So a business pulls the "bill customers for negative reviews" scam, leading to the Streisand Effect. And eventually to a default judgement against the scammer. They disappear before the victim can collect, reappearing - at least for hypothetical legal purposes - in France.
Law Signed "Two Years After Clinton Stepped Down." Criticizing the Times article's insinuation that Clinton violated the law, Daily Banter contributor Bob Cesca pointed out: "The article doesn't say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down." [...] Rep. Cummings: Even The 2014 Bill "Would Continue To Allow Employees To Use Their Personal Email Account For Official Business." Contrary to claims that Hillary Clinton violated the law by using personal email account while serving as Secretary of State, even a 2014 law that strengthened oversight of the use of personal email by government officials -- passed after Hillary Clinton had left the State Department -- still permitted government officials to use personal email.
We've seen that when a police officer is accused of wrong-doing - even with video evidence all but proving that wrong-doing - the courts, prosecutors and grand juries are heavily biased in favor of the officer.
And so even valid accusations against officers would often end with the punishment against the accuser suggested here.
It should be hard to imagine the person who videotaped the murder of Eric Garner by NYPD officers receiving a murder-equivalent false accusation sentence for it. It really should be....
Strange; Canadians are allowed to buy groceries and other services across the border. Why should television be any different just because it competes with David Purdy's business?
If Rogers can buy a US cable network - as they've done in the past - shouldn't Canadians be allowed to buy a Netflix subscription? For that matter, Rogers buys individual shows and entire channels from the US, to carry on their Canadian network. These compete with Canadian shows and channels. If a carrier gets a legally enforced right to no foreign competition, should the TV channels and show producers have the same right?
Speaking of no-competition enforcement, a few years back Rogers Cable filed a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent Shaw Cable from acquiring Mountain Cablevision of Hamilton, Ontario, on the basis that Rogers and Shaw had effectively agreed to divide the country in half, Rogers in the east and Shaw in the west. This suit was defeated on competitive grounds and the Shaw acquisition allowed to proceed. And so in 2013 Rogers announced it was purchasing what was Mountain Cable, to put it under Rogers control.
If David Purdy wants legal reform regarding competition in his industry, fine. Just so long as that reform includes the arrest of Rogers executives if they carry on business as usual.
We in the U.S. have just completed one of the largest case studies of what happens when every individual in an industry has all of its e-mail and financial records available to regulators. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) already requires every person in the financial industry to make every e-mail, cellphone text and financial record available to the SEC in order to enforce insider trading and other financial rules.
The result: NADA! NOTHING! With thousands of bankers involved in fraud on the U.S. taxpayer running into the trillions of dollars, _not one has been prosecuted; not one has gone to jail_. If this level of surveillance of the financial community has produced zero convictions in the largest ripoff of tax dollars in history, there is no reason to expect that any increased level of surveillance of non-financial citizens will produce any better results.
Drones became all the rage for America - many innocent bystanders killed, and "double-taps", the practice of a follow-up drone strike to take out emergency responders - and yet the only major protest about this from within America is that in a couple of those attacks, Americans were targeted.
We live in a world where a decade ago a legally blind guy with almost no budget built a drone and flown it across the Atlantic ocean. You can imagine what small governments can do. Especially today with multiple GPS standards, and Google Earth data for terrain following and building recognition in 3D from above.
Meanwhile the American government has established a very low standard on what is acceptable behavior when using them.
Someone is going to decide that drones are the modern-day "great equalizer" similar to guns in the past. They may not do much real damage, but they'll be a highly effective terror weapon.