Judge Korman, you scare me! Who, if not you, will draw the lines for the ones breaking the law?
Many crimes could be prevented if people were more careful - less reveling dress might reduce the likelihood of rape, avoiding dangerous areas might prevent robbery, not wearing your Rolex outside your home reduces the probability of theft. But a careless victim does not justify rape, robbery or theft. And the contents of a laptop should have no influence whatsoever on the legality of a border search.
If it did, you could use your own arguments to even justify murder: "the individual [walking a dark alley at night] is on notice that certain types of [incidents] are likely to be made, his privacy is less invaded by [someone shooting them in the back]."
>> 'I will sell you classified information for something of value.' At this stage, the value might actually be to US companies! Right now, any non-US company loosing a bidding competition to a US company for oil rights, mining rights or selling things is in a good position to challenge the outcome suggesting the US competitor might have had an unfair advantage due to support by the NSA - the current assumption is the NSA listens to everything and anybody (except for terrorists, maybe, given the NSA's track record in not catching them ...).
Unless the NSA or the US government decide to turn on transparency, Edward Snowden might be the only person with the information and credibility to narrow down the scope ...
Why stop at artists? Fuel stations, parking lots, road builder, traffic cops - without cars, they could not exist. It is only fair for them to pay part of their income back to the car industry. Or banks - a single cent 'gratitude tax' back to Goldman Sachs every time a dollar is spent might even prevent the next banking crisis. Small price to pay!
This could get interesting, since [Court of Justice Advocate General] "Pedro Cruz Villalón believes that the 2006 data retention directive "constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental right of citizens to privacy"."
The opinion has been published today in a case about a European Directive; nonetheless, if the European Court of Justice places very high restrictions on data collection, the UK Government will have a hard time justifying the rather broad GCHQ activities.
[It is very disappointing that Mississippi state attorney general Jim Hood appears to be] “unwilling to take basic actions to make [the state of Mississippi] safe from unlawful and predatory conduct, and [that he] has refused to modify [his ]own behavior that facilitates and profits from unlawful conduct.” [The] letter cites not just [shoplifting] but [pickpocketing and even burglary].
He also pointed out several instances in which [state prosecutors] has screened out criminal [activity, like terrorism]. [Other crimes, such as insulting the president], he noted, was removed [in countries such as North Korea].
“[Jim Hood] can and does take action against unlawful or offensive conduct — when [Hood] determines it is in [his own] interests to do so.
Could Godaddy demand sworn statements from other service providers and revoke their keys if they can not rule out that their keys have been handed over to a third party? Presumably, even secret court orders can not force service providers to commit perjury?
Given that NSA and GCHQ haven't really got much to show in return for the resources and the powers given to them - exactly what could we loose by putting a little extra transparency on their ways of working?