If you increase expenses, this will make it LESS profitable. Increasing the minimum price at which a profit can be made will also drive away customers, thus reducing profit.
"Cable TV" costs $30 per month and up. Netflix costs about $10/month. With an HDTV antenna, a Netflix subscription, and fast(ish) cable Internet, why would you pay $20 per month more for "cable?"
Hire a programmer to scrape data from multiple police and court sites -- a few thousand dollars, one time fee. Hire someone to drive around to different courts, xerox records, then type them into a database, say $100 per week for every small town with a sheriff's office. It adds up very quickly -- the point is to make it more expensive and inconvenient to gather incriminating records on people.
This is giving more power to PEOPLE to not have their reputations ruined by government colluding with large corporations like Google to spread incriminating information. I'd side with the little guy who's been accused of a crime he may or may not have committed over an overbearing government or police force any day.
I never said that there should be NO records, just that the records shouldn't be published online. They can stay in the courthouse and be destroyed after release or a "not guilty" verdict. Also, usual protections about notifying an attorney/public defender/family member should apply. With strict penalties for attorneys that release details of a case without client's authorization.
Keep adequate laws in place to keep cops in check while protecting suspects, who are INNOCENT until proven otherwise. If you're talking about lawbreaking cops, this is a problem anyway -- a lawbreaking cop would just beat a suspect or murder them without ever making a record of it.
Sort of. Let's say that a nation passes a law that criminal records are sealed 10 years after conviction or that arrest records without conviction are private. Both decent laws. Now, a certain jurisdiction has the nasty habit of releasing those records to public search in order to get around this restriction. This will open them up to lawsuits as a complicit party, after being slapped with a few lawsuits, they might change their nasty habits.
That's as it should be. The records can be in a filing cabinet at the court, but it makes finding the record more expensive (time and money-wise) than just pointing and clicking.
UK is smart like that -- it recognizes that people need to lead their lives after getting out of jail, and that making someone unemployable means they'll be more likely to commit another crime. The US, OTOH...
Wrong. Orwell would support this, at least in the US, if not Europe. Read 1984.
Winston Smith was basically an "unperson" after he was tortured, made to denounce Julia, and released. How many "unpeople" do we make in the US, by virtue of arrest records (without conviction)? How many do we make by convicting people of crimes that should be treated medically or ignored (e.g. drug possession), then branding them for life. Short of someone committing murder, gross mayhem, abuse, or repeated large thefts, I'm not for branding people for life.
At the very least, arrest records should be kept off the Internet until conviction. Trusting a cop's judgment in marring someone's reputation of life is an awful idea.
It gets worse. Sheriff's departments and police stations in the US often post arrest records to the Internet en masse, complete with mugshots. True, they often warn that arrest doesn't imply guilt, but the fact is that those records are likely indexed and sucked up by third party criminal record aggregators. Meaning that an arrest, even if someone is innocent, could mark someone for life on an employment background check.
Cops tend not to be too bright with an extra helping of vindictiveness -- giving them the power to punish and mark people without trial is a terrible idea. If Google was a good public citizen, it would de-list any law enforcement that show arrest records prior to conviction and also pull ads/listings from any aggregators that scrape the same.
Or maybe it does occur to them and they don't care. Or want government to go after troublemakers like protesters... The job of law enforcement often attracts a certain mentality.
Point proven: most of the US is flat boring. Plenty of options till 11pm or later in NYC, LA, the "younger" parts of San Diego County, etc. Maybe not 2am, but it's getting there.
Why is the world designed for "morning larks?" We have telecommuting, electric light, etc -- not all jobs need to be done on 18th century farmers' hours. Is this just the human knack for self flagellation?
Thing is, the UAE is not a "free" country, not even to the level of the US. This will probably be used to go after illicit liquor drinkers and people having trysts outside of marriage.
I agree with your rage, but it's already happened in parts of the US, where EZ Pass is required for some bridges and tunnels... this being said, there is a pseudo anonymous cash payment option.
This being said, a lot of things have taken hold abroad (e.g fingerprinting to buy groceries in Venezuela) that don't exist in the US or EU.
Maybe the best thing to happen to the world would be a massive trade war and recession that will set the progress of privacy robbing tech back 50 years and cause superpowers to go bankrupt.
Slashdot Mirror
Only in a handful of countries. Southern Europe, Germany, and Eastern/Central Europe are basically cash economies.
If you increase expenses, this will make it LESS profitable. Increasing the minimum price at which a profit can be made will also drive away customers, thus reducing profit.
Over-the-air HDTV (like 1970s style, except with more resolutions) has both of those. You can also stream a lot of things...
"Cable TV" costs $30 per month and up. Netflix costs about $10/month. With an HDTV antenna, a Netflix subscription, and fast(ish) cable Internet, why would you pay $20 per month more for "cable?"
I prefer cash without the gov't/corporate tracking. And no signature required, just basic math skills.
Hire a programmer to scrape data from multiple police and court sites -- a few thousand dollars, one time fee. Hire someone to drive around to different courts, xerox records, then type them into a database, say $100 per week for every small town with a sheriff's office. It adds up very quickly -- the point is to make it more expensive and inconvenient to gather incriminating records on people.
This is giving more power to PEOPLE to not have their reputations ruined by government colluding with large corporations like Google to spread incriminating information. I'd side with the little guy who's been accused of a crime he may or may not have committed over an overbearing government or police force any day.
I never said that there should be NO records, just that the records shouldn't be published online. They can stay in the courthouse and be destroyed after release or a "not guilty" verdict. Also, usual protections about notifying an attorney/public defender/family member should apply. With strict penalties for attorneys that release details of a case without client's authorization.
Keep adequate laws in place to keep cops in check while protecting suspects, who are INNOCENT until proven otherwise. If you're talking about lawbreaking cops, this is a problem anyway -- a lawbreaking cop would just beat a suspect or murder them without ever making a record of it.
I'd argue that it should be harder for EVERYONE, including Big Corp, to know this information.
So easy to take a screenshot. Also, it's ultimately up to the browser whether to enable copy/paste or not.
Sort of. Let's say that a nation passes a law that criminal records are sealed 10 years after conviction or that arrest records without conviction are private. Both decent laws. Now, a certain jurisdiction has the nasty habit of releasing those records to public search in order to get around this restriction. This will open them up to lawsuits as a complicit party, after being slapped with a few lawsuits, they might change their nasty habits.
That's as it should be. The records can be in a filing cabinet at the court, but it makes finding the record more expensive (time and money-wise) than just pointing and clicking.
UK is smart like that -- it recognizes that people need to lead their lives after getting out of jail, and that making someone unemployable means they'll be more likely to commit another crime. The US, OTOH...
Wrong. Orwell would support this, at least in the US, if not Europe. Read 1984.
Winston Smith was basically an "unperson" after he was tortured, made to denounce Julia, and released. How many "unpeople" do we make in the US, by virtue of arrest records (without conviction)? How many do we make by convicting people of crimes that should be treated medically or ignored (e.g. drug possession), then branding them for life. Short of someone committing murder, gross mayhem, abuse, or repeated large thefts, I'm not for branding people for life.
At the very least, arrest records should be kept off the Internet until conviction. Trusting a cop's judgment in marring someone's reputation of life is an awful idea.
It gets worse. Sheriff's departments and police stations in the US often post arrest records to the Internet en masse, complete with mugshots. True, they often warn that arrest doesn't imply guilt, but the fact is that those records are likely indexed and sucked up by third party criminal record aggregators. Meaning that an arrest, even if someone is innocent, could mark someone for life on an employment background check.
Cops tend not to be too bright with an extra helping of vindictiveness -- giving them the power to punish and mark people without trial is a terrible idea. If Google was a good public citizen, it would de-list any law enforcement that show arrest records prior to conviction and also pull ads/listings from any aggregators that scrape the same.
Or maybe it does occur to them and they don't care. Or want government to go after troublemakers like protesters... The job of law enforcement often attracts a certain mentality.
Historically humans may have hunted or stood guard against predators at night. Thus, there was a use for both "larks" and "owls."
Point proven: most of the US is flat boring. Plenty of options till 11pm or later in NYC, LA, the "younger" parts of San Diego County, etc. Maybe not 2am, but it's getting there.
Why should children be forced by schools to have the sleep schedules of an 18th century farmer? School hours track employment hours, not vice versa.
Why is the world designed for "morning larks?" We have telecommuting, electric light, etc -- not all jobs need to be done on 18th century farmers' hours. Is this just the human knack for self flagellation?
Thing is, the UAE is not a "free" country, not even to the level of the US. This will probably be used to go after illicit liquor drinkers and people having trysts outside of marriage.
I agree with your rage, but it's already happened in parts of the US, where EZ Pass is required for some bridges and tunnels... this being said, there is a pseudo anonymous cash payment option.
This being said, a lot of things have taken hold abroad (e.g fingerprinting to buy groceries in Venezuela) that don't exist in the US or EU.
Maybe the best thing to happen to the world would be a massive trade war and recession that will set the progress of privacy robbing tech back 50 years and cause superpowers to go bankrupt.
Which speed limit should be the maximum? NYC's (50 mph) or Texas's (85 mph)?
UAE isn't exactly known as a free country for its residents... probably even less concern about privacy than in the US.