People may not want to admit it but the security apparatus at Israeli airports should be a model for other international airports. Anyone wonder why they don't have this happen? This would necessarily include profiling and behavioral analysis. The system is broken in the US considering TSA allows 67 out of 70 weapons or explosives through inspection.
Next time Mayor Bloomberg visits a high crime area to show his "support" for the peasants, the police should stop and frisk him and his menacing body guards that we all know are carrying. Ahh, wouldn't that be sweet irony?
I don't know about other laws but HIPPA specifically controls the release of medical information to unauthorized parties. (eg. an ex husband cannot have access to his ex wife's medical records) I don't see this situation as a violation because no medical information was released. If that were the case then first responders would have to erect a barrier immediately around any crash, etc. so a gawking public would not violate the HIPPA rights of the victim.
Agreed. My thought was at some level privacy is lost at the time of a tragedy. People's "private parts" have to be exposed at times so the first responders do their job. Having footage of the incident does not violate privacy unless it is released PUBLICLY. Johnson did not release the footage for gain, he turned it over to aid the investigation. No privacy was lost. Hayes-White is just terrified of the coming lawsuit because she will have no defense against it.
Interesting how many artist complain about not getting paid for their work but then do not pay others for their work. Are they using twitter, Facebook, Google+, etc. for marketing and connections with fans? If so are they paying the programmers or engineers for their work. If not they are free loaders plain and simple. These social media services should charge the artists for their use to pay they poor engineer who has to turn their patents over to the company. Its only fair right?
What you will also see happen is fragmenting of the market rather than competition. For example, ESPN will be on AT&T and FoxSports will be on Verizon with Sprint and T-Wireless and regional carriers having nothing or third rate content providers. It will once again take away choice from consumers. Rather than an open and free internet it will be limited by the players willing to pay the most.
(Yes I know they will claim you can still access competing services but it will be at a direct cost to the consumer in a charge against data caps.)
As a matter of fact, my interpretation of Mike's view on copyright is that the term should be reasonable not death +70 years. Further, the limitations that are placed by copyright holders are frequently so backwards and draconian that it actually creates incentives for people to find alternative methods to access said copyrighted material.
Then again, I'm no mind reader so I could be wrong.