Funny how he thinks everyone needs his permission to quote his father but I somehow doubt he obtained permission to quote ee cummings and LBJ, as he did in his "copyright notice".
He's apparently another one of thise "copyright is for everyone else, not me" types.
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session
Also, unless they basically confiscate all mobile devices from everyone as they enter the courtroom and hold anyone in contempt who is found using them for any reason ("broadcast" or otherwise), there's no way to enforce a Twitter ban among the non-participants in the gallery.
If I'm there just watching the trial and I Twitter something during the proceedings, at the end of the day, I'm walking away from the court and probably never coming back. By the time the judge becomes aware of my tweet, I'm long gone. He really has no remedy to punish such people like he would with the jurors or the litigants in the case, especially considering many people Twitter under anonymous screen names anyway.
What's the judge going to do? Serve subpoenas on an out-of-state corporation, demanding IP address data, then serve more subpoenas on ISPs (also likely out-of-state) to get subscriber info, then swear out an arrest warrant and spend police resources tracking down that person and having them arrested and charged with contempt... all for a Twitter post?
Any judge that takes that kind of heavy-handed, costly, and abusive approach to enforcing something which isn't even a violation of the law, but rather merely a violation of the judge's personal preferences, would likely find him/herself on the wrong end of an ethics investigation in short order.
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session.
Of course that standard would make even sending an e-mail to your spouse a "broadcast", which negates even the basic common-sense definition of the word.
> and Twitter is a broadcast - albeit relatively crude
If Twitter is broadcast, then posting anything to the internet is a broadcast. If a person in the gallery watching the trial decided to check TechDirt during a lull in the action and posted a comment about one of the articles here, would that be a broadcast also?
> even our constitution does not declare FREE
> and ANONYMOUS speech.
No, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to speak anonymously is implicit in the concept of free speech and hence is covered by the 1st Amendment.
> and they can prove that somebody in the UK
> read your statement, it is considered "published"
> and they can take you to court.
They can take me to court, they can even get a default judgment when I completely ignore them and don't show up, but good luck collecting on that judgment from me if I'm not in the UK.
They'd have to apply to an American court to have the judgment enforced and the American court will determine whether such a sanction is valid under American law. If the comment was made by an American citizen, in America, then the 1st Amendment is in full effect and if the libel laws in the UK sanction speech which would be protected in America, then the American court will refuse to enforce the judgment.
That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.
There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".
> Perhaps maybe because they are already in the
> business of selling answer books?
So? Now they have competition. It's called capitalism. Something we used to embrace in this country.
> Perhaps because they don't want answer books
> out there to make it easier for students to
> cheat in school?
Perhaps that is indeed what they want. However, such concerns are irrelevant to copyright law. Using copyright to further the desire of a book company to keep kids from cheating isn't legally justified anywhere in the U.S. Code.
Just because a company wants something doesn't mean they have the legal right to enforce their desires on the rest of us using copyright (or anything else, for that matter). Unless the law specifically provides for it (and copyright does not provide for prevention of cheating by school students), the desires of the company are moot.
> There is no money in piping US ads and
> bandwidth to countries around the world.
Sure there is. You just don't use the same ads. The system is already detecting the user's location. Just ad one more step. If the user is in the USA, they get a Coke ad. If they're in Britain, they get an ad for BBC News or whatever. If they're in Russia, they get an ad for a Russian mobile phone company. If they're in Australia, they get an ad for vegemite.
> Of course, the state of Kentucky probably
> couldn't care much less about what a court
> in England thinks
Which I'm sure will also be the attitude of the British courts toward Kentucky, should they try and seize a domain name belonging to a British citizen in the UK.
If Kentucky thinks it can ignore the rulings of a British court on a matter concerning British citizens in Britain, I'm not sure why they think anyone's going to give two flips what the Kentucky Supreme Court says about it.
> > Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone
> > to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which
> > are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers
> > and proofs of purchase)...
> You might want to check yours, but the last time I looked at
> any of my dollar bills they all have serial numbers. What's more,
> during part of my military training I actually had to keep track
> of all my money, including serial numbers. So don't try to say
> that "nobody does that". They do.
If that's true and you actually keep track of the serial numbers of every bill that enters your possession (and I don't believe you do), then you're one of maybe three people out of 300+ million who does that and the other two are mentally ill obsessive-compulsives. Hardly a statistically significant number. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people never even look at the serial numbers on the bills in their wallet. Hence the law considers cash in general fungible.
> It also sounds like you're saying it's only illegal to steal things
> that "have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of
> purchase".
If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're not paying attention or you have a comprehension problem. I clearly said that taking a found $20 bill isn't stealing at all because all states have laws that say it's not stealing.
> > Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> So, since you say it's not stealing, there's no reason to reason
> to cite the actual law that says so, huh? Kind of a self-fulfilling
> argument. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Since this is a matter of state law, there's no such thing as "the" law. There are 50 different variations on this particular type of law. But I'll be happy to cite one state's law as an example. From the state of Oregon:
98.005 Rights and duties of finder of money or goods.
(1) If any person finds money or goods valued at $100 or more, and if the owner of the money or goods is unknown, such person, within 10 days after the date of the finding, shall give notice of the finding in writing to the county clerk of the county in which the money or goods was found. Within 20 days after the date of the finding, the finder of the money or goods shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county a notice of the finding once each week for two consecutive weeks. Each such notice shall state the general description of the money or goods found, the name and address of the finder and final date before which such goods may be claimed.
(2) If no person appears and establishes ownership of the money or goods prior to the expiration of three months after the date of the notice to the county clerk under subsection (1) of this section, the finder shall be the owner of the money or goods.
> > ...what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you.
> > Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to
> > society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> And when you want my opinion, you'll give it to me, right?
Wow, you're one angry little man, aren'tcha?
And just so you know, you're opinion here is irrelevant. When it comes to the issue of stealing, only what the applicable law says is relevant.
> You may not like it when someone expresses an opinion
> contrary to yours, but you know what? That's tough. You
> see, we've got this little thing called the US Constitution
> and the very first amendment to it gives me the right to
> express an opinion whether you like it or not.
Again, opinions are irrelevant. You're not expressing an opinion contrary to mine. You're expressing an opinion contrary to the law. You're free to do so, of course, but insisting on doing so only makes you look idiotic. That's the great thing about that 1st Amendment you mentioned: it gives guys like you all the rope you need to verbally hang yourself.
> > Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods
> > in your city to see which areas have the highest incident
> > of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's
> > where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who
> > are stealing everyone else's cars.
> An then you go to the prisons and see what color of people
> are mostly there and target people of that color too, huh?
Wow. You're really pulling out all the stops here. A perfect example of a strawman argument emerges in full flower. You make up something I've done out of thin air, then condemn me for it.
Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
> "Only a moron" would apply the same enforcement effort
> to all races "due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky fairness".
Who said anything about race here? You're the only one who has brought up race in this discussion. That in and of itself is rather telling.
Nevertheless, I always get a good chuckle from guys like you. You would actually rather the police do nothing about a rash of vehicle thefts if they occur in certain neighborhoods because of the race of the residents who live there. In reality, all you're doing is penalizing the law-abiding citizens who live in those neighborhoods, leaving them open to be preyed upon by the lawless, all because of their race, and you'd go home feeling good about yourself for doing so. Who's the *real* racist here? Hint: it ain't me.
It is, but this isn't stealing. All states have laws regarding found money. Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of purchase), the law says that found money under a certain amount can be kept by the one who finds it. Over that amount and it must be turned in to the local police who will hold it for a prescribed period of time, during which the finder must publish a notice in the local paper and give an opportunity for someone to come forward and claim it (if they can prove it's theirs). If no one does, then the finder can keep that money as well. The amounts and details vary from state to state but that's generally how it works.
> Now I know you claim to be some kind of fed,
> so could you please cite the federal law that
> would make stealing that money legal despite
> varying local laws?
Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> I even remember one case where an armored truck
> was in an accident and money was blowing around
> in the streets and the cops were warning people
> not to steal it, even if it made it to the sidewalk.
In that case, the owner of money was readily identifiable, even though the money was blowing around loose. Not quite the same as found money, which would make the law regarding found money inapplicable.
> Just goes to show, you should never leave home
> without a lawyer, I suppose.
Indeed. A lawyer would be able to explain to you the difference in the two situations, just as I did above.
> > Nonsense. Legally...
> I wasn't speaking legally, which is why i said
> "it seems to me".
Well, since only the law matters to the rest of us, what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you. Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> I still say that if you have to use "bait",
> then it's a "trap", despite any legal fiction
> nonsense to the contrary.
If your bait only traps those who are breaking the law, then who cares? As long as no innocents get trapped, then it's fine with me. With a bait car, there's no chance an innocent person will get into someone else's car, start it up, and drive off with it. There's zero chance that anyone but a car thief will do such a thing.
> > In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
> Some people call it "profiling".
Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods in your city to see which areas have the highest incident of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who are stealing everyone else's cars. Only a moron would go leave the bait car in an area of town with no reported car thefts due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky "fairness". (And then probably wonder why he didn't catch any bad guys.) That would be a ridiculous waste of time and public resources.
> That seems kind of like leaving a $20 bill laying on the sidewalk
> and waiting for someone to take it.
The difference is that if you find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, you *can* take it. It's not a crime to do so. There are no circumstances where it's okay to take a car merely because the owner forgot to lock it or left the keys in the ignition.
> Yes, it's still theft, but it seems to me the use of "bait" really
> marks it as a "trap" and thus qualifies it as "entrapment".
Nonsense. Legally, entrapment only occurs when law enforcement creates a situation which induces the defendant to do something illegal that they were not already predisposed to do. If you're jumping into cars that don't belong to you and driving off with them merely because the windows or down or the keys are visible, then you're already predisposed to being a car thief. Hence no entrapment.
> I've also noticed that they always seem to pick less affluent neighborhoods as their targets.
No shit. The affluent don't go around stealing other people's cars. That's how they get to be affluent and not incarcerated.
In reality, they don't pick neighborhoods based on affluence or lack thereof. They pick neighborhoods that already have a high rate of vehicle theft. You go where the bad guys are. In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
> While effective in helping to catch this guy,
> you still have to wonder about the safety of
> remotely stopping a car like that.
Can't be any less safe than chasing the car at high speed.
The car is gonna stop eventually, one way or another. Whether it's a gradual slowdown by a remotely activated trigger or a high speed impact with a car full of innocent motorists is the question.
However, I would have a problem with the government making such a device mandatory on all vehicles with their hands on the kill switch. The potential for abuse is wide-ranging.
> Clearly this is a violation of the Forth Amendment under
> unreasonable search and seizure of private data contained
> in the United States Constitution.
No, it's not.
First of all, this is a Canadian law affecting Canadian citizens. The US Constitution is entirely irrelevant and inapplicable.
Second, even if this law were being proposed in the USA, it's still not a violation of the 4th Amendment, since that amendment only prohibits the *government* from searching you and your things without a warrant supported by probable cause. A private corporation searching your computer via spyware/DRM is not the government, hence the 4th Amendment does not apply.
It's still a ridiculous breach of privacy and should be prosecuted under current computer intrusion laws (because let's face it, if I installed spyware on *their* machines, they'd have a shrieking meltdown and press every chagre against me they could think of). The law is law and it should apply equally to everyone. If they think they have the right to hack into and spy on my computer than I should be able to do the same to them. If they think that should be prohibited and illegal, then they should go to jail for doing it to me.
Such a contractual clause won't solve the studio's "problem" at all. So you write in a clause that bans Susie Actress from tweeting about her show. She's still going to talk about it at home with family and friends and they can tweet about it all they like. They're not subject to Susie's contract. This is a perfect workaround for actors and writers like Susie who might want to publicize something via social media but who find themselves hampered by their contracts.
RSS
Twitter
Quotes (as btr1701)
Funny how he thinks everyone needs his permission to quote his father but I somehow doubt he obtained permission to quote ee cummings and LBJ, as he did in his "copyright notice".
He's apparently another one of thise "copyright is for everyone else, not me" types.
Democracy (as btr1701)
> that method can result in discrimination because
> whatever group constitutes the majority of
> voters can dominate the ballot box
Yeah, heaven forbid the majority of the voters have their say in a democracy.
Re: Re: Re: The last absolute dictatorship... (as btr1701)
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session
Also, unless they basically confiscate all mobile devices from everyone as they enter the courtroom and hold anyone in contempt who is found using them for any reason ("broadcast" or otherwise), there's no way to enforce a Twitter ban among the non-participants in the gallery.
If I'm there just watching the trial and I Twitter something during the proceedings, at the end of the day, I'm walking away from the court and probably never coming back. By the time the judge becomes aware of my tweet, I'm long gone. He really has no remedy to punish such people like he would with the jurors or the litigants in the case, especially considering many people Twitter under anonymous screen names anyway.
What's the judge going to do? Serve subpoenas on an out-of-state corporation, demanding IP address data, then serve more subpoenas on ISPs (also likely out-of-state) to get subscriber info, then swear out an arrest warrant and spend police resources tracking down that person and having them arrested and charged with contempt... all for a Twitter post?
Any judge that takes that kind of heavy-handed, costly, and abusive approach to enforcing something which isn't even a violation of the law, but rather merely a violation of the judge's personal preferences, would likely find him/herself on the wrong end of an ethics investigation in short order.
Re: Re: Re: The last absolute dictatorship... (as btr1701)
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session.
Of course that standard would make even sending an e-mail to your spouse a "broadcast", which negates even the basic common-sense definition of the word.
Re: The last absolute dictatorship... (as btr1701)
> and Twitter is a broadcast - albeit relatively crude
If Twitter is broadcast, then posting anything to the internet is a broadcast. If a person in the gallery watching the trial decided to check TechDirt during a lull in the action and posted a comment about one of the articles here, would that be a broadcast also?
Re: Hmmm (as btr1701)
> even our constitution does not declare FREE
> and ANONYMOUS speech.
No, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to speak anonymously is implicit in the concept of free speech and hence is covered by the 1st Amendment.
Re: Re: laws on the intarwebs (as btr1701)
> and they can prove that somebody in the UK
> read your statement, it is considered "published"
> and they can take you to court.
They can take me to court, they can even get a default judgment when I completely ignore them and don't show up, but good luck collecting on that judgment from me if I'm not in the UK.
They'd have to apply to an American court to have the judgment enforced and the American court will determine whether such a sanction is valid under American law. If the comment was made by an American citizen, in America, then the 1st Amendment is in full effect and if the libel laws in the UK sanction speech which would be protected in America, then the American court will refuse to enforce the judgment.
It's the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
Re: Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> 1) Without the questions, why bother?
That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.
There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".
> Perhaps maybe because they are already in the
> business of selling answer books?
So? Now they have competition. It's called capitalism. Something we used to embrace in this country.
> Perhaps because they don't want answer books
> out there to make it easier for students to
> cheat in school?
Perhaps that is indeed what they want. However, such concerns are irrelevant to copyright law. Using copyright to further the desire of a book company to keep kids from cheating isn't legally justified anywhere in the U.S. Code.
Just because a company wants something doesn't mean they have the legal right to enforce their desires on the rest of us using copyright (or anything else, for that matter). Unless the law specifically provides for it (and copyright does not provide for prevention of cheating by school students), the desires of the company are moot.
Re: Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> 1) Without the questions, why bother?
That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.
There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".
Re: Ads (as btr1701)
> There is no money in piping US ads and
> bandwidth to countries around the world.
Sure there is. You just don't use the same ads. The system is already detecting the user's location. Just ad one more step. If the user is in the USA, they get a Coke ad. If they're in Britain, they get an ad for BBC News or whatever. If they're in Russia, they get an ad for a Russian mobile phone company. If they're in Australia, they get an ad for vegemite.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Jurisdiction (as btr1701)
> Of course, the state of Kentucky probably
> couldn't care much less about what a court
> in England thinks
Which I'm sure will also be the attitude of the British courts toward Kentucky, should they try and seize a domain name belonging to a British citizen in the UK.
If Kentucky thinks it can ignore the rulings of a British court on a matter concerning British citizens in Britain, I'm not sure why they think anyone's going to give two flips what the Kentucky Supreme Court says about it.
Marketing (as btr1701)
> On personal property, if someone puts up a "guerilla
> marketing" sign, shouldn't that be their right?
In America it would be. Even the Olympics and their lobbyists can't trump the 1st Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars (as btr1701)
> > Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone
> > to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which
> > are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers
> > and proofs of purchase)...
> You might want to check yours, but the last time I looked at
> any of my dollar bills they all have serial numbers. What's more,
> during part of my military training I actually had to keep track
> of all my money, including serial numbers. So don't try to say
> that "nobody does that". They do.
If that's true and you actually keep track of the serial numbers of every bill that enters your possession (and I don't believe you do), then you're one of maybe three people out of 300+ million who does that and the other two are mentally ill obsessive-compulsives. Hardly a statistically significant number. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people never even look at the serial numbers on the bills in their wallet. Hence the law considers cash in general fungible.
> It also sounds like you're saying it's only illegal to steal things
> that "have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of
> purchase".
If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're not paying attention or you have a comprehension problem. I clearly said that taking a found $20 bill isn't stealing at all because all states have laws that say it's not stealing.
> > Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> So, since you say it's not stealing, there's no reason to reason
> to cite the actual law that says so, huh? Kind of a self-fulfilling
> argument. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Since this is a matter of state law, there's no such thing as "the" law. There are 50 different variations on this particular type of law. But I'll be happy to cite one state's law as an example. From the state of Oregon:
OREGON REVISED STATUTES - Chapter 98 — Lost, Unordered and Unclaimed Property; Unlawfully Parked Vehicles
98.005 Rights and duties of finder of money or goods.
(1) If any person finds money or goods valued at $100 or more, and if the owner of the money or goods is unknown, such person, within 10 days after the date of the finding, shall give notice of the finding in writing to the county clerk of the county in which the money or goods was found. Within 20 days after the date of the finding, the finder of the money or goods shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county a notice of the finding once each week for two consecutive weeks. Each such notice shall state the general description of the money or goods found, the name and address of the finder and final date before which such goods may be claimed.
(2) If no person appears and establishes ownership of the money or goods prior to the expiration of three months after the date of the notice to the county clerk under subsection (1) of this section, the finder shall be the owner of the money or goods.
> > ...what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you.
> > Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to
> > society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> And when you want my opinion, you'll give it to me, right?
Wow, you're one angry little man, aren'tcha?
And just so you know, you're opinion here is irrelevant. When it comes to the issue of stealing, only what the applicable law says is relevant.
> You may not like it when someone expresses an opinion
> contrary to yours, but you know what? That's tough. You
> see, we've got this little thing called the US Constitution
> and the very first amendment to it gives me the right to
> express an opinion whether you like it or not.
Again, opinions are irrelevant. You're not expressing an opinion contrary to mine. You're expressing an opinion contrary to the law. You're free to do so, of course, but insisting on doing so only makes you look idiotic. That's the great thing about that 1st Amendment you mentioned: it gives guys like you all the rope you need to verbally hang yourself.
> > Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods
> > in your city to see which areas have the highest incident
> > of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's
> > where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who
> > are stealing everyone else's cars.
> An then you go to the prisons and see what color of people
> are mostly there and target people of that color too, huh?
Wow. You're really pulling out all the stops here. A perfect example of a strawman argument emerges in full flower. You make up something I've done out of thin air, then condemn me for it.
Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
> "Only a moron" would apply the same enforcement effort
> to all races "due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky fairness".
Who said anything about race here? You're the only one who has brought up race in this discussion. That in and of itself is rather telling.
Nevertheless, I always get a good chuckle from guys like you. You would actually rather the police do nothing about a rash of vehicle thefts if they occur in certain neighborhoods because of the race of the residents who live there. In reality, all you're doing is penalizing the law-abiding citizens who live in those neighborhoods, leaving them open to be preyed upon by the lawless, all because of their race, and you'd go home feeling good about yourself for doing so. Who's the *real* racist here? Hint: it ain't me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars (as btr1701)
> Strange, I thought stealing money was illegal.
It is, but this isn't stealing. All states have laws regarding found money. Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of purchase), the law says that found money under a certain amount can be kept by the one who finds it. Over that amount and it must be turned in to the local police who will hold it for a prescribed period of time, during which the finder must publish a notice in the local paper and give an opportunity for someone to come forward and claim it (if they can prove it's theirs). If no one does, then the finder can keep that money as well. The amounts and details vary from state to state but that's generally how it works.
> Now I know you claim to be some kind of fed,
> so could you please cite the federal law that
> would make stealing that money legal despite
> varying local laws?
Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> I even remember one case where an armored truck
> was in an accident and money was blowing around
> in the streets and the cops were warning people
> not to steal it, even if it made it to the sidewalk.
In that case, the owner of money was readily identifiable, even though the money was blowing around loose. Not quite the same as found money, which would make the law regarding found money inapplicable.
> Just goes to show, you should never leave home
> without a lawyer, I suppose.
Indeed. A lawyer would be able to explain to you the difference in the two situations, just as I did above.
> > Nonsense. Legally...
> I wasn't speaking legally, which is why i said
> "it seems to me".
Well, since only the law matters to the rest of us, what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you. Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> I still say that if you have to use "bait",
> then it's a "trap", despite any legal fiction
> nonsense to the contrary.
If your bait only traps those who are breaking the law, then who cares? As long as no innocents get trapped, then it's fine with me. With a bait car, there's no chance an innocent person will get into someone else's car, start it up, and drive off with it. There's zero chance that anyone but a car thief will do such a thing.
> > In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
> Some people call it "profiling".
Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods in your city to see which areas have the highest incident of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who are stealing everyone else's cars. Only a moron would go leave the bait car in an area of town with no reported car thefts due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky "fairness". (And then probably wonder why he didn't catch any bad guys.) That would be a ridiculous waste of time and public resources.
Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars (as btr1701)
> That seems kind of like leaving a $20 bill laying on the sidewalk
> and waiting for someone to take it.
The difference is that if you find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, you *can* take it. It's not a crime to do so. There are no circumstances where it's okay to take a car merely because the owner forgot to lock it or left the keys in the ignition.
> Yes, it's still theft, but it seems to me the use of "bait" really
> marks it as a "trap" and thus qualifies it as "entrapment".
Nonsense. Legally, entrapment only occurs when law enforcement creates a situation which induces the defendant to do something illegal that they were not already predisposed to do. If you're jumping into cars that don't belong to you and driving off with them merely because the windows or down or the keys are visible, then you're already predisposed to being a car thief. Hence no entrapment.
> I've also noticed that they always seem to pick less affluent neighborhoods as their targets.
No shit. The affluent don't go around stealing other people's cars. That's how they get to be affluent and not incarcerated.
In reality, they don't pick neighborhoods based on affluence or lack thereof. They pick neighborhoods that already have a high rate of vehicle theft. You go where the bad guys are. In law enforcement that's what we call a clue.
Re: (as btr1701)
> If that was some sort of reference that's supposed
> to be descernable, it wasn't.
Sure it was. Easily identifiable. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It was even parodied just this week on an episode of the sitcom "Big Bang Theory".
Stopping (as btr1701)
> While effective in helping to catch this guy,
> you still have to wonder about the safety of
> remotely stopping a car like that.
Can't be any less safe than chasing the car at high speed.
The car is gonna stop eventually, one way or another. Whether it's a gradual slowdown by a remotely activated trigger or a high speed impact with a car full of innocent motorists is the question.
However, I would have a problem with the government making such a device mandatory on all vehicles with their hands on the kill switch. The potential for abuse is wide-ranging.
Re: I promise you (as btr1701)
> Clearly this is a violation of the Forth Amendment under
> unreasonable search and seizure of private data contained
> in the United States Constitution.
No, it's not.
First of all, this is a Canadian law affecting Canadian citizens. The US Constitution is entirely irrelevant and inapplicable.
Second, even if this law were being proposed in the USA, it's still not a violation of the 4th Amendment, since that amendment only prohibits the *government* from searching you and your things without a warrant supported by probable cause. A private corporation searching your computer via spyware/DRM is not the government, hence the 4th Amendment does not apply.
It's still a ridiculous breach of privacy and should be prosecuted under current computer intrusion laws (because let's face it, if I installed spyware on *their* machines, they'd have a shrieking meltdown and press every chagre against me they could think of). The law is law and it should apply equally to everyone. If they think they have the right to hack into and spy on my computer than I should be able to do the same to them. If they think that should be prohibited and illegal, then they should go to jail for doing it to me.
Unenforceable (as btr1701)
Such a contractual clause won't solve the studio's "problem" at all. So you write in a clause that bans Susie Actress from tweeting about her show. She's still going to talk about it at home with family and friends and they can tweet about it all they like. They're not subject to Susie's contract. This is a perfect workaround for actors and writers like Susie who might want to publicize something via social media but who find themselves hampered by their contracts.
Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> I'd like to point out that millions of women are stalked and harassed every day
I'd like to point out that stalking isn't a female-only crime. Quite a few men are victims as well.