Sounds like a plan, care to explain that to the CTO? I tried several times and was told that it is a "zero payback expense"
Just out of curiosity, but did you submit a Business Impact Assessment/Risk Assessment detailing what the likelihood of a mail server failure would be and if it failed, how much money it would cost to re-establish services? You honestly outline what resources you have to bring to bear in solving an emergency and then plop that puppy right on his desk. If he then does a cost/benefit analysis and then wishes to ignore it, that's fine. You're covered. Of course, the GP said if a mail server is important enough, then... That's why these kinds of reports were invented; CBFs tie into DRPs which are subsets of BCPs.
Anyway, sounds like the CTO doesn't understand the proper role of support services for your company. IT is becoming more and more an essential feature of business (Critical Business Function) and though it may not be the prime income generator (web commerce), it still can be quite disastrous to the company if the mail server goes down.
I know this'll get lost in the mass of comments, but I wonder when people will realize this seems to be just another implementation of the classic so-called lie detector?
It's well known that the so-called lie detector is junk science because they cannot establish any physiological connection between an emotional 'spike' and a lie. That doesn't stop the Feds from relying on polygraphs, however, even though they've failed in spectacular ways in the past and continue to do so.
FBI dude: "Yes, his heart rate is accelerated and he's walking funny and carrying a large parcel! He fits a profile! Let's bring him in!" Guy: "I was just in an argument with my girlfriend and I'm carrying my stuff back to my own apartment. I walk funny because I've got jock itch. Anything else you really need to know?"
I mean, seriously. Can anyone give any scientifically-based, sound reasoning about how this can actually work without trampling everyone's rights?
Besides, ultimately it's not going to work on a huge number of antisocial psychotics. You know the ones I'm talking about: they wake up, go to their jobs and embezzle a few hundred million, fire 8,000 more workers, and finish R&D on a new missile technology. The ones who end up doing massive social and financial damage and get paid to do it with smiles on their faces.
Maybe if it was in a classroom or his office but as it was in the hall it could have just been a joke or a threat.
The law, which this chief certainly should have known, has clear criteria set out for what constitutes a threat.
In this case, what was the threat? Who was making this threat? Was it immanent? Who was being threatened? Taking all of this into consideration, was it a credible threat?
How about, dunno, dunno, no, dunno, and no. Oookay, 'nuf said.
She should be lambasted just for this alone, since it doesn't seem as if the administration took down the poster due to 'university poster hanging regulations' but due to the poster supposedly being a threat.
It's a question of scale, though. One of the reasons sitting on the street in front of a store is a legal way of protesting is that you only have your own one body to work with.
Yes, it's exactly a question of scale. Way back when companies and corporations had maybe one or two store locations, a physical boycott could seriously impact the company bottom line.
Now that (it seems) the rule rather than the exception is multi-billion dollar companies that span the globe in many multiple countries, it's only natural that boycotts and protests scale up to reach these "too big to fail" giants.
The smaller government need only remove the legal shields that corporations provide to boards and directors and to remove the legal fiction of 'corporate personhood.'
It will never happen, but that's the way that you get the best of both worlds.
Or as I think the GP was suggesting, just leave it at home or a friends house. No officer, I never left home that night.
Till that catch you on CCTV somewhere and now know that you are lying.
Right, which is why, when asked by the police where you were at, you say, "none of your business."
Cop: Where were you last night? You: None of your business. Cop finally gets subpoena, views your cell-tower records, shows phone was home all night. Cop: Damn. Guess we can't use phone records to help fry this guy.
That's what the 5th Amendment is all about.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE TO A COP BUT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.
Any questioning by police should be approached in this light. Or how about the phrase, "you can never talk yourself out of trouble, but you can sure talk yourself into it."
I just woke up and am only on my second cup of coffee, so I first read rge headline as "Rastafarian" rather than "Pastafarian" (and I missed the "in Australia), and the first thing that came to mind was, if I'm supposed to have freedom of religion, why can't I smoke pot as a sacrament? I agree with the Rastafarians that pot is indeed a sacrament; it does bring the religious person closer to God. Why do I not have the right to adopt a native religion and eat peyote or psilocybin? Why weren't Catholics and many other Christians allowed to drink real wine during prohibition when they performed communion?
This is not Australia, but Austria (as in "kinda-Germany" not "kinda New Zeland").
Second, and most importantly, the Catholics and other religions did in fact have a religious exemption to drinking wine during prohibition. There is an amazing amount of data that showed this to be true, mainly in the records the churches were keeping which showed a dramatic uptick in the purchasing of sacrament wine from nearly everybody I guess.
Why is it an awful ruling? If you own the vehicle you have the right to put a tracking device on it. I'm failing to see what is so awful about that.
Because the point is that your spouse doesn't give a fuck-all of where the car is. It's just a handy excuse to track where you are via the car.
Might as well put a tracker on your frigging suit jacket --- after all, it's not really about you; your wife just wants to be sure that your fancy Armani jacket isn't stolen while you're at the office, right?
Yes, exactly! Or in addition, instead of "publish or perish," the profs and teachers should... I dunno... "edit or expunge" or whatever cutesy phrase strikes your fancy.
In other words, in addition to having teachers writing papers in their field, they can also donate some time to editing the school text books.
The mistake was using bit torrent to steal literally billions of movies, and in first world countries like the US, bit torrent really offers nothing of value. Besides linux downloads, what else is bit torrent used for legally? Those linux nerds seeding all know how to provide mirrors anyway, which there are plenty of already.
If more people weren't tarred with the "it's all illegal" brush, the use of bittorrents would increase. One example comes to mind and that's distributing test.iso's to students in a tech class/tech school. Thank goodness I'm in a small class, but the other night we had to Pass-Around-Patty a flashdrive with the ~4gigs of two VMs that were required to finish the class labs. It was around ten minutes per student just to get them distributed rather than having them made available on a local bittorrent-type distribution system.
Our school could distribute all class software that way on a per campus or per class setup and keep it controlled, but the C-levels and PHBs hear bittorrent and think, "EVIL ILLEGAL!! OH NOES!!!"
there is a sizeable portion of poor LEGAL american citizens who have no form of ID, since when are we required to carry ID with us at all times to prove our innocence?
We aren't. If a person is driving, then they need to produce a drivers' license. If a cop stops anyone with probable cause, then that person must give their name and address. The officer can take reasonable steps to ensure the person's reported identity. If one has a drivers' license, it's not required to produce it, but it can certainly help the identification process if the cop has reasonable suspicion in the first place. I'm anti-big-brother-government and I don't particularly like these kinds of overarching laws, so if I lived in AZ I'd be fighting against it. I'm saying that this kind of IDing process can happen to anyone of any ethnicity and has happened for decades.
Ok, gotcha, though to be fair *I* didn't say that the apps shouldn't be used, I said that the OP's blanket statement about apps was incorrect with regards to what apps Apple was banning.
Heh. That's probably why it wasn't clear to me!:)
Opinion-wise, I have an iPhone which means I've pretty much accepted that Apple's app store can ban whatever they want (though I do have jailbreak). I do have a problem with some apps being rejected, but I don't have a problem with these apps being rejected. If it was made actually illegal -- probably would have a problem with that.
Understood and agreed (though I have an Android).
Thanks for the info about checkpoints. I didn't realize that standards were so varied either.
FWIW, I've been stopped in a checkpoint twice in my life, and both times was there for all of 30-60 seconds. There were a lot of people pulled onto the side of the road looking inebriated though... I had no idea that some police departments publish their checkpoint locations in advance.
Obviously because a large public stink was raised. Politicians got involved as well as citizens. Apple's response is to ban a subset a DUI checkpoint tracking apps from the App Store. Could you really not figure that out or were you getting at something else?
Umm... I had no ulterior motive. As I said, it wasn't clear to me why you said that apps which essentially collate the data shouldn't be used.
Are you being accurate when you claim that checkpoint locations must be made public (presumably in advance)--and especially for constitutional reasons? That was not my understanding, but I could be wrong. Do you have a source?
Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make a thing automatically good or bad, moral or immoral. Just because something is moral doesn't make it legal, nor does immorality make something illegal. These questions are perpendicular to each other.
Here's a quote:
Opinion: Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional? Attorney Lawrence Taylor explains the constitutionality of DUI roadblocks.
Have you ever wondered how police can stop you at a DUI roadblock (aka "sobriety checkpoint")? Doesn't the Constitution require them to have "probable cause before stopping you"? Yes and no.
The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.
Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.
The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."
Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example.
Government checkpoints are authorized by the Constitution
Neither is letting you use public roads without conditions. As part of the conditions for driving your vehicle on public roads, you agree to submit to these checkpoints.
Nope. The DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional on fourth amendment grounds. The only reason they exist at all is that the public is required to be informed about their location, thus preserving the idea that they're voluntary.
I think it's a load of bollocks myself, but there you are.
Checkpoint Apps that rely on publicly available police department released data are just fine. Crowdsourced (etc) apps are not.
Why is that?
Whether it's immoral or not to provide a method for drunk drivers and normal drivers alike to avoid DUI checkpoints is another question.
Morality has nothing to do with it; for these checkpoints to have passed Constitutional muster, it's required that the public be informed as to their location. So again, why does it matter how the public gets this information? It's not like most checkpoints are disclosed except for a few here and there that those wacky pranksters with their smart phones are spoiling the surprise!!!!!111lol
Personally, I wholeheartedly support DUI checkpoints and would approve of greater punishments for dangerous and erratic drivers.
Personally, I despise any and all fishing expeditions performed by the police and I'm grateful that these DUI checkpoints are required to be disclosed. After all, the police are ostensibly checking for DUIs, but make no mistake about it, any interaction like that with a police officer is a free interrogation for every crime they can pin on you.
If the NSA for example, isn't involved with this in some way, I bet good money that they're watching very closely about how this facial recognition technology works out in the real world so they can improve their systems.
I didn't read all the comments (rare for me), so apologies if I repeated anything.
Having worked in a cop station before I can say that they were mostly good people there... and then there were the couple of serious assholes who ruined it for everyone else. We need better personality tests for police academy graduates or something.
Okay. And how are we, non-police citizenry, supposed to tell the difference? How can we tell the difference especially when all those good people don't do much/do anything to oust the assholes who abuse their authority?
Publishing evidence before a trial can make it difficult to get a prosecution. If this goes to court, he will be the victim and the police officers can be acquitted if there is any evidence that the jury has prejudged them.
Close, but not quite. If, after the both sides' voir dire questioning and the jury empaneled, there may be some evidence that the jury has some remaining prejudices, it would be declared a mistrial and the prosecution could re-try the defendant; it would not be an acquittal.
Putting the videos online makes it very difficult to get a jury that has not seen the evidence before the trial. A competent attorney will have advised him not to make it public. After it's been entered as evidence in court, then it's a matter of public record, so everyone will see it.
That's what a change of venue would help solve, though with the particularities of the internet, it may be a vain hope for an impartial jury. Of course, I think it's an error to think that courts need juries who are completely impartial (though that's off topic).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a plan, care to explain that to the CTO? I tried several times and was told that it is a "zero payback expense"
Just out of curiosity, but did you submit a Business Impact Assessment/Risk Assessment detailing what the likelihood of a mail server failure would be and if it failed, how much money it would cost to re-establish services? You honestly outline what resources you have to bring to bear in solving an emergency and then plop that puppy right on his desk. If he then does a cost/benefit analysis and then wishes to ignore it, that's fine. You're covered. Of course, the GP said if a mail server is important enough, then... That's why these kinds of reports were invented; CBFs tie into DRPs which are subsets of BCPs.
Anyway, sounds like the CTO doesn't understand the proper role of support services for your company. IT is becoming more and more an essential feature of business (Critical Business Function) and though it may not be the prime income generator (web commerce), it still can be quite disastrous to the company if the mail server goes down.
I'm thinking that instead of his practicing ESP up in the capsule, he should really have focused more on precognition.
I know this'll get lost in the mass of comments, but I wonder when people will realize this seems to be just another implementation of the classic so-called lie detector?
It's well known that the so-called lie detector is junk science because they cannot establish any physiological connection between an emotional 'spike' and a lie. That doesn't stop the Feds from relying on polygraphs, however, even though they've failed in spectacular ways in the past and continue to do so.
FBI dude: "Yes, his heart rate is accelerated and he's walking funny and carrying a large parcel! He fits a profile! Let's bring him in!"
Guy: "I was just in an argument with my girlfriend and I'm carrying my stuff back to my own apartment. I walk funny because I've got jock itch. Anything else you really need to know?"
I mean, seriously. Can anyone give any scientifically-based, sound reasoning about how this can actually work without trampling everyone's rights?
Besides, ultimately it's not going to work on a huge number of antisocial psychotics. You know the ones I'm talking about: they wake up, go to their jobs and embezzle a few hundred million, fire 8,000 more workers, and finish R&D on a new missile technology. The ones who end up doing massive social and financial damage and get paid to do it with smiles on their faces.
Maybe if it was in a classroom or his office but as it was in the hall it could have just been a joke or a threat.
The law, which this chief certainly should have known, has clear criteria set out for what constitutes a threat.
In this case, what was the threat? Who was making this threat? Was it immanent? Who was being threatened? Taking all of this into consideration, was it a credible threat?
How about, dunno, dunno, no, dunno, and no. Oookay, 'nuf said.
She should be lambasted just for this alone, since it doesn't seem as if the administration took down the poster due to 'university poster hanging regulations' but due to the poster supposedly being a threat.
I have what I call Superluminous internet.
The speeds advertised are purely theoretical.
It's a question of scale, though. One of the reasons sitting on the street in front of a store is a legal way of protesting is that you only have your own one body to work with.
Yes, it's exactly a question of scale. Way back when companies and corporations had maybe one or two store locations, a physical boycott could seriously impact the company bottom line.
Now that (it seems) the rule rather than the exception is multi-billion dollar companies that span the globe in many multiple countries, it's only natural that boycotts and protests scale up to reach these "too big to fail" giants.
That's a false dichotomy.
The smaller government need only remove the legal shields that corporations provide to boards and directors and to remove the legal fiction of 'corporate personhood.'
It will never happen, but that's the way that you get the best of both worlds.
Or as I think the GP was suggesting, just leave it at home or a friends house. No officer, I never left home that night.
Till that catch you on CCTV somewhere and now know that you are lying.
Right, which is why, when asked by the police where you were at, you say, "none of your business."
Cop: Where were you last night?
You: None of your business.
Cop finally gets subpoena, views your cell-tower records, shows phone was home all night.
Cop: Damn. Guess we can't use phone records to help fry this guy.
That's what the 5th Amendment is all about.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIE TO A COP BUT YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.
Any questioning by police should be approached in this light. Or how about the phrase, "you can never talk yourself out of trouble, but you can sure talk yourself into it."
No need to shut it down, just yank the battery.
*scanning logs of battery removal...*
*scanning...*
*battery removed from device: 16 times today*
Hrm... Either this is the phone of a master criminal, or the dude just owns a Blackberry...
I just woke up and am only on my second cup of coffee, so I first read rge headline as "Rastafarian" rather than "Pastafarian" (and I missed the "in Australia), and the first thing that came to mind was, if I'm supposed to have freedom of religion, why can't I smoke pot as a sacrament? I agree with the Rastafarians that pot is indeed a sacrament; it does bring the religious person closer to God. Why do I not have the right to adopt a native religion and eat peyote or psilocybin? Why weren't Catholics and many other Christians allowed to drink real wine during prohibition when they performed communion?
This is not Australia, but Austria (as in "kinda-Germany" not "kinda New Zeland").
Second, and most importantly, the Catholics and other religions did in fact have a religious exemption to drinking wine during prohibition. There is an amazing amount of data that showed this to be true, mainly in the records the churches were keeping which showed a dramatic uptick in the purchasing of sacrament wine from nearly everybody I guess.
Hooo boy. With the problems people have with figuring out DNA and relatively simple probabilities, juries are just gonna love this...
Why is it an awful ruling? If you own the vehicle you have the right to put a tracking device on it. I'm failing to see what is so awful about that.
Because the point is that your spouse doesn't give a fuck-all of where the car is. It's just a handy excuse to track where you are via the car.
Might as well put a tracker on your frigging suit jacket --- after all, it's not really about you; your wife just wants to be sure that your fancy Armani jacket isn't stolen while you're at the office, right?
Yes, exactly! Or in addition, instead of "publish or perish," the profs and teachers should... I dunno... "edit or expunge" or whatever cutesy phrase strikes your fancy.
In other words, in addition to having teachers writing papers in their field, they can also donate some time to editing the school text books.
A blood test later revealed that he had recently taken a Viagra.
Wow. Is that a non sequitur or what? Just what the hell are they screening for in Ohio?
Erection fraud?
The mistake was using bit torrent to steal literally billions of movies, and in first world countries like the US, bit torrent really offers nothing of value. Besides linux downloads, what else is bit torrent used for legally? Those linux nerds seeding all know how to provide mirrors anyway, which there are plenty of already.
If more people weren't tarred with the "it's all illegal" brush, the use of bittorrents would increase. One example comes to mind and that's distributing test .iso's to students in a tech class/tech school. Thank goodness I'm in a small class, but the other night we had to Pass-Around-Patty a flashdrive with the ~4gigs of two VMs that were required to finish the class labs. It was around ten minutes per student just to get them distributed rather than having them made available on a local bittorrent-type distribution system.
Our school could distribute all class software that way on a per campus or per class setup and keep it controlled, but the C-levels and PHBs hear bittorrent and think, "EVIL ILLEGAL!! OH NOES!!!"
there is a sizeable portion of poor LEGAL american citizens who have no form of ID, since when are we required to carry ID with us at all times to prove our innocence?
We aren't. If a person is driving, then they need to produce a drivers' license. If a cop stops anyone with probable cause, then that person must give their name and address. The officer can take reasonable steps to ensure the person's reported identity. If one has a drivers' license, it's not required to produce it, but it can certainly help the identification process if the cop has reasonable suspicion in the first place. I'm anti-big-brother-government and I don't particularly like these kinds of overarching laws, so if I lived in AZ I'd be fighting against it. I'm saying that this kind of IDing process can happen to anyone of any ethnicity and has happened for decades.
This regularly happens to Virgin in Australia.
Passengers getting fucked by Virgin?
Is this some sort of "in Soviet Russia" joke?
Ok, gotcha, though to be fair *I* didn't say that the apps shouldn't be used, I said that the OP's blanket statement about apps was incorrect with regards to what apps Apple was banning.
Heh. That's probably why it wasn't clear to me! :)
Opinion-wise, I have an iPhone which means I've pretty much accepted that Apple's app store can ban whatever they want (though I do have jailbreak). I do have a problem with some apps being rejected, but I don't have a problem with these apps being rejected. If it was made actually illegal -- probably would have a problem with that.
Understood and agreed (though I have an Android).
Thanks for the info about checkpoints. I didn't realize that standards were so varied either.
FWIW, I've been stopped in a checkpoint twice in my life, and both times was there for all of 30-60 seconds. There were a lot of people pulled onto the side of the road looking inebriated though... I had no idea that some police departments publish their checkpoint locations in advance.
And thank you for a good discussion!
Obviously because a large public stink was raised. Politicians got involved as well as citizens. Apple's response is to ban a subset a DUI checkpoint tracking apps from the App Store. Could you really not figure that out or were you getting at something else?
Umm... I had no ulterior motive. As I said, it wasn't clear to me why you said that apps which essentially collate the data shouldn't be used.
Are you being accurate when you claim that checkpoint locations must be made public (presumably in advance)--and especially for constitutional reasons? That was not my understanding, but I could be wrong. Do you have a source?
Just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make a thing automatically good or bad, moral or immoral. Just because something is moral doesn't make it legal, nor does immorality make something illegal. These questions are perpendicular to each other.
Here's a quote:
Opinion: Why Are DUI Sobriety Checkpoints Constitutional?
Attorney Lawrence Taylor explains the constitutionality of DUI roadblocks.
Have you ever wondered how police can stop you at a DUI roadblock (aka "sobriety checkpoint")? Doesn't the Constitution require them to have "probable cause before stopping you"? Yes and no.
The Constitution of the United States clearly says that police can't just stop someone and conduct an investigation unless there are "articulable facts" indicating possible criminal activity. So how can they do exactly that with drunk driving roadblocks? Good question. And it was raised in the case of Michigan v. Sitz, in which the Michigan Supreme Court striking down DUI roadblocks as unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court, holding that they were constitutionally permissible.
Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. In other words, yes, it appears to be a blatant violation of the Constitution. However, he continued, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks. In other words, the ends justify the means.
The dissenting justices pointed out that the Constitution doesn't make exceptions: The sole question is whether the police had probable cause to stop the individual driver. As Justice Brennan wrote, "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion... The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."
Rehnquist's justification for ignoring the Constitution rested on the assumption that DUI roadblocks were "necessary" and "effective." Are they? As Justice Stevens wrote in another dissenting opinion, the Michigan court had already reviewed the statistics on DUI sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks: "The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals," he wrote, "indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative."
The case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court to change its decision accordingly. But the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped Rehnquist by holding that DUI checkpoints, though now permissible under the U.S. Constitution, were not permissible under the Michigan State Constitution, and ruled again in favor of the defendant -- in effect saying to Rehnquist, "If you won't protect our citizens, we will." A small number of states have since followed Michigan's example.
Mr. Taylor is an attorney wit
Government checkpoints are authorized by the Constitution
Neither is letting you use public roads without conditions. As part of the conditions for driving your vehicle on public roads, you agree to submit to these checkpoints.
Nope. The DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional on fourth amendment grounds. The only reason they exist at all is that the public is required to be informed about their location, thus preserving the idea that they're voluntary.
I think it's a load of bollocks myself, but there you are.
Checkpoint Apps that rely on publicly available police department released data are just fine. Crowdsourced (etc) apps are not.
Why is that?
Whether it's immoral or not to provide a method for drunk drivers and normal drivers alike to avoid DUI checkpoints is another question.
Morality has nothing to do with it; for these checkpoints to have passed Constitutional muster, it's required that the public be informed as to their location. So again, why does it matter how the public gets this information? It's not like most checkpoints are disclosed except for a few here and there that those wacky pranksters with their smart phones are spoiling the surprise!!!!!111lol
Personally, I wholeheartedly support DUI checkpoints and would approve of greater punishments for dangerous and erratic drivers.
Personally, I despise any and all fishing expeditions performed by the police and I'm grateful that these DUI checkpoints are required to be disclosed. After all, the police are ostensibly checking for DUIs, but make no mistake about it, any interaction like that with a police officer is a free interrogation for every crime they can pin on you.
If the NSA for example, isn't involved with this in some way, I bet good money that they're watching very closely about how this facial recognition technology works out in the real world so they can improve their systems.
I didn't read all the comments (rare for me), so apologies if I repeated anything.
Having worked in a cop station before I can say that they were mostly good people there... and then there were the couple of serious assholes who ruined it for everyone else. We need better personality tests for police academy graduates or something.
Okay. And how are we, non-police citizenry, supposed to tell the difference? How can we tell the difference especially when all those good people don't do much/do anything to oust the assholes who abuse their authority?
Publishing evidence before a trial can make it difficult to get a prosecution. If this goes to court, he will be the victim and the police officers can be acquitted if there is any evidence that the jury has prejudged them.
Close, but not quite. If, after the both sides' voir dire questioning and the jury empaneled, there may be some evidence that the jury has some remaining prejudices, it would be declared a mistrial and the prosecution could re-try the defendant; it would not be an acquittal.
Putting the videos online makes it very difficult to get a jury that has not seen the evidence before the trial. A competent attorney will have advised him not to make it public. After it's been entered as evidence in court, then it's a matter of public record, so everyone will see it.
That's what a change of venue would help solve, though with the particularities of the internet, it may be a vain hope for an impartial jury. Of course, I think it's an error to think that courts need juries who are completely impartial (though that's off topic).
First they came for the plugins,
But I did not speak out, for I was not a developer...