos. As I read it, it covers movies with girls in bikinis, television shows with jiggle, 98.73% of the internet, every porno mag in existence, telephone "amusements", and whichever hand you favor (with its system of remote control nerve wiring).
Large companies will lobby against any improvements to the patent system.
For them, the trolls are a minor cost of doing business, and they perform a valuable service: destroying or stalling new competitors. Every dollar a troll sucks out of Newegg's pocket is a dollar not spent on competing with Microsoft--you think Microsoft considers that a bad thing? (Even worse, trolls avoid large companies because they might actually fight back.)
Further, patent trolling is directly useful for those major companies. Apple trolled Samsung out of US markets; Samsung thinks that's bad. But what about Apple? They won't want to be giving up that tool anytime soon.
Here's predicting that, just like before, it'll just sort of die in committee.
The European Parliament proposal, in a nutshell, is the negation of every broad goal of the TTIP ISDS agreement; which was designed to exclude democratic principles, exclude public scrutiny, encourage ISDS bias and inconsistency in favor of US corporations, to ensure those biased decisions were absolutely final, and override inconvenient public policy objectives.
It's like the EU has proposed cutting a out TTIP's brain and replacing it with a lump of coal. It's no wonder the think tank is in a panic. EU Parliament saw through them.
General Wesley Clark: "They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn't say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war."
Actually, no, there were quite a few you didn't. Cases in point: William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Mellon, Standard Oil of New Jersy, Ford Motor and Henry Ford, International Telephone and Telegraph, Allen Dulles, Prescott Bush, and IBM.
Today, we have HSBC, caught laundering money for drug lords and terrorists; you didn't put any of them in camps, either.
Given those examples, I have to say, General Clark, that your ideas are pretty radical. Maybe we should lock you up in one of those camps.