We have moved from the old cable model--where you had to choose a core option, had a few add-on-packages you could choose on, and had a very few a-la-carte offerings. Now we have a couple of package options that are cheaper than the core options used to be: we can get the netflix package, the hulu package, the amazon package, the cbs package, etc..., all of which compete across a variety of genres.
Meanwhile, the sports genre is only available on cable, where it can demand monopoly prices and is the primary driver of people to purchase cable. It is difficult to see it as anything more than an abuse of market power that should implicate anti-trust laws, and would in a more invasive regulatory climate. It is like if you took all comedy, and said it could only be purchased or viewed through streaming company ComedyRules, which also has a lot of non-comedy.
In theory it is a free market and someone could bid more than the cable companies in order to be able to carry sports--but in a real bidding war nobody would be able to, because the cable company has the benefits of monopoly pricing.
Fingerprinting is not new--not only is it required of criminal defendants as a matter of course, but many states take fingerprints for other reasons such as admission to the bar.
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply because certain information is not considered "testimonial" in nature. You are not testifying when providing a fingerprint. While this is a slightly different case because the fingerprint is being used to unlock a phone, ultimately they are still not using testimony to unlock the phone--they are using a physical characteristic of an individual. So it will still be considered non-testimonial, and the appeals court that reviews the matter will agree.
The Fourth Amendment still protects you from a random search of your phone, but there was a warrant in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
We have moved from the old cable model--where you had to choose a core option, had a few add-on-packages you could choose on, and had a very few a-la-carte offerings. Now we have a couple of package options that are cheaper than the core options used to be: we can get the netflix package, the hulu package, the amazon package, the cbs package, etc..., all of which compete across a variety of genres.
Meanwhile, the sports genre is only available on cable, where it can demand monopoly prices and is the primary driver of people to purchase cable. It is difficult to see it as anything more than an abuse of market power that should implicate anti-trust laws, and would in a more invasive regulatory climate. It is like if you took all comedy, and said it could only be purchased or viewed through streaming company ComedyRules, which also has a lot of non-comedy.
In theory it is a free market and someone could bid more than the cable companies in order to be able to carry sports--but in a real bidding war nobody would be able to, because the cable company has the benefits of monopoly pricing.
Fingerprinting is not new--not only is it required of criminal defendants as a matter of course, but many states take fingerprints for other reasons such as admission to the bar.
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply because certain information is not considered "testimonial" in nature. You are not testifying when providing a fingerprint. While this is a slightly different case because the fingerprint is being used to unlock a phone, ultimately they are still not using testimony to unlock the phone--they are using a physical characteristic of an individual. So it will still be considered non-testimonial, and the appeals court that reviews the matter will agree.
The Fourth Amendment still protects you from a random search of your phone, but there was a warrant in this case.