The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
These stories always get me more fired up than any other. It's black and white. Totally illegal; a violation of multiple Constitutional rights, and the laws are still being abused. Have asset "forfeiture" (theft) laws ever been tested at SCOTUS? I can't even imagine the justification for saying this is OK.
Although they would never say it out loud, this is a tacit admission of what smart people have been saying for years: Movie pirates are movie fans.
I don't know about the film side, but there were lots of studies on music piracy that found people who downloaded music also spent way more buying music. I would suspect the same is true for movies.
In other words, the people in the theater (or at least some percentage of them) are the exact same people who download movies. The stereotype of the loner in his parents' basement who never pays for a movie because they're all online just doesn't really exist, and the MPAA knows it.
It's an awareness campaign for the NEXT film the viewer wants to see. Watch it in the theater instead of getting it in other ways.
Based on the MPAA's public comments, the move may not make much sense, but based on what they actually know to be true, it's perfectly sensible.
Let's see what happens when Uber sets a 40-hour/week schedule for its "employees." If the drivers work less than that, it's insubordination, and grounds for dismissal. If they work more, it's unjust enrichment for working overtime without approval. Dismissal.
Drivers may think they can have it both ways, but this could end up being a Pyrrhic victory.
1) Although the FOI seemed to simply request the type or material, rather than a copy of the materials themselves, the response indicates they interpreted this as a request for the actual videos/magazines/computer files/whatever. There are a number of reasons they would refuse to do that, but it seems a bit of a stretch to interpret the request that way.
2) They are telling the truth, and this is operationally sensitive. What if there really were no porn? Perhaps they concocted a scheme to further discredit OBL among his followers who truly believe this is a mission from a higher power. Nothing takes down a man of God (at least in America) like a good old fashioned sex scandal.
I've been saying all along that making certain kinds of surveillance illegal doesn't mean anything. The alphabet agencies have a long history of going off-books and doing whatever the fuck they want. All this means is that when the collect the information, they just have to be marginally better at parallel construction so they never have to reveal it.
The real solution isn't legislative, it's technological. Full, pervasive encryption of all communications is the only thing that can keep the prying eyes out.
Cash is much harder to trace algorithmically than electronic transactions. I do it for budgeting purposes rather than paranoia, but I wonder how many watch lists I'm on for large cash withdrawals every pay period and never using a debit card.
There are thousands of unelected folks that set and enforce policy. Clapper, Hayden and their ilk are high profile, but yes, the whole political machine is much, much larger than 535 regional- and one national figurehead.
There are two fundamental aspects of the metadata programs, according to the NSA and its defenders: 1) It would have stopped (and continues to stop) terrorism. 2) Your data isn't being searched.
Here's the biggest problem with those statements: they CAN'T both be true at the same time. It's physically impossible.
In order to prevent an attack, data has to be analyzed in real time. If they are putting together a web of calls/emails/transactions before something happens, that necessarily means that an algorithm needs access to all those calls/emails/transactions.
If your data isn't being searched, then it isn't part of that web, and simply pollutes the data set.
The only reason your metadata needs to be collected is for post-incident investigation, so that it can't be destroyed and therefore become inaccessible even with a warrant. But that's not prevention.
While I would never condone such actions, I wonder what these judges would do/say if someone were to release their credit card purchase information. Maybe prescription history or other medical records.
All those are held by third parties, so hey, it's not like they have any expectation of privacy over such matters.
Oh no you don't... By their own filing, prior use is no defense. It's just about going after those with the bigger pockets. I can't get enough out of the freshwater snail coffers, so these guys will have to do.