Slashdot Mirror

For example, ear plugs in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is against the law.

Thanks, I didn't know this was an offense. I use the ear buds to stop the wind deafening me when I drive with the windows open. I know it's an indulgent pleasure however I like fresh air and being able to hear.

Looks like we are all be held to the capabilities of those most easily distracted.

For example, ear plugs in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is against the law.

It's illegal in California, which is no surprise because everything there is illegal and is known to cause cancer.

https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/headsets/

Oh look, it isn't illegal where I live.

Pretty sure in many jurisdiction, simply wearing ear plugs is against the law while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, and by logical extension, shoving ear buds in your ears reduces your ability to hear what is going on around you.

That the ear buds had a wire, that the wire was plugged into a phone and that the phone had no charge are nothing more than interesting facts. For example, ear plugs in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is against the law.

Yep, the law states clearly that at least one ear needs to be unobstructed to hear traffic.I wish I'd see the cops around here enforce it more and see the earbud ads stop showing people driving with them on in the first place.

That this clearly delusional ruling didn't come from an American judge, it came from one in Canada.

In America, less legal gymnastics would be required to convict the driver - for example, in California it is illegal to have ear buds in both ears while driving. Period. No need to dig up obscure precedents, infer anything, the law is crystal clear.

Apparently in Canada it is legal to wear earbuds in both ears while driving, good to know.

Pretty sure in many jurisdiction, simply wearing ear plugs is against the law while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, and by logical extension, shoving ear buds in your ears reduces your ability to hear what is going on around you.

That the ear buds had a wire, that the wire was plugged into a phone and that the phone had no charge are nothing more than interesting facts. For example, ear plugs in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is against the law.

Actually, I do.
https://www.shouselaw.com/neva...

In Nevada, this falls under "Intrusion Upon Seclusion", and on the surface appears to meet all the requirements thereof. But again, IANAL, so what do I know?

Go read this, maybe you'll understand why you're off your rocker: http://www.shouselaw.com/crimi...

You have to prove that you've been "intimidated" or "threatened" in a way that comports with California's definition of a criminal threat.

Simply saying, "I know, because you've told us endlessly where you live, what floor plan your apartment has," is not a specific threat against you. Therefore the person cannot be in violation of S422.6, because there is no "force or threat of force" being used to "willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person."

If there is no threat, then you have no case. Simply stating public information about you is not a threat.

He needs to sue for violation of his civil rights.

He wasn't fired because of his race or gender. He was fired because of his opinions. Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.

LOL Time for you to turn right to work bill.

http://www.shouselaw.com/emplo...

California has laws protecting employees for being fired over their opinions.

You also aren't permitted to carry more than a small pocket knife unless you have a good reason

This is also true in America. Carrying a concealed knife is illegal in California. California bans some types of knives entirely, such as a knife that is balanced and can be thrown, so even having a knife in your kitchen is illegal unless it is asymmetrical.

But it's abundantly clear that the players did all of this with the intent to trick the casino. They didn't do it out of some superstitious belief that it would help them win. They did it knowing it would help them win. And that's not allowed.

Why not? The casino agreed to do it.

It's not allowed because it's illegal.

It doesn't matter if the casino or the law don't realize what they did until later.

So, I was curious about this, and did a little digging. For reference:

The elements of California extortion are:

        The defendant threatened to do one of the following to the alleged "victim":

                a. Unlawfully injure or use force against him/her, a third party, or his/her property,
                b. Accuse him/her or a relative or family member of a crime, OR
                c. Expose a secret involving him/her or a family member, or connect any of them with some kind of crime, disgrace, or scandal;

        When making the threat or using force, the defendant intended to force the "victim" into consenting to give him/her money or property or to do an official act;
        As a result of the threat, the "victim" did consent to give the defendant money or property or do an official act; AND
        The "victim" then actually did give the defendant money or property or perform the official act.

So the exchange of the ransom is required to meet California's legal definition of "extortion". Naturally, most professionally run IT shops or prudent individuals will have backups and may not pay the ransom, but the damage still may be substantial simply due to lost time and productivity. This new law creates a specific exception for ransomware, making the deployment of it a crime equivalant to extorsion, regardless of whether or not a ransom payment is made. From the text of the bill itself:

This bill would define ransomware as... [describes ransomware]... The bill would provide that a person who, with intent to extort money or other consideration from another, introduces ransomware into any computer, computer system, or computer network is punishable as if that money or other consideration were actually obtained by means of the ransomware...

Given this information, it appears that unpaid ransomware attacks were NOT considered "extortion" under California law. This new law provides both a legal definition for ransomware (must have gotten some help from a competent IT person here), and closes that loophole... which, btw, seems like sort of a terrible loophole for extortion as well, but whatever.

We see further evidence of this in the first sections of the bill, which pretty much seems designed to shut down this loophole:

523. (a) Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519 is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.
(b) (1) Every person who, with intent to extort money or other consideration from another, introduces ransomware into any computer, computer system, or computer network is punishable pursuant to Section 520 in the same manner as if such money or other consideration were actually obtained by means of the ransomware.
(2) Prosecution pursuant to this subdivision does not prohibit or limit prosecution under any other law.

TLDR version: This law was needed due to the peculiarities of California's extortion laws.

Is it a crime to carry a crowbar and a bag of jewelry at night while wearing a black ski mask while a house alarm can be heard from down the street?

In many places it is illegal to be wearing a mask in public in general. See: Anti-mask laws

Also it is illegal to carry "burglary tools" as well in many jurisdictions, see:
Possession of Burglary Tools

Possession of stolen property is also a crime too.

Combine those three right there with an alarm going off you've got full on reasonable suspicion right there.

Well here's a link *from a lawyer* about it being perjury in California. Anything else that I can Google for you? http://www.shouselaw.com/perju...

From what I can see the problem here is we want to talk about "the law" when no such thing exists. There are many laws in many places; and I think we are all (or most) tripping over that fact when we try to discuss it.

For example.... Wikipedia reports that US Federal law defines blackmail only in terms of information about crime. That is, its only blackmail if the information that is threatened to reveal or keep hidden is information about a criminal act. So this....is not blackmail.

However, Brittish law, makes no such distinction and defines such a demand as blackmail any time that the person making the demand has reason to expect he has a right to benefit. So, if I find out you are bisexual, and demand you pay me to keep that hidden, that is blackmail, even though it wouldn't be under US federal law....

Then there are 50 states, each of which likely have their own, independently written and approved, definitions. What is it for California? Well Blackmail and Extortion are covered under one statute (no I am still not a lawyer, I just looked it up): http://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html

A quick skim shows this "Expose a secret involving him/her or a family member, or connect any of them with some kind of crime, disgrace, or scandal;" under "extortion by threat of force".

Notice it is "expose a secret...OR connect any of them with some kind of crime". So it looks to me like my assessment stays the same, the mug shots might actually be illegal.

Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like). You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever.

Thank you for being a pedantic asshole and making my very point for me. If you're handling a gun in public people are going to think you are brandishing it, no matter what you are doing. That's my point. I did not mean to say that you would actually have to wave it in a menacing manner. The gun itself will menace people. Just because the literal definition says "shake or wave" does not mean that you have to literally shake or wave the weapon for people to consider it brandishing. In fact, allow me refer you to California Penal Code 417 which considers any of the following to be "brandishing": drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon

But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.

The app is theoretically to report instances of unsafe gun handling. If you're a range officer, and you allow unsafe handling in your range, you might want to look for a new job. I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.

With 97% of federal cases ending in plea bargain and again over 90% of the rest being won by the prosecution, you comment strikes me as a bit naive.

And of cause does the US have a "hooliganism" law, for example in California http://www.shouselaw.com/disturbing-peace.html#overview .

I think you need to actually review a lot of the understanding you are basing your comment on...

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

CAL. PEN. CODE 485 : California Code - Section 485

http://www.shouselaw.com/appropriation-lost-property.html

Accept : The reason the 18 year old was arrested is because the Police had reason to believe he stole the property.

Reality : The stolen goods were unknowingly sold. The police had a reason to believe the person stole the goods themselves and were attempting to sell them.

Douchebag : See REALITY.

You're an arrogant, uncivilized bully that has to resort to an equivalent of "Yahoo answers" as evidence to back yourself up. The only disservice to / . is your presence.

Keyword : It is illegal to Knowingly purchase stolen property.

Quod

Erat

Demonstrandum