Any actual soldier who committed a fraction of the things cops are reported to do every day would be court-martialed. Even in military actions, many of the alleged offences could be considered war crimes. But soldiers are trained to understand that.
This technology may finally expose the lies of all those people who've been blaming the dog.
The tech-bro remake of Bubba Ho-Tep?
It does if you pronounce the "X" as it is in the word "luxury".
I've seen worse articles in my local paper written by humans.
I propose that any police officer who doesn't have their body camera operating be given the same level of understanding, accommodation, and immunity that a member of the public would who is accused of same actions. Turning off your camera is the same as turning off your badge.
I interpreted that phrase to mean "We can't keep up with rapid technological change." Oh, no! Anyway...
So... who can be trusted when it comes to technology and the Internet?
I still think we should refer to the company as "Xitter", with the X pronounced as in the word "luxury".
He went amateur se
Your money should file a false arrest or false imprisonment claim against the government.
I was going to suggest the same thing. Bounty laws (Texas vs abortion, Utah vs porn) empower individuals to file suit against whoever facilitates whatever it is. Any state could pass a law allowing you to sue your carrier for "one meellion dollars" for every robocall or spam text. The spammers would be blocked that day. They won't, of course, because the carriers can bribecough sorry, I meant lobby against it harder than we voters.
Those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't do or teach, administrate.
The problem is not with the feds buying the data, the problem is that the data is available to be bought in the first place. Let's say the law is passed and it does all we ask for: Every US agency must get a warrant to see where US citizens go or went. Great! And let's further say that every US agency actually obeys that law. Wonderful! Problem solved! And everyone gets a pony for Christmas! Meanwhile, every other country, agency, business, or person in the world can still buy that data on the open market.
Oh, this makes sense, especially if you pronounce the "x" as in "luxury".
Did you mean the bargain in the Constitution, or the current one? Because the "promoting progress/limited times" thing is looooong gone. They're doing a great job on the current bargain: "maximum profit and minimum competition, forever".
Maybe if we ignore [spam | twitter] (pick one} it'll just go away.
Think of a long-lived, successful, local business - a dry cleaner, a bakery, an auto repair shop. They provide a decent service at a reasonable price and they've been profitable for years. They don't expect to continually grow profits or market share quarter after quarter, because they know that's not how you keep customers. So why do tech businesses think they need to?
Is there a way both sides can lose?