You'd think that folks who are worried about having real guns be taken away wouldn't be so quick to call for taking away virtual ones, but here we are, having watched it happen for three decades...
That seems like a reasonable guess about how that might work, and if they provided an explanation like that, it might help.
As it stands, it's pretty close to "you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide." So weird that people aren't cool with that...
Getting flagged for password sharing when I'm not and getting dinged with a new fee would be a pretty big middle finger, so it got me thinking: what will I might miss about Netflix if that happens and I want to rage quit?
And that got me thinking: why am I paying for Netflix now?
Do they somehow not have video conferencing in South Korea? If having everyone watch prerecorded video that can tolerate some buffering brings their ISPs' networks down, it's gonna blow their minds when remote workers fire up a flurry of real time videos feeds at roughly the same time at the start of the work day...
One thing that continues to confuse me in cases like this: why would officers ever think that deleting a video is the right thing to do?
If making the video is not a crime, and the content of the video isn't illegal, it's nothing more than destroying someone else's data. Would a reasonable officer really think it's ok to confiscate a device and arbitrarily delete content on it?
Perhaps they tried to delete it because they thought (correctly or not) that some aspect of either making or possessing the recording was a crime. But, if so, wouldn't that be deliberate destruction of evidence? Reasonable officers know that destroying evidence isn't ok - that's a big part of what exigent circumstances are all about.
I too would like to hear this argued before the Supreme Court - clearly I'm missing something...
Shouldn't the officers' "training and Experience" told them that shoplifters often commit more that one crime? That would've lead them to check on thefts from other retailers to try to establish a pattern. Wouldn't they have known that the thieves frequently sell or trade stolen merchandise? That might have meant that they would have tried to track down the stolen goods to see where they came from.
This just seems like lazy investigative work, and it feels negligent too, since an innocent person payed a price
So, I just pulled up "Summertime" on YouTube and started beatboxing to it. I don't want to alarm anyone, but it just... worked. YouTube didn't crash, my phone didn't catch on fire, nothing.
I was assured that copyright could prevent this. Maybe I have powers.