You're offering to strip away liberty. Our current system removes drivers licenses from people who commit crimes or have advanced in age to the point they can't safely drive anymore
No... Our current system also denies driver's licenses to MANY other people, showing it is definitely considered a privilege, not a basic liberty, including: Don't have or won't provide a permanent residential street address (people who don't own or rent a house or apartment) -- having PO Box is not sufficient; people who have been in a sufficient number of accidents, or vehicle accident where someone else has died, regardless of not being at fault for causing the accident; people who object (and refuse) to be photographed or to sign their name to a written agreement required to apply --- similar to refusing to have blood drawn, wouldn't you say?
People who have an unpaid debt to the government that they are trying to collect on --- owed back taxes, or having arrears for alimony or child support, for example, results in denial and can result in revocation of the driver's license; people who fail or don't take some arbitrary written and practical driving skills tests or lack the required number of driver's ed hours; people that have civil infractions, even so minor as jaywalking; people that cannot afford expensive liability insurance; people who have visual impairment. This is not an exhaustive enumeration, and the list of reasons for denial of licenses besides punishment for a crime are quite large.
You're running around with your holier-than-thou bullshit and
Nope. I've presented a logical more-efficient option than what the US is currently doing. Incentivize donations by attaching some desirable privileges, instead of by burning cash.
On the other hand... You have failed to present a single reasonable argument. Your posts consist primarily of name-calling and Ad Hominem attacks. That is what we call abusive behavior: that is your inability to participate in a civil discussion and reason about things logically, apparently.
(Europe) buying your plasma products from the United States because we have more than we need.
Yes, but at what cost? You have private organizations collecting blood donations and charging enormous costs per unit for medical providers to obtain them from patients.
If you drove donors without paying them, then the system could operate much more efficiently by using cash to offset other expenses --- Including the fact patients don't need to pay hundreds to help incentivize donors, instead of using cash to promote donations.
thinking you have the moral right to own someone's body parts.
I am not claiming nor suggesting anybody claim anybody else's body parts.
I am suggesting people be incentivized to donate willingly, And in order to do that, the incentives will be the possibility to access special privileges like the ability to drive.
you'd rather use the full force of government against them and until you force them No such thing.... I am not suggesting forcing them in any way, and we're not talking about preventing access to any essential things, or any essential liberties even so important as food, water, etc.
My proposal would not run afoul of anything like the US Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc. There is nothing any more communist or authoritarian than that I suggested than what the state already does in terms of regulation, such as prohibiting compensated organ donations.
In the end this would save lives and save the governments and individuals money, and provide the greatest good for the whole of society.
Furthermore, this would be in-line with the European Commission's directive 2002/98/EC that wants member states of the EU to encourage renumeration-free blood donations, specifically. Incentives that involve payment for cash are the opposite of their desired ends, and one has to respect that. You already have to pay a fee for these things, for example $20 fee for your driver's license.
We're not talking about interfering with any basic human needs.
I'm suggesting simply tack on an additional string --- in addition to paying the $20, so getting any kind of license has to be earned by doing some things that are your civic duty. One of the civic duties everyone has... is be willing and come if called to serve on a jury, and in some locations voting is mandatory, the punishment for failing on either is not merely revocation of licenses but also jail time and forced community service (temporary enslavement), And another civic duty that should be required: putting yourself on the organ donor's list and donating blood tissue at pre-determined intervals can also be added to the required civic duties of citizens. Governments use Licenses to convey special privileges, such as the capability to drive a car or work in certain kinds of specialized professions... None of the things you need a license for are essential to life.. these are just extra privileges, that while some folks may have taken for granted and abused can certainly have arbitrary conditions attached.
Too bad. Obviously if there's a shortage you need to convince more people to offer up plasma..
Well... I do have an idea.. Plasma Taxation. Simple: Attach some essential privileges like maintaining a driver's license to donating at least 1 unit of blood once per year, or 1 unit of plasma at least once every 3 years. Don't want to donate? Fine. But you cannot have a driver's license, and X other privileges, unless you can show a proven medical reason that makes you ineligible to donate blood/plasma.
2. If there is a shortage, the obvious and immediate fix is to raise the price.
That's no good, when the product's primarily donated to save lives, and the people who need it need it or they'll die --- and either Insurance will absorb whatever the cost was, or they can't afford it, because a unit of the donated plasma costs multiple thousands of $$$ .
The rich folks, however, who are willing to plunk down $10k to try it as a new aging fix, on the other hand, aren't going to be affected much by a price increase ---- price increases hurt primarily the folks in need of life-saving care who are out-of-network, whose insurance covers 80%.
We need to make sure society provides sufficient compensation for developing permanent cures.
Or rather... part of it may be that we may allow temporary treatments to be rewarded too much ---- I would suggest the government Alter the Patent System for drugs such that each patient pays a One Time Royalty for the use of drugs which treat symptoms but are not Permanent cures... Profits derived from a drug's failure to cure --- or due to ongoing dependence on the drug NOT allowed to be guaranteed to the original maker/inventor of the drug. They can charge a premium, but competitors will ALWAYS be allowed to make generics --- Instead of providing a number of years during which only the primary drug can exist
After a patient pays the One Time Bounty: the patent holders' rights are exhausted, and ANY company with the manufacturing capability is allowed to produce and sell the drug to them without paying any license fees - the government approval process for such generics should be streamlined as much as possible ----- Only condition on generics is that drugs can only be administered to a patient on whose behalf a One Time Bounty has been received (For the X years during which the invention is protected to compensate the inventor/creator), OR whose One-Time-Bounty was waived in writing by the patent holder.
By inviting the generics competition ---- the price of all drugs will approach the marginal cost of production, just like the cost of non-patentable foods, etc. The BOUNTY Term then provides comparable compensation to companies that innovate new drugs; regardless of whether or not the drug is a permanent cure.
Well, they have plenty of time to correct the vagueness -- the bill has only just been filed by author, and still would have to be reviewed by committee.
Also... there is the matter of what "Internet" is --- Internet is a global thing, and much of the carriers' edge infrastructure actually providing the access is likely located in other states besides Texas.
The state of Texas has no legal authority to regulate or affect how a carrier manages their infrastructure located in other states: the internet peering that occurs in various states between multi-state entities is Interstate Commerce, And as the people in the Texas legislature ought to be well-aware of: regulating Interstate commerce is outside the purview of Texas, since the constitution says that only the US congress may do that, this proposed Texas law can also be read as unconstitutional.
we are willing to devote lots of taxpayer funded resources to prosecuting this one guy for targeting a VIP, but doing something about the millions of scammy phone calls that little people face everyday remains a low priority.
"Quiet serfs. How dare you question the noble class? Here, we'll add $100 to your tax refund if you stop bringing this up."
Throttling IS degradation of service, BY DEFINITION.
Negative. Degradation, by definition is to degrade which means to pass from a higher grade or class to a lower, example: causes the meat to degrade in quality
The service provider has business choices about what levels of service they offer, And if they throttle all users to data-rates which are still within the same grade or class, for example if they throttle every subscriber to a bitrate that subscriber has purchased, then by defintion: their service has not been degraded. They can also make minor changes, such as throttling a user who would normally be allowed 10 Megabits to 9 Megabits, And that is not a degradation in service if the base plan rate for their service is "8 megabits" ----- such minor changes or occassional deviation in performance allowed for within the normal variability of subscribers' plans and Actual performance do not rise to a level of `Degrading' or `Upgrading' a customer's service.
Congestion is. A disaster area is the place where caps are most justified.
No.... Nothing in the text of the bill really indicates carriers cannot manage congestion in fact the only restriction it gives is "service provider may not impair or degrade lawful mobile Internet service access in an area subject to a declared state of disaster" ----- So they can still manage their network, in fact they could still throttle to slightly lower top speeds which are not slow enough to constitute impairment. Failing to manage congestion in its own right can be considered impairing access through neglect. The issue is throttling after a certain monthly quota --- they can still utilize means of prioritizing the traffic of emergency services and those with lower total usage.
The throttling the carriers normally due is based on arbitrary monthly caps in the total amount of data used --- access is greatly impaired (throttled to a ridiculously slow speed) after reaching a monthly quota that has nothing to do with congestion or network management, because nothing stops 10000 people who have not used up their data allowance from coming on simultaneously and maxing out the local tower capacity.
It doesn't matter if the purpose was investment or short term transfer.
Its pretty common to put your life savings with one bank or brokerage firm.
That's basically what "Quadriga Imbroglio " was.... so he put all his cryptocurrency there?
Was Quadriga insured? Do people vet these exchanges at all?
The crypto would have been better off in a personal hardware wallet: providing he took proper precautions --- I'm sure someone who is a software developer could easily figure out how to manage that.
Ooooh an anecdote. I suppose you can also come up with actual data.
Actually, the strained argument needing data is the claim these things are accurate, especially under adverse conditions, and the many many people that claim to have been falsely ticketed by these contraptions.
But the parked car being ticketed is a perfectly valid provable counterexample to the arguments people make that automatic ticket cams don't falsely accuse -- that therefore they should be able to just skip the normal legal requirements+process such as the right to face one's accuser, the fact that the car was parked so glaringly dismisses any possible arguments that the camera could've been right, and the counterexample of 1 automatically invalidates arguments such as "you are entirely within control here," or "In fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law," or " in the street ask for voluntary donations from a charity" ----- It only takes one counterexample to prove that such generalizations as these 3 are false --- and we don't even need anything more than that.
It is not an anecdote, either; this is a verifiable thing that has actually happened at least once and even been documented and covered by media.
However, I'm not convinced that the $60 million/year revenue from PACER on top of the court filing fees is necessary to build a simple document search and retrieval site.
No.... $2 or $3 Million/Year should be ample to do that. They should just offer access on a subscription basis with a "number full documents/filing retrievals" allowance instead of per page --- And the subscription rate could depend on whether this is for personal use, education, Or non-profit use, Or if you are a legal professional, and in the latter cases charge 'em a professional subscription rate with a clause in the personal subscriptions prohibiting use by the licensed attorneys, so the public at large can have more access, but profiting users still pay....
n fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law.
No, that does not really work... well, maybe, unless you need to Park your Car; or you just somehow happen to be near the camera's view after someone else recently made a violation.
Donald Schultz provides the latest example of municipal malfeasance: A speed camera has issued at least ten speeding citations since 2011 to the Nissan Frontier that Schultz parks in front of his house. A car doing more than the posted 35-mph limit triggers the camera, located in the median of Canal Boulevard, but the camera reads the stationary Frontier's license plate instead of the one on the speeding vehicle.
The issue has been a seven-year hassle for Schultz because he has to go to City Hall to get each ticket overturned. He told Fox News, "It got so bad that years ago I even had a [telephone] number of a person [in the traffic violations office] so that if I called them directly I didn't have to go down there." The problem ended for a time - in 2016 a contractor repositioned the speed camera away from Schultz's car. When city workers moved the camera back to its original position at the end of last month, Schultz received two citations in early April, the most recent one due to a speeding New Orleans Police Department vehicle. ....
The city told WWL-TV that each citation must be approved by a technician, and then by an NOPD officer, meaning two pairs of eyes repeatedly ignoring the details on the citation.
This app also assists Lawful and Non-Impaired drivers in avoiding the inconvenience or uncomfortable situation of happening upon an unexpected checkpoint and possibly becoming subject to some search or test that they wish to avoid.
In other words.... this functionality has lawful and beneficial uses, contrary to what their letter suggests.
Furthermore, the submission, sharing, and dissemination of this information about government activity is speech of a political nature among the types of speech most strongly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, which the NYC PD is not above.
Contrary to the ridiculous police claims... the Red Light Cameras and Speed Traps are a greedy money grab. Owned by private companies that take most of the cut, at least typically.... these things use a highly dubious process of ticketing people that
involves police accusers signing off on "violations" they haven't actually witnessed.
Or it might be that the business model of giving away storage space and bandwidth is not viable
Flickr Free never did that. As far as we know its perfectly viable --- they always had a limit on the Free one of a certain number of uploads per month, but until now it was never limited in how many Photos you could share with the public.... they provide a service where users can submit and share photos, and in exchange the Photo site can monetize them by showing advertising.
Its Ashame for all those photos to just vanish from the public..... this was like when Geocities went away, but possibly worse since there's noone to archive the stuff getting deleted.
What is this nonsense? Huawei is considered a trusted supplier. Their network gear is in widespread use especially in service provider networks.
Others, such as Cisco.... however, seem more questionable. Long track record of crash bugs and vulnerabilities on certain sw; some reported cases of compromised equipment doing nefarious stuff -- serious past vulnerabilities, including the ability to present malicious browser code and credential capture from certain (ASA) firewall devices in the VPN functionality, etc.
Microphones and the respective chips are so inexpensive, small, and low power now: that there's no reason not to include them on every device for possible future capability (or covert data gathering capability).
If unused by the product... it will just be unlisted on the spec sheet, and not software enabled.
Expect pretty soon: even simple appliances like the Smoke Detectors in every room, Electric Blankets, Vibrators, Light Switches, Wall Outlets, Toilets, Showers, Bathtubs, Faucets, Refrigerators, Microwaves, Coffee Pots, Dishwashers, Washing machines, Ovens, Stoves, etc... to all include a tiny logic board, wireless internet capability, and a little microphone and speaker: maybe eventually a tiny little camera to go with the microphone.
I was complaining about this in another thread just last week.
It would sure be nice if these companies like Mozilla and Google would show a little more consideration for organizations,
especially enterprises who are deploying their product, and stop making such high risk changes without considering the ramifications -- and testing appropriately in real-world environments.
Historically; it seems like Microsoft was the only browser developer sensitive to issues managing the deployment and
operation of their product in an enterprise setting --- where you can't just go updating web apps every 12 months or even more often for a browser API change, unfortunately it gets worse now that development of Edge's engine is being abandoned to switch to Chromium ---- threatening browser monoculture and proprietary "experience" features to start all over again - with Chrome as the offender now, in the same vein as MSIE6 was.
If the person isn't suing for contract violations, that doesn't even matter.
Bzzt. Wrong. The only possible claim they could make without the EULA would be product warranty.
Regardless of the theory of liability, whether in Contract, Tort, or otherwise, the EULA governs all aspects of the relationship between the parties, and the EULA specifically asserts that.
If they Really wanted to stop this --- then stop trying to Geo Identify IP addresses, and instead: Step 1. require services to use Customer's Billing Information. If the customer's billing address is in Canada, then they cannot access the US library.
Step 2. On mobile apps, require the service to cross-check customer's location using the GPS and location services of the mobile device --- if the GPS does not say you are in the US, then you cannot access the US library, even if your billing address is in the US.
If you are a US resident but are going on a trip, then allow services to provide customers a way to login to the website, Record the fact that they are going on a trip, and pay a $20 fee for "2 weeks - Access to Canada or other local country's library while on vacation", Premium charge required for out-of-region access, Limit to 2 2-week trips per year.
Not all attorneys are familiar with patent, IP, or EULA laws, but all of them do know that a lot of EULA language can be found unenforcable
That is not true; however -- in the US EULAs have been held up just fine, when the user was required to click accept before using the software.
The facts may favor Apple even more strongly here, since the FaceTime software itself distributed For Free
Modifying purchase of software into a licensing the use and voiding the implied warranties over software such as merchantability in the software EULA/license is specifically sanctioned by the UCC 2-316.
What if financial harm caused somebody to be unable to treat a physical ailment, leaving them in pain?
That would be an example of consequential damages Or special damages.
In most civil cases, such as this one, those are not proximately caused by Apple's wrongful behavior, and the plaintiff would be entitled only to the direct damages and nothing beyond those reasonably foreseeable by Apple.
In any event, the Software License required to use Facetime includes a specific dollar limit on Apple's liability to $50.
Slashdot Mirror
You're offering to strip away liberty. Our current system removes drivers licenses from people who commit crimes or have advanced in age to the point they can't safely drive anymore
No... Our current system also denies driver's licenses to MANY other people, showing it is definitely considered a privilege, not a basic liberty, including: Don't have or won't provide a permanent residential street address (people who don't own or rent a house or apartment) -- having PO Box is not sufficient; people who have been in a sufficient number of accidents, or vehicle accident where someone else has died, regardless of not being at fault for causing the accident; people who object (and refuse) to be photographed or to sign their name to a written agreement required to apply --- similar to refusing to have blood drawn, wouldn't you say?
People who have an unpaid debt to the government that they are trying to collect on --- owed back taxes, or having arrears for alimony or child support, for example, results in denial and can result in revocation of the driver's license; people who fail or don't take some arbitrary written and practical driving skills tests or lack the required number of driver's ed hours; people that have civil infractions, even so minor as jaywalking; people that cannot afford expensive liability insurance; people who have visual impairment. This is not an exhaustive enumeration, and the list of reasons for denial of licenses besides punishment for a crime are quite large.
You're running around with your holier-than-thou bullshit and
Nope. I've presented a logical more-efficient option than what the US is currently doing. Incentivize donations by attaching some desirable privileges, instead of by burning cash.
On the other hand... You have failed to present a single reasonable argument.
Your posts consist primarily of name-calling and Ad Hominem attacks. That is what we call abusive behavior: that is your inability to participate in a civil discussion and reason about things logically, apparently.
(Europe) buying your plasma products from the United States because we have more than we need.
Yes, but at what cost? You have private organizations collecting blood donations and charging enormous costs per unit for medical providers to obtain them from patients.
If you drove donors without paying them, then the system could operate much more efficiently by using cash to offset other expenses --- Including the fact patients don't need to pay hundreds to help incentivize donors, instead of using cash to promote donations.
thinking you have the moral right to own someone's body parts.
I am not claiming nor suggesting anybody claim anybody else's body parts.
I am suggesting people be incentivized to donate willingly, And in order to do that,
the incentives will be the possibility to access special privileges like the ability to drive.
you'd rather use the full force of government against them and until you force them
No such thing.... I am not suggesting forcing them in any way, and we're not talking about preventing access to any essential things, or any essential liberties even so important as food, water, etc.
My proposal would not run afoul of anything like the US Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc. There is nothing any more communist or authoritarian than that I suggested than what the state already does in terms of regulation, such as prohibiting compensated organ donations.
In the end this would save lives and save the governments and individuals money, and provide the greatest good for the whole of society.
Furthermore, this would be in-line with the European Commission's directive 2002/98/EC that wants member states of the EU to encourage renumeration-free blood donations, specifically. Incentives that involve payment for cash are the opposite of their desired ends, and one has to respect that.
You already have to pay a fee for these things, for example $20 fee for your driver's license.
We're not talking about interfering with any basic human needs.
I'm suggesting simply tack on an additional string --- in addition to paying the $20, so
getting any kind of license has to be earned by doing some things that are your civic duty.
One of the civic duties everyone has... is be willing and come if called to serve on a jury, and in some locations voting is mandatory, the punishment for failing on either is not merely revocation of licenses but also jail time and forced community service (temporary enslavement), And another civic duty that should be required: putting yourself on the organ donor's list and
donating blood tissue at pre-determined intervals can also be added to the required civic duties of citizens.
Governments use Licenses to convey special privileges, such as the capability to drive a car or work in certain kinds of specialized professions...
None of the things you need a license for are essential to life.. these are just extra privileges, that while some folks may have taken for granted and abused can certainly have arbitrary conditions attached.
Too bad. Obviously if there's a shortage you need to convince more people to offer up plasma..
Well... I do have an idea.. Plasma Taxation. Simple:
Attach some essential privileges like maintaining a driver's license to donating at least 1 unit of blood once per year, or 1 unit of plasma at least once every 3 years.
Don't want to donate? Fine. But you cannot have a driver's license, and X other privileges,
unless you can show a proven medical reason that makes you ineligible to donate blood/plasma.
2. If there is a shortage, the obvious and immediate fix is to raise the price.
That's no good, when the product's primarily donated to save lives,
and the people who need it need it or they'll die --- and either Insurance will absorb whatever the cost was, or they can't afford it, because a unit of the donated plasma costs multiple thousands of $$$ .
The rich folks, however, who are willing to plunk down $10k to try it as a new aging fix, on the other hand, aren't going to be affected much by a price increase ---- price increases hurt primarily the folks in need of life-saving care who are out-of-network, whose insurance covers 80%.
We need to make sure society provides sufficient compensation for developing permanent cures.
Or rather... part of it may be that we may allow temporary treatments to be rewarded too much ---- I would suggest the government Alter the Patent System for drugs such that each patient pays a One Time Royalty for the use of drugs which treat symptoms but are not Permanent cures... Profits derived from a drug's failure to cure --- or due to ongoing dependence on the drug NOT allowed to be guaranteed to the original maker/inventor of the drug. They can charge a premium, but competitors will ALWAYS be allowed to make generics --- Instead of providing a number of years during which only the primary drug can exist
After a patient pays the One Time Bounty: the patent holders' rights are exhausted, and ANY company with the manufacturing capability is allowed to produce and sell the drug to them without paying any license fees - the government approval process for such generics should be streamlined as much as possible ----- Only condition on generics is that drugs can only be administered to a patient on whose behalf a One Time Bounty has been received (For the X years during which the invention is protected to compensate the inventor/creator), OR whose One-Time-Bounty was waived in writing by the patent holder.
By inviting the generics competition ---- the price of all drugs will approach the marginal cost of production, just like the cost of non-patentable foods, etc. The BOUNTY Term then provides comparable compensation to companies that innovate new drugs; regardless of whether or not the drug is a permanent cure.
Everyone is already happy, and for that, You can thank Big Brother for
announcing the chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams per week!
Well, they have plenty of time to correct the vagueness -- the bill has only just been filed by author, and still would have to be reviewed by committee.
Also... there is the matter of what "Internet" is --- Internet is a global thing, and much of the carriers' edge infrastructure actually providing the access is likely located in other states besides Texas.
The state of Texas has no legal authority to regulate or affect how a carrier manages their infrastructure located in other states:
the internet peering that occurs in various states between multi-state entities is Interstate Commerce, And as the people in the Texas legislature ought to be well-aware of: regulating Interstate commerce is outside the purview of Texas, since the constitution says that only the US congress may do that, this proposed Texas law can also be read as unconstitutional.
we are willing to devote lots of taxpayer funded resources to prosecuting this one guy for targeting a VIP, but doing something about the millions of scammy phone calls that little people face everyday remains a low priority.
"Quiet serfs. How dare you question the noble class? Here, we'll add $100 to your tax refund if you stop bringing this up."
Throttling IS degradation of service, BY DEFINITION.
Negative. Degradation, by definition is to degrade which means to pass from a higher grade or class to a lower, example: causes the meat to degrade in quality
The service provider has business choices about what levels of service they offer, And if they throttle all users to data-rates which are still within the same grade or class, for example if they throttle every subscriber to a bitrate that subscriber has purchased, then by defintion: their service has not been degraded.
They can also make minor changes, such as throttling a user who would normally be allowed 10 Megabits to 9 Megabits, And that is not a degradation in service if the base plan rate for their service is "8 megabits" ----- such minor changes or occassional deviation in performance allowed for within the normal variability of subscribers' plans and Actual performance do not rise to a level of `Degrading' or `Upgrading' a customer's service.
Congestion is. A disaster area is the place where caps are most justified.
No.... Nothing in the text of the bill really indicates carriers cannot manage congestion in fact the only restriction it gives is "service provider may not impair or degrade lawful mobile Internet service access in an area subject to a declared state of disaster" ----- So they can still manage their network, in fact they could still throttle to slightly lower top speeds which are not slow enough to constitute impairment. Failing to manage congestion in its own right can be considered impairing access through neglect. The issue is throttling after a certain monthly quota --- they can still utilize means of prioritizing the traffic of emergency services and those with lower total usage.
The throttling the carriers normally due is based on arbitrary monthly caps in the total amount of data used --- access is greatly impaired (throttled to a ridiculously slow speed) after reaching a monthly quota that has nothing to do with congestion or network management, because nothing stops 10000 people who have not used up their data allowance from coming on simultaneously and maxing out the local tower capacity.
It doesn't matter if the purpose was investment or short term transfer.
Its pretty common to put your life savings with one bank or brokerage firm.
That's basically what "Quadriga Imbroglio " was.... so he put all his cryptocurrency there?
Was Quadriga insured? Do people vet these exchanges at all?
The crypto would have been better off in a personal hardware wallet: providing he took proper precautions --- I'm sure someone who is a software developer could easily figure out how to manage that.
Ooooh an anecdote. I suppose you can also come up with actual data.
Actually, the strained argument needing data is the claim these things are accurate, especially under adverse conditions, and the many many people that claim to have been falsely ticketed by these contraptions.
But the parked car being ticketed is a perfectly valid provable counterexample to the arguments people make that automatic ticket cams don't falsely accuse -- that therefore they should be able to just skip the normal legal requirements+process such as the right to face one's accuser, the fact that the car was parked so glaringly dismisses any possible arguments that the camera could've been right, and the counterexample of 1 automatically invalidates arguments such as "you are entirely within control here," or "In fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law," or " in the street ask for voluntary donations from a charity" ----- It only takes one counterexample to prove that such generalizations as these 3 are false --- and we don't even need anything more than that.
It is not an anecdote, either; this is a verifiable thing that has actually happened at least once and even been documented and covered by media.
There are of course many others, for example: Chicago, Red light cameras tag thousands for undeserved tickets
However, I'm not convinced that the $60 million/year revenue from PACER on top of the court filing fees is necessary to build a simple document search and retrieval site.
No.... $2 or $3 Million/Year should be ample to do that. They should just offer access on a subscription basis with a "number full documents/filing retrievals" allowance instead of per page --- And the subscription rate could depend on whether this is for personal use, education, Or non-profit use, Or if you are a legal professional, and in the latter cases charge 'em a professional subscription rate with a clause in the personal subscriptions prohibiting use by the licensed attorneys, so the public at large can have more access, but profiting users still pay....
n fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law.
No, that does not really work... well, maybe, unless you need to Park your Car; or you just somehow happen to be near the camera's view after someone else recently made a violation.
This app also assists Lawful and Non-Impaired drivers in avoiding the inconvenience or uncomfortable situation of happening upon an unexpected checkpoint and possibly becoming subject to some search or test that they wish to avoid.
In other words.... this functionality has lawful and beneficial uses, contrary to what their letter suggests.
Furthermore, the submission, sharing, and dissemination of this information about government activity is speech of a political nature among the types of speech most strongly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, which the NYC PD is not above.
Contrary to the ridiculous police claims... the Red Light Cameras and Speed Traps are a greedy money grab. Owned by private companies that take most of the cut, at least typically.... these things use a highly dubious process of ticketing people that
involves police accusers signing off on "violations" they haven't actually witnessed.
Or it might be that the business model of giving away storage space and bandwidth is not viable
Flickr Free never did that. As far as we know its perfectly viable --- they always had a limit on the Free one of a certain number of uploads per month, but until now it was never limited in how many Photos you could share with the public.... they provide a service where users can submit and share photos, and in exchange the Photo site can monetize them by showing advertising.
Its Ashame for all those photos to just vanish from the public..... this was like when Geocities went away, but possibly worse since there's noone to archive the stuff getting deleted.
What is this nonsense? Huawei is considered a trusted supplier.
Their network gear is in widespread use especially in service provider networks.
Others, such as Cisco.... however, seem more questionable. Long track record of crash bugs and vulnerabilities on certain sw; some reported cases of compromised equipment doing nefarious stuff -- serious past vulnerabilities, including the ability to present malicious browser code and credential capture from certain (ASA) firewall devices in the VPN functionality, etc.
Microphones and the respective chips are so inexpensive, small, and low power now: that there's no reason not to include them
on every device for possible future capability (or covert data gathering capability).
If unused by the product... it will just be unlisted on the spec sheet, and not software enabled.
Expect pretty soon: even simple appliances like the Smoke Detectors in every room, Electric Blankets, Vibrators, Light Switches, Wall Outlets, Toilets, Showers, Bathtubs, Faucets, Refrigerators, Microwaves, Coffee Pots, Dishwashers, Washing machines, Ovens, Stoves, etc... to all include a tiny logic board, wireless internet capability, and a little microphone and speaker: maybe eventually a tiny little camera to go with the microphone.
I was complaining about this in another thread just last week.
It would sure be nice if these companies like Mozilla and Google would show a little more consideration for organizations,
especially enterprises who are deploying their product, and stop making such high risk changes without considering the ramifications -- and testing appropriately in real-world environments.
Historically; it seems like Microsoft was the only browser developer sensitive to issues managing the deployment and
operation of their product in an enterprise setting --- where you can't just go updating web apps every 12 months or even more often for a browser API change, unfortunately it gets worse now that development of Edge's engine is being abandoned to switch to Chromium ---- threatening browser monoculture and proprietary "experience" features to start all over again - with Chrome as the offender now, in the same vein as MSIE6 was.
If the person isn't suing for contract violations, that doesn't even matter.
Bzzt. Wrong. The only possible claim they could make without the EULA would be product warranty.
Regardless of the theory of liability, whether in Contract, Tort, or otherwise,
the EULA governs all aspects of the relationship between the parties, and the EULA specifically asserts that.
If they Really wanted to stop this --- then stop trying to Geo Identify IP addresses, and
instead: Step 1. require services to use Customer's Billing Information. If the customer's billing
address is in Canada, then they cannot access the US library.
Step 2. On mobile apps, require the service to cross-check customer's location using the GPS and location services
of the mobile device --- if the GPS does not say you are in the US, then you cannot access the US library, even if your billing address is in the US.
If you are a US resident but are going on a trip, then allow services to provide customers a way to login to the website,
Record the fact that they are going on a trip, and pay a $20 fee for "2 weeks - Access to Canada or other local country's library while on vacation", Premium charge required for out-of-region access, Limit to 2 2-week trips per year.
Not all attorneys are familiar with patent, IP, or EULA laws, but all of them do know that a lot of EULA language can be found unenforcable
That is not true; however -- in the US EULAs have been held up just fine, when the user was required to click accept before using the software.
The facts may favor Apple even more strongly here, since the FaceTime software itself distributed For Free
Modifying purchase of software into a licensing the use and
voiding the implied warranties over software such as merchantability in the software EULA/license is specifically sanctioned by the UCC 2-316.
What if financial harm caused somebody to be unable to treat a physical ailment, leaving them in pain?
That would be an example of consequential damages Or special damages.
In most civil cases, such as this one, those are not proximately caused by Apple's wrongful behavior, and the plaintiff would be entitled only to the direct damages and nothing beyond those reasonably foreseeable by Apple.
In any event, the Software License required to use Facetime includes a specific dollar limit on Apple's liability to $50.