I've been asking for years why we don't a control policy at these police-affiliated, District-Attorney-influenced labs:
"You will be analyzing specimens taken from crime scenes and from suspects in custody, but occasionally some of them will actually be control samples prepared by the Public Defender's office. If you return one false positive, your career is over and the Public Defender's office gets your pension."
A "reasonable demand"? Quite apart from unintended consequences, additional legal complications that discourage young people from going into video-making, and arguments about the free market and freedom of expression, that phrase is just weird in this context.
You want to make it illegal to make video without subtitles (and/or audio description for the blind)? You want to require creators to provide such addenda for their works, even works made years ago, even creators who are unknown, living abroad, or dead?
Well, that would be about as logical as a lot of other law. Copyright law is full of such charming eccentricities, and the whole ADA seems to be founded on the premise that no shop at all is better than a shop without a wheelchair ramp, which I've never quite understood.
But I have an alternative suggestion; as long as we're handing out exemptions from the ADA, let's just give a general one to non-physical services.
A) A young Muslim man. B) A convicted murderer with knowledge of explosives. C) A pilot from Düsseldorf who has passed background checks with basically no red flags.
At some point we must face facts; people who sound the scariest aren't necessarily the greatest risks, and our intuition just isn't very good when it comes to very rare events.
And note that the scary convicted murderer with knowledge of explosives didn't actually cause any trouble at all on board the plane. So the only evidence we have indicates that there is no harm in letting such people fly (or walk free in the street, for that matter), and that the TSA doesn't measurably improve public safety whether it does "its job" or not.
"...Last month the company made a really bold move in announcing that it would provide free legal support for any other startups sued by AGIS..."
Oh, that's interesting. It sounds like a principled stand (and maybe at heart it is), but it's also eminently practical: it could be a death sentence for AGIS, which would make a fine deterrent against any other troll thinking about trying to take a bite out of Life360.
The next step is for the trolls to change their behavior; if a company is big and fierce enough to mount this defense, a smart troll will not want to mess with it (or at least it won't want to be the first to mess with it, and being second isn't worth much since a competent troll leaves its victim right at the edge of bankruptcy).
Also, if AGIS finds itself cornered, it may try to fold and reappear under a different name; Hulls might want to consider extending his declaration of war to any troll acting at the direction of Kenyon & Kenyon, or at least letting word get around that he'll consider it, which would be almost as effective.
Now we're talking about laws to prevent the police from collecting such data; if we pass such laws, the police will still do it. In a few years, anyone will be able to sift through a huge volume of publicly-available camera footage (security cams, body cams, dashboard cams, bike cams, traffic cams, phone selfies, quadcopter video, whatever) with a common OCR app and produce similar results. We can pass laws against it, for all the good that will do. The government will talk about requiring that all cameras recognize license plates and blur them-- with predictable results.
We're not far from the appearance of the same thing with facial recognition; snap a picture of a face that interests you, then scan the distributed archives to see where and when that face has appeared in photos or video over the past ten years, anywhere in the world. The government will try to forbid this, but also to have it.
I really don't see that we can do much about this.
Oh, and if you want the latest, most expensive phone, and you want it to have a really big screen and be really thin, and the very first thing you want to do with it is put it in your hip pocket and sit on it, then maybe you'd be better off with some child-safe toys for a while longer.
"The House voted 293 to 123, making it a pretty clear and overwhelming statement that Congress did not, in fact, support such practices by the NSA."
If there was such a statement, it now appears to have been false.
I know that there's a lot of overt posturing and covert favor-trading in Congress; perhaps someone who understands the rules of congressional procedure better than I can verify that these 293 representatives do not actually have the power to stop this move. And I really would love to know how many of them knew when they voted in favor of the amendment (perhaps currying favor with the public) that it was marked for a quiet death in the swamp (perhaps currying favor with the executive branch).
"The [data protection working group] considers that... de-listing decisions must be implemented in such a way... that EU law cannot be circumvented."
No matter how many times I read this, I can't make any sense out of it. These "data protection officials" don't seem to know the first thing about law or computers, and their whole philosophy seems to be "do what we meant and don't bother us about details". Is that a hiring requirement at the CJEU?
If a seizure does not lead to an indictment (of a human being, not a pile of cash) within six months, then the seized property should be returned to its owner and matched dollar for dollar from the police pension fund.
If they had said "you're fired for being indiscreet about our guests", I'd agree with you.
What they said was "you're fired because these people threatened to cancel a contract you knew nothing about, on the grounds that your innocuous action offended them, because they have a sense of privileged self-importance that would embarrass a six-year-old Chinese empress."
'The cost of telling these kinds of stories is higher than you could possibly imagine... [If your position] is still that Cosby is "innocent until proven guilty," consider that you are contributing to the problem.'
Really? In addition to being despised and found guilty in the court of public opinion, will some of these women lose their jobs? Will their homes be vandalized? Will they sometimes be beaten up -- and occasionally killed -- by vigilantes? If these women are university students, will student groups circulate petitions that they be expelled? Will there be serious attempts to change the laws so as to strip these women of their civil rights and convict them of felonies without due process?
No? Then they don't have it as bad as a man accused of rape.
Oh, and you are most definitely part of the problem, and if I were a patronizing ass I'd say that these things were more serious than you could possibly imagine.