Definitely time for a criminal prosecution...though it's unlikely to happen.
There are a pair of federal laws -- Title 18, Chapter 13, Sections 241 & 242 -- that make it a crime for an agent of government to use their official authority to do pretty much anything someone could win a civil rights lawsuit over in civil court.
In the case of a conspiracy (and very few federal agents act alone), the minimum sentence for a conviction for violating rights is ten years in federal prison.
If you sue and win in civil court, you get paid with taxpayer money -- and the people who violated your rights don't pay a penny. If the government REALLY wanted to stop civil rights abuses, they'd prosecute.
Violation of civil, constitutional and statutory rights is a crime. So is conspiracy to commit those crimes. I wonder how many police officers would end up on the list if the algorithm were expanded to include those sorts of crimes?
Only if the broadcasters are such incredible control freaks they actually do commit suicide over this.
The basic business model of a TV broadcaster is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. They conduct surveys and collect data so they can accurately tell their customers how many eyeballs on average see ads. The programming is just to lure more eyeballs to watch, it's a net loss in and of itself in their core business model.
The broadcasters added a second money stream when they managed to get laws passed that said cable companies had to pay for programming if they wanted to have broadcast TV channels on their cable service. But nowhere in those laws does it say that someone using an antenna to pull in a broadcast to watch on their own personal TV has to pay for anything.
What Aereo does is simple. They designed their product to work entirely within the extremely complex tangle of case law, regulations, statutes and contracts that govern broadcast television. They don't need to make a deal with the broadcasters or pay a fee for the programming because the law says that they don't.
Aereo has actually increased broadcaster profits by making sure more eyeballs see the ads that the broadcaster's customers pay for. But the broadcasters can't stand that someone that isn't a broadcaster might make money, so they're suing.
The broadcaster threat to stop broadcasting if Aereo wins is very much like a man standing on a street holding a knife to his own throat and making unreasonable demands 'or else'. If he doesn't get his way, he's the one who will suffer the most -- the rest of us will probably be better off without crazies like him.
How are they lacking? They designed their product to comply with every nook, cranny and nuance of every statute, case law and regulation governing broadcast television.
They don't HAVE to make agreements with broadcasters the way their product is designed.
Broadcasters aren't selling the programming they broadcast, that's the bait to get viewers to watch. The product that broadcasters are selling is the advertisements those viewers see along with the programming. Aereo doesn't interfere with those advertisements in any way, it actually increases the number of viewers who will see those ads and increases broadcaster profits.
The fact that broadcasters are threatening to cut their own throats if the court sides with Aereo doesn't make Aereo the bad guys, it makes the broadcasters suicidally stupid.
Ah, but you can't issue a copyright takedown order as part of a contract dispute of this type, so even if she won she'd lose. This is what is known as gaming the system, and as we can see, it pays off just often enough to be worth a shot.
Freedom of speech trumps the officer's thin skin and fragile ego.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that profanity and rude gestures at cops are protected speech. After all, no one ever needed heavy legal protections for the right to say and do exactly what people want to hear and see.
1) don't put vital infrastructure where an attacker could get at it.
2) ignore that advice and then spend billions of dollars on security systems that are circumvented the day after they're released, complete with NSA-mandated backdoors...and wonder how the attackers kep getting in.
Whether homegrown solutions are better or not tends to depend on how bad the official IT is and who is doing the growing.
If the official IT guys are going around setting everybody's password to 'password' then almost any homegrown scheme will be superior -- even if it's just adding a number to the password against the IT department's orders.
Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned wrongly. Like most things in government, it works better in theory than practice.
But yes, even if he is a terrorist and absolutely guilty, he still has rights that the government cannot violate if they want to be able to successfully prosecute him.