"Owning a gun is a Constitutional right, [x] is not."
I don't know your politics, but I hear this pathetic hand wave a lot from conservatives.
Flying is a liberty.
But conservatives earnestly shrug and say, "Every right, every liberty, is subject to limitation." We might as well cut the Second Amendment out of the Constitution and burn the rest, for all the conservatives care about other liberties.
Is tying civil Rights to useless terrorist watch lists worse than tying civil Rights to useless terrorist watch lists? That sentence might seem moronic and redundant at first but it isn't: the watch lists have been infringing civil Rights for much more than a decade.
The response from the public and Congress? "Meh. Who cares about people who I don't know and their Rights? Besides...oOooOo...terrorists!"
So now it's proposed that gun background checks include a check of the terrorist watch lists and all of a sudden Civil Rights becomes a fore-mind concern: "OH-MY-F****G-G** HOW DARE YOU THINK ABOUT TYING MY F****G GUN RIGHTS TO THOSE F****G RIGHTS-STEALING TERRORIST WATCH LISTS?!!!"
I say tying the Second Amendment Right to the watch lists is a good thing: so the citizens, Congress, the wing-nuts, and the three-letter agencies will finally get off their fat-lead asses and fix the watch lists so they respect the civil Rights of EVERY citizen they impinge. If they can't consider the civil Rights of those citizens under any circumstance, then so be it.
So let me guess: the payout is in the form of coupons that can be redeemed for new PS3 consoles. With a time limit, a "cannot be combined with other offers" restriction, and "participating retailers only."
I've noticed before that FBI has a variable concern for privacy. If a person did something bad and exposing private details would make the FBI look good, who cares about privacy? OTOH, if exposure of a person's private life would make the FBI look bad, all of a sudden the FBI develops a furrowed brow concern for personal privacy.
This takes that to a whole new level: surveillance cameras in your toilet, shower, and bedroom reduce your privacy to zero...no concerns about that; bet they play those videos in court. But tell anyone at all where the camera was placed? That would be a TERRIBLE breach of personal privacy, what's wrong with you?
What do Ripoff Report, trolls like Prenda and that company that sank Silk Road have in common?
It should be illegal to do either of these: - Be an agent of damage to a reputation, and then require payment for fixing it. - To propose to be an agent of damage to a reputation, and require payment to refrain.
Copyright had a valid purpose at one time. But most recent copyright policy is in the same vein: aimed solely at ensuring the profits of major corporations. The creators that were supposed to be beneficiaries of copyright, as originally conceived, don't get the benefit anymore; they get the dregs.
In support of profits for everyone but the author, the governments have created or encouraged all kinds of asinine policies: DMCA and DRM; copyright collectives; DNS confiscations; copyright trolls and their extortion; confiscation of the public domain; denial of fair use; and social dictatorship. Among many other sins.
None of which offer more than the most miserly pretense of protecting the creator rights. Instead they ensure the rights of the big media corporations to indenture the creators for as small a pittance as possible.
Okay, forfeiture I don't like, but I could see. The SCOTUS "hint" (not a ruling, just a hint) was that the theory underlying forfeiture was contraband, in the form of an instrument supporting a crime.
I don't see how this applies. The theory with cash is straightforward enough: untraceable (nearly so) it can be used for illicit transactions, transactions out of the recorded view, and grudgingly, is therefore likely to be an instrument supporting a crime.
But every prepaid debit card I'm aware of these days has to be registered to its owner, because: terrorism. Transactions involving those cards are traceable. Therefore the "used for illicit transactions" fails on the face, because these supposed illicit transactions would be overt, reviewable.
So it seems to me that taking money from a prepaid debit card owned by a person--that is holding it--would have to constitute theft, not forfeiture, since it appears to me that the justification for forfeiture fails.
FBI replies: "Hey! After all the encryption and system breaking; man in the middle attacks; and legal battles we had to go through to get that data: You have the nerve to expect us to take more effort to actually encrypt it?"
I do wonder if this kind of bullshit works for other people, in intimidating them to remove stuff from the internet because of the spaghetti/wall aspect of it all.
At $1000/hour or thereabouts for legal representation? Damn straight it intimidates people into removing stuff from the web. It's going to cost you around three grand just for your lawyer to have a good laugh after he reads that email.
This is odd because the FBI is not entitled to all of this information when using NSLs,...
Of course, we are assured, neither the FBI nor any other intelligence agency would willfully exceed the limits of the law. They would be prosecuted....oh, wait...
So, the FBI is asking for far more than it's allowed to get with an NSL. It's apparently hoping some NSL recipients won't know they're not required to turn over all of this information.
This is not true: the FBI doesn't care whether recipients know it or not. It is the whole reason the FBI so savagely pursued cases against people who even talked to their attorneys, much less asked a court to rule on the need for a given NSL; or the right to publish an NSL. What was that demand again? Oh, right, $250,000 per day, doubled weekly until Yahoo succumbed. That's dictatorship, not judicial remedy--not negotiation.
(Possibly, Yahoo is a little miffed and that's why they're doing a document dump?)
Electronic Communications Privacy Act
They really should call it the Electronic Communications Piracy Act.