How is it odd? There are monetary costs, there are external costs. If you can repay the monetary costs why can you not repay the external costs? In this case they are studying the external costs of the usage of nonrenewable power sources to create renewable power, and seeing where the environmental balance shifts. I mean if your entire world only revolves around your bank account then I can see how you would find it odd. This study does NOT talk about MONETARY ROI AT ALL.
Or you did not read/cannot comprehend the study, which has nothing to do with repayment of monetary investment in the turbine... It is repayment of environmental resources used.
That is not what it means by payback. The article, if you read it, means that the net cost of creating the turbine in terms of electricity and minerals is re-payed in 8 months, basically the cost to the environment.. Of course the skeptical site has nothing but a large strawman using the same type of argument you are using.
Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.
Aereo rents out the antenna
Dish rents out the satellite dish
Aereo rents out the DVR
Dish rents out the DVR
Aereo allows access over the Internet
Dish allows access over the Internet
Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae
Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae
I don't see a difference.
Take a look at the bold section, notice that it does not say Aereo. Aereo did not pay for broadcasting rights, Dish does, as even stated in your post.
There are plenty of ways. For one you could have a friend do it when they know you have been arrested. If I was a criminal with evidence on my know I would do that, or setup a deadman's switch to do it if I have not checked something in a while
Well to be fair, and I am 100% pro gun, that is a false equivalency. Typically those killed by guns are not the gun owner itself, where as those killed by alcohol, soda and the like is are the drinkers themselves.
First off, yes it is a loophole. Partly because you dont realize that remote wiping software does not have to have a present connection to work...If you remove the battery or put it in a Faraday cage it will only be protected until the battery is put back in, or is removed from the cage. Once it reestablishes the connection a remote wipe will then be kicked in. The only real option would be to disable the network, which is not easy to find in all cases.
Secondly that part of the ruling did not state that they would first have to attempt to remove the battery, or put it in the cage, just that they had to believe that they were confronted with that situation.
Except you are moving the goal posts. None of that has anything to do with this ruling, which is if you are arrested for doing something unrelated to anything on your phone you phone cannot be searched, except for the loop whole of finding out there may be a imminent whipe.
Maybe you should read the entirety and not just stop when you find what you want.... What you posted is on page 14 of the decision, on page 15, 1 whole page later they write:
If “the police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation,”—for example, circumstances suggesting that a defendant’s phone will be the target of an imminent remote-wipe attempt—they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately.
Well it does say that the circumstances suggest it is going to happen, so it at least means that reasoning has to be explained, so ideally what you said should not happen.
One big enough to drive a semi through:
If they are truly faced with with a possible remote wipe situation they can still use exigent circumstances to search the phone.
That MAY be possible, but that is not an imminent threat that allows you to bypass someones rights on the off chance that may be the case. It has to be an imminent threat to the officers making the arrest. They actually covered a case in the ruling that they previously ruled on, United States v. Robinson, where an officer searched and found a crumpled pack of cigs, it had no cigs but it had heroin in it. The ruled that search constitutional because what was inside could have been an imminent threat to the officer, however they ruled data alone can never be a threat to an officer in this case.
That is not an imminent threat to the officers, it is to the victim. they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers. You dont get to violate the 4th amendment just in case there is something happening to someone else.
Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used
as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate
the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain
free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure
that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine
whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone
and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and
eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data
on the phone can endanger no one.
And sorry about the errors of type and spelling in my OP.
according to the ruling, which I have read most of, you would have to prove the data on the phone would be an imminent threat, which is impossible to do. They state in the opinion that you can search a phone for psychical threats such as a bomb or a blade hidden in the case, but data on a phone is not an imminent threat, it is just data.
Technically this applies to the NSA on American phones. If the NSA will listen to it or not, or if you can prove they did not obey it or not, is a completely different question all together.
Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists? It is shown that people are put on that list for a madrid of ordinary thing, or just because you are challenging the government. But keep on thinking that it is only terrorists... We have a saying in this country, innocent until proven guilty, based on the due process under the 4th amendment to the constitution. The no fly list violates that.
It is a part of the group of natural laws of the government. It is THE law of the land in which other laws spring forth from, and determines if they are valid or not.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what matters to YOU, not to everyone. There are a lot of people who the environment matters to....
How is it odd? There are monetary costs, there are external costs. If you can repay the monetary costs why can you not repay the external costs? In this case they are studying the external costs of the usage of nonrenewable power sources to create renewable power, and seeing where the environmental balance shifts. I mean if your entire world only revolves around your bank account then I can see how you would find it odd. This study does NOT talk about MONETARY ROI AT ALL.
Or you did not read/cannot comprehend the study, which has nothing to do with repayment of monetary investment in the turbine... It is repayment of environmental resources used.
That is not what it means by payback. The article, if you read it, means that the net cost of creating the turbine in terms of electricity and minerals is re-payed in 8 months, basically the cost to the environment.. Of course the skeptical site has nothing but a large strawman using the same type of argument you are using.
Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.
Aereo rents out the antenna Dish rents out the satellite dish Aereo rents out the DVR Dish rents out the DVR Aereo allows access over the Internet Dish allows access over the Internet
Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae
I don't see a difference.
Take a look at the bold section, notice that it does not say Aereo. Aereo did not pay for broadcasting rights, Dish does, as even stated in your post.
Some places, even here in the US, have a choice of electrical provider, it is VERY rare, but does happen.
There are plenty of ways. For one you could have a friend do it when they know you have been arrested. If I was a criminal with evidence on my know I would do that, or setup a deadman's switch to do it if I have not checked something in a while
Then deleting of evidence of a crime would always be a crime then, because you should always expect someone to want to seek it at some point.
If they feel you may be about to wipe your phone for some reason the police an search it under exigent circumstances.
Well to be fair, and I am 100% pro gun, that is a false equivalency. Typically those killed by guns are not the gun owner itself, where as those killed by alcohol, soda and the like is are the drinkers themselves.
First off, yes it is a loophole. Partly because you dont realize that remote wiping software does not have to have a present connection to work...If you remove the battery or put it in a Faraday cage it will only be protected until the battery is put back in, or is removed from the cage. Once it reestablishes the connection a remote wipe will then be kicked in. The only real option would be to disable the network, which is not easy to find in all cases.
Secondly that part of the ruling did not state that they would first have to attempt to remove the battery, or put it in the cage, just that they had to believe that they were confronted with that situation.
Except you are moving the goal posts. None of that has anything to do with this ruling, which is if you are arrested for doing something unrelated to anything on your phone you phone cannot be searched, except for the loop whole of finding out there may be a imminent whipe.
If “the police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation,”—for example, circumstances suggesting that a defendant’s phone will be the target of an imminent remote-wipe attempt—they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately.
I realize what it is, but I also have read the ruling, have you?
Do you work for an oil company?
Well it does say that the circumstances suggest it is going to happen, so it at least means that reasoning has to be explained, so ideally what you said should not happen.
One big enough to drive a semi through: If they are truly faced with with a possible remote wipe situation they can still use exigent circumstances to search the phone.
That MAY be possible, but that is not an imminent threat that allows you to bypass someones rights on the off chance that may be the case. It has to be an imminent threat to the officers making the arrest. They actually covered a case in the ruling that they previously ruled on, United States v. Robinson, where an officer searched and found a crumpled pack of cigs, it had no cigs but it had heroin in it. The ruled that search constitutional because what was inside could have been an imminent threat to the officer, however they ruled data alone can never be a threat to an officer in this case.
That is not an imminent threat to the officers, it is to the victim. they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers. You dont get to violate the 4th amendment just in case there is something happening to someone else.
Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.
And sorry about the errors of type and spelling in my OP.
according to the ruling, which I have read most of, you would have to prove the data on the phone would be an imminent threat, which is impossible to do. They state in the opinion that you can search a phone for psychical threats such as a bomb or a blade hidden in the case, but data on a phone is not an imminent threat, it is just data.
Technically this applies to the NSA on American phones. If the NSA will listen to it or not, or if you can prove they did not obey it or not, is a completely different question all together.
Because putting people you dont like on a list to prevent them to fly is ANYTHING like bringing weapons on a plane...
Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists? It is shown that people are put on that list for a madrid of ordinary thing, or just because you are challenging the government. But keep on thinking that it is only terrorists... We have a saying in this country, innocent until proven guilty, based on the due process under the 4th amendment to the constitution. The no fly list violates that.
It is a part of the group of natural laws of the government. It is THE law of the land in which other laws spring forth from, and determines if they are valid or not.