Let me guess: you figure that since Leaseweb deleted the servers since the DoJ wouldn't cover the cost nor would they release Dotcom's assets so that he could out-of-pocket, that the DoJ wasn't culpable?
Or were you just trying to deny the events as they happened?
Relying on such semantics is sleazy. Don't do that.
First, we have sucky laws. People commit three felonies a day on average, thanks to sucky laws.
Then we have sucky due process. Someone's abducted by the police at the wrong place at the wrong time and then they lie about it to secure a conviction. Judges favor police testimony over video that contradicts it. This is so common that we probably have more false convictions in the prison system than those actually guilty (we don't know -- due process is the means by which we measure such things).
And then, the reason that guns are in the hands of people is to discourage and if necessary to retaliate when our laws and due process get too sucky. Our Bill-of-Rights framers knew that human liberties only had a half-life and that only the Sword of Damocles would keep our administrators in line.
Every dissenter who would dare to take action would fall out of that subset you call law abiding citizens.
To be fair, I'm ranting. You only described gun control and inferred that you're advocating it.
Somehow I get the feeling you're speaking in a hypothetical, pretending that such a contact would be easy to locate, but don't really know.
But also, considering that those who might own the IP won't deal legitimately but are hot to litigate if someone even tries, maybe this is a situation where bootleg developers should have their chance.
Acting like a jackass within the law is still acting like a jackass.
If we treated acts of terrorism not as a political act but as a criminal act (say, the way we did the Oklahoma City Bombing or the assassination of George Tiller) then terror as a means of affecting political change would fail.
By giving terrorism recognition as a political action, our society enables terrorism to affect political change.
Of course that does facilitate the military-industrial complex who profits heavily from the war on terror, which is why we have one, even through a war on slippery bathtubs would save more lives.
So no, I'd say we shouldn't do anything against terrorism at least no more than we regard any other heinous crime.
Sadly that would also remove all accountability by representatives to their constituents. The voter would genuinely voting for the person as he is with his own conscienc, rather than the person he campaigned and promised to be.
Not that campaign promises matter much currently.
A late solution would be to develop secure internet voting and create a participatory democracy. But that is many, many steps from the US system today.
Which is a risk that every other one of us takes every day in the US, and in other nations you have to risk every time you leave your home that other people won't intentionally stab you or run you over with their motor vehicles.
If the per-capita lost of life of on-duty police officers was more than, say, then number of store clerks who die on the job, they might have a point. But it's not. And yet they're doing drive-by shootings of children in the park.
Police seem to already believe that the people of the US are united in revolt against them and their authority. I suspect that eventually that's going to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The reason they'd have to engage in anti-competition, such as quashing development of competing classic remakes has also to do with their best-practices policies. (e.g. presuming that the target audience are early-twenties fratboys who only want to play white dudes and encounter babalicious women who want to fuck them) AAA has been coming out with shitty title after shitty title continuing to not listen to feedback from the game community.
This mirrors the problem in Hollywood where a whole lot of risk-aversion comes with the $300 million budget required to make a summer blockbuster, thus all the orange-and-cyan movies that all have the identical plot beats (down to the minute). A high-budget game isn't dictated by the artists and designers, but the bean-counters at the top who have very little interest in gaming (and buy into the whole pro-DRM argument).
The original two were big favorites, so it would be due for either a redux, a reboot (a la T4ief or Tomb Raider) or a brand new sequel, but this legal confusion has been encountered before by those looking if it were feasible, and rejected.
This is only the latest failed attempt to resurrect The Operative and the NOLF Franchise.
And I'd happily share my internet if it wasn't abused by the local piggybacks (e.g. streaming or peer-to-peer which hogs all the bandwidth) so we use the feature that checks the MAC addys of designated devices.
It means that guests have to get their device registered, but we don't have enough wifi guests for it to be a serious bother.
Multi-factor Authentication. It's the only way to fly.
In fact, in many cases, abuses become a matter of function creep once the infrastructure is already in place (e.g. stingray devices that attack cellular communications).
So it is possible that those emergency cameras could be upgraded to include a feed to ALPR collections at some point.
The really distressing thing is the efforts by law enforcement to suppress public awareness that these technologies exist and their obfuscation efforts regarding the implementation of these technologies. That indicates that they have a clear notion that the public would not approve of them, yet they use them anyway, and then fight every step towards revelations and regulations.
This indicates that these technologies are not being used in the service of the people, but in the service of the rogue elements of the agencies. It's not being implemented so we can do our job.
But technically those aren't service revolvers since they're not issued but privately obtained, even if a given handgun is used by a given officer only while on duty.
Yeah, I was taking poetic license in my prose. They're service pistols nowadays.
I don't have issue with a police force being well armed when they retain the ethics and fire-discipline that is appropriate to a law-enforcement position (such as those rare municipal SWAT teams that are called to handle hostage-barricade situations). My issue is that we have a running history of police officers abusing their power to excess and getting the benefit of the doubt in the courts.
My issue is that the good cop is now the exception, if it exists at all.