Which anyone sensible can see. Well, except when we're talking about that new-fangled, lawless internet, which needs secondary liability so we drive it out of business and stop all this copyright theft and new-fangled competition.
Secondary liability could end in wondrous things. Just imagine if...
* AT&T could be held liable for those illegal pitch phone calls * The average ISP could be held liable for delivering spam * Credit card companies could be held liable for bad behavior by merchants * Chemical companies could be held liable for improper disposal by dump operators * Walmart could be held liable for contractors hiring illegal immigrants * Much, much more I'm sure.
(Help me out here: What else do we all hate that we could hold someone secondarily liable for?)
And all of that, of course, is why secondary liability is never getting off the ground, even on the hated internet.
This is a lovely example of government capture by a corporation.
A corporation that will bring 35 permanent jobs to the entire U.S.; will bay $negative taxes; will profit no company in the U.S.; risks environmental damage; destroys property rights; won't provide the U.S. with a single drop of oil; and...well, there is not a single visible upside to Keystone XL that can possibly outweigh even one of the negatives.
Yet the government (every level) is bending over backwards for Keystone; not only to give them permission but to secure their land and protect their activities; including as described here, suppression of public comment and activism.
No matter what pithy platitudes may be mouthed by our legislators or courts: anyone who gets in the way will be pepper-sprayed, tazed, clubbed, beaten, stomped, arrested, jailed, sued, imprisoned, terrorized, or declared a terrorist; or will be forced by loss of employment, eminent domain, or other tricks to move. By the time it's over we will possibly even see people burned out or murdered.
Keystone XL is happening; might as well accept it. Our lapdog government hastens to do its fawning duty.
I'm betting the new policy actually goes something like this:
Under the new policy there must either be probable cause to believe an illegal act is taking place other than the act of structuring; or the case must be prosecuted as a national secret.
Basically, national security trumps all. Which would explain why they're irritated about this case: they declared it a nation secret so the press and Congress wouldn't be a nuisance...and here they are, being a nuisance.
And, if so, that would mean the policy really didn't change at all, and the fact that they said it did is merely propaganda...hiding a national secret interpretation of the rules.
One day a large brontosaurus named Vinny went for a walk. A raptor named Tim came along and chewed off one of Vinny's legs. Vinny said, "I don't really want that leg anyway, all it did was complain I was too big and too heavy." The end.
It doesn't matter. If you go follow those rules, they just bring in the drug dog.
And since almost all cash is contaminated with drugs, the dog will detect it and...bye, bye, money! (And that assumes they aren't teaching the dogs to indicate on cash itself, which they could do and probably are.)
Don't get me wrong: First of all, I detest monetary forfeiture. It is a bankrupt concept; the only example under U.S. law where a possession can be taken simply because it is a possession.
Nevertheless, forfeiture is a reality of life; it's like hurricanes, fire, and flood. You protect yourself from those disasters with insurance. In the case of forfeiture, the protection is simple: Do not carry large amounts of cash. How long does this have to go on before people get that?
Arbitration is fine, if it is fair arbitration. What that does is remove the random element of the jury, which is often problematic for both sides.
What I would like to see changed with arbitration is that, instead of having to use the company's captive arbitrator/partner, such clauses require that the arbitrator must be acceptable to both sides; or, alternatively, that the arbitrator is responsible for losses due to unconscionable decisions.
As it stands, arbitrators tend to be in a partnership with the company and are prone to decide in the company's favor even when the company is wrong.
Imaginary Newsie: "Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, Slovenia, Estonia, Japan, Finland and now potentially Indiahave all passed neutrality rules banning zero rating of apps. Don't you think that this will interfere with your plans for internet.org?"
Imaginary Zuckerberg response: "No worries: we'll resolve all those nuisance laws just as soon as TPP is signed."
You're missing the point; don't get distracted by Sauron's so-called "person-hood". This is about the rings...I mean, keys.
There might be multiple keys, but I bet among those will still be just one key, that does the work of all the other keys. One key to rule them all. Because otherwise DEA might get possessive and refuse to share it's key with FBI, and we all know how bad that will be.
So this promise of key splitting is just nonsense--no matter what, there will be one key that rules them all.