The 'lethal weapons' clause, 5.1, could be fixed easily enough simply by striking out 'lethal', such that it prohibits any drone mounted weapons, rather that just lethal ones. If someone wants to play around with weaponized drones they can join the army, otherwise they can do without.
In a world where Congress has redefined pizza to be a vegetable (in, what, 2011?), I have to imagine it would be fairly easy to redefine certain "non-lethal weapons" - say, pepper spray as an "aerosol-based anti-psychotic medication with pacifying qualities" or similar. Of course, many medications have negative side effects, but as long as the label is properly formatted, FDA should be fine with it.
I can hear the smooth, deep-voiced voice over in the commercial now:
"Imagine a world where drones aren't weaponized - they've been re-purposed and converted into unmanned aerial medical dispensaries..."
Or a Special Forces team raiding the premises? Doesn't matter which team (even an ad-hoc team with personnel from all the different units) goes in: they're all trained to shoot their target(s) dead, no questions asked.
Wow. You're really equating a special ops teams capabilities to a missile platform? Do you really have so little respect for US soldiers?
A soldier with a rifle is capable of determining who their target is and shooting them. They're also - at least in theory - able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, and will not generally kill indiscriminately (or, at least, the special forces guys I've known wouldn't). If they go into a building and determine its filled with nuns and orphans, they can make an intelligent decision and, for example, not execute the orphans. Doesn't mean they always make the "right" decision, but at least they have the capability to do so.
A missile platform's targeting capability is only as granular as its blast radius.
Fraudulent use and possession of identifying information about an individual is unambiguously illegal in the United States
Federal Statute creating a general ban on possession of personally identifiable information (PII) in this context, please?
This is by all accounts a non-US hosting company (Ukraine is called out) and there's nothing to indicate a locality for the person publishing the website so there are likely jurisdictional issues here.
Past that, nowhere in the actual letter was PII referenced. It was certainly alluded to. But the lawyers reference "Private, personal, information".
To your other point about providing information? The website in its current form checks for the presence of a user-provided email address in the dataset, and returns a yes/no along with an explanation of why presence in in the database isn't an automatic indicator of being an active user.
The route that ALM's lawyers are taking is to send heavily caveated, non-legally binding demand letters to someone that they hope doesn't have competent legal counsel, and will therefore comply because "lawyers saying scary sounding things."
Frankly, they'd probably get a better response if they sent a letter saying "look, there's no legal basis for us to ask this, so we're not going to threaten, but you'd be doing an awful lot of people a solid if you took this content down."
First, if you're depending on news agencies to be "fair and unbiased", you're doing it wrong.
Second, some of the people in those news agencies are likely ALM Customers, and as such will have run afoul of the morality clauses in their employment agreements, and hence have a vested interest in ensuring the data never gets looked at too closely.
Chances are good that if you're actually filming something like this, you're in the middle of a good sized adrenaline dump, and working through an adrenaline dump isn't something most civilians are used to. Shaking hands is one sign of that.
For 20+ years now, the public has been told - starting early in grade school - "don't get involved, don't try to catch the bad guy, don't take matters into your own hands." It starts in school, where you'll be suspended without question if someone else punches you and you _don't_ respond.
"Evans said that should never happen. “I’d also like to see some legislation that if a cop is on the ground struggling with someone, like he was the other night and everybody is videotaping, someone should be held accountable for not stepping up and helping them,” he said."
Someone standing around video taping is almost certainly of a generation that has been raised from cradle-age with the "let the police handle it" training. And now we've come to it's logical conclusion. You won't over-ride that type of indoctrination with a law and wishful thinking.
At most, you might expect someone to call 911 on behalf of the officer being beaten. Since that's what they've been trained to do.
Or, maybe she's just young enough not to have lived through Reagan and Nixon's respective presidencies at an age where their actions were meaningful.
Because in history curriculum these days, recent US history is getting a pretty hardcore white-wash, with lots of focus on what the US did that was good, leaving little to no time left over to focus on shortcomings.
Well, for what it's worth, they didn't summarily execute Grandma or her daughters. And presumably there were no pets in the house to be executed either, since there's no mention of dogs being shot out of hand.
Frankly, given the totality of the circumstances described by the court, the occupants of the house should consider themselves extraordinarily lucky to be alive.
That you can trust on the say-so of a random stranger you met on the internet? Well, I guess it depends on your use case.
Truecrypt was one of the few projects out there that was generally considered sufficiently trustworthy for non-coders and non-crypto geeks to feel comfortable using for storing information that could get them jailed or killed.
Using a single letter posted online to destroy trust in TrueCrypt was truly a master stroke. :(