in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks
Much survived because of monks, but if my history is right (and it's probably not) the enlightenment came from knowledge that survived via the Arabs. Hence we have names like Algebra (from Al-Jabr), for example.
I am seem to recall that during the dark ages the Romans/Italians had around 2-5% literacy rate. Not much knowledge survived there.
There was progression by monks during the middle ages, notably time-keeping and eyeglasses. But I am not sure how much historical knowledge was retained by them. It might be lots - but I've just not seen any historical books to that effect (though I would enjoy reading knowing more).
(I am copying a prior post of mine, but I think it bears repeating)
A flight officer should be able to engage a "defer to ground" mode from anywhere on the plane, at any time. Once "defer to ground" mode is engaged the autopilot cannot be disabled without the approval of an air traffic controller, or the consent of more than one (or more than two) flight officer(s). The air traffic controllers can then issue instructions to the autopilot or remotely control the plane or disable the "defer to ground" autopilot.
If the plane is out of range of air traffic control, the autopilot would (in addition to attempting to stabilize any descent) change trajectory to either a.) the closest known safe ground relay or b.) the closest known safe landing site.
In the ordinary course the pilots are in control, with "defer to ground" off by default, and can only be enabled by flight officers on the plane, so the plane cannot be compromised by malicious ATC.
The secure door was not well thought out, IMHO. I have always thought there were better options, such as:
A flight officer should be able to engage a "defer to ground" mode from anywhere on the plane, at any time. Once "defer to ground" mode is engaged the autopilot cannot be disabled without the approval of an air traffic controller, or the consent of more than one (or more than two) flight officer(s). The air traffic controllers can then issue instructions to the autopilot or remotely control the plane or disable the "defer to ground" autopilot.
If the plane is out of range of air traffic control, the autopilot would (in addition to attempting to stabilize any descent) change trajectory to either a.) the closest known safe ground relay or b.) the closest known safe landing site.
In the ordinary course the pilots are in control, with "defer to ground" off by default, and can only be enabled by flight officers on the plane.
123. In sum, I am satisfied that TekSavvy has proven a total of $21,557.50 as its legal costs,
administrative costs, and disbursements of abiding with the Order.
2. Those costs were not as much as demanded by TekSavvy.
129.... Rather, no costs of the
assessment will be awarded because neither party should be rewarded for its conduct: TekSavvy,
without justification, has greatly exaggerated its claim, while Voltage has unreasonably sought to
trivialize it based on unreliable and largely irrelevant evidence.
For details about the costs that were asked and awarded and the reasoning for such, have a look at para. 113 and following. e.g.
119. Under this heading, TekSavvy seeks to recover the sum of $81,524.12 for expenses
incurred in communicating with affected and non-affected subscribers and the public; creating an
online portal tool for the use of subscribers; and responding to a higher volume of inquiries and
complaints... These tasks, are... TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of marketing, promotion, and customer relations, which
I consider to be TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of doing business. Consequently, I disallow these costs.
Whether one thinks this is being "let off the hook" is up to the reader, and also irrelevant to the decision. This is a comprehensive, precedent-setting, non-trivial decision accounting for a multitude of legal and factual variables.
I, for one, find it consistent with the tone and spirit of the prior decision, largely agreeable, in this case.
The tact a lawyer is generally obliged to take is: advise the border guard that the information on the laptop is not controlled by the lawyer, and that the lawyer does not have the authority to give up the password.
A lawyer holds client information under the protection of solicitor-client privilege, and cannot be compelled even by court order to disclose that information, save exceptional circumstances (crossing a border not being one of those).
As a lawyer, the examples I keep in my back pocket if I am asked by a border guard to give up a password, after explaining the above, include: What if I represented a member of the border patrol in a potential dispute against their employer? Or a dispute between the border service and another branch of government? With my password, the border service could obtain access to communication that gives them an unfair edge, or perhaps inflames what would be an otherwise docile dispute. More importantly: would you or your colleagues, as border guards, seek the advice of and speak candidly with a lawyer about a potential dispute when you know that your employer might well be reading it?
Privilege lives high atop the field of concerns for lawyers, because anything that puts a chill on the communication with and advice of lawyers undermines the rule of law. Among other problems, not having rule of law puts a damper on the legal business, though it has historically been good for the hired-goons business.
The US and Canadian border guard in my experience steer respectfully clear of privilege.
github.com/knockout/knockout was one of the repos listed, and here is the letter they sent (which seems to be a reasonable template):
To: marketing@takedownpiracy.com Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:33 AM EST
Dear Sirs,
It has recently come to my attention that your firm has filed a DMCA notice to Google identifying copyright infringement for works to which I am personally associated. I apologize if this email is not directed to the correct address, but it was the only address apparent to contact your company and I would be grateful if you could forward this message appropriately or direct me accordingly.
The notice that has come to my attention includes the details from the web-site as follows:
This site identifies Takedown Piracy LLC as an agent of Wicked Pictures sending a DMCA notice to Google. The notice apparently references the following works, which works appear to have since been removed from the results of searches via the Google search engine:
These works are entirely software and are in no way associated with Wicked Pictures, nor do they contain any adult material whatsoever (which I understand to be the preponderance of copyright held by Wicked Pictures).
Through the above-referenced DMCA notice your firm has stated that I have committed or endorsed copyright infringement, as well as associated me with republishing unlicensed works of the adult industry.
[As a software developer], I am sure you can appreciate that the above implication and association could cause serious harm to my reputation.
I trust you will not mind issuing an appropriate revocation of appropriate portions of the DMCA notices to Google and any other recipient that may have received a notice referencing the above content, as well as similarly revoking and white-listing from any future notices any work referred to with a URL containing the following:
âAgain, these repositories contain entirely software and are clearly not the intended target of your operationâ, which you can readily confirm by navigating to them in a web browser.
âMany thanks for your co-operation on this matter, and I would be grateful for your âconfirmation that the DMCA notices have been appropriately revoked. If by February 7th, 2015 it is apparent that the DMCA notices have not been revoked, I will be obliged to pursue appropriate legal action, and will hold your firm responsible for all associated legal costs.
Do you believe that IP protocol's source routing options make the blocking moot (circumventable) or alternatively constitute a legitimate reason with useful purpose why the source IP may not be the same as the outgoing packet's origin?
Does nobody remember the first few news stories that mentioned a ransom demand? I swear I read that - then the story changed to Korea + Guardians of Peace out of nowhere.
Korea's dialog and posturing almost entirely internalized. Their glorious leader is a big fan of Hollywood, has never before acted on a threat against the USA, and has put up with other movies without so much as a whimper. The threats and posturing with NK come before the action, not that we have ever seen much real action from them. Not that action accomplishes anything of any note.
And where are all the internal Sony communications about wrongful dismissal, sexual harassment and assault cover-ups, deaths on the job, and so on? These things happen in a company of Sony's size, Sony's exposure under these circumstances could be massive - who knows what skeletons are in their closet.
The SCOTUS has the sole jurisdiction to hear disputes between US States. In joining the union they delegated authority to that court as the sole arbiter of inter-state disputes.
So states can sue each other, but only before the Supreme Court of the United States.
You would be hard pressed to walk into a busy Starbucks here without a dozen people carrying guns, the terrorists wouldn't have hostages, they'd have a fight on their hands, and frankly they are cowards anyway, so they won't do that here.
It seems that many of these terrorists are largely unconcerned with their own death or the suffering of others.
Gun ownership does not appear to be, and it would not make sense if it were, a deterrent to terrorist attacks.
"It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Avoid any police service that deviates substantially from Peelian principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles):
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. 2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. 3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. 4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. 5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. 9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
There are two aspects of the Harvard Charter which may give standing. First, the endowment has a specific purpose: "be for the advancement and education of youth, in all manner of good literature, arts, and sciences." And, good sciences say that investing in fossil fuels is a bad idea. Second, the Harvard Corporation is established so that it may be sued: "and also may sue and plead, or be sued and impleaded by the name aforesaid, in all Courts and places of judicature, within the jurisdiction aforesaid." http://library.harvard.edu/uni... So, disagreements about the endowment are supposed to be settled in court.
These are probably relevant, but may not be the ticket.
Standing is a question of *who can sue* (it is rather literal - you have a right to stand up at Court and be heard).
As you note, the charter gives a purpose, a *why*, deviation from which may give rise to liability. But the question is who can enforce. Does the Charter exist to protect the students? Faculty? The institution itself? Its property? Who is harmed by deviation from the Charter?
A relevant phrase might be "that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness" as the *who* benefitting (and hence may have standing) is "English and Indian youth", antiquated racism though that may be. But who knows what a Judge would think or other status may be alive in this case.
The naming of the corporation gives no indication of standing to sue either. It just mentions jurisdiction and by this order, presuming you have standing, the name one would provide the Court to sue and enforce an Order against the corporation as a defendant.
That said, rule #1 of litigating is: You never know what a judge will say.
Litigation is, pretty much, learning a thousand ways why a stranger can, contrary to your expectations, agree or disagree with you.
The question of standing is non-trivial, and can include questions of contract, equity and wrongful interference (tort). Not having thought it out, but purely an example: these kids may argue their reputation tied to the university, and the university using fossil fuels could harm their future prospects. It sounds like a stretch, but then again I know folks that refuse candidates from MIT because of how that institution treated Aaron Schwartz. It's not an argument without basis.
But don't take my word for it. Let's see what happens.
These kids are pushing ahead with a noble cause against a tough institutional defendant with risky litigation for the betterment of the world. I think it's interesting and probably a worthwhile expenditure of their time. They could be on slashdot.
1. Make every video accessible by the public in-person at the police station and at a set of accredited institutions (i.e. public interest groups); 2. ban re-publication of the videos without a court order; 3. water-mark any video available outside the police station so that whoever copied it can be traced and their authority to receive copies revoked.
This would seem to prevent the problem of republication for commercial purposes, but still allow people who are involved in incidents or interested in police oversight to access and review the videos.
The US has one of the highest murder rates in the world (3.6/yr/100000 people), being over 6x higher than Canadas (0.5/yr/100000 people).
I trust we can all do ourselves a favour and conclude that the balance of your post, and likely anything else you bother to write, is also laughably misinformed.
Slashdot Mirror
corps will include this in the TOS that everyone agrees to without reading
With the law in place, including it in the TOS would be superfluous.
in fact most of the information that survived through the dark ages survived because of monks
Much survived because of monks, but if my history is right (and it's probably not) the enlightenment came from knowledge that survived via the Arabs. Hence we have names like Algebra (from Al-Jabr), for example.
I am seem to recall that during the dark ages the Romans/Italians had around 2-5% literacy rate. Not much knowledge survived there.
There was progression by monks during the middle ages, notably time-keeping and eyeglasses. But I am not sure how much historical knowledge was retained by them. It might be lots - but I've just not seen any historical books to that effect (though I would enjoy reading knowing more).
... is so common that Wikipedia has its own page dedicated to it.
(I am copying a prior post of mine, but I think it bears repeating)
A flight officer should be able to engage a "defer to ground" mode from anywhere on the plane, at any time. Once "defer to ground" mode is engaged the autopilot cannot be disabled without the approval of an air traffic controller, or the consent of more than one (or more than two) flight officer(s). The air traffic controllers can then issue instructions to the autopilot or remotely control the plane or disable the "defer to ground" autopilot.
If the plane is out of range of air traffic control, the autopilot would (in addition to attempting to stabilize any descent) change trajectory to either a.) the closest known safe ground relay or b.) the closest known safe landing site.
In the ordinary course the pilots are in control, with "defer to ground" off by default, and can only be enabled by flight officers on the plane, so the plane cannot be compromised by malicious ATC.
Where you can stand accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of children for decades with no impact on your job whatsoever ... but you punch one producer, and off you go.
The secure door was not well thought out, IMHO. I have always thought there were better options, such as:
A flight officer should be able to engage a "defer to ground" mode from anywhere on the plane, at any time. Once "defer to ground" mode is engaged the autopilot cannot be disabled without the approval of an air traffic controller, or the consent of more than one (or more than two) flight officer(s). The air traffic controllers can then issue instructions to the autopilot or remotely control the plane or disable the "defer to ground" autopilot.
If the plane is out of range of air traffic control, the autopilot would (in addition to attempting to stabilize any descent) change trajectory to either a.) the closest known safe ground relay or b.) the closest known safe landing site.
In the ordinary course the pilots are in control, with "defer to ground" off by default, and can only be enabled by flight officers on the plane.
Just a thought.
123. In sum, I am satisfied that TekSavvy has proven a total of $21,557.50 as its legal costs, administrative costs, and disbursements of abiding with the Order.
2. Those costs were not as much as demanded by TekSavvy.
129. ... Rather, no costs of the
assessment will be awarded because neither party should be rewarded for its conduct: TekSavvy,
without justification, has greatly exaggerated its claim, while Voltage has unreasonably sought to
trivialize it based on unreliable and largely irrelevant evidence.
For details about the costs that were asked and awarded and the reasoning for such, have a look at para. 113 and following. e.g.
119. Under this heading, TekSavvy seeks to recover the sum of $81,524.12 for expenses incurred in communicating with affected and non-affected subscribers and the public; creating an online portal tool for the use of subscribers; and responding to a higher volume of inquiries and complaints ... These tasks, are ... TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of marketing, promotion, and customer relations, which
I consider to be TekSavvyâ(TM)s costs of doing business. Consequently, I disallow these costs.
Whether one thinks this is being "let off the hook" is up to the reader, and also irrelevant to the decision. This is a comprehensive, precedent-setting, non-trivial decision accounting for a multitude of legal and factual variables. I, for one, find it consistent with the tone and spirit of the prior decision, largely agreeable, in this case.
The tact a lawyer is generally obliged to take is: advise the border guard that the information on the laptop is not controlled by the lawyer, and that the lawyer does not have the authority to give up the password.
A lawyer holds client information under the protection of solicitor-client privilege, and cannot be compelled even by court order to disclose that information, save exceptional circumstances (crossing a border not being one of those).
As a lawyer, the examples I keep in my back pocket if I am asked by a border guard to give up a password, after explaining the above, include: What if I represented a member of the border patrol in a potential dispute against their employer? Or a dispute between the border service and another branch of government? With my password, the border service could obtain access to communication that gives them an unfair edge, or perhaps inflames what would be an otherwise docile dispute. More importantly: would you or your colleagues, as border guards, seek the advice of and speak candidly with a lawyer about a potential dispute when you know that your employer might well be reading it?
Privilege lives high atop the field of concerns for lawyers, because anything that puts a chill on the communication with and advice of lawyers undermines the rule of law. Among other problems, not having rule of law puts a damper on the legal business, though it has historically been good for the hired-goons business.
The US and Canadian border guard in my experience steer respectfully clear of privilege.
Just curious, are the politicians predominantly from one party?
github.com/knockout/knockout was one of the repos listed, and here is the letter they sent (which seems to be a reasonable template):
To: marketing@takedownpiracy.com
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:33 AM EST
Dear Sirs,
It has recently come to my attention that your firm has filed a DMCA notice to Google identifying copyright infringement for works to which I am personally associated. I apologize if this email is not directed to the correct address, but it was the only address apparent to contact your company and I would be grateful if you could forward this message appropriately or direct me accordingly.
The notice that has come to my attention includes the details from the web-site as follows:
https://www.chillingeffects.or...
This site identifies Takedown Piracy LLC as an agent of Wicked Pictures sending a DMCA notice to Google. The notice apparently references the following works, which works appear to have since been removed from the results of searches via the Google search engine:
https://github.com/SteveSander...
https://github.com/rniemeyer/k...
https://github.com/rniemeyer/k...
https://github.com/Knockout-Co...
https://github.com/knockout/kn...
https://github.com/knockout
These works are entirely software and are in no way associated with Wicked Pictures, nor do they contain any adult material whatsoever (which I understand to be the preponderance of copyright held by Wicked Pictures).
Through the above-referenced DMCA notice your firm has stated that I have committed or endorsed copyright infringement, as well as associated me with republishing unlicensed works of the adult industry.
[As a software developer], I am sure you can appreciate that the above implication and association could cause serious harm to my reputation.
I trust you will not mind issuing an appropriate revocation of appropriate portions of the DMCA notices to Google and any other recipient that may have received a notice referencing the above content, as well as similarly revoking and white-listing from any future notices any work referred to with a URL containing the following:
github.com/knockout
github.com/SteveSanderson
github.com/mbest
github.com/rniemeyer
github.com/brianmhunt
âAgain, these repositories contain entirely software and are clearly not the intended target of your operationâ, which you can readily confirm by navigating to them in a web browser.
âMany thanks for your co-operation on this matter, and I would be grateful for your âconfirmation that the DMCA notices have been appropriately revoked. If by February 7th, 2015 it is apparent that the DMCA notices have not been revoked, I will be obliged to pursue appropriate legal action, and will hold your firm responsible for all associated legal costs.
âKind regards,
Brianâ
Do you believe that IP protocol's source routing options make the blocking moot (circumventable) or alternatively constitute a legitimate reason with useful purpose why the source IP may not be the same as the outgoing packet's origin?
There are related packet-protraction proposals that would help.
Does nobody remember the first few news stories that mentioned a ransom demand? I swear I read that - then the story changed to Korea + Guardians of Peace out of nowhere.
Korea's dialog and posturing almost entirely internalized. Their glorious leader is a big fan of Hollywood, has never before acted on a threat against the USA, and has put up with other movies without so much as a whimper. The threats and posturing with NK come before the action, not that we have ever seen much real action from them. Not that action accomplishes anything of any note.
And where are all the internal Sony communications about wrongful dismissal, sexual harassment and assault cover-ups, deaths on the job, and so on? These things happen in a company of Sony's size, Sony's exposure under these circumstances could be massive - who knows what skeletons are in their closet.
There's something fishy about this whole thing.
The SCOTUS has the sole jurisdiction to hear disputes between US States. In joining the union they delegated authority to that court as the sole arbiter of inter-state disputes.
So states can sue each other, but only before the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are lots of terrorist attempts in Texas. For example, just in the past few months:
JW Confirms: 4 ISIS Terrorists Arrested in Texas in Last 36 Hours OCTOBER 08, 2014 -- http://www.judicialwatch.org/b...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/... 19 JUNE 2014 2 in Texas arrested in terror-related cases
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/... MARCH 28, 2014 FBI Smashes Alleged Radical-Right Terror Plot in Texas
You would be hard pressed to walk into a busy Starbucks here without a dozen people carrying guns, the terrorists wouldn't have hostages, they'd have a fight on their hands, and frankly they are cowards anyway, so they won't do that here.
It seems that many of these terrorists are largely unconcerned with their own death or the suffering of others.
Gun ownership does not appear to be, and it would not make sense if it were, a deterrent to terrorist attacks.
Maybe the GT deal was a big ruse - a relatively cheap way to bargain a better deal for Gorilla Glass.
Maybe they should make a movie about this.
One of the purposes of a criminal justice system is to keep folks from rioting and vigilantism.
"It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
This is an important lesson for American youth ... but don't take my word for it ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Avoid any police service that deviates substantially from Peelian principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles):
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
It does seem to be a bit of a conflict of interest, doesn't it?
There are two aspects of the Harvard Charter which may give standing. First, the endowment has a specific purpose: "be for the advancement and education of youth, in all manner of good literature, arts, and sciences." And, good sciences say that investing in fossil fuels is a bad idea. Second, the Harvard Corporation is established so that it may be sued: "and also may sue and plead, or be sued and impleaded by the name aforesaid, in all Courts and places of judicature, within the jurisdiction aforesaid." http://library.harvard.edu/uni... So, disagreements about the endowment are supposed to be settled in court.
These are probably relevant, but may not be the ticket.
Standing is a question of *who can sue* (it is rather literal - you have a right to stand up at Court and be heard).
As you note, the charter gives a purpose, a *why*, deviation from which may give rise to liability. But the question is who can enforce. Does the Charter exist to protect the students? Faculty? The institution itself? Its property? Who is harmed by deviation from the Charter?
A relevant phrase might be "that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness" as the *who* benefitting (and hence may have standing) is "English and Indian youth", antiquated racism though that may be. But who knows what a Judge would think or other status may be alive in this case.
The naming of the corporation gives no indication of standing to sue either. It just mentions jurisdiction and by this order, presuming you have standing, the name one would provide the Court to sue and enforce an Order against the corporation as a defendant.
That said, rule #1 of litigating is: You never know what a judge will say.
Litigation is, pretty much, learning a thousand ways why a stranger can, contrary to your expectations, agree or disagree with you.
The question of standing is non-trivial, and can include questions of contract, equity and wrongful interference (tort). Not having thought it out, but purely an example: these kids may argue their reputation tied to the university, and the university using fossil fuels could harm their future prospects. It sounds like a stretch, but then again I know folks that refuse candidates from MIT because of how that institution treated Aaron Schwartz. It's not an argument without basis.
But don't take my word for it. Let's see what happens.
These kids are pushing ahead with a noble cause against a tough institutional defendant with risky litigation for the betterment of the world. I think it's interesting and probably a worthwhile expenditure of their time. They could be on slashdot.
FWIW, here's what I might suggest:
1. Make every video accessible by the public in-person at the police station and at a set of accredited institutions (i.e. public interest groups);
2. ban re-publication of the videos without a court order;
3. water-mark any video available outside the police station so that whoever copied it can be traced and their authority to receive copies revoked.
This would seem to prevent the problem of republication for commercial purposes, but still allow people who are involved in incidents or interested in police oversight to access and review the videos.
Well... damnit! Maybe it's that George Carlin adage about arguing with idiots. :o)
The US has a 90:1 gun:citizen ratio.
The US has one of the highest murder rates in the world (3.6/yr/100000 people), being over 6x higher than Canadas (0.5/yr/100000 people).
I trust we can all do ourselves a favour and conclude that the balance of your post, and likely anything else you bother to write, is also laughably misinformed.
Do us all a favour and stop posting nonsense.