Don't get me wrong. Invading privacy is a SERIOUS matter and I would happily attempt to sue the security company or press charges if I could, were I in her situation.
My point, however, was that barring direction or encouragement or will on the part of the police, they are not at fault for what a third party chooses to do of its own free will, and accordingly, should not be punished. To be blunt, don't punish the police for something the security company did.
Furthermore, there is no actionable quid pro quo if the police are doing things that the security company benefits from only incidentally.
The police, however, would have an obligation to act on any criminal conduct that was brought to their attention and over which they had jurisdiction. This includes both any evidence someone tosses their way, as well as any improprieties in how that evidence was gathered. They'd have to put the security company under an "invasion of privacy" microscope if the security company broke any criminal laws in the process of securing the evidence they turn in.
Failure to do so might well constitute consent from the state to continue whatever they did to get it, and if such was the case, said consent may be construed as creating an agency relationship, as acting on behalf of the police would be the only legal way to continue doing so if it would otherwise be criminal.
So I would look at whether or not the police knowingly tolerated a violation of criminal law by the security company in the process of gathering the evidence it chose to submit to the police.
As far as it being worse, I point out that, no matter how you find out, concealing a crime is usually itself a criminal offense. So if the security company, nosy as it was, found evidence of a crime, it would have been obligated to submit it to the police. It has also been well established that criminal actions are not entitled to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. So if a crime has indeed been committed, the security company is not liable for invading her privacy.
Note though that they actually have to be right. They are not themselves police, and therefore they are not protected by probable cause. Private parties have to actually be right.
You and I both agree that the security company had no right to snoop, and then unconditionally report to the police.
If she's innocent, the security company is on the hook for privacy invasion. If she's committed a crime, however, the security company is off the hook, since the commission of a criminal act causes her to lose standing to have an expectation of privacy.
The 4th amendment only stops the *state* (and police acting on their behalf) from snooping.
If someone else does the snooping you don't need a warrant.
Mind you that the police cannot *ask* someone to snoop for them, otherwise you create an agency relation that causes 4th amendment immunity to apply against whoever does the snooping.
At most the security company that peeked was guilty of invasion of privacy. Sharing it with the police, however, was not a crime, and if it turns out said photos implicate someone in a crime, the 4th amendment does not apply since the security company was not acting as an agent of the police.
I'm all for this if and only if all protocols are fully complied with.
HTTP gives plenty of leeway and in fact was designed with caching in mind. So long as the involved parties do not violate the protocol, I'm ok with it. Cache control directives must be honored, for example. No silent injection of random crap.
The DNS protocol must also be honored to the extent that deviations from same have not been expressly authorized. OpenDNS offers typo correction and filtering services on an opt-in basis. NXDOMAIN hijacking and whatnot is foul play.
Just don't fuck with the protocols, and you can do whatever you want.
the purpose of taxes is to supply public goods that a) everyone wants, b) nobody wants to pay for, and c) whose benefits cannot easily be denied to those who choose not to pay.
He should sue the police department and get an injunction forbidding them from retaining his tapes, or at least putting forth a legal excuse to hold the tapes.
Gamestop has every right to tamper with the product and mess with the contents as they please.
What they cannot do is then still claim it is new.
Removing contents is just an issue between them and Square Enix. The minute they fib to the consumer about it being brand new, however, they are committing fraud.
As long as they adhere to the law, Square Enix can sell whatever they damn please, and Gamestop is perfectly free to tell them where to stick it if they don't like the terms.
Gamestop is not, however, free to, covertly or otherwise, tamper with the product and then continue to represent it as new.
My guess is that this is all bluster and sabre rattling. I wouldn't be surprised if the elites involved have a gentleman's agreement not to fight over it.
It's outright fraud. Gamestop is representing something as an original product straight from the squeenix factory when it is not.
Also, what would happen if due to Gamestop's meddling, squeenix got accused of false advertising for promising something in the package that one of their retailers downstream decided to extract? If these products are being sold as new then Squeenix could get blamed for it.
Someone needs to go to jail for this, and if I were squeenix, I would sue gamestop.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong. Invading privacy is a SERIOUS matter and I would happily attempt to sue the security company or press charges if I could, were I in her situation.
My point, however, was that barring direction or encouragement or will on the part of the police, they are not at fault for what a third party chooses to do of its own free will, and accordingly, should not be punished. To be blunt, don't punish the police for something the security company did.
Furthermore, there is no actionable quid pro quo if the police are doing things that the security company benefits from only incidentally.
The police, however, would have an obligation to act on any criminal conduct that was brought to their attention and over which they had jurisdiction. This includes both any evidence someone tosses their way, as well as any improprieties in how that evidence was gathered. They'd have to put the security company under an "invasion of privacy" microscope if the security company broke any criminal laws in the process of securing the evidence they turn in.
Failure to do so might well constitute consent from the state to continue whatever they did to get it, and if such was the case, said consent may be construed as creating an agency relationship, as acting on behalf of the police would be the only legal way to continue doing so if it would otherwise be criminal.
So I would look at whether or not the police knowingly tolerated a violation of criminal law by the security company in the process of gathering the evidence it chose to submit to the police.
As far as it being worse, I point out that, no matter how you find out, concealing a crime is usually itself a criminal offense. So if the security company, nosy as it was, found evidence of a crime, it would have been obligated to submit it to the police. It has also been well established that criminal actions are not entitled to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. So if a crime has indeed been committed, the security company is not liable for invading her privacy.
Note though that they actually have to be right. They are not themselves police, and therefore they are not protected by probable cause. Private parties have to actually be right.
You and I both agree that the security company had no right to snoop, and then unconditionally report to the police.
If she's innocent, the security company is on the hook for privacy invasion. If she's committed a crime, however, the security company is off the hook, since the commission of a criminal act causes her to lose standing to have an expectation of privacy.
The 4th amendment only stops the *state* (and police acting on their behalf) from snooping.
If someone else does the snooping you don't need a warrant.
Mind you that the police cannot *ask* someone to snoop for them, otherwise you create an agency relation that causes 4th amendment immunity to apply against whoever does the snooping.
At most the security company that peeked was guilty of invasion of privacy. Sharing it with the police, however, was not a crime, and if it turns out said photos implicate someone in a crime, the 4th amendment does not apply since the security company was not acting as an agent of the police.
I'm all for this if and only if all protocols are fully complied with.
HTTP gives plenty of leeway and in fact was designed with caching in mind. So long as the involved parties do not violate the protocol, I'm ok with it. Cache control directives must be honored, for example. No silent injection of random crap.
The DNS protocol must also be honored to the extent that deviations from same have not been expressly authorized. OpenDNS offers typo correction and filtering services on an opt-in basis. NXDOMAIN hijacking and whatnot is foul play.
Just don't fuck with the protocols, and you can do whatever you want.
If by inspiration you mean subtle legal threats then you bet.
I think it's more fair to consider Oracle buying Sun vs someone else buying Sun, or even vs letting Sun get picked clean in a Chapter 7 liquidation.
It isn't so much what Wikileaks has to say, but the fact that Wikileaks has to be the one that says it.
No, that's fine.
If the copyright hasn't expired it can be extended indefinitely.
What is not right, however, is reinstating copyrights that have lapsed.
Clawing stuff back out of the public domain retroactively criminalizes things that were legal when committed.
And I'm surprised nobody sued on grounds of it being ex post facto.
Reading the actual judgement, it appears that the CITY was the one that appealed from the district court.
the purpose of taxes is to supply public goods that a) everyone wants, b) nobody wants to pay for, and c) whose benefits cannot easily be denied to those who choose not to pay.
He should sue the police department and get an injunction forbidding them from retaining his tapes, or at least putting forth a legal excuse to hold the tapes.
Especially since actions taking place in public do not have participants with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
It is one of the meanings of the word "public".
Your right to speak stops at your neighbor's earplugs.
Especially if that voice isn't a fellow citizen, but a government that wants to indoctrinate you.
I have as much right to open my mouth as you do to close your ears.
If the feds actually managed to eliminate time zones *in other nations* I would laugh.
I beg to differ.
Remember that phone calls from Obama are local calls now.
At least they're honest about opening it.
Unlike a certain game company that's fond of opening boxes and pilfering coupons...
I wonder if his inability to post is site wide or only covers his role as an editor.
Will he still be able to post comments?
Gamestop has every right to tamper with the product and mess with the contents as they please.
What they cannot do is then still claim it is new.
Removing contents is just an issue between them and Square Enix. The minute they fib to the consumer about it being brand new, however, they are committing fraud.
As long as they adhere to the law, Square Enix can sell whatever they damn please, and Gamestop is perfectly free to tell them where to stick it if they don't like the terms.
Gamestop is not, however, free to, covertly or otherwise, tamper with the product and then continue to represent it as new.
My guess is that this is all bluster and sabre rattling. I wouldn't be surprised if the elites involved have a gentleman's agreement not to fight over it.
Unless some lobbyist paid off a politician to tell the FTC to look the other way.
Regulatory capture is all too common these days.
How about:
C: Gamestop gets prosecuted for fraud for misrepresenting tampered games as new.
That code word is called walking to walmart and voting with your wallet.
It's not merely tampering.
It's outright fraud. Gamestop is representing something as an original product straight from the squeenix factory when it is not.
Also, what would happen if due to Gamestop's meddling, squeenix got accused of false advertising for promising something in the package that one of their retailers downstream decided to extract? If these products are being sold as new then Squeenix could get blamed for it.
Someone needs to go to jail for this, and if I were squeenix, I would sue gamestop.
How about this for a loophole:
Go to Canada, buy the drugs, USE the drugs, then come back to the US.
Nobody but the RCMP has any business meddling in that.
Some places seize and forfeit your car and consider DUI a felony.
It's not illegal to buy drugs in Canada. What is illegal is having said drugs cross the US border.
Until such time as the drugs enter US soil, any enforcement is the responsibility of the RCMP, not the FBI.