And also "bad forensic science." There's an absurd willingness of juries in this country to accept anything presented in court as "forensic" fact, even when it's just the expert witness making an educated guess and then presenting that as fact.
The underfunding of public defenders doesn't help. But, you tell a jury this guy in a suit can prove it through means they don't really understand, and then they'll think back to all those nights they fell asleep watching CSI, and think, "well I trust these guys, they've got magic science to back them up."
Isn't Train Simulator the one where a lot of the DLC is actually generated by modders? So, they design a new train, and then the developers publish it, and the modder gets a cut. I'm honestly asking, because I don't remember.
...and if you don't do drugs, you're still rolling the dice on the possibility that some GED reject with a badge and gun will decide you're "suspicious" and toss you in a cell to "preserve the element of surprise." Until they can figure out what they think you did, and then convict you for it on faulty forensic evidence.
But, at least it's not like someone might just outright fake up that evidence just to get a pat on the head at work... oh, wait.
Another possibility is that CIA is concerned the porn itself is actually an image cipher. (I forget the technical term.) Which would lead to a legitimate fear that, while it doesn't mean anything to the CIA now, letting it loose into the wild could be a horrible idea.
At that point, even copying it... might, result in that information getting out there.
At the same time, I don't think they'd be willing to actually suggest that because it would be in that idiotic state of either confirming "we know they do this," or "we don't want to give them any ideas."
They probably put the database online because... well, it's the Federal government.
The database was originally created to be used, so while sticking it behind an air gap would have been the smart thing to do, but not the useful option.
It was also probably created because the government has a pathological need to retain any information it ever obtains.
As for exactly how it ended up online? The people actually getting paid for implementing it either picked a simple standard online database setup to allow access from anyone who should be throwing data at it. Or the people overseeing it's creation were easily wowed by the prospect of the database being available to their people nation wide, without any thought to security because they weren't techs, just administrators with no real understanding of network security.
You know, the same kinds of people that just say, "well, our people are smart so encryption golden keys are the way to go. Because, we need to see what other people are doing, and our people can figure out a way to keep everyone else out."
Here's the thing. In the right circumstances, anything can be addictive. It's easy to sell sensationalist dreck like, "there are fifteen things in the room with you at this moment that could lead you to a crippling life long addiction!"
Video Games are one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing media industries today. Call of Duty: Black Ops holds the record for largest opening week of any media property at over one billion in sales in the first five days.
Of course there are going to be addicts. Just like there are BINGO addicts. Anything that provides a dopamine hit to the back of your lizard brain can get you hooked.
Saying the internet is more addictive than huffing kittens? That's a lot harder to prove. You can find video game addicts. But that doesn't make video games more addictive than, say, street racing. Just safer.
Is anyone honestly surprised that Zimbardo's the one making these accusations?
I could be wrong here. It's been a few years since I covered The Stanford Prison Experiment back in college, but my recollection is, Zimbardo has horrible issues with methodology, and a nasty habit of reworking the evidence to fit whatever sensationalist theory he's got this week.
The guy has spent the last 40+ years trying to insist that humans are fifteen seconds off turning into a reenactment of Lord of the Flies, when even his own research doesn't support it.
So, honestly, is anyone surprised? Or am I just remembering this guy's career incorrectly?
That's kind of the point in the article. Federal Law creates a wonderful catch 22, because you know the child porn will provoke an investigation, therefore you know it's evidence, even if you don't know of an active investigation.
I was talking about: filing the subpoena, calling the lawyer to the stand, swearing them in, then asking them the question only to be told, "nope, not gonna' talk 'bout that. Attorney/client privilege."
The exceptions I can think of are cases where the attorney was actually an accomplice, or there was a third party present. But, those are some fairly rare circumstances.
I'm not seeing where the Lindbergh case comes in at all. Maybe I'm just tired. Sorry.
If I'm remembering correctly, the final line would be to simply refuse to answer questions when asked. No one in their right mind would push it that far, and would be wasting everyone's time to get there. But... *shrugs*
It applies in the US as well. You might be able to report a crime at the request of your client. But you can't report that your client committed a crime. That's kind of the point of attorney client privilege.
I used to have a friend who was overly fond of the phrase, "you can do anything you want until someone stops you."
Unfortunately, the Law Enforcement community in the US has spent most of the last few decades saying, "no, honest, you can trust us, we won't abuse our power. We need it to do our jobs."
They can do whatever they want. We wouldn't be seeing issues like the cop screaming at a cabbie in New York if he didn't honestly believe he could do it without repercussions.
In a case like this, or the drug possession example above, you're just hoping that deep down, the cop you're dealing with is a nice guy and having a good day. Because if either of those aren't the case, they're empowered to wreck your life in a fit of pique.
It's not about "can't" being a fluid term. It's not.
Without looking closer at the original tweets, it's entirely possible the they could be considered: a threat, fighting words, or incitement.
Again, without looking, I'm not sure which one applies, and I don't really care enough to. But, you're right, there ARE limits to free speech. Some people would like to expand those limits to "anything I don't like," but that doesn't change that they exist.