And in doing so, they acknowledged that bitcoins have value and can be auctioned. This is the government implicitly declaring that bitcoins are real property, rather than worthless tokens in the latest online nerd-game.
If the gov't had seized 30,000 Magic cards, or 300 lbs of rusty scrap metal, they would have done the same thing. The USMS isn't making ANY comment about the value of bitcoins, merely that it appears others will pay money for them.
It's not a boogey man at all. It's a real risk, regardless of your political persuasion. The convention could end up deciding to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and prohibit private ownership of firearms. It could decide to ban abortion. It could decide to dramatically rein in the EPA, or dramatically expand its powers. The entire basis of our legal system would be on the table.
That's the legislative check and balance to the court. If a congress can be bribed to make an amendment to the constitution that specifies that money, resources, or commodities cannot be equated to speech, then the verdict of the Supreme Court is nullified by the voices that represent the will of the people. The real trick is getting a congress in office that would agree on passing the amendment.
Actually, you need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Amending the Constitution ain't easy (intentionally so).
The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't be compelled to provide a password, if the fact that you have the password is, in and of itself, incriminating. So, if there's a hard drive that the police have reason to believe contains child porn (just as an example), and you haven't acknowledged that the drive is yours, then the police can't compel you to provide the password, since to do so would be to admit that the drive is yours (or at least provide strong evidence that it is). If there's no question that the drive is yours, however (particularly if you've admitted that it's yours), then providing the password doesn't in and of itself incriminate you.
Wait, so you're claiming that reference constitutes a loophole? Any trial judge, reading this opinion, is going to very clearly understand how narrow that exception actually is. The state would need to show that, given that the Court has specifically cited the multiple ways that the remote wipe could be blocked, _none_ of those could be used. So, I suppose, if you had a phone without a removable battery, that couldn't be switched off (but could still somehow be searched), and the police had good reason not to be in possession of a Faraday bag, and had a reasonable belief that the phone was going to be remote wiped before they could get a Faraday bag, then they could search the phone. In practice, it's hard to see a scenario where the phone _could_ be searched, but _couldn't_ be switched off or disconnected from the network. I've never heard of a phone that locks up the ability to turn it off, but not the ability to search the phone.
Yes, I have read it, and you can't say "they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers" and say that you also understand exigent circumstances. If the police kick down the door of a random apartment, and find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, the proceeds of that search (i.e. the drugs) couldn't be used to support a narcotics charge against the occupant, it'd be a 4th Amendment violation. If the police hear screams coming from within an apartment, though, and kick down the door to find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, and with another person tied to a chair, the drugs certainly CAN be used in evidence against the owner.
Similarly, if the police have good reason to believe that, say, an arrestee's phone contains the location of a ticking bomb, or an abducted child, they can search the phone, and use evidence found against the arrestee. Then, it becomes the judge's call as to whether the circumstances justified the search.
You really oughta read the TFD (The F'ing Decision). This issue was specifically mentioned, and there is no loophole:
"In any event, as to remote wiping, law enforcement is not without specific means to address the threat. Remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network. There are at least two simple ways to do this: First, law enforcement officers can turn the phone off or remove its battery. Second, if they are concerned about encryption or other potential problems, they can leave a phone powered on and place it in an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves. See Ayers 30–31.Such devices are commonly called “Faraday bags,” after the English scientist Michael Faraday. They are essentially sandwich bags made of aluminum foil: cheap, lightweight, and easy to use. See Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 9. They may not be a complete answer to the problem, see Ayers 32, but at least for now they provide a reasonable response."
That is not an imminent threat to the officers, it is to the victim. they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers. You dont get to violate the 4th amendment just in case there is something happening to someone else.
Actually, no, they don't. They acknowledged in oral argument that, while _some_ of the antennas are statically assigned, some are also dynamically assigned. See the transcript, bottom of page 32.
Except that you're not "buying" the antenna. He's renting you the use of an antenna (different one every time, pretty much), combined with the use of the wire that gets the signal to your house.
If this were a case where you did own the antenna and the connecting wire, and just paid your neighbor to mount it on his roof, then it'd be a very different story.
You certainly do have a choice. If you want the content live, Directv, Dish, your local cable company, or (depending on where you are) your local telco will happily provide it to you. You can also put up an antenna, and watch it for free. If you're OK with slightly delayed, then Hulu+ should get you a lot of what you're looking for. You have lots of choices.
Actually, it was more based on the amendments the Congress made to the Copyright Act in 1976, to overturn two previous Supreme Court decisions (Fortnightly and Teleprompter). The Court had ruled that CATV (Community Antenna Television, which is exactly what it sounds like, put up one big antenna, and run coax from there to people's houses; it was used to get signal to areas that couldn't get good broadcast quality) was outside the scope of the Copyright Act, and Congress changed the law to clarify that it was.
In Aereo, the Court ruled that Aereo was largely similar to those CATV operators - it took the broadcast signal off the air and distributed it to multiple viewers, essentially simultaneous.y.
Slashdot Mirror
The gov't is saying anything about their value. The buyers in the auction are.
Corporations are people, according to recent laws.
Only if you consider 1819 to be "recent."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And in doing so, they acknowledged that bitcoins have value and can be auctioned. This is the government implicitly declaring that bitcoins are real property, rather than worthless tokens in the latest online nerd-game.
If the gov't had seized 30,000 Magic cards, or 300 lbs of rusty scrap metal, they would have done the same thing. The USMS isn't making ANY comment about the value of bitcoins, merely that it appears others will pay money for them.
It's not a boogey man at all. It's a real risk, regardless of your political persuasion. The convention could end up deciding to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and prohibit private ownership of firearms. It could decide to ban abortion. It could decide to dramatically rein in the EPA, or dramatically expand its powers. The entire basis of our legal system would be on the table.
That's the legislative check and balance to the court. If a congress can be bribed to make an amendment to the constitution that specifies that money, resources, or commodities cannot be equated to speech, then the verdict of the Supreme Court is nullified by the voices that represent the will of the people. The real trick is getting a congress in office that would agree on passing the amendment.
Actually, you need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Amending the Constitution ain't easy (intentionally so).
The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't be compelled to provide a password, if the fact that you have the password is, in and of itself, incriminating. So, if there's a hard drive that the police have reason to believe contains child porn (just as an example), and you haven't acknowledged that the drive is yours, then the police can't compel you to provide the password, since to do so would be to admit that the drive is yours (or at least provide strong evidence that it is). If there's no question that the drive is yours, however (particularly if you've admitted that it's yours), then providing the password doesn't in and of itself incriminate you.
It's not Nook that's interesting, it's the College Bookstore business. Very stable, solid margins.
He's a physicist of course, so this only works on spherical chickens in a vacuum.
In other words, it'd be perfect for the McNuggets production line.
Wait, so you're claiming that reference constitutes a loophole? Any trial judge, reading this opinion, is going to very clearly understand how narrow that exception actually is. The state would need to show that, given that the Court has specifically cited the multiple ways that the remote wipe could be blocked, _none_ of those could be used. So, I suppose, if you had a phone without a removable battery, that couldn't be switched off (but could still somehow be searched), and the police had good reason not to be in possession of a Faraday bag, and had a reasonable belief that the phone was going to be remote wiped before they could get a Faraday bag, then they could search the phone. In practice, it's hard to see a scenario where the phone _could_ be searched, but _couldn't_ be switched off or disconnected from the network. I've never heard of a phone that locks up the ability to turn it off, but not the ability to search the phone.
Yes, I have read it, and you can't say "they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers" and say that you also understand exigent circumstances. If the police kick down the door of a random apartment, and find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, the proceeds of that search (i.e. the drugs) couldn't be used to support a narcotics charge against the occupant, it'd be a 4th Amendment violation. If the police hear screams coming from within an apartment, though, and kick down the door to find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, and with another person tied to a chair, the drugs certainly CAN be used in evidence against the owner.
Similarly, if the police have good reason to believe that, say, an arrestee's phone contains the location of a ticking bomb, or an abducted child, they can search the phone, and use evidence found against the arrestee. Then, it becomes the judge's call as to whether the circumstances justified the search.
You really oughta read the TFD (The F'ing Decision). This issue was specifically mentioned, and there is no loophole:
"In any event, as to remote wiping, law enforcement is not without specific means to address the threat. Remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network. There are at least two simple ways to do this: First, law enforcement officers can turn the phone off or remove its battery. Second, if they are concerned about encryption or other potential problems, they can leave a phone powered on and place it in an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves. See Ayers 30–31.Such devices are commonly called “Faraday bags,” after the English scientist Michael Faraday. They are essentially sandwich bags made of aluminum foil: cheap, lightweight, and easy to use. See Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 9. They may not be a complete answer to the problem, see Ayers 32, but at least for now they provide a reasonable response."
That is not an imminent threat to the officers, it is to the victim. they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers. You dont get to violate the 4th amendment just in case there is something happening to someone else.
Google "exigent circumstances."
Actually, no, they don't. They acknowledged in oral argument that, while _some_ of the antennas are statically assigned, some are also dynamically assigned. See the transcript, bottom of page 32.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...
It would take a Constitutional amendment, not just a law.
Yup, he/she is, and no, it won't apply, since screening at the border is a different animal.
You don't remember correctly. Breyer voted against Citizens United.
Except that you're not "buying" the antenna. He's renting you the use of an antenna (different one every time, pretty much), combined with the use of the wire that gets the signal to your house.
If this were a case where you did own the antenna and the connecting wire, and just paid your neighbor to mount it on his roof, then it'd be a very different story.
Yup, exactly.
Regarding 1-to-1 vs. one-to-many, the ruling deals with this issue explicitly. See page 14.
Regarding it not being streaming to download your own data across the Internet, the ruling discusses this issue as well, see page 15.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...
You certainly do have a choice. If you want the content live, Directv, Dish, your local cable company, or (depending on where you are) your local telco will happily provide it to you. You can also put up an antenna, and watch it for free. If you're OK with slightly delayed, then Hulu+ should get you a lot of what you're looking for. You have lots of choices.
No, they don't.
Actually, it was more based on the amendments the Congress made to the Copyright Act in 1976, to overturn two previous Supreme Court decisions (Fortnightly and Teleprompter). The Court had ruled that CATV (Community Antenna Television, which is exactly what it sounds like, put up one big antenna, and run coax from there to people's houses; it was used to get signal to areas that couldn't get good broadcast quality) was outside the scope of the Copyright Act, and Congress changed the law to clarify that it was.
In Aereo, the Court ruled that Aereo was largely similar to those CATV operators - it took the broadcast signal off the air and distributed it to multiple viewers, essentially simultaneous.y.
The fact that this app exists means that parking spaces are mispriced. If they were priced correctly, there wouldn't be a black market for them.
Typically, about 1/3, so call it $100M.
A fuck-ton, equivalent to sixteen 125-lb prostitutes.