"The lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it"
Either that or the control. Personally, I HATE watching anything that someone else, preferably a multinational cartel, doesn't have complete control over. Talk about "not understanding the space." Le sigh.
So do we need a law against proposing legislation that you know full well is illegal and either can't be enacted, or will need to be struck down by the courts? The fine can be however much taxpayer money you waste.
Makes me think running the "Marshmallow Test" on them would be interesting.
Tester: You can eat this Cookie now if you want, but I'll give you two cookies if you wait 15 minutes. Cable Exec: I understand; I choose two now and two later. Tester: No, you don- where did you get that bag of Marshmallows? Cable Exec: It was in the lab next door. So where's my three cookies? Tester: Next door? That's where we're testing the streaming video execs. And what are you talking about THREE cookies? Cable Exec: Four now... chop chop, time's a wastin'. Tester: Hey! Give back my watch!
I'm hoping this is the FCC giving Comcast just enough rope to hang itself. Let them go out and actually do the things they were claiming they "would never do!" just last year. Let them use their near monopoly status and usage caps to ram Comcast Content into customers homes; and use exactly that behavior as the wedge to force them to split apart their colluding infrastructure and content businesses. Once the "Com" is separate from "Cast" they won't be able to argue that they're not just pipes delivering bits, which opens the door for local loop unbundling... I know, I'm dreaming again.
Offender Located. Seize house, car, camera. Sell House, Car, Camera. Use proceeds to hunt for more offenders. Whoops forgot to delete illicit material from camera. Offender Located. Seize house, car, camera. Sell House, Car, Camera. Use proceeds to hunt for more offenders. Whoops forgot to delete illicit material from camera....
Citizens are perfectly capable of weighing these factors and making these decisions themselves. That's exactly what consent is.
This is precisely what happened. The court weighed all future traffic stops and unilaterally decided that everyone wanted to give their consent, even the cases where said "probable cause" is B.S. and wouldn't result in a warrant. The only convenience provided is not having to decide if you want your rights, because you're preemptively denied them.
Can I assume this ruling will get escalated to a higher court where they've got a clue why there are "rules for government" at all?
I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson, on announcing the adoption of the 4th amendment, said "this measure will ensure the rights and liberties of our citizens are not unduly impinged; you know, unless it's like hard and stuff. Totally just ignore this if it seems like a burden. Oh, and we specifically didn't mention buggies or ships here, so it doesn't apply to personal transport. Don't bother getting a warrant if someone's going to be waiting around for like two hours. That's ridiculous."