... and journalists don't seem to recall much history.
Back in the days of the DeCSS controversy, 2600 magazine was one who proudly hosted the code on their site... only to get slapped down by the DVD CCA who accused them of distributing the code in question.
Eventually 2600 relented and stopped hosting the code... but instead had links to places it could be obtained.
The DVD CCA was not impressed... and won again, arguing that such linking was also a form of wilful distribution of the code.
Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.
That's a rather silly idea... as it assumes that no one who would desire to kill her would have any other means of finding the movie... or for that matter hasn't seen it already.
If anything, this suit has made her more of a target as all of the sudden more personal information is available.
As mentioned above, in People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama, courts have allowed searches that were consented to by minors.
Your cited definition is lacking, and actually highlights it by the some of the associated topics: "bona fide occupant, illegal occupancy, lawful occupant".
: a person who is using or living in a particular building, apartment, or room
: a person who is in a room, vehicle, etc., at a particular time
Ownership and even tenancy involve a higher level of formalization which would rise to the level of 'resident'... simple occupancy does not.
You do note a key differentiator... occasional vs regular occupancy.
While a visitor would be considered an occupant and not a resident (residency requiring either a pre-existing time spent, or a clear plan to (lease))... at what point does occupancy become residency (assuming we accept the premise that residency is required to be able to consent)?
You invite a girl back to your house for a night... she's an occupant.
She eventually moves in with you... she's a resident.
At what point in between did that status change and she inherited the legal authority to consent to a search of the resident?
You do not support this statement with law, case or otherwise.
Always fun when someone requests what they themselves didn't provide.
As I said earlier:
In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.
Clearly you didn't RTFA... as this case is about just that.
One occupant refused consent, was later arrested and the remaining occupant provided consent... which in turn allowed the police to search the property.
Please support this with case law showing a person moved to throw out evidence obtained under those circumstances and the motion was denied.
Why not ask for a purple & green elephant that is wearing a tutu, eating a ice cream cone while singing the star spangled banner?
When you attempt to frame your request in such a way, you aren't likely to get many hits... and it is rather deceptive to attempt that when trying to have a discussion.
What I described above was a series of circumstances beyond your own based on a little thinking and understanding of the law (note how you still haven't cited anything contrary to anything I've said?).
In People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama and plenty more, the courts have upheld the idea of a minor being able to grant permission (often depending on circumstances).
United States v Rith is also a good read as it applies to adult children, even discussing some circumstances where a third-party consent may not be valid, rent paying (Chapman v. United States), lock on door (United States v. Kinney), or explicit agreement... which was mentioned as a possibility (rather than as a specific citation of such a case), so given United States v. Morning and others, it is not to much to believe that even a paper agreement may not invalidate the results of a third-party consented search.
Sorry for having to do your job and thinking for you.
In Georgia v. Randolph SCOTUS held that when there was one occupant present who did not give consent, that did not allow the police to conduct a search despite the consent from another resident.
In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.
Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.
Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact... because when your 14 year old daughter who thinks you are ruining their life, the wife who is angry at you for forgetting your anniversary, or the housekeeper who is also steeling the silver gives consent... your non-objection at the time of request will allow the police in.
Then they should not be offering x amount of bandwidth to users if they cannot handle that capacity.
I take it then you want banks to keep on hand sufficient cash in case all customers decide to have a run on the bank (a knowable #)... and that road ways should be constructed so wide that they can accommodate at speed every single car that can possibly drive down it at a given time (ie nearly infinitely wide).
No... what Comcast is doing is perfectly reasonable, they offer a an upper limit for how much bandwidth you can get and do their best within reason to accommodate that... and when certain peering links become overwhelmed.
If we go down your road... can you imagine the width of a pipe that Comcast would require to any specific peer? Say you've got a million customers in a given area... each with a 15 megabit connection... under your system you'd need a 15 peta-bit pipe to Netflix... just in case everyone happened to want to watch House of Cards on several TVs in the house at the exact same time.
not allowed to expel anyone, short of a conviction of a violent felony against a school employee
I think you have that backwards... in most public schools with a union, it's virtually impossible to fire a tenured teacher... while simply violating school district policy can get you expelled without any conviction.
That's not always enough...so long as you have the surviving chips, with a bit of polishing off of the layers & an electron microscope, it's very doable to create a schematic of the part... from that you can learn how it does certain things internally, as well as identify attack points (within the IC) that with a focused ion beam can be attacked for when next you acquire a less damaged part.
This is what Comcast in the Seattle area has been doing for a bit now... their link to Netflix is overburdened most of the time and have not prioritized upgrading it at their own cost... the net result, all traffic to/from Netflix via Comcast is treated equally poorly.
Like most of lawful killing and other acts violence, wiretapping, extortion, currency printing, and a multitude of other areas... the government has granted themselves a near monopoly on such things.
Or maybe it is to remind everybody that the nuclear tipped missiles.
Seems rather overkill as the class of rocket (and associated tech) required to land on the moon is far more than what it would take launch any sort of weapon tipped missile launched from Israeli territory... assuming likely targets... unless you are suspecting they are planning on bombing the British or Madagascar....and this aside from the Israeli use of retrograde orbits (and the greater fuel costs) for their space program.
By that logic... there is little difference between Sputnik & Apollo 11.
Both were based largely on the same principals & sciences... only while the latter was not only a lot more expensive & complicated, also stands as greater proof of ones technological abilities.
HTML/SVG tend to be sandboxed to some extent... ditto for JavaScript... how do you propose your HTML based ATM interact with the card reader, cash dispenser, receipt printer or deposit slot?
I will defend your right to own guns but the concealed carry laws that all the 2nd Amendment defenders seem to favor are just a bit out there IMO. We tried that during the Dodge City and the wild west days and abandoned it sometime around 1900.
Your understanding of the 'wild west' is clearly limited to what you see in the movies.
Of course, most who oppose concealed carry forget that open carry is legal in many a state as well... and given the choice between someone being able to legally carry concealed vs open... which do you think most would prefer?
Sure... many would say "at least if I can see the gun I know it's there and who to avoid"... to which I'd say "So? If you live your life in such terror of not knowing who might be carrying a weapon and who might not be... not only are your priorities off, but you really need to see help with your anxiety issues".
Of course the broader thing is people associating a piece of metal & wood with evil... rather than understanding it is only a tool and it is the user who is the committer of such acts... and if sufficiently dedicated doesn't need a firearm.
Gun control measures at anything but the federal level are utterly worthless,
There are still borders to the north and south which are easy to pass weapons through.
As a more practical example, take your average Federal Prison or military base... federal complexes run by the feds (or those they hire to do the job)... how effective are they at reducing the illegal drug/weapon population within?
Nidal Hasan demonstrated just how effective federal gun control is.
What the above AC also ignores is that the age of majority around the time of this nations founding was closer to 21 than 18.
Hell, there was a time in the last century and the passage of the 26th Amendment that a person could be prohibited from voting based on age... and while still 18+.
Slashdot Mirror
... and journalists don't seem to recall much history.
Back in the days of the DeCSS controversy, 2600 magazine was one who proudly hosted the code on their site... only to get slapped down by the DVD CCA who accused them of distributing the code in question.
Eventually 2600 relented and stopped hosting the code... but instead had links to places it could be obtained.
The DVD CCA was not impressed... and won again, arguing that such linking was also a form of wilful distribution of the code.
That's a rather silly idea... as it assumes that no one who would desire to kill her would have any other means of finding the movie... or for that matter hasn't seen it already.
If anything, this suit has made her more of a target as all of the sudden more personal information is available.
Would you say that a minor has common authority?
As mentioned above, in People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama, courts have allowed searches that were consented to by minors.
Your cited definition is lacking, and actually highlights it by the some of the associated topics: "bona fide occupant, illegal occupancy, lawful occupant".
Merriam-Webster has a better one:
Ownership and even tenancy involve a higher level of formalization which would rise to the level of 'resident'... simple occupancy does not.
You do note a key differentiator... occasional vs regular occupancy.
While a visitor would be considered an occupant and not a resident (residency requiring either a pre-existing time spent, or a clear plan to (lease))... at what point does occupancy become residency (assuming we accept the premise that residency is required to be able to consent)?
You invite a girl back to your house for a night... she's an occupant.
She eventually moves in with you... she's a resident.
At what point in between did that status change and she inherited the legal authority to consent to a search of the resident?
Always fun when someone requests what they themselves didn't provide.
As I said earlier:
Clearly you didn't RTFA... as this case is about just that.
One occupant refused consent, was later arrested and the remaining occupant provided consent... which in turn allowed the police to search the property.
Why not ask for a purple & green elephant that is wearing a tutu, eating a ice cream cone while singing the star spangled banner?
When you attempt to frame your request in such a way, you aren't likely to get many hits... and it is rather deceptive to attempt that when trying to have a discussion.
What I described above was a series of circumstances beyond your own based on a little thinking and understanding of the law (note how you still haven't cited anything contrary to anything I've said?).
In People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama and plenty more, the courts have upheld the idea of a minor being able to grant permission (often depending on circumstances).
United States v Rith is also a good read as it applies to adult children, even discussing some circumstances where a third-party consent may not be valid, rent paying (Chapman v. United States), lock on door (United States v. Kinney), or explicit agreement... which was mentioned as a possibility (rather than as a specific citation of such a case), so given United States v. Morning and others, it is not to much to believe that even a paper agreement may not invalidate the results of a third-party consented search.
Sorry for having to do your job and thinking for you.
Then you best be on premise (or have someone else there) to refuse consent to when the police visit.
No, exactly.
In Georgia v. Randolph SCOTUS held that when there was one occupant present who did not give consent, that did not allow the police to conduct a search despite the consent from another resident.
In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.
Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.
Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact... because when your 14 year old daughter who thinks you are ruining their life, the wife who is angry at you for forgetting your anniversary, or the housekeeper who is also steeling the silver gives consent... your non-objection at the time of request will allow the police in.
Resident != Occupant, and an unchallenged occupants consent is all that is required per this case and Georgia v Randolph
Being the sole owner isn't enough. Anyone who lives there can give consent.
Have a baby sitter or housekeeper who you allow into your home while you are not there?
Guess what? They now have the ability to allow the police in to do a search without your explicit consent.
I take it then you want banks to keep on hand sufficient cash in case all customers decide to have a run on the bank (a knowable #)... and that road ways should be constructed so wide that they can accommodate at speed every single car that can possibly drive down it at a given time (ie nearly infinitely wide).
No... what Comcast is doing is perfectly reasonable, they offer a an upper limit for how much bandwidth you can get and do their best within reason to accommodate that... and when certain peering links become overwhelmed.
If we go down your road... can you imagine the width of a pipe that Comcast would require to any specific peer? Say you've got a million customers in a given area... each with a 15 megabit connection... under your system you'd need a 15 peta-bit pipe to Netflix... just in case everyone happened to want to watch House of Cards on several TVs in the house at the exact same time.
I think you have that backwards... in most public schools with a union, it's virtually impossible to fire a tenured teacher... while simply violating school district policy can get you expelled without any conviction.
In which case (as the other replies say)... stick up an antenna and call it good.
That's not always enough...so long as you have the surviving chips, with a bit of polishing off of the layers & an electron microscope, it's very doable to create a schematic of the part... from that you can learn how it does certain things internally, as well as identify attack points (within the IC) that with a focused ion beam can be attacked for when next you acquire a less damaged part.
This is what Comcast in the Seattle area has been doing for a bit now... their link to Netflix is overburdened most of the time and have not prioritized upgrading it at their own cost... the net result, all traffic to/from Netflix via Comcast is treated equally poorly.
Like most of lawful killing and other acts violence, wiretapping, extortion, currency printing, and a multitude of other areas... the government has granted themselves a near monopoly on such things.
More broadly, the UK lacks the same (or comparable) legal protections of the press & free speech that the US has via our First Amendment.
Seems rather overkill as the class of rocket (and associated tech) required to land on the moon is far more than what it would take launch any sort of weapon tipped missile launched from Israeli territory... assuming likely targets... unless you are suspecting they are planning on bombing the British or Madagascar. ...and this aside from the Israeli use of retrograde orbits (and the greater fuel costs) for their space program.
By that logic... there is little difference between Sputnik & Apollo 11.
Both were based largely on the same principals & sciences... only while the latter was not only a lot more expensive & complicated, also stands as greater proof of ones technological abilities.
HTML/SVG tend to be sandboxed to some extent... ditto for JavaScript... how do you propose your HTML based ATM interact with the card reader, cash dispenser, receipt printer or deposit slot?
ATMs are more than just a touch screen with a UI.
You forgot "requiring Google+ integration for managing your NEST".
You really need to look into the re-election rate of incumbents.
Yes, there is a trickle of new-comers... but the bulk of them remain unchanged year-to-year.
Your understanding of the 'wild west' is clearly limited to what you see in the movies.
Of course, most who oppose concealed carry forget that open carry is legal in many a state as well... and given the choice between someone being able to legally carry concealed vs open... which do you think most would prefer?
Sure... many would say "at least if I can see the gun I know it's there and who to avoid"... to which I'd say "So? If you live your life in such terror of not knowing who might be carrying a weapon and who might not be... not only are your priorities off, but you really need to see help with your anxiety issues".
Of course the broader thing is people associating a piece of metal & wood with evil... rather than understanding it is only a tool and it is the user who is the committer of such acts... and if sufficiently dedicated doesn't need a firearm.
In response to one of the Executive Orders by the President after the Newtown shooting, the did a study of their own and came to similar conclusions: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
There are still borders to the north and south which are easy to pass weapons through.
As a more practical example, take your average Federal Prison or military base... federal complexes run by the feds (or those they hire to do the job)... how effective are they at reducing the illegal drug/weapon population within?
Nidal Hasan demonstrated just how effective federal gun control is.
What the above AC also ignores is that the age of majority around the time of this nations founding was closer to 21 than 18.
Hell, there was a time in the last century and the passage of the 26th Amendment that a person could be prohibited from voting based on age... and while still 18+.