Ah, yes, Bloomie's Boys! As you read this, remember that the young fellow was stealing paving stones, an activity which not only puts citizens in the gravest danger, but poses an imminent threat to the safety of New York City's finest:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mother-tamon-robinson-charged-dent-made-nypd-car-struck-son-article-1.1175484
You don't have the right to have a surveillance camera on the street removed or shut off on the grounds it might record your public "personal" activity.
And you are correct, the right to object remains, as in I have the right to object, if I wish, to Bloomberg growing a walrus mustache....
A police officer on the job interacting with the public does not have the same privacy rights as a citizen(you don't have the right to object to surveillance cameras on the street recording you dallying with an extra-marital partner, do you?). Except for reasonable exclusions like eating, doing your "personal business", etc., there is no reason that a uniformed police officer should object to his interactions being recorded, either by his own department or by a citizen. As Reagan famously quipped, "Trust but verify!".
The ability to comply, in this instance, only exists as long as the business exists. Lavabit is in no way obligated to stay in business, for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, failure to comply is also invalid when the business no longer exists.
One might liken this to the IRS demanding that you maintain or increase your level of income(and thus taxes paid) year over year, or face prosecution for failure to comply. The only thing that Lavabit may be liable for, if at all, is failure to comply with the order in accordance with its existing capability.
In any event, the inexorable march toward a police state continues.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by GreatWhiteWalrus.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, Bloomie's Boys! As you read this, remember that the young fellow was stealing paving stones, an activity which not only puts citizens in the gravest danger, but poses an imminent threat to the safety of New York City's finest:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mother-tamon-robinson-charged-dent-made-nypd-car-struck-son-article-1.1175484
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, I'll correct my semantic error! :)
You don't have the right to have a surveillance camera on the street removed or shut off on the grounds it might record your public "personal" activity.
And you are correct, the right to object remains, as in I have the right to object, if I wish, to Bloomberg growing a walrus mustache....
Re: Re:
A police officer on the job interacting with the public does not have the same privacy rights as a citizen(you don't have the right to object to surveillance cameras on the street recording you dallying with an extra-marital partner, do you?). Except for reasonable exclusions like eating, doing your "personal business", etc., there is no reason that a uniformed police officer should object to his interactions being recorded, either by his own department or by a citizen. As Reagan famously quipped, "Trust but verify!".
Re: Four elements of contempt
The ability to comply, in this instance, only exists as long as the business exists. Lavabit is in no way obligated to stay in business, for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, failure to comply is also invalid when the business no longer exists.
One might liken this to the IRS demanding that you maintain or increase your level of income(and thus taxes paid) year over year, or face prosecution for failure to comply. The only thing that Lavabit may be liable for, if at all, is failure to comply with the order in accordance with its existing capability.
In any event, the inexorable march toward a police state continues.