Cash is much harder to trace algorithmically than electronic transactions. I do it for budgeting purposes rather than paranoia, but I wonder how many watch lists I'm on for large cash withdrawals every pay period and never using a debit card.
There are thousands of unelected folks that set and enforce policy. Clapper, Hayden and their ilk are high profile, but yes, the whole political machine is much, much larger than 535 regional- and one national figurehead.
There are two fundamental aspects of the metadata programs, according to the NSA and its defenders: 1) It would have stopped (and continues to stop) terrorism. 2) Your data isn't being searched.
Here's the biggest problem with those statements: they CAN'T both be true at the same time. It's physically impossible.
In order to prevent an attack, data has to be analyzed in real time. If they are putting together a web of calls/emails/transactions before something happens, that necessarily means that an algorithm needs access to all those calls/emails/transactions.
If your data isn't being searched, then it isn't part of that web, and simply pollutes the data set.
The only reason your metadata needs to be collected is for post-incident investigation, so that it can't be destroyed and therefore become inaccessible even with a warrant. But that's not prevention.
While I would never condone such actions, I wonder what these judges would do/say if someone were to release their credit card purchase information. Maybe prescription history or other medical records.
All those are held by third parties, so hey, it's not like they have any expectation of privacy over such matters.
Oh no you don't... By their own filing, prior use is no defense. It's just about going after those with the bigger pockets. I can't get enough out of the freshwater snail coffers, so these guys will have to do.
Perhaps Hollywood just doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us. And I don't mean just the studios, but the actors, directors, producers, and all the other behind-the-scenes folks who make the industry hum along.
See, for the rest of us (or so we are told by the Hollywood elites), labor unions are virtually required to have an adversarial relationship with the people cutting the checks. But SAG-AFTRA, DGA, and all the other unions that represent those workers seem to think Big Studio has their backs.
All Disney/ESPN seems to be upset about is putting ESPN into a "sports tier." But there's no indication here that ESPN isn't included in the base package.
Besides, if Verizon really wanted to bust the ESPN racket, they could just wait until the current contract is up, then simply *not offer* ESPN, cut prices by $7-8/month (or whatever they pay Disney for ESPN, maybe even keep an extra dollar or two to increase profits), and then perhaps partner with Sling TV to keep those customers connected ("better upgrade your internet package to get the best Sling TV experience!).
According to the letter of the law, it is almost certainly covered, but let's take a step back here.
Copyright does not cover ideas or facts, only the artistic contributions of the author/photographer/etc for the express purpose of encouraging more art.
But one has to ask, in this scenario, what artistic choices did Santana contribute? This was a spontaneous event. He didn't set up the camera angles, the lighting, or direct the participants. He was just in the right place at the wrong time.
Why does any spontaneous recording of a factual event, with no contribution from the recorder (other than the ability to push 'start') qualify for a purely economic right?
[Hell, if you want to get really anal about it, NC is a one-party consent state. If he didn't have consent to record people in public, maybe the recording itself is in a gray area. I think we could all agree that it shouldn't be, but if he wants to go legal with this, that opens up more potential liabilities than just for news stations.]
I don't see this as the same as a photographer getting just the right angle, or waiting for just the right framing or lighting conditions for their subject. If he had even done more narrating of the events than "Oh shit, oh shit" I'd be more sympathetic to his contributions.
Everything you see on that video is a practical necessity of making any recording of that factual event.
Fifth: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The biggest problem with that "tradeoff" is that it implies that one will be increased with the decrease of the other. When it comes to encryption, Privacy == Security, and any harm to one necessarily harms the other.
But you can at least shine a light on it. Making it "illegal" only drive it underground where it becomes more entrenched and harder to educate.
I've long been in favor of letting any business serve any people they want, but with one important regulation: Any restrictions they want to implement have to be posted prominently on the front door. After all, if this is about business owners' beliefs, and they are proud enough of them to turn people away, they should be proud enough of them to show them to the world.
It may not change many minds, but forcing them to do something they don't believe in won't either. At least this way people can make informed decisions.