Pointing fingers is going to get us nowhere. If we're all in agreement that a) the system is broken, and b) the system can't be fixed within the system, then that means we need to start a campaign to fix it outside the system.
But then we're talking taking up arms, or sabotage, or really massive life-threatening protests.
If no one is willing to do that, then yeah, we're going to stay with the same shit system until things break even more. And we'll keep sucking it up until someone does take up that mantle, and enough people follow.
I do sometimes have fantasies about sabotage campaigns.
When the police departments were being coy about cellphone spoofing technology, I thought it would be interesting to topple their fake towers, since they couldn't say publicly what they were and why they were needed.
Still, one has to be super careful to avoid causing injury.
You know, I wonder if that's just a matter of messaging. If a judge campaigned with messaging that better reflects the current legal system, he might get votes.
You are Fucked Hard once the law puts its eye on you. Think innocence or ironclad evidence is going to vindicate you? Think again...unless I happen to be your judge. Vote for me and but Justice back in the Justice System.
I'd think enough people have been ground through the system that almost everyone knows someone who's been screwed over by illegal searches, impacted public defenders or false testimony by the DoJ.
Certainly the incidents of failure to indict in cases of police brutality and overreach continue to increase and reach ears of the public.
Of course, according to Donald Trump, the police are paragons of virtue and all the United States is worse than Gotham. But I think he just secretly wishes he was Batman.
Heh. While this started as merely a way for kids to entertain each other, the article that discussed the presence of these videos pointed out these kids may have war- or hazard-correspondent careers in their futures.
I'm not so sure of that. One of the YouTube phenomena of recent years is teachers behaving badly captured on camera phone. Much like many other places where there's been authority without limited accountability, teacher-to-student abuse is a problem within US and UK schools.
We can probably infer this to be the case most places schools exist, and we can probably infer this to have been a problem throughout the 20th century and before.
While bodycams are not necessarily the solution to the problem, I think it could be a step forward, especially if neither faculty nor administrators nor someone closely allied with administrators have control of the footage.
The game No Pineapple Left Behind is a satirical take on this very premise, that the measures we use to determine the success of our schools are better geared to pump out servile test-taking machines rather than functional adults.
Whether or not this is meant to undermine the public education system or shape our children as we imagine we want them to be, some of our officials do like it this way.
(Curiously and alarmingly, Logic and Critical Thinking curricula are shunned by some Republican parties -- Texas for one -- on the premise that it leads to students who might challenge authority and be driven to disobey. They seem to have no awareness that those kids will someday need to function as adults, for whom critical thought is essential.)
Judge Gilbert also made short work of [defense] argument that Megaupload was a neutral intermediary, and thus deserving of safe harbours, which limit an internet service's liability.
It was established early on that Megaupload was responsive to takedown notices and cooperated with law enforcement, which more than fulfills what is required for safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.
So Gilbert would have to make a spectacular point in order to suddenly disqualify Megaupload and Dotcom from those safe harbor provisions, say, to provide a clear and convincing evidence that Megaupload was unresponsive to takedowns.
To Megaupload's credit, perhaps it was too cooperative with law enforcement considering that some of the files he was supposed to take down but didn't, he left in place at the request of law enforcement. And this behavior would later be used against him in these court proceedings.
Regardless, there's also strong indicators of bad faith by US law enforcement so yeah, Gilbert could disagree, or adjudicate against Dotcom based on spurious logic or whimsical opinion, but to make short work of DMCA safe harbor protections would actually require a logical miracle.
How is it that any crime, no matter how odious or heinous, would be such that it alters the rights of a suspect including his right to due process?
I think this exemplifies this attitude we have that justice is served when a suspect is convicted, even by a plea deal, and even when he was denied a fair defense (by defunding our public defenders and stripping him of his assets -- both are common policies) and yet when suspect is acquitted, it is commonly assumed that he escaped justice on a technicality. Not that the court proved he was innocent, but that the court failed to administer justice.
And we will often try multiple suspects for the same crime, and if both are found guilty, both serve time.
This isn't justice. Justice is supposed to be impartial, and the failure of the legal system to remain impartial because it's a hot-button crime like child porn or terrorism is an indictment of the system.
In the 80s intra-office character assassinations were easy, since a middle manager or low executive accused by rumor-mill of sodomy or child sexual abuse would get quickly discharged. (Heh.) This is the same thing, but with a state-sanctioned legal system behind it.
We don't think much about safes because there's a lot of good technology to cut through them. Some are trapped to lock down when drilling is detected, but who cares when you have a thermal lance handy.
But what if the alleged incriminating evidence is fragile (say, paper) and the safe is designed so that if an drill pierces the detection barrier (or some other intrusion countermeasure is triggered) it bathes its contents in acid or fire, say, activating a big ol' blob of Thermite.
It should not be legal for the state to compel any action to force a suspect to incriminate himself.
So long as we have this work-around the state will merely phrase their inquiries so that they are not subject to the Fifth Amendment exemption.
This won't stop fingerprints. At the time Apple released fingerprint scanning on their phones, we already a means to take a visual fingerprint and render a working artificial finger. (Using atypical fingers at atypical angles may still work as a hack, though.)
It is curious how law enforcement are not penalized for having turned off their body-cams, yet a suspect who permalocks a phone by trying too many times to unlock it will still be presumed guilty of intentional obstruction and contempt. Whether or not you are given benefit of doubt depends on whether or not you are a member of the gang.
So long as the enforcement and interpretation of law is inconsistent we will never have justice in the United States.