Is this the beginning of the end of 'free content' for local news?
No, it's the equivalent of the whining you see from the other old corporate clowns whenever a technological paradigm shift happens. It's akin to the *AA and their histrionics about home video back in the 1980s and filesharing today.
Same nonsense as the moral panic over comic books in the 1940s-50s. Same nonsense the older generation always accuses the younger generations of.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." You know who said that? Socrates (ca. 469 BC - 399 BC).
New Hampshire also has Part I, Art. 7 of its own constitution, which ensures state sovereignty against anything the Federal government does that New Hampshire doesn't explicitly consent to. And then there's Part I, Art. 10, titled "Right of Revolution," which reads in part, "[W]henever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government."
Of course, on a practical level, our attempts at pushing back the Fedgov haven't amounted to much yet. But out of 400 legislators, in 2006, we elected one Free State Project participant; in 2008, four were elected, and as of 2010, 12-15 were elected (depending on whom you ask). In total, there are probably 40-50 pro-liberty legislators, and this number is only growing due to the work of groups like the N.H. Liberty Alliance.
This will probably cost New York a pretty penny if it passes and they get sued over it.
Fortunately, crap like this wouldn't even make it out of the gate in New Hampshire, where I live, not after our legislature created a "constitutional review" standing committee a couple years ago. Any bill that a legislator believes to be possibly unconstitutional gets referred to that committee after coming out of its first committee, and they get to attach their recommendation when the bill gets voted on by the full legislature.
The government agency that was created to regulate communications and ensure only big corporate players can buy their way into the market, has a suggestion that would make incredible profits for the corporations it exists to serve.
See, government regulation is all about serving and protecting the public, isn't it...?
...The grand converse fallacy, where people try to conclude from this that if depressed Internet users do X, Y, and Z, then if someone is doing X, Y, and Z, it's an indication that they're depressed and in need of "help."
What's that, you say, you have "research labs" and "universities" where they "write software themselves"? BAN THEM AS WELL! All those college kids are pirates, anyway.
No, what will happen is people will be required to have special, expensive licenses if they want to run "real" computers. Universities will be able to pay for these, and of course the corporations who buy the licensing legislation in first place will be able to afford them. Two classes of people: The well-to-do and well-connected who can afford to buy into such a system, and everyone else. This model is of course what the *AA are already used to, from radio and television.
This will only serve to improve online privacy and anonymity technology, making it more robust, resilient, and secure---putting these companies and their attacks on Internet users in the same category as any other online criminals, right where they belong.
A 42 USC 1983 lawsuit targets both the government and the individual offender. The idea under 1983 is that the officer is acting "under color of law," not actually enforcing legitimate laws, so the suits puncture sovereign immunity. Sometimes the government will still back the officer, but depending on the egregiousness of the misconduct, they can step out and say, "You're on your own."
I hope all you people who were whining about Internet retails back when they were untaxed, not "paying their fair share" and having an "unfair advantage" over brick and mortar stores, are happy with the results. Now one of the retailers turns around and buys privilege from the government, actually benefiting from these taxes.
Sometimes. But 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuits are conducted against both the government in question (city, state, whatever) and the individual official who committed the act. The key is that the individual official is accused of acting "under color of law"---that is, the official is not actually enforcing the law, but committing an unlawful act which he's claiming is law enforcement---and therefore he's not protected by sovereign immunity. So sometimes the individual is held directly responsible.
Indeed, like Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). Glik got $170,000 from Boston over this kind of police abuse. Similar lawsuits are underway in New Hampshire against cops from the Town of Weare; New Hampshire is part of the First Circuit, so we can guess how these cases will go.:)
The police harassment of photographers won't really end until either: 1) A settlement over this costs a city a Whole Lot of Money (>$100,000.00 + all lawyer fees).
How's $170,000 sound?:)
See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). Glik got a $170,000 settlement out of the Boston police. In New Hampshire, there are several people who were similarly abused by police and now have similar lawsuits underway. The First Circuit covers New Hampshire, so I think you can guess how these cases will go.
(The rare reason: It violates the privacy of a citizen who is involved.)
Yup. This was always the excuse they'd bring up when we in New Hampshire were fighting this issue legislatively. Domestic violence cases, child victims, whatever emotional bullshit they could throw up to keep the wiretapping law here usable as a weapon to prevent people from recording police abuse---whichis how they always use it here.
Fortunately there was recently a very positive U.S. District Court ruling, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), which overrules all of this and makes legislative attempts to fix the problem a moot point.
Or you could just move out of the hellhole that is Maryland and somewhere freer.:)
There are a large number of activists fighting the right-to-record battle in New Hampshire, and we're winning quite handily. There were a number of people in the Town of Weare who were arrested and charged with felonies for recording a traffic stop. After the criminal cases were dismissed or dropped, the U.S. District Court, First Circuit (which covers New Hampshire) coincidentally released a highly positive ruling, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), regarding someone similarly abused by police in Boston. Glik got $170,000 in damages. Now the New Hampshire activists are all suing the Weare cops, demanding similar damages, and they'll most likely prevail.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's the equivalent of the whining you see from the other old corporate clowns whenever a technological paradigm shift happens. It's akin to the *AA and their histrionics about home video back in the 1980s and filesharing today.
Same nonsense as the moral panic over comic books in the 1940s-50s. Same nonsense the older generation always accuses the younger generations of.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." You know who said that? Socrates (ca. 469 BC - 399 BC).
Who said I said the U.S. was better? We have the same nonsense in a lot of cities and towns here.
"In 'sane' countries, the government makes us wash our trash."
And then they rationalize this as some sort of natural "externality" to justify it.
There are myriad idiotic motor vehicle laws here---like everywhere. I'll add that to the list of things we can try to repeal next year.
One very active aspect of the liberty movement here is restoration of the meaning and intent of the Tenth Amendment. New Hampshire was one of the first states to get this movement started a couple years ago.
New Hampshire also has Part I, Art. 7 of its own constitution, which ensures state sovereignty against anything the Federal government does that New Hampshire doesn't explicitly consent to. And then there's Part I, Art. 10, titled "Right of Revolution," which reads in part, "[W]henever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government."
Of course, on a practical level, our attempts at pushing back the Fedgov haven't amounted to much yet. But out of 400 legislators, in 2006, we elected one Free State Project participant; in 2008, four were elected, and as of 2010, 12-15 were elected (depending on whom you ask). In total, there are probably 40-50 pro-liberty legislators, and this number is only growing due to the work of groups like the N.H. Liberty Alliance.
This will probably cost New York a pretty penny if it passes and they get sued over it.
Fortunately, crap like this wouldn't even make it out of the gate in New Hampshire, where I live, not after our legislature created a "constitutional review" standing committee a couple years ago. Any bill that a legislator believes to be possibly unconstitutional gets referred to that committee after coming out of its first committee, and they get to attach their recommendation when the bill gets voted on by the full legislature.
The government agency that was created to regulate communications and ensure only big corporate players can buy their way into the market, has a suggestion that would make incredible profits for the corporations it exists to serve.
See, government regulation is all about serving and protecting the public, isn't it...?
...The grand converse fallacy, where people try to conclude from this that if depressed Internet users do X, Y, and Z, then if someone is doing X, Y, and Z, it's an indication that they're depressed and in need of "help."
I can't wait to see how they work Anthropogenic Global Draining into the overall eschatology...
No, what will happen is people will be required to have special, expensive licenses if they want to run "real" computers. Universities will be able to pay for these, and of course the corporations who buy the licensing legislation in first place will be able to afford them. Two classes of people: The well-to-do and well-connected who can afford to buy into such a system, and everyone else. This model is of course what the *AA are already used to, from radio and television.
This will only serve to improve online privacy and anonymity technology, making it more robust, resilient, and secure---putting these companies and their attacks on Internet users in the same category as any other online criminals, right where they belong.
You left out jury box.
Highway surveillance is outright prohibited here.
A 42 USC 1983 lawsuit targets both the government and the individual offender. The idea under 1983 is that the officer is acting "under color of law," not actually enforcing legitimate laws, so the suits puncture sovereign immunity. Sometimes the government will still back the officer, but depending on the egregiousness of the misconduct, they can step out and say, "You're on your own."
I hope all you people who were whining about Internet retails back when they were untaxed, not "paying their fair share" and having an "unfair advantage" over brick and mortar stores, are happy with the results. Now one of the retailers turns around and buys privilege from the government, actually benefiting from these taxes.
I'd write more, but I'm laughing too hard. :)
Sometimes. But 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuits are conducted against both the government in question (city, state, whatever) and the individual official who committed the act. The key is that the individual official is accused of acting "under color of law"---that is, the official is not actually enforcing the law, but committing an unlawful act which he's claiming is law enforcement---and therefore he's not protected by sovereign immunity. So sometimes the individual is held directly responsible.
Indeed, like Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). Glik got $170,000 from Boston over this kind of police abuse. Similar lawsuits are underway in New Hampshire against cops from the Town of Weare; New Hampshire is part of the First Circuit, so we can guess how these cases will go. :)
How's $170,000 sound? :)
See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). Glik got a $170,000 settlement out of the Boston police. In New Hampshire, there are several people who were similarly abused by police and now have similar lawsuits underway. The First Circuit covers New Hampshire, so I think you can guess how these cases will go.
Yup. This was always the excuse they'd bring up when we in New Hampshire were fighting this issue legislatively. Domestic violence cases, child victims, whatever emotional bullshit they could throw up to keep the wiretapping law here usable as a weapon to prevent people from recording police abuse---which is how they always use it here.
Fortunately there was recently a very positive U.S. District Court ruling, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), which overrules all of this and makes legislative attempts to fix the problem a moot point.
Ever heard of Cop Block? Not 24-hour recording, but a similar idea of always keeping the cops on-the-record.
Or you could just move out of the hellhole that is Maryland and somewhere freer. :)
There are a large number of activists fighting the right-to-record battle in New Hampshire, and we're winning quite handily. There were a number of people in the Town of Weare who were arrested and charged with felonies for recording a traffic stop. After the criminal cases were dismissed or dropped, the U.S. District Court, First Circuit (which covers New Hampshire) coincidentally released a highly positive ruling, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), regarding someone similarly abused by police in Boston. Glik got $170,000 in damages. Now the New Hampshire activists are all suing the Weare cops, demanding similar damages, and they'll most likely prevail.
Yup. A lot of New Hampshire liberty activists use Qik to live stream to the Internet from the phones.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
No fracking will be coming here, due to our geology. But don't let that stop grandstanding politicians from doing something to solve a problem, even one that doesn't exist.