mind you this isn't even implicating people NOT working for govts or people working for govts that are working outside their expected duties.
SCOTUS has protected anonymous speech as free speech (whithin reason), and if I have to scan my face for each website or web session, that no longer makes me anonymous. This has huge implications on ... lets say dissidents or people critical of governments, inlcuding our own. Let's play a thought game, what if I have to use facial rec tech to visit a site that provides ... let's say abortions, or abortion related info, or making comments about abortion on Techdirt, and let's say I live in Mississippi. Suddenly MIssissippi Authorities are going to be VERY interested in me and with facial rec, can identify me, and then take legal action against me, for what should be a legal activity. This IS what is going to happen if these laws stand.
anyone remember Zune?
I am more surprised someone didn't go full McCollum v Board of Education on this law by now.
increasingly, anonymity is going to be MORE significant here. given what we know about data brokers, how easy it is to garner information, and the current and seemingly headed politcal and social climates coming to blows.
puts that john oliver bit he did on data brokers in hew light (Which pre-dates Dobbs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA
let's see how far this goes when Govt sites and/or banking services have to be found guilty of using encryption, Let's see pretty much all of Australia's internet fall because only criminals and terrorists uses encryption. This is fully unenforcable.
AN ACT DECLARING GHOSTING AS AN EMOTIONAL OFFENSEI read that line in the voice of Steven He.
maybe if the telcos didn't rip off the govt so many times before, they'd have more standing with them now.
Thank you, A lot of people (myself included) often conflate Trademark with Copyright a good example is this: Micky Mouse is Trademarked. Steamboat Willie, is copyrighted.
so that confirms that US money is laced with drugs and drug dogs are now unreliable, right? RIGHT?!?!?!
here's the thing though.... our town.. which is probably as red as NC. put in EV charging stations... and it's a source of revinue for the town. ie. the town is selling power to charge EVs. I mean, it's not much, I see maybe 5 cars charging there a week, it's a small town out in the middle of nowhere, but it does two things, it puts a charging station out here in the middle of nowhere, and the town gets some change out of it.
oh? bmw is cashing in on this? next will be $50/month for your engine to run. $20/month for AC. $10/month for radio (subscription not included) $25/month to keep air in your tires $25/month to keep gas in your tank $25/month to keep oil/coolant/transmission fluid/misc. fluids in your car.
Not to mention this will probably be a 1st amendment issue. Let me explain, Social media companies banning people under 13 is part of thier ToS, and not a 1st amendment issue. Making a law prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from having a platform to communicate, assemble and socialize is probably a big no-no.
I read the title as CDPR and it still made sense.
I'd not worry too much... instead of "Elvis" weddings, it will just be "Vintage Las Vegas Rock and Roll" weddings.
For reference: the term "Assault rifle" is 1) selective fire (AR-15's are not, even with bump stocks, they are still semi-automatic rifles) 2) Military Specifications - Mil-spec weapons are generally not able to be sold to the public, for obvious reasons.
You're right, it's protected by the FIRST Amendment. and exactly relavent to this discussion is This SCOTUS case (ironically decided by Roberts)
ESPECIALLY post-George Floyd.
*Meanwhile: Pizza Hut is sitting quietly in the corner snickering at the whole thing.