I do agree that they should be monitored, but as a legal principle, unless they have prior convictions, they are just accused.
Note how frequently, we allow the accused to bail out if they have the means to do so. Why should having a stack of cash handy be the criterion for release until trial? Does having a stack of cash (possibly due to criminal acts) really make a person magically less dangerous? Note especially when being held for trial is used as a lever to coerce a plea bargain, especially when the bargain will get the accused out with time served. Surely in such a case no argument that letting the accused out awaiting trial is dangerous since the prosecution contemplates letting them out immediately if they plead guilty.
You may be replying to the wrong person. I am in favor of limiting the device capabilities and removing the ability to listen without a positive action from the wearer. Not just an administrative prohibition, but in the device itself.
In the case of children, the consent has to come from the parents (who obviously DO consent to the baby monitor). These are not cases where parental rights have been terminated.
And as Link said, those around the child have not consented either.
Innocent people don't belong in jail. That practice was always questionable. What's wrong with a GPS tracker that rings like a phone but doesn't engage the microphone until the wearer presses a button to answer? Or just a GPS tracker?
So you'll feel the same way if he walks past you and a friend having a conversation and his device records you without your consent?
Consider, they could just track him and have it ring like a phone when an officer wants to talk to him. He could be required to acknowledge that with a button that enables the microphone. It could even allow the speaker to work without the microphone.
If the Constitution is anything but fancy toilet paper, the kid remains innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. People around him may not even be suspected of a crime.
The ones on probation can be considered guilty, but the ones awaiting trial cannot be presumed guilty. Further, Illinois law requires the consent of ALL parties being listened in on. It is entirely possible the kid is talking to someone who has never even been accused of a crime who has no opportunity to consent or decline, making the listening or recording illegal.
Then, possibly less than a year after the thing hits the shelves, the company loses interest and you're just out over $100 because they've been "discontinued".
You tried to export a toxic work culture to a place where people don't have to put up with it. They didn't put up with it.
From their perspective, they tried to tell you there was no need to hit yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer. For unfathomable reasons you bought a new hammer and hit yourself in the head with it repeatedly.
So you're saying we need a wall to stop those no-good illegal chickens from crossing the border? The chickens tend to be smuggled in through legal ports of entry. It's hard to herd chickens across the desert.
People bringing in drug resistant TB fly in, It is most prevalent in South Africa and the former Soviet Union (others say China and India rather than South Africa). A wall won't help that either.
Likewise, since Measles was imported from Israel, Ukraine, and the Philippines, it flew in and a wall wouldn't help. Goof healthcare and free measles vaccines would be more helpful.
What will help is if we quit wasting time and money on legally questionable cell phone searches, don't start wasting money on a wall, and instead spend it on better searches for smuggled chickens and health screenings.
Some breathalyzers mis-read the ketones as alcohol. To the point that there are videos showing how to use a cheap breathalyzer to monitor your progress if you're on a "keto diet"
The ketones appear any time fats are being converted for energy, diabetic or not. If a diabetic injects late or not quite enough, the ketones appear even when they're not in metabolic trouble. It does become more pronounced when they are in metabolic trouble, but well before more overt signs appear.
So expect incidents where a diabetic can't drive to get replacement insulin because the car thinks he's drunk.
So you think it's fine that the vast majority of safe drivers including people who don't drink at all have to pay an extra thousand dollars on a non-optional device that reduces their new car's reliability? And they get to pay outrageous repair costs as well when the device inevitably prevents a totally sober driver from starting the car?
Perhaps, perhaps not. For all we know, his parants expect that the internet famous might last another year or so, and let the kid pull in another 200K. If he's doing online school (read as assisted home school) he won't be that far behind if any and he'll have a nice no strings $400,000 scholarship ready for him.
Not necessarily. Some diseases show few signs at first until the suffer suddenly decompensates. That is, it appears to come on suddenly when it's actually been at a slow boil for some time, then it crosses a threshold.
Not quite. Hotels may have cameras in the parts you're not renting (the public spaces), such as the lobby and dining room. If you're renting the whole house, then the whole house is the private space.
It's primarily "trucks" marketed to be used in the same role as a car. Most trucks are not driven as trucks since that might scratch the paint or dent the bed.
In other words, Congress decided that regulation was evil because no private corporation would put profit first and now hundreds are dead and the short term profits are being paid for in long term losses
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree that they should be monitored, but as a legal principle, unless they have prior convictions, they are just accused.
Note how frequently, we allow the accused to bail out if they have the means to do so. Why should having a stack of cash handy be the criterion for release until trial? Does having a stack of cash (possibly due to criminal acts) really make a person magically less dangerous? Note especially when being held for trial is used as a lever to coerce a plea bargain, especially when the bargain will get the accused out with time served. Surely in such a case no argument that letting the accused out awaiting trial is dangerous since the prosecution contemplates letting them out immediately if they plead guilty.
You may be replying to the wrong person. I am in favor of limiting the device capabilities and removing the ability to listen without a positive action from the wearer. Not just an administrative prohibition, but in the device itself.
In the case of children, the consent has to come from the parents (who obviously DO consent to the baby monitor). These are not cases where parental rights have been terminated.
And as Link said, those around the child have not consented either.
Innocent people don't belong in jail. That practice was always questionable. What's wrong with a GPS tracker that rings like a phone but doesn't engage the microphone until the wearer presses a button to answer? Or just a GPS tracker?
So you'll feel the same way if he walks past you and a friend having a conversation and his device records you without your consent?
Consider, they could just track him and have it ring like a phone when an officer wants to talk to him. He could be required to acknowledge that with a button that enables the microphone. It could even allow the speaker to work without the microphone.
If the Constitution is anything but fancy toilet paper, the kid remains innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. People around him may not even be suspected of a crime.
The ones on probation can be considered guilty, but the ones awaiting trial cannot be presumed guilty. Further, Illinois law requires the consent of ALL parties being listened in on. It is entirely possible the kid is talking to someone who has never even been accused of a crime who has no opportunity to consent or decline, making the listening or recording illegal.
Then, possibly less than a year after the thing hits the shelves, the company loses interest and you're just out over $100 because they've been "discontinued".
The people are under no moral obligation to allow a corporation to exist at all. Act in the public interest or go POOF.
Fair enough.
You tried to export a toxic work culture to a place where people don't have to put up with it. They didn't put up with it.
From their perspective, they tried to tell you there was no need to hit yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer. For unfathomable reasons you bought a new hammer and hit yourself in the head with it repeatedly.
Keep in mind, for every method to take an account back, there is a corresponding method to fraudulently take over someone's account.
It wouldn't be that hard to have a friend help you to take over a 3rd party's account.
Virulent Newcastle Disease
So you're saying we need a wall to stop those no-good illegal chickens from crossing the border? The chickens tend to be smuggled in through legal ports of entry. It's hard to herd chickens across the desert.
People bringing in drug resistant TB fly in, It is most prevalent in South Africa and the former Soviet Union (others say China and India rather than South Africa). A wall won't help that either.
Likewise, since Measles was imported from Israel, Ukraine, and the Philippines, it flew in and a wall wouldn't help. Goof healthcare and free measles vaccines would be more helpful.
What will help is if we quit wasting time and money on legally questionable cell phone searches, don't start wasting money on a wall, and instead spend it on better searches for smuggled chickens and health screenings.
Some breathalyzers mis-read the ketones as alcohol. To the point that there are videos showing how to use a cheap breathalyzer to monitor your progress if you're on a "keto diet"
The ketones appear any time fats are being converted for energy, diabetic or not. If a diabetic injects late or not quite enough, the ketones appear even when they're not in metabolic trouble. It does become more pronounced when they are in metabolic trouble, but well before more overt signs appear.
So expect incidents where a diabetic can't drive to get replacement insulin because the car thinks he's drunk.
So you think it's fine that the vast majority of safe drivers including people who don't drink at all have to pay an extra thousand dollars on a non-optional device that reduces their new car's reliability? And they get to pay outrageous repair costs as well when the device inevitably prevents a totally sober driver from starting the car?
Perhaps, perhaps not. For all we know, his parants expect that the internet famous might last another year or so, and let the kid pull in another 200K. If he's doing online school (read as assisted home school) he won't be that far behind if any and he'll have a nice no strings $400,000 scholarship ready for him.
Given the quality of firmware on most TVs, I'm pretty sure they all feature a muppet that codes.
And likewise, someone with the biological markers may be affected at a level that won't be noticed as symptome except perhaps in retrospect.
Not necessarily. Some diseases show few signs at first until the suffer suddenly decompensates. That is, it appears to come on suddenly when it's actually been at a slow boil for some time, then it crosses a threshold.
At LEAST read TF Summary:
the family tracked down the camera, concealed in what appeared to be a smoke alarm or carbon monoxide detector
Not quite. Hotels may have cameras in the parts you're not renting (the public spaces), such as the lobby and dining room. If you're renting the whole house, then the whole house is the private space.
It's primarily "trucks" marketed to be used in the same role as a car. Most trucks are not driven as trucks since that might scratch the paint or dent the bed.
So are you complaining that the EU IS beginning proceedings or that it is NOT?
Not really, the EU is taking care of it's jurisdiction and leaving the U.S. to deal with (or not) it's own.
If only I had mod points. ^mod parent up^
In other words, Congress decided that regulation was evil because no private corporation would put profit first and now hundreds are dead and the short term profits are being paid for in long term losses