This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops. (Yeah the summary is misleading. Without looking back at it now, I'm going to guess it was by Beau "clickbait" HD).
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent
You're contradicting yourself there because the dissent you're objecting to says that the government owes the guy money, because the government infringed his rights.
Furthermore, "the reasoning of the court", which you call "abhorrent" says that not only should he sue the government, but also the individual officers as well.
The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like, I think, is based on the argument that sometimes court rulings can be hard to completely understand - a point you're proving well by completely misunderstanding the topic of this hearing.
The hearing was about whether he should sue only the city of Fort Worth, or also sue the individual officers personally.
The law about that is the officer os personally liable for monetary damages only if *all* reasonable cops would know that what they did was unconstitutional, because there was clearly established law covering those specific actions in that particular circumstance. In all other cases, the offended party can sue the city or state that the cop works for.
A couple of examples:
A cop is interviewing a suspect. When the suspect just sits there, refusing to talk, the cop hits the suspect with a stick in an attempt to force a false confession. The officer would be personally liable because it's *clearly established* that such behavior is violates the suspect's Constitutional rights. No reasonable cop could think it's okay to hit the guy.
On the other hand: Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Judge Clement's dissenting opinion did not say that citizens aren't allowed to film the police.
This hearing was about whether he should just sue the city, or of he could also sue the individual officers personally, given the particular details of the events, and the particular circumstances at the time. The law on this question depends on those details.
Clement believes that the city is liable in this particular instance, not the individual officers personally.
There's no general principle at being decided in this case. Though it was mentioned that citizens generally have a right to film police in the conduct of their duties, that was settled law - as the the opinion mentioned, there is no circuit court split or anything on that question.
> As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen.
Of course there are laws. Several of them. This submission is just BeauHD spouting more utter bullshit.
Yesterday, the FCC decided that some of the hundreds of thousands of Title II regulations originally written to regulate the phone companies would apply differently to small ISPs. BeauHD claimed the order said "ISPs are now allowed to lie about their pricing!" Uh, no. The closest regulation to what he claimed is actually that small ISPs won't have to go through the same six-to-twelve month process of getting preapproval from FCC before they offer a new pricing plan. Wireline phone companies have to get any pricing options pre-approved ahead of time under Title II.
When BeauHD submits a summary saying "giant shark eats man alive", that means what actually happened is that a trout bit a guy's finger.
>Dealers were upset at being cut out of the loop by Telsa (to the point of getting state legislatures to draft laws blocking Telsa's stores)
The laws prohibiting manufacturers from owning dealerships were passed in the 1920s-1950s. (Before Elon Musk's father, Errol Musk, was born, and 60 years before 18 year-old Elon first came to North America). I guess those dealers must have psychic! Also very concerned about their great-grandchildren, since everyone involved in passing those laws are dead now.
If you learn a bit about what happened before manufacturing and dealerships were split up, and why those laws were passed, you'll probably have some interesting things to say about it.
> This action isn't about what businesses have to read. It's about what information they have to disclose to their customers.
Well no, THIS action has little to do with what has to be disclosed to consumers. If you want some regulations about that, if you see small ISPs engaging in funny business about pricing, make some appropriate regulations. This action is about title II - regulations written for the big phone companies, many of them written for THE phone company, Bell, before it was broken up. They cover many things, but the common theme is that they have to get FCC approval before doing almost anything.
To the extent the regulations were influenced by the phone company's lobbyists, I'm fairly sure Verizon's lobbyists weren't trying to make sure that small companies could fairlt compete with Verizon.
That's certainly true that there may be more than one cause, and there is a well-developed body of law in this area. Including "but-for" and "last clear chance". I don't believe discussing that is necessary for the present question.
> According to your legal theory of negligence, consumers in fact could NEVER sue product manufacturers, since the "results of your action are the results"...
In fact I said the purchaser WOULD sue the manufacturer. The manufacturer took some actions, which had some results. The manufacturer is responsible for the results of their actions. It may be that their action was telling their customer (UPS in this example) "this truck can safely drive itself under all conditions". It may also be that their action was telling UPS "this truck has driver assistance features, which reduce the likelihood of crashes when the driver fails to see something up ahead." I, the third-party driver on the road, wasn't part of that conversation between Tesla and UPS, so I don't even know what Tesla said. I do know that UPS sent the truck out on an ice-covered road, with a certain number of deliveries to make on the shift (implying it has to go a certain speed). If UPS's truck hits me, again I expect UPS to pay for the damages. UPS thinks Tesla misled them about the truck's capabilities, they can turn around and collect from Tesla.
> No one buys a toy airplane with the expectation that someone's life depends upon it
Did you buy a car with the expectation that it'll autonomously drive itself on ice-covered, twisty mountain passes safely, while you watch a movie and drink whiskey? I didn't. Some cars now feature automatic emergency braking. *When* the car senses an impending collision, it'll automatically apply the brakes. I don't expect that it will predict every possible accident and prevent me from getting in a wreck. Do you? I don't think collision detection removes my responsibility to avoid creating an impending collision in the first place. I expect that, like safety belts, it will often reduce the injuries for certain common types of collisions.
> What error in judgement did they make that makes them liable?
That's not the legal, or fair, standard. The results of my actions are the results, whether I made an error in judgement or just got unlucky. Of my action causes damage, I'm responsible for the results of my actions. Heck, even og my dog bites you, I'm responsible for the medical bill etc because it's my dog - you don't have to prove that I knowingly kept a dangerous dog or made some other error. (Unless perhaps you're trespassing, in which case maybe you caused the bite.)
> the passengers won't be making any operational decisions; there may not even BE passengers in lots of cases. > They aren't operating them except to have called it up and set a destination. > Uber/Lyft/MyCityCabCompany/BigCityTrucking/Amazon?
If Amazon puts a log in the road, they are responsible for the results. If Amazon parks a regular truck in the middle of the road, they are responsible for the results. If they drive trucks with the new automatic emergency braking and their drivers completely rely on that to avoid accidents, they are responsible. Whatever Amazon puts on the road, they are responsible for the results of their actions in putting it there.
> If they crash, it is because the vehicle wasn't sufficiently able to cope with doing the thing it was made to do. Operating in traffic in the real world safely is their function. That includes windy days, or in traffic jams, or during a police road closure or construction detour.
Maybe such a thing will be sold some day. Right now, cruise control amd automatic braking aren't anywhere near what you've described. When that happens, of it ever does, Tesla will tell *UPS* "buy our self-driving trucks, you can pay fewer drivers." Tesla will show *UPS* under what conditions the trucks can be safely deployed (snow and ice?). UPS will make a decisiom for the purpose of saving themselves money, based on their discussions with Tesla. Note I'm not part of those discussions. I don't know of Tesla told UPS "these trucks can handle dry pavement autonomously. When there is ice on the road or other dangerous conditions you'll need drivers." As far as I know, Tesla may have told UPS "these trucks have driver assist to reduce driver fatigue."
If UPS's truck rear-ends me on an ice-covered road, I'm going to sue UPS. I don't know what Tesla told UPS about what conditions are safe and which are unsafe for the trucks. If UPS also sues Tesla for selling them bunk trucks, that's none of my business. That's all about the discussions and contract between UPS and Tesla.
I have a toy plane and toy quadcopter, also known as drones. I fly them (tell them to fly themselves?) at an athletic park, in the middle of several soccer fields. Surrounding the soccer fields are open, undeveloped land. Sometimes the wind picks up unexpectedly or there is a mechanical problem and they crash. Then I have to go find it in the trees or whatever.
If I chose to send my drone (toy) flying around a busy parking lot and a gust of wind sent it crashing into a baby stroller, I would be responsible. I sent the drone flying, I'm responsible for any consequences. (On the other hand, if I use it to assist in a search and rescue mission, somebody may give me credit for doing that.) Anyway, I bought it and chose a time and a place to put it in the air, and where to direct it to go. I hold the "off" switch and the "abort, come home" switch. It's my responsibility.
Also, if my drone suddenly flies off course at full speed and crashes into something fragile AND other owners of the same model report the same type of malfunction, I'm going to ask the manufacturer to reimburse me for any damages I had to cover. There are implied warranties they would be in breach of.
I see "self driving" cars exactly the same. If I buy one, I can let it drive on a road in Arizona that's straight for 45 miles at a time and I only see another car once every 20 minutes, or I can turn on "self driving" mode on a busy freeway. I can keep my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road ready to respond to emergencies or I can choose to watch Youtube in busy traffic. I'm responsible for how I use the device (via my insurance company, whom I pay to absorb the risk). If the car suddenly accelerates at full throttle in a traffic jam, I'm going to hold the manufacturer responsible for the defect, but as far as other drivers are concerned, my car hit them. My car is my responsibility.
I would tell you about what happened the last time I dropped some metallic hydrogen, but neither I nor anyone else has ever dropped the stuff. Therefore nobody really knows what happens when you drop it. This sample was too small to track as the diamond shattered.
They think it probably turned to gas (sublimated), but it may have remained solid and might be under the lab bench right now. Or maybe some other, unexpected thing happened - maybe it reacted with oxygen in the air to form water. Nobody knows until the try it again and watch closely.
Yes, I read the judgement and the court wrote that there is a fifth amendment concern. Specifically, the judge pointed to another major ruling recently that by unlocking a phone via a password (or fingerprint), the person is effectively testifying that it is their phone, under their control, and they can decrypt and encrypt it.
Also, the application for the warrant was deficient on traditional fourth amendment grounds, specificity of what and who would be searched, and what the police expected to find where. They wanted to use the fingers of everyone present at the house (resident or *visitor*) to search every electronic device in the house. So a delivery man dropping off a couch at the time would have his phone searched.
The judge indicated that the police needed to be more specific. Something like "we want to search Bob Smith's Galaxy S5 for a file called 12yroldfuck.mpg because we believe he downloaded that file to that phone on February 12th, based on [evidence]." That would solve both the 4th amendment specificity issue and the 5th amendment issue - if the police already know that the Galaxy S5 is Bob's, the act of him unlocking it doesn't provide new, testimonial information.
I think what the summary was trying to hint at is that the ruling doesn't prohibit the normal process of taking fingerprints incident to arrest.
ISPs are now subject to Title II regulations as common carriers - the rules written for Verizon and AT&T now apply to ISPs. Ponder for a moment how many regulations a thousand bureaucrats have written over the last several decades for phone companies.
The order which lists which regulations now apply to ISPs as well is 400 pages. Here is is for your reading pleasure:
I just spent two days filling out forms and schedules for the IRS, in order to report the fact that I owe them $3.25. All those forms might make sense for a big company; it's asinine that I had to do all that to calculate $3.25 in federal unemployment tax because I earned $530 from a side business last year. My total tax forms for that $530 business are probably 40 pages of tax forms per year. I fully support distinguishing between a company like Verizon vs Ray Morris Inc when it comes to reporting requirements.
The subject of the present action is categorizing ISPs as common carriers under Title II - classifying them as phone companies. Title II was written with AT&T in mind, assuming the related company will have a team of people dedicated to compliance. It wasn't written for small companies. Here's the Congressional statute (not too bad) and 400 PAGE FCC order on applying it to ISPs: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
You say *complying* with the order should be easy, I dare you to even try to READ the order. There are 400 pages in the order itself, many of which refer to other FCC regulations you'll need to read. Make sure to read the part about how you're not allowed to bring up a new connection or remove an old one without a certificate of preapproval from the FCC.
Indeed this "new" tech (copy pasting junk from Stackoverflow) can't handle simple tasks like division, or modulus.
One programming task I handled, we already had a function which basically computed some averages, using division and a few other simple operations. To simplify, lets's just say the core function was something like quotient(x,y), which would return X divided by Y. That was useful. The customer very much wanted a slightly different version. They wanted quotient(x). That was the requirement for the software, compute quotient(x). I'd like to see any AI produce code for that. I, a programmer, did eventually get the customer what they needed.
My current assignment I'm working on today is similar. It's basically "write an SQL query which returns the list of software products we have in our database, and for each list all of the operating system versiona they can run on". Sounds simple, right. The relevant data is a table of about a million rows in this form:
SoftwareID - ProgramName - Vendor 1 - Firefox - Mozilla Foundation 2 - bash - FSF 3 - jQuery - jQuery Foundation
I'd love to see some IA that writes a query to get, from the above table, information about which OS versions each software package can run on. That's my task as a programmer, the requirements set by the product manager. I'll take care of the need, get the job done. I may also strangle my product manager, but that's a different topic.
Trolling? You've got your history backward. The federation (federal) didn't create it's members. The states created the federation as the states ratified the Constitution. Hell even just the *name* of the country tells you that, or look up the definition of "state" - it means basically "country". United States - countries that came together.
In the plain wording of Constitution, the states delegated certain listed powers to the federal (federation) government and *reserved* all other powers to themselves.
> Obviously they wouldn't want to publish those details, customers would abandon them pretty quickly, what I'm asking is if there is any legal protection.
There *are* some privacy laws. It's generally illegal to pull someone's credit report without permission and a reason to do so. Notably the balance on an existing *loan* account is relevant to a lender when you ask for another loan, so the balances on existing loans does appear on the credit report, which has some legal protections. Some one say there's no privacy issue there since it's released only with your permission - you're allowed to tell me your bank balance, either directly or through the credit bureau.
I'm sure you can Google more details about privacy laws - the more interesting question you brought up is how the first amendment relates to them. Under the first amendment, the bank employees can say whatever they want, right? SCOTUS has found the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments together suggest a right to privacy. Therefore there is a balance between the bank officer's right to talk and the customer's right to privacy. A person's Constitutional right to privacy provides Congress and the states a legitimate reason to pass privacy laws.
It has been recognized that a) the citizenry has a valid interest in knowing some things about the actions of public figures and b) by choosing to pursue celebrity, a person may voluntary give up some of their privacy. Therefore for public figures there is a different balance between piracy and the first amendment than there is for typical private people, people who aren't a) important to the public and b) trying to be on display to the public.
Here is why the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply the 1st to states. Note the first word of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Under the Supremacy Clause, states can't overrule that - they can't allow CONGRESS to make a law...
On the other hand, the author of the Privileges and Immunities Clause 14th amendment, John Bingham, said that the Privileges and Immunities Clause extended the 1st to the states. That was in the late 1850s. Two or three years later, SCOTUS ruled that Bingham was incorrect, his words didn't mean what he said they meant. And so it wasn't until 63 years later, in 1925, that SCOTUS acknowledged what the author of the 14th had told them.
The 14th amendment applies the first to the states. Two different clauses of the 14th are important.
The 14th amendment includes the following words: -- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States __ (Privileges or Immunities Clause)
The guy who wrote those words, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Bingham, said his words mean the first eight amendments apply to the states as well. The 14th says that states are not allowed to violate the first through eigth amendments, according to the guy who wrote the 14th.
Shortly afterward, in the Slaughterhouse cases, SCOTUS "interpreted" Bingham's words to mean virtually nothing at all, and ruled that they did not mean what Bingham said they mean. (A really stupid ruling, given that Bingham was right there telling them what he meant when he wrote it.)
Later, SCOTUS realized they did need to apply some of the amendments to the states, but they had already vanished the wording in 14th that did so, by "interpreting" those words in a ridiculous way. SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse itself, so they decided to take a different part of the 14th, the "due process clause", and pretend THAT clause applies the 1st to the states. The plain language doesn't support that interpretation at all, but that's what SCOTUS had to do to avoid reversing their earlier slaughterhouse decision.
So what we're left with now is the words of the 14th apply the 1st to the states, by the privileges and immunities clause. But because SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse decisions, they pretend the 14th does so via the due process clause. We end up in the right place, via stupid logic.
Well no, people complain constantly that the wireless carriers "already built the networks and now they're just raking in profits". But if you want to talk about wired, although Verizon sold a big chunk of their wireline etwork in 2015, they also spent $5 billion upgrading wireline infrastructure the same year.
If you want to know about the financials of a public company, you look at the same document the company's owners (stockholders) look at, its annual report. It's about 80 pages or so detailing how much they spent, on what, how much revenue they had from what sources, etc. Here's Verizon's:
This story has to be fake. I read here on Slashdot (in the comments) that the phone companies built their networks decades ago and since then they've just been raking huge profits. They aren't spending tens of billions of dollars every year constantly upgrading for better, faster service. That's why we're all still using AMPS and GPRS to load WML pages over WAP. 3G and 4G never happened and neither will 5G. It's all profit for the phone companies, Sprint doesn't spend billions on upgrades constantly. Slashdot told me so.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough:
This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops. (Yeah the summary is misleading. Without looking back at it now, I'm going to guess it was by Beau "clickbait" HD).
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent
You're contradicting yourself there because the dissent you're objecting to says that the government owes the guy money, because the government infringed his rights.
Furthermore, "the reasoning of the court", which you call "abhorrent" says that not only should he sue the government, but also the individual officers as well.
The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like, I think, is based on the argument that sometimes court rulings can be hard to completely understand - a point you're proving well by completely misunderstanding the topic of this hearing.
The hearing was about whether he should sue only the city of Fort Worth, or also sue the individual officers personally.
The law about that is the officer os personally liable for monetary damages only if *all* reasonable cops would know that what they did was unconstitutional, because there was clearly established law covering those specific actions in that particular circumstance. In all other cases, the offended party can sue the city or state that the cop works for.
A couple of examples:
A cop is interviewing a suspect. When the suspect just sits there, refusing to talk, the cop hits the suspect with a stick in an attempt to force a false confession. The officer would be personally liable because it's *clearly established* that such behavior is violates the suspect's Constitutional rights. No reasonable cop could think it's okay to hit the guy.
On the other hand:
Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Judge Clement's dissenting opinion did not say that citizens aren't allowed to film the police.
This hearing was about whether he should just sue the city, or of he could also sue the individual officers personally, given the particular details of the events, and the particular circumstances at the time. The law on this question depends on those details.
Clement believes that the city is liable in this particular instance, not the individual officers personally.
There's no general principle at being decided in this case. Though it was mentioned that citizens generally have a right to film police in the conduct of their duties, that was settled law - as the the opinion mentioned, there is no circuit court split or anything on that question.
> As a European I am astounded that companies don't already have a requirement to keep personal data safe. It is something that I just expect to happen.
Of course there are laws. Several of them. This submission is just BeauHD spouting more utter bullshit.
Yesterday, the FCC decided that some of the hundreds of thousands of Title II regulations originally written to regulate the phone companies would apply differently to small ISPs. BeauHD claimed the order said "ISPs are now allowed to lie about their pricing!" Uh, no. The closest regulation to what he claimed is actually that small ISPs won't have to go through the same six-to-twelve month process of getting preapproval from FCC before they offer a new pricing plan. Wireline phone companies have to get any pricing options pre-approved ahead of time under Title II.
When BeauHD submits a summary saying "giant shark eats man alive", that means what actually happened is that a trout bit a guy's finger.
>Dealers were upset at being cut out of the loop by Telsa (to the point of getting state legislatures to draft laws blocking Telsa's stores)
The laws prohibiting manufacturers from owning dealerships were passed in the 1920s-1950s. (Before Elon Musk's father, Errol Musk, was born, and 60 years before 18 year-old Elon first came to North America). I guess those dealers must have psychic! Also very concerned about their great-grandchildren, since everyone involved in passing those laws are dead now.
If you learn a bit about what happened before manufacturing and dealerships were split up, and why those laws were passed, you'll probably have some interesting things to say about it.
> This action isn't about what businesses have to read. It's about what information they have to disclose to their customers.
Well no, THIS action has little to do with what has to be disclosed to consumers. If you want some regulations about that, if you see small ISPs engaging in funny business about pricing, make some appropriate regulations. This action is about title II - regulations written for the big phone companies, many of them written for THE phone company, Bell, before it was broken up. They cover many things, but the common theme is that they have to get FCC approval before doing almost anything.
To the extent the regulations were influenced by the phone company's lobbyists, I'm fairly sure Verizon's lobbyists weren't trying to make sure that small companies could fairlt compete with Verizon.
That's certainly true that there may be more than one cause, and there is a well-developed body of law in this area. Including "but-for" and "last clear chance". I don't believe discussing that is necessary for the present question.
> According to your legal theory of negligence, consumers in fact could NEVER sue product manufacturers, since the "results of your action are the results"...
In fact I said the purchaser WOULD sue the manufacturer. The manufacturer took some actions, which had some results. The manufacturer is responsible for the results of their actions. It may be that their action was telling their customer (UPS in this example) "this truck can safely drive itself under all conditions". It may also be that their action was telling UPS "this truck has driver assistance features, which reduce the likelihood of crashes when the driver fails to see something up ahead." I, the third-party driver on the road, wasn't part of that conversation between Tesla and UPS, so I don't even know what Tesla said. I do know that UPS sent the truck out on an ice-covered road, with a certain number of deliveries to make on the shift (implying it has to go a certain speed). If UPS's truck hits me, again I expect UPS to pay for the damages. UPS thinks Tesla misled them about the truck's capabilities, they can turn around and collect from Tesla.
> No one buys a toy airplane with the expectation that someone's life depends upon it
Did you buy a car with the expectation that it'll autonomously drive itself on ice-covered, twisty mountain passes safely, while you watch a movie and drink whiskey? I didn't. Some cars now feature automatic emergency braking. *When* the car senses an impending collision, it'll automatically apply the brakes. I don't expect that it will predict every possible accident and prevent me from getting in a wreck. Do you? I don't think collision detection removes my responsibility to avoid creating an impending collision in the first place. I expect that, like safety belts, it will often reduce the injuries for certain common types of collisions.
> What error in judgement did they make that makes them liable?
That's not the legal, or fair, standard. The results of my actions are the results, whether I made an error in judgement or just got unlucky. Of my action causes damage, I'm responsible for the results of my actions. Heck, even og my dog bites you, I'm responsible for the medical bill etc because it's my dog - you don't have to prove that I knowingly kept a dangerous dog or made some other error. (Unless perhaps you're trespassing, in which case maybe you caused the bite.)
> the passengers won't be making any operational decisions; there may not even BE passengers in lots of cases.
> They aren't operating them except to have called it up and set a destination.
> Uber/Lyft/MyCityCabCompany/BigCityTrucking/Amazon?
If Amazon puts a log in the road, they are responsible for the results. If Amazon parks a regular truck in the middle of the road, they are responsible for the results. If they drive trucks with the new automatic emergency braking and their drivers completely rely on that to avoid accidents, they are responsible. Whatever Amazon puts on the road, they are responsible for the results of their actions in putting it there.
> If they crash, it is because the vehicle wasn't sufficiently able to cope with doing the thing it was made to do. Operating in traffic in the real world safely is their function. That includes windy days, or in traffic jams, or during a police road closure or construction detour.
Maybe such a thing will be sold some day. Right now, cruise control amd automatic braking aren't anywhere near what you've described. When that happens, of it ever does, Tesla will tell *UPS* "buy our self-driving trucks, you can pay fewer drivers." Tesla will show *UPS* under what conditions the trucks can be safely deployed (snow and ice?). UPS will make a decisiom for the purpose of saving themselves money, based on their discussions with Tesla. Note I'm not part of those discussions. I don't know of Tesla told UPS "these trucks can handle dry pavement autonomously. When there is ice on the road or other dangerous conditions you'll need drivers." As far as I know, Tesla may have told UPS "these trucks have driver assist to reduce driver fatigue."
If UPS's truck rear-ends me on an ice-covered road, I'm going to sue UPS. I don't know what Tesla told UPS about what conditions are safe and which are unsafe for the trucks. If UPS also sues Tesla for selling them bunk trucks, that's none of my business. That's all about the discussions and contract between UPS and Tesla.
I have a toy plane and toy quadcopter, also known as drones. I fly them (tell them to fly themselves?) at an athletic park, in the middle of several soccer fields. Surrounding the soccer fields are open, undeveloped land. Sometimes the wind picks up unexpectedly or there is a mechanical problem and they crash. Then I have to go find it in the trees or whatever.
If I chose to send my drone (toy) flying around a busy parking lot and a gust of wind sent it crashing into a baby stroller, I would be responsible. I sent the drone flying, I'm responsible for any consequences. (On the other hand, if I use it to assist in a search and rescue mission, somebody may give me credit for doing that.) Anyway, I bought it and chose a time and a place to put it in the air, and where to direct it to go. I hold the "off" switch and the "abort, come home" switch. It's my responsibility.
Also, if my drone suddenly flies off course at full speed and crashes into something fragile AND other owners of the same model report the same type of malfunction, I'm going to ask the manufacturer to reimburse me for any damages I had to cover. There are implied warranties they would be in breach of.
I see "self driving" cars exactly the same. If I buy one, I can let it drive on a road in Arizona that's straight for 45 miles at a time and I only see another car once every 20 minutes, or I can turn on "self driving" mode on a busy freeway. I can keep my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road ready to respond to emergencies or I can choose to watch Youtube in busy traffic. I'm responsible for how I use the device (via my insurance company, whom I pay to absorb the risk). If the car suddenly accelerates at full throttle in a traffic jam, I'm going to hold the manufacturer responsible for the defect, but as far as other drivers are concerned, my car hit them. My car is my responsibility.
I would tell you about what happened the last time I dropped some metallic hydrogen, but neither I nor anyone else has ever dropped the stuff. Therefore nobody really knows what happens when you drop it. This sample was too small to track as the diamond shattered.
They think it probably turned to gas (sublimated), but it may have remained solid and might be under the lab bench right now. Or maybe some other, unexpected thing happened - maybe it reacted with oxygen in the air to form water. Nobody knows until the try it again and watch closely.
Yes, I read the judgement and the court wrote that there is a fifth amendment concern. Specifically, the judge pointed to another major ruling recently that by unlocking a phone via a password (or fingerprint), the person is effectively testifying that it is their phone, under their control, and they can decrypt and encrypt it.
Also, the application for the warrant was deficient on traditional fourth amendment grounds, specificity of what and who would be searched, and what the police expected to find where. They wanted to use the fingers of everyone present at the house (resident or *visitor*) to search every electronic device in the house. So a delivery man dropping off a couch at the time would have his phone searched.
The judge indicated that the police needed to be more specific. Something like "we want to search Bob Smith's Galaxy S5 for a file called 12yroldfuck.mpg because we believe he downloaded that file to that phone on February 12th, based on [evidence]." That would solve both the 4th amendment specificity issue and the 5th amendment issue - if the police already know that the Galaxy S5 is Bob's, the act of him unlocking it doesn't provide new, testimonial information.
I think what the summary was trying to hint at is that the ruling doesn't prohibit the normal process of taking fingerprints incident to arrest.
ISPs are now subject to Title II regulations as common carriers - the rules written for Verizon and AT&T now apply to ISPs. Ponder for a moment how many regulations a thousand bureaucrats have written over the last several decades for phone companies.
The order which lists which regulations now apply to ISPs as well is 400 pages. Here is is for your reading pleasure:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Note that's not 400 pages of regulations, that's 400 pages of REFERENCES to regulations. The total regulations will be in the thousands of pages.
I've talked to that guy before.
I just spent two days filling out forms and schedules for the IRS, in order to report the fact that I owe them $3.25. All those forms might make sense for a big company; it's asinine that I had to do all that to calculate $3.25 in federal unemployment tax because I earned $530 from a side business last year. My total tax forms for that $530 business are probably 40 pages of tax forms per year. I fully support distinguishing between a company like Verizon vs Ray Morris Inc when it comes to reporting requirements.
The subject of the present action is categorizing ISPs as common carriers under Title II - classifying them as phone companies. Title II was written with AT&T in mind, assuming the related company will have a team of people dedicated to compliance. It wasn't written for small companies. Here's the Congressional statute (not too bad) and 400 PAGE FCC order on applying it to ISPs:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
You say *complying* with the order should be easy, I dare you to even try to READ the order. There are 400 pages in the order itself, many of which refer to other FCC regulations you'll need to read. Make sure to read the part about how you're not allowed to bring up a new connection or remove an old one without a certificate of preapproval from the FCC.
Those who are having trouble getting over it are getting in a line, a British line to be exact. They are being queued. :)
Indeed this "new" tech (copy pasting junk from Stackoverflow) can't handle simple tasks like division, or modulus.
One programming task I handled, we already had a function which basically computed some averages, using division and a few other simple operations. To simplify, lets's just say the core function was something like quotient(x,y), which would return X divided by Y. That was useful. The customer very much wanted a slightly different version. They wanted quotient(x). That was the requirement for the software, compute quotient(x). I'd like to see any AI produce code for that. I, a programmer, did eventually get the customer what they needed.
My current assignment I'm working on today is similar. It's basically "write an SQL query which returns the list of software products we have in our database, and for each list all of the operating system versiona they can run on". Sounds simple, right. The relevant data is a table of about a million rows in this form:
SoftwareID - ProgramName - Vendor
1 - Firefox - Mozilla Foundation
2 - bash - FSF
3 - jQuery - jQuery Foundation
I'd love to see some IA that writes a query to get, from the above table, information about which OS versions each software package can run on. That's my task as a programmer, the requirements set by the product manager. I'll take care of the need, get the job done. I may also strangle my product manager, but that's a different topic.
Trolling? You've got your history backward. The federation (federal) didn't create it's members. The states created the federation as the states ratified the Constitution. Hell even just the *name* of the country tells you that, or look up the definition of "state" - it means basically "country". United States - countries that came together.
In the plain wording of Constitution, the states delegated certain listed powers to the federal (federation) government and *reserved* all other powers to themselves.
> Obviously they wouldn't want to publish those details, customers would abandon them pretty quickly, what I'm asking is if there is any legal protection.
There *are* some privacy laws. It's generally illegal to pull someone's credit report without permission and a reason to do so. Notably the balance on an existing *loan* account is relevant to a lender when you ask for another loan, so the balances on existing loans does appear on the credit report, which has some legal protections. Some one say there's no privacy issue there since it's released only with your permission - you're allowed to tell me your bank balance, either directly or through the credit bureau.
I'm sure you can Google more details about privacy laws - the more interesting question you brought up is how the first amendment relates to them. Under the first amendment, the bank employees can say whatever they want, right? SCOTUS has found the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments together suggest a right to privacy. Therefore there is a balance between the bank officer's right to talk and the customer's right to privacy. A person's Constitutional right to privacy provides Congress and the states a legitimate reason to pass privacy laws.
It has been recognized that a) the citizenry has a valid interest in knowing some things about the actions of public figures and b) by choosing to pursue celebrity, a person may voluntary give up some of their privacy. Therefore for public figures there is a different balance between piracy and the first amendment than there is for typical private people, people who aren't a) important to the public and b) trying to be on display to the public.
Here is why the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply the 1st to states. Note the first word of the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Under the Supremacy Clause, states can't overrule that - they can't allow CONGRESS to make a law ...
On the other hand, the author of the Privileges and Immunities Clause 14th amendment, John Bingham, said that the Privileges and Immunities Clause extended the 1st to the states. That was in the late 1850s. Two or three years later, SCOTUS ruled that Bingham was incorrect, his words didn't mean what he said they meant. And so it wasn't until 63 years later, in 1925, that SCOTUS acknowledged what the author of the 14th had told them.
The 14th amendment applies the first to the states. Two different clauses of the 14th are important.
The 14th amendment includes the following words:
--
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
__
(Privileges or Immunities Clause)
The guy who wrote those words, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Bingham, said his words mean the first eight amendments apply to the states as well. The 14th says that states are not allowed to violate the first through eigth amendments, according to the guy who wrote the 14th.
Shortly afterward, in the Slaughterhouse cases, SCOTUS "interpreted" Bingham's words to mean virtually nothing at all, and ruled that they did not mean what Bingham said they mean. (A really stupid ruling, given that Bingham was right there telling them what he meant when he wrote it.)
Later, SCOTUS realized they did need to apply some of the amendments to the states, but they had already vanished the wording in 14th that did so, by "interpreting" those words in a ridiculous way. SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse itself, so they decided to take a different part of the 14th, the "due process clause", and pretend THAT clause applies the 1st to the states. The plain language doesn't support that interpretation at all, but that's what SCOTUS had to do to avoid reversing their earlier slaughterhouse decision.
So what we're left with now is the words of the 14th apply the 1st to the states, by the privileges and immunities clause. But because SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse decisions, they pretend the 14th does so via the due process clause. We end up in the right place, via stupid logic.
Well no, people complain constantly that the wireless carriers "already built the networks and now they're just raking in profits". But if you want to talk about wired, although Verizon sold a big chunk of their wireline etwork in 2015, they also spent $5 billion upgrading wireline infrastructure the same year.
http://www.verizon.com/about/s...
If you want to know about the financials of a public company, you look at the same document the company's owners (stockholders) look at, its annual report. It's about 80 pages or so detailing how much they spent, on what, how much revenue they had from what sources, etc. Here's Verizon's:
http://www.verizon.com/about/s...
You'll see they invested $28 billion in increasing capacity. Of that, $5 billion is wireline (POTS) and $23 billion is wireless.
This story has to be fake. I read here on Slashdot (in the comments) that the phone companies built their networks decades ago and since then they've just been raking huge profits. They aren't spending tens of billions of dollars every year constantly upgrading for better, faster service. That's why we're all still using AMPS and GPRS to load WML pages over WAP. 3G and 4G never happened and neither will 5G. It's all profit for the phone companies, Sprint doesn't spend billions on upgrades constantly. Slashdot told me so.