A significant step towards solving this issue would be returning to the idea you actually own what you have bought and paid for. Essentially eliminate the DMCA (and it's worldwide equivalents) at least as applied to physical devices you have purchased. Make it explicitly clear that it is legal to sell products and services to modify your own property, such as to remove Chinese (or Google etc) surveillance from your car, or parts pairing from your John Deere tractor.
Part of the "right to repair" movement is attempting to require manufacturers to supply schematics and documentation for devices they produce. I'd add on a law that any damages done due to incorrectly interacting with insufficiently documented devices is presumed to be the result of a manufacturer defect for the purpose of consumer protection laws such as warranties, recalls etc. So if you (or someone you hire) bricks your device trying to modify it, then that's on the manufacturer - unless they can prove they provided you a safe method which you ignored. Eliminate the "unauthorised repair/modification" exemption and flip the burden of proof to the manufacturer.
You forgot to link to your reporting on how the current US administration is basically doing the same thing. Seriously, you all have a lot of work ahead of you if you ever want to remotely repair things in your country.
It's ironically true that "Some cultures ... remain dysfunctional and regressive." It's just that historically it always seems to be the very people making this claim that it most applies to.
"Perform a trick" is a completely accurate description - the dogs mostly alert where the handler wants them to alert, not where any target scent is. The link above doesn't work for me, this is the correct link I believe. Basically the test was 4 rooms to search where handlers were told there was "up to" 3 target items per room with red paper marking a target in 2 rooms. No rooms actually had any real targets but the dogs alerted everywhere, particularly the red marked spots and even preferred them over the sausage decoys.
I have previously heard of a similar test that was something like 10 backpacks with "up to" 3 containing target scents with one target having a red tag. Again no real targets, only decoy dog treats in some, but 100% of dogs "alerted" on the red tagged bag.
In case it isn't obvious, the implication of the red mark alerts was that the handler prompted (consciously or unconsciously) the dog to alert there and that the same probably happens in the field.
This is such an obvious case it's insane that so many judges ignore it. The way I see it, there are 3 clear options whenever government agents destroy someones proterty:
1. The property owner is at fault (clearly not the case here)
2. The government is allowed to cause the damage under eminent domain, requiring just compensation.
3. The government agents are not allowed to cause the damage and are thus liable for (possibly criminal) destruction of property.
Bending over backwards to give the court an unearned and extreme benefit of the doubt, at a minimum they should have sent that down as an outline for the lower courts to flesh out.
I really don't understand how qualified immunity can be defended. If a cop arrests someone without probable cause (aka kidnaps them) due to ignorance of the law then I can kind understand, if not agree with, the idea that they shouldn't be jailed on kidnapping charges. That they shouldn't even be held financially liable is more of a stretch, but in that case the liability should clearly revert to their employer (for failure to train etc), not dissapear. Am I missing something here?
This is completely insane. In any rational world DeSantis would have been arrested after voluntarily broadcasting a confession of violating Disney's rights.
This is exactly the kind of case where there is no dispute of the facts and settled law when your case is considered proven from the start and just skip to arguing damages.
Courts should just treat this as spoliation meaning that if any defendant alleges misconduct the court should assume the illegal deletion of records means there was a history of misconduct.
Basically similar to how illegal searches mean any resulting evidence gets thrown out.
If you are talking about "the originators of copyright laws" in terms of the writers of such laws as the Mikey Mouse Protection Act then supporting publishers instead of artists was exactly what was intended. The same if you are going way back to the Statute of Anne.
If however you are refering to the US Constitution's copyright clause you would be correct as it clearly states that the "exclusive rights" MAY be granted for the purpose of promoting "science and the useful arts" and not for any other reason.
As a child on a holiday with my parents we once had a dowsing demonstration where presenter walked over a creek showing the dowsing rods dipping each time. When it was our turn to try, my parents, apparently having not paid enough attention, had the road turn UP instead of down and exclaimed in amazement each time. As I knew how this worked I walked across without the rod twitching at all, but personally I think my parents reaction was better proof of this fraud. I also remember the presenter giving us a bit of a sour look as he couldn't correct my parents without admitting the whole thing was fake.
I agree with what many are saying here: just get a warrant! Basically I would completely get rid of the current "private search" doctrine and merely concider a private search evidence to be concidered when a warrant is applied for. This deals with the contortions over weather an algorithmic search is really a "search" as defined by the courts - in the ordinary meaning of the term I definetely concider it a search, just a slightly less objectional search the narower the targets. (Eg: known child porn hashes probably ok, apples fuzzy hash system maybe, trying to calculate wether the amount of skin tone in an image makes it porn probably not, and potential defamatory statements/memes about polititions definetly not.)
This would also help with cranks for example who constantly report "crimes" that arent crimes as well - their reports should no longer be concidered probable cause after crying wolf too many times.
I've been part of several martial arts groups (none I was any good at) and a lot of this case seemed to be the same sort of bragging and training that went on in them. The "training" on how to conduct a pseudo-military assault and the loud talk about how many police officers they could take out etc sounds quite similar to the martial arts training on how to take out an armed mugger and braging on how many attackers someone could take out that occured in those groups.
The only part where it started to get to be more of a concern from my perspective was when they started doing actual survielance of the governor. After that point I believe it would be appropriate to start arresting people who continued to play an active, preferably pro-active role. By this I meen someone who pawned their wedding ring or took out a second mortgage on their house to buy the explosives not just someone who handed over whatever spare change they happened to have in their wallet...
Google: by observing the adds placed of your news stories and based on our extensive experience in the advertising industry we have determined that you make 6 cents off every consumer we send you and believe we deserve 50% of that or 3 cents per followed link. We would of course be happy to entertain any good faith argument regarding the method of calculating the add revenue you gain due to us or why the revenue split should be a different percentage.
I'm sorry, it seems to me that band-aid is already a generic term (even if a court hasn't declared it). Whenever I or anyone I know uses the term "band-aid" it is never used to mean the specific Band-Aid TM "medical adhesive bandage". It is so generic I have no other real description of these things other than band-aids and had to re-read this article to find the term "medical adhesive bandage". They are not "medical adhesive bandages" they are "band-aids" regardless of what brand of band-aid they are.
The closest any of the signs come to the "purient interest" standard of the law (and to be clear it is still well off) is the "Socialism sucks, Biden blows" sign - in that I could see a bunch of 10 year old boys pointing to the sign and gigling after having it explained by an older kid. Even this is a stretch, along the lines of "rational basis review" where anything even cocievable (even if irrational) counts.
You may have a point there with regards to body cameras. With police, currently they have such a weight of the historical assumption of their benevolance that police testimony is sometimes given more weight than video recordings. But with this lot if they used body cameras from the start (and were regularly forced to release the footage) then the myth of their infalability might never have the chance to build up.
But on your other points: cops already engage in denying medical care and selective enforcement, have you never read any news story about cops in the last decade or so?
As I said, the primary bennefit is the ability to actually get them into court as opposed to what happens with cops. From what I can tell you already have that same situation you describe with real cops and they don't even have to argue justification just say the magic words "qualified immunity" and the case is dismissed.
On the plus side, not being public "servants" means that that laws actually (at least in theory) apply to them. They incorrectly storm a house and it's armed robbery, assault, kidnapping etc instead of Tuesday like it is for police. Their guns likely don't "discharge" on their own instead it should be that they actually shoot someone (them, not the gun on it's own) and can be charged for it.
Note I'm not expecting them to actually perform better than cops but it seems hard for them to do worse and it would seem to require less political will to punish them for their inevitable misdeeds than it appears to need with regards to actual cops.
A significant step towards solving this issue would be returning to the idea you actually own what you have bought and paid for. Essentially eliminate the DMCA (and it's worldwide equivalents) at least as applied to physical devices you have purchased. Make it explicitly clear that it is legal to sell products and services to modify your own property, such as to remove Chinese (or Google etc) surveillance from your car, or parts pairing from your John Deere tractor. Part of the "right to repair" movement is attempting to require manufacturers to supply schematics and documentation for devices they produce. I'd add on a law that any damages done due to incorrectly interacting with insufficiently documented devices is presumed to be the result of a manufacturer defect for the purpose of consumer protection laws such as warranties, recalls etc. So if you (or someone you hire) bricks your device trying to modify it, then that's on the manufacturer - unless they can prove they provided you a safe method which you ignored. Eliminate the "unauthorised repair/modification" exemption and flip the burden of proof to the manufacturer.
Russia has ... even designated queer activism as an “extremist” movement.
You forgot to link to your reporting on how the current US administration is basically doing the same thing. Seriously, you all have a lot of work ahead of you if you ever want to remotely repair things in your country.
Regressive cultures
It's ironically true that "Some cultures ... remain dysfunctional and regressive." It's just that historically it always seems to be the very people making this claim that it most applies to.
Dog tricks
"Perform a trick" is a completely accurate description - the dogs mostly alert where the handler wants them to alert, not where any target scent is. The link above doesn't work for me, this is the correct link I believe. Basically the test was 4 rooms to search where handlers were told there was "up to" 3 target items per room with red paper marking a target in 2 rooms. No rooms actually had any real targets but the dogs alerted everywhere, particularly the red marked spots and even preferred them over the sausage decoys. I have previously heard of a similar test that was something like 10 backpacks with "up to" 3 containing target scents with one target having a red tag. Again no real targets, only decoy dog treats in some, but 100% of dogs "alerted" on the red tagged bag. In case it isn't obvious, the implication of the red mark alerts was that the handler prompted (consciously or unconsciously) the dog to alert there and that the same probably happens in the field.
Responsibility doesn't just evaporate
This is such an obvious case it's insane that so many judges ignore it. The way I see it, there are 3 clear options whenever government agents destroy someones proterty: 1. The property owner is at fault (clearly not the case here) 2. The government is allowed to cause the damage under eminent domain, requiring just compensation. 3. The government agents are not allowed to cause the damage and are thus liable for (possibly criminal) destruction of property. Bending over backwards to give the court an unearned and extreme benefit of the doubt, at a minimum they should have sent that down as an outline for the lower courts to flesh out.
I actually assumed it was the crab that was fried, cut and/or mashed into the shape of fries. Something like fish fingers perhaps.
Qualified Immunity makes no sense
I really don't understand how qualified immunity can be defended. If a cop arrests someone without probable cause (aka kidnaps them) due to ignorance of the law then I can kind understand, if not agree with, the idea that they shouldn't be jailed on kidnapping charges. That they shouldn't even be held financially liable is more of a stretch, but in that case the liability should clearly revert to their employer (for failure to train etc), not dissapear. Am I missing something here?
Bizarro world
This is completely insane. In any rational world DeSantis would have been arrested after voluntarily broadcasting a confession of violating Disney's rights. This is exactly the kind of case where there is no dispute of the facts and settled law when your case is considered proven from the start and just skip to arguing damages.
Spoliation
Courts should just treat this as spoliation meaning that if any defendant alleges misconduct the court should assume the illegal deletion of records means there was a history of misconduct. Basically similar to how illegal searches mean any resulting evidence gets thrown out.
If you are talking about "the originators of copyright laws" in terms of the writers of such laws as the Mikey Mouse Protection Act then supporting publishers instead of artists was exactly what was intended. The same if you are going way back to the Statute of Anne. If however you are refering to the US Constitution's copyright clause you would be correct as it clearly states that the "exclusive rights" MAY be granted for the purpose of promoting "science and the useful arts" and not for any other reason.
Personal experience with dowsing
As a child on a holiday with my parents we once had a dowsing demonstration where presenter walked over a creek showing the dowsing rods dipping each time. When it was our turn to try, my parents, apparently having not paid enough attention, had the road turn UP instead of down and exclaimed in amazement each time. As I knew how this worked I walked across without the rod twitching at all, but personally I think my parents reaction was better proof of this fraud. I also remember the presenter giving us a bit of a sour look as he couldn't correct my parents without admitting the whole thing was fake.
Just to be clear, they are literally claiming "the unconcious person didn't tell me no" as their excuse.
Re: the courts are drawing a funny distinction
I agree with what many are saying here: just get a warrant! Basically I would completely get rid of the current "private search" doctrine and merely concider a private search evidence to be concidered when a warrant is applied for. This deals with the contortions over weather an algorithmic search is really a "search" as defined by the courts - in the ordinary meaning of the term I definetely concider it a search, just a slightly less objectional search the narower the targets. (Eg: known child porn hashes probably ok, apples fuzzy hash system maybe, trying to calculate wether the amount of skin tone in an image makes it porn probably not, and potential defamatory statements/memes about polititions definetly not.) This would also help with cranks for example who constantly report "crimes" that arent crimes as well - their reports should no longer be concidered probable cause after crying wolf too many times.
I've been part of several martial arts groups (none I was any good at) and a lot of this case seemed to be the same sort of bragging and training that went on in them. The "training" on how to conduct a pseudo-military assault and the loud talk about how many police officers they could take out etc sounds quite similar to the martial arts training on how to take out an armed mugger and braging on how many attackers someone could take out that occured in those groups.
The only part where it started to get to be more of a concern from my perspective was when they started doing actual survielance of the governor. After that point I believe it would be appropriate to start arresting people who continued to play an active, preferably pro-active role. By this I meen someone who pawned their wedding ring or took out a second mortgage on their house to buy the explosives not just someone who handed over whatever spare change they happened to have in their wallet...
How to negotiate in good faith
Google: by observing the adds placed of your news stories and based on our extensive experience in the advertising industry we have determined that you make 6 cents off every consumer we send you and believe we deserve 50% of that or 3 cents per followed link. We would of course be happy to entertain any good faith argument regarding the method of calculating the add revenue you gain due to us or why the revenue split should be a different percentage.
Band-Aid is already generic
I'm sorry, it seems to me that band-aid is already a generic term (even if a court hasn't declared it). Whenever I or anyone I know uses the term "band-aid" it is never used to mean the specific Band-Aid TM "medical adhesive bandage". It is so generic I have no other real description of these things other than band-aids and had to re-read this article to find the term "medical adhesive bandage". They are not "medical adhesive bandages" they are "band-aids" regardless of what brand of band-aid they are.
The closest any of the signs come to the "purient interest" standard of the law (and to be clear it is still well off) is the "Socialism sucks, Biden blows" sign - in that I could see a bunch of 10 year old boys pointing to the sign and gigling after having it explained by an older kid. Even this is a stretch, along the lines of "rational basis review" where anything even cocievable (even if irrational) counts.
Re: Re: No qualified immunity
You may have a point there with regards to body cameras. With police, currently they have such a weight of the historical assumption of their benevolance that police testimony is sometimes given more weight than video recordings. But with this lot if they used body cameras from the start (and were regularly forced to release the footage) then the myth of their infalability might never have the chance to build up. But on your other points: cops already engage in denying medical care and selective enforcement, have you never read any news story about cops in the last decade or so?
Re: Re: No qualified immunity
As I said, the primary bennefit is the ability to actually get them into court as opposed to what happens with cops. From what I can tell you already have that same situation you describe with real cops and they don't even have to argue justification just say the magic words "qualified immunity" and the case is dismissed.
No qualified immunity
On the plus side, not being public "servants" means that that laws actually (at least in theory) apply to them. They incorrectly storm a house and it's armed robbery, assault, kidnapping etc instead of Tuesday like it is for police. Their guns likely don't "discharge" on their own instead it should be that they actually shoot someone (them, not the gun on it's own) and can be charged for it.
Note I'm not expecting them to actually perform better than cops but it seems hard for them to do worse and it would seem to require less political will to punish them for their inevitable misdeeds than it appears to need with regards to actual cops.