Only if you're the police. People in the military seem to actually respect the weapons they use, and realize how much damage they can cause. Police on the other hand seem to treat them as toys, something flashy they can use to get the 'respect' they so desperately demand.
Lose a weapon? Problem, it needs to be found now before it falls into the wrong hands and someone is hurt, accidentally or otherwise.
Lose a toy? Eh, no big deal, there's always more where that one came from.
On the other hand, the police officer is presumed innocent until theft is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ah, but you see, in an armed robbery at badge-point/'asset forfeiture' case, the officer(s) involved aren't the ones on trial, the stolen property is, and it is automatically assumed to be guilty. It's up to the former owner of said property to prove otherwise if they want to recover their stuff.
Is it really so much to ask for politicians to actually understand technology before they go off on ridiculous, ignorant, uninformed rants about it -- often leading to even more ridiculous and dangerous legislation?
You mistake 'malice' for ignorance. She knows exactly what she's saying here, and while she's dishonest when she talks, she is consistent. She was for CISA because it would expand the ability of the various government agencies to spy. She's against encryption and security for the same reason in reverse, because it makes it more difficult for government agencies to engage in mass, indiscriminate spying on the public.
B: Right, no need to panic, let's think about this logically. You're sure it was here when you went off your shift last night? You can't think of any reason for why it might be missing?
A: ... uhhhh.
B: What did you do?
A: I... may have had a few drinks that night.
B: How many is 'a few'?
A: ... two?
B: Two beers? That's not too-
A: No, two... uh... six-packs.
B: Two six- where did you go that you drank twelve beers?!
A: Well you see, a friend was throwing a party, and I thought, 'You know what would really impress people? If I showed them the humvee we've got.' One quick requisition later-
B: No, just stop. I don't want to know. So after you downed all that beer, and showed off the humvee, then what?
A: I... think I remember a few people asking me what it was like riding in it, so I decided to give a few rides, give people something to remember. Not really sure what happened after that, next thing I knew I was waking up with a pounding headache at home, with a sloppily scrawled 'invoice' for a dozen burritos, with '1 hmvee' written at the bottom where the price would have been.
B: *Sigh* You know what, screw it. We'll tell them we lost it, leave it vague and hope no-one asks for details.
Second: as noted by many who applied, any religious personal text plates, which aren't under this "god", have been wholly rejected. The reason: it's considered inflammatory (most likely to their religion).
'The state is allowed to shove the preferred religion of those running it down the throats of everyone else, but you're not allowed to even attempt to do the same with another religion'.
'The global tech industry made around $3.7 trillion last year. They employ some of the brightest people on the planet.'
Now let's add the logical extension to that:
So when those bright people tell you something is impossible, maybe listen to them.
On one hand they claim the tech industry employs countless brilliant people, highly skilled on the subject. On the other hand they completely dismiss what those brilliant people are saying, insisting that despite knowing nothing at all on the subject they're sure that something that countless numbers of those people have claimed is impossible can be achieved if they'd just 'try harder'.
For heaping praise on the skills and knowledge of those employed by the tech industry, they sure seem to hold that very same knowledge in contempt.
Kavanaugh, of course, served as a White House lawyer and as Staff Secretary during the period when George Bush kept self-authorizing such a dragnet.
[A]s people cite from this language in the future, they should remember that of all the judges who reviewed this decision, only Kavanaugh had this kind of personal tie to the dragnet. And only Kavanaugh saw fit to weigh in.
It's a good thing there's no laws or rules regarding judges who have personal interest in the cases that come before them, as if there were, given the massive conflict of interest there, a more honest judge would have recused themself on the grounds of conflict of interest.
A judge with shares in an automobile manufacturing company shouldn't be judging laws related to it.
A judge that was instrumental in getting a specific law passed shouldn't be the one presiding over a case that's challenging it.
And a judge that was involved in the creation of a mass surveillance program should absolutely not be one of those involved in ruling on it's legality.
Yes I'd love for them to be told, "Yeah, you don't get to duck out of this that easy by just dropping the case, we're dragging you through the coals for this so you learn what not to do the next time it comes up."
No in the sense that it would need to be done without the presence of the victim, who may just want to get past the ugly incident, as it would be unfair to punish them as well. Dragging someone through a trial that they just want to forget about would be adding salt to the wound.
Yeah, that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. When the system itself is corrupted, the idea that voting means people 'get what they want' is absurd.
Last I checked most people probably didn't check a little box on the last few ballots that said 'YES, I would like my government to spy on me and do everything in it's power to make me less safe!' And yet, here we are.
I imagine it's a variant of 'contempt of cop', one of those 'laws' that the police don't want to bother the lawmakers with actually adding to the books, so they just 'enforce' it at their own discretion.
However, if you're looking for a more literal answer, widen the scope of the question a bit and in Spain at least the answer would be July 1st, 2015.
Had anyone from the civilian sector tried a similar stunt, they'd be looking at criminal charges for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.
Also of note, the fact that they were able to get away with such an action, and the IG basically just went with it, shows just how much power, authority, and most importantly oversight the IG actually has, and that amount would seem to be 'effectively none'.