He's being publicly accused of involvement with child porn, a charge that's likely to haunt him for the rest of his life no matter what the eventual verdict is.
There's taking a fall and then there's 'throwing yourself off a cliff'. As such I really doubt he's a willing patsy in this, even if the prosecution does seem to be using the case to try and set a favorable precedent with regards to forcing people to provide passwords in future cases.
Assume YT is able to get a 'bulk rate discount', and only pays $2 per minute.
Assume that only half of videos uploaded have content such that they need closed captioning.
It would cost $24,000 per minute to provide transcription and closed captioning for YT videos at that rate.
While I can certainly understand how frustrating it can be for people that can't watch/listen like others can, and need that extra work put forth to be able to enjoy content the same as others, it simply isn't viable to require such at large scale, and if services like YT had to do so they'd be shut down within a day.
As for the possible response of 'Well just make the users pay then, spread out the costs', if people had to worry about submitting their videos for transcription and closed captioning, and pay rates like that, I think it's safe to say that the majority simply wouldn't bother, which would likewise kill any service like YT.
Given how many people this putz sues for saying mean things about him I'm kinda surprised he hasn't sued the people who made the mirrors in the various bathrooms he uses. I mean making him have to deal with that kind of sight any time he goes to wash his hands is certainly not flattering.
Of course the exterior is downright amazing compared to the kind of person he is on the inside, and it's not like the idiot could ever admit what a terrible, atrocious troll he is, so maybe it somehow doesn't affect him.
3) The act of production of this evidence is "not testimonial", however the evidence itself is testimonial.
Wherefore it is against Fifth Amendment
If court claims the evidence is "not testimonial", court should be able to convict the defendant without this evidence. And should proceed to do so.
Yeah, the whole 'Forcing someone to decrypt something and/or provide a password isn't against the Fifth' is an idea that never should have made it off the ground.
Beyond the fact that being able to provide a password creating a link between the contents and the person, this particular(and persistent) dishonest and/or absurd logic can be exposed simply by a demand from the accused for immunity to anything a password provides.
If forcing someone to provide a password isn't forcing them to provide self-incriminating evidence against themself, then the prosecution loses nothing by granting immunity to anything found. If on the other hand they are being forced to provide self-incriminating evidence against themself, then that immunity would completely undermine the entire purpose behind demanding the accused decrypt something.
Anyone care to take a wild guess as to what the odds would be that such an offer would be accepted?
"We know what is on the encrypted disk" is not equal to "Defendant confessed he can decrypt the disk"
"We know what is on the encrypted disk" is to '... therefore it's not forcing someone to provide self-incriminating evidence' as 'We know the accused is guilty' is to '... therefore forcing them to confess to the crime isn't forcing them to provide self-incriminating testimony'.
Here, as in New York Telephone: (1) Doe is not “far removed from the underlying controversy;” (2) “compliance with [the Decryption Order] require[s] minimal effort;” and (3) “without [Doe’s] assistance there is no conceivable way in which the [search warrant] authorized by the District Court could [be] successfully accomplished.” Id. at 174-175. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not plainly err in issuing the Decryption Order.
As arguments for bulldozing rights go that is not a pleasant one. 'It's easy' to violate a right does not mean that right doesn't exist. Confessing to a crime or leading investigators to a damning piece of evidence they otherwise wouldn't have is likewise 'easy', but I would hope that those wouldn't be considered acceptable, even if the court does seem to think it is this time around 'because computers'.
'Well yeah, why else did you think we- I mean not at all citizen, this is to protect the public from those voyeurs that would care more about a juicy non-story than the rights of the poor beleaguered business owners? Any real reporting of questionable actions will of course go through the proper channels, to be addressed and dealt with by the proper authorities, this is merely to deal with those fiends that think that they know better than those authorities.'
Essentially companies are granted access to 'courts' that exist outside of of the government of individual countries, and can sue government over things that they claim negatively impact them, with the corporate sovereignty tribunal not tied to the laws of the country, even to the point of issuing fines in direct conflict with legal rulings and laws a country might be bound by.
(Before someone jumps in and point out, 'Hey, two of those examples had the country winning!', yes, they won, after significant and costly cases, and much like SLAPP suits you don't have to win the case to win the battle, as you can be sure that seeing two countries sued had and continues to have a significant chilling effect on any actions that those and other governments might consider that might impact company profits. As has been pointed out before, governments don't really win corporate sovereignty cases, the best they can hope for in most cases is simply to not lose.)
Why can't we give these people enough rope to hang themselves?
Because corporate sovereignty clauses cause significant harm to the public, and the corporations pushing for them want those clauses in as many agreements as they can manage in order to use them against governments who might dare threaten their profits or even expected profits. They cause very clear and demonstrable harm, and as such the quicker they are treated as the poison pill that they are and gutted from all current and future agreements the better off the public will be.
If by 'they' you mean whatever agency slaps 'you' with an NSL, then yes, going after someone for violating a gag order does make it clear that there is an NSL, but you can be sure that said agency would throw an entire library's worth of books at you in order to make an example of what happens to anyone that dares stand up to them.
Corporate sovereignty clauses should be seen by any government that's been paying attention as a poison pill. Doesn't matter how good the rest of it is, if it includes a corporate sovereignty clause it should be rejected.
Companies are staffed by adults, they don't need a clause to 'protect' them from the mean old governments passing mean old laws, common sense should be plenty.
Thanks for the link, though after reading it I'm wondering where the first quote came from, as it seems to be from another article covering the same subject.
As for the article itself, following the link to the study itself, page 22 from the article, the Zimmerman/Doran study does not seem to be nearly as bad as the article implies. Yes the 97% only involved the group that self-identified as both in the field of climate science and had been publishing most of their papers on the subject, but as noted 'overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.'
(The questions themselves being:
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?)
So not 97%, but still the majority of those polled.
With regards to the other '97%' study mentioned, the article strikes me as pretty flawed on how they treat it. If the purpose of the study is to determine what the various stances listed are, then of course they're only going to focus on those papers which state a stance. If a paper doesn't take a stance either way for whatever reason, then it wouldn't be possible to include the stance taken by it. Narrow it down to that level and those that remain were pretty consistently in the 'yes it's happening, and yes humans are responsible' camp.
The mention of the PBL study likewise strikes me as misleading. Yes 'three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know', but the majority(page 8), 65.9% of those surveyed said that 51% or more was human related, with 32.2% in the '76-100% of global warming is caused by human actions involving greenhouse gasses' camp.
The final paragraph seems to want to have it both ways as well.
'Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.'
So they estimate that 'most' scientists in the field believe it's human driven and think it's a problem... but they're also a 'vocal minority'.
In that they capitalize all words in the title of an article, sure, but what does that have to do with redefining words to claim that you're never wrong? The comparison between the two strikes me as rather flawed
I mean really, who uses a burner phone for signing up for Twitter, talks about and plans a death by seizure, and then takes photos of themselves with their drivers license as well as all sorts of other items to link the account to the crime?
An idiot, of which there will always be plenty(even if most of them don't quite make it to Darwin Award levels of idiocy).
Yeah, a real sign of how crazy things have become that if culture is to be preserved it will be in spite of the laws, rather than because of it. Things will be preserved not because those that own the rights bothered to do so, but because other people were willing to ignore the laws and do it themselves.
Keep in mind that one of the USG's 'anti-terrorist' methods depends upon the assumption that it's impossible to change your name, so the idea that it's similarly impossible to delay an action/attack would be par for the course.