Movie studios and records companies have always made their money off the experience and have treated the content increasingly as having little importance. That is why they are hated by their own customers and the artists who create their content. That is because they are increasingly not creating art, but instead are creating product. I listen to music for the emotion it invokes, which usually has to pour out of some artist's soul. Sure, as the maker of my own experience sometimes a riff or backbeat will be in tune with my experience and I will get off on one of their products, but it rarely makes be a repeat customer where I might follow an artist that I find appealing. The difference is not the point you originally made nor the point of this article. The point is that artistic content is still king and these distributors only produce product. They have steadily been losing sales per capita for the last 35 years. It isn't new media that is killing them, it is that with the advent of United Artists and now the indies, the art is somewhere else. They are no longer the incubators of art so people buy less of their product. With sales down they have tried to move their distribution to keep up with the technologies that make it easy for people to experience their product, but they have missed the point that technology in the end will make them superfulous. They will die.
In a 2012 case, for example, an NSA analyst “searched her spouse’s personal telephone directory without his knowledge to obtain names and telephone numbers for targeting,” according to one report. The analyst “has been advised to cease her activities,” it said.
Did she have access to "her spouse's personal telephone directory" through the NSA?
If someone says, "Yes, you may enter my home IF you turn off your camera" in a case where a warrant would normally be required what is the procedure?
Do they not enter? Do they turn off their camera? Do they enter pretending their camera is turned off and then deal with the lawsuit later? What happens if while in the home the person that gave them that conditional approval discovers that their terms are not met and forcibly removes the officer from the premises?
Cool. "Thrown in jail" is just another point in the conversation with the decade long legal public discussion popping up in press every few years that goes along with it. At some point, it WILL happen. Waiting...
Do I have to be the ONE that adds that talking point? Am I just a pussy that is too afraid to push? Opportunity missing?
Is this post is getting to be more and more just one more piece of evidence at some future trial? Does it matter if it is formed in the form of a question? If cops can lie, can the citizenry, especially when in "just" a blog? Or is a posting "absolute"?
Too many lawyers suggest that you should just follow along with the LEO and worry about cleaning up the legalities later. As soon as the LEO violates someone's Constitutional rights or commits a felony then they are no longer in commission of their duty. I am waiting for the test case where a LEO pulls a firearm while violating someone's rights, they are shot dead by someone that has committed no crime, and we have a true test case. Heaven help the court that rules against the civilian.
Law Enforcements sees themselves and what they do AS the law. Which is why they never can understand it when the citizenry criticizes law enforcement for itself acting above the law. The Government asks, "How can we be above ourselves? These wacko people even understand basic logic".
This is the true problem with "governmemt entitlements". The government feels entitled. The courts certainly haven't helped with their "compelling interest" rulings. I do not ever recall seeing "compelling interest" in the Constitution, yet a LOT of case and legislative law has been built on it even around amendments that specifically include "Congress shall make no law".
As long as the FCC does carve outs for wireless then of course this is going to be the case. Quit making exceptions and make them operate on the same playing field. If we have to get wired providers to operate on a level playing field then local governments can always leverage their right of ways.
They are going to end up flipping this on its head where the citizen is justified in resisting the suppression/violation of their rights. Now, the police will violate and worry about court cases later. Soon, it will be the other way around.
The NFL's arguments are irrelevant. The FCC isn't concerned with the status of stadiums and their attendance. Their focus is on sports programming being available over the airwaves. The economics of the league itself are so stable that they themselves admit that they have a historic low in blackouts, effectively admitting that blackouts are not going to affect viability of the league and likely not the individual teams. That last is questionable and they like to point it out, but it doesn't matter. The amount of programming available to broadcast will not go down if the blackout is removed and that is the FCCs only mission in this affair.