... or in this case the Evidence or the Probable Cause?
How exactly did the authorities get a warrant but upon probable cause of the alleged child pornography, without first having evidence of child pornography on the suspects computer?
If the authorities had evidence, then they wouldn't actually need what is on the encrypted drive. If they didn't have the evidence, and the evidence they need is on the encrypted drive, then they never had the evidence to begin with to even get a warrant to seize the drive.
The word of a single person is not sufficient grounds to qualify as probable cause absent some other form of corroborating or circumstantial evidence.
So the question becomes: for what reason are they pursuing unsubstantiated criminal charges against an individual without any corroborating evidence?
Because the issue is more complex than you realize.
Lets imagine that there are two farmers next to each other both growing wheat. Farmer A is "organic" certified and doesn't use GMO modified wheat. Farmer B does use GMO to maximize yield and thus profits. Both Farmers sell their wheat to two different food processing companies, who then process the wheat and sell it to a different food distribution companies, who then sells the processed wheat to end consumers.
One such consumer is a small independently owned bakery in Vermont who sells packaged bread to other local vendors. This bakery decides to sell only healthy organic, non GMO foods and purchases their food ingredients to conform to this.
Now here is the "crunch" question.
Farmer A finds out that his crop of wheat were cross pollinated from Farmer B's fields when Monsanto comes by, tests their wheat, and claims a patent violation by using unlicensed GMO wheat strains.
The Food Processing company that Farmer A sold his, what he believed was non-GMO "organic", wheat to has all of their food products now cross-contaminated with GMO food products.
The Food Distribution company that Farmer A's wheat is sold to is now selling food that "may" contain GMO without proper labeling.
The small Independently Owned Bakery that bought Farmer A's wheat is now selling baked goods that were supposed to be "organic" but now "may" contain GMO food products.
Who is legally culpable for violating the law? Who is legally responsible for any damages (re: lawsuit)?
Bonus question: What if one of the suppliers in the product distribution chain knowingly omitted labeling foods as containing GMO's to attempt to cash in on the "organic food craze" and make a quick buck by defrauding consumers. Are their consumers now legally culpable and responsible?
So, the police go after someone who uses a cell phone jammer. Now when are they going to go after themselves for using stingray devices which essentially do the same thing? (Overpower the local cell towers and pretend to be the closest one.)
The majority of incidents in my area that involved a Drone interfering with something turned out to be either a news drone, or drones being tested by the military.
But holy shitballs the media sure drove everyone into a frenzy about them! (When they were responsible for a bit of it.)
... it's quite evident that not many posters actually watched the video.
The lock isn't being smashed, bashed, smacked or slammed. It's being gently tapped with a brass hammer.
So mentioning bolt cutters, sledge hammers and acetylene torches is about as pertinent as launching into a diatribe about how Mandarin is a hard language to learn, with all of it's tonal inflections, when the discussion topic is about programming languages...
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
I suggest reading up on Privacy Laws and Property Laws (specifically on who owns the airspace over your property). Your assumption, that nobody should have the right to fly a "spying machine" over your house, is incorrect and not supported in our current laws.
That a hobbyist intentionally decided to fly his long range drone into a mountainous area that is ON FIRE where he could lose his signal (due to the intervening terrain) and have the drone crash losing several thousand dollars...
or...
an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that was operating out of a testing facility located nearby accidentally wandered into the area of operations for an active fire fighting aircraft and got a little too close.
I'll take incompetence over malice as the most likely scenario. As to the "government conspiracy to discredit hobbyist?" You mean the "Media Conspiracy" to create alarm, concern and fear where this is none to drive up ratings? Yeah, doesn't sound far fetched at all. It happens all the time.
1.) The alleged drone had a four foot wide wingspan fixed-wing aircraft with bright orange wings. Most hobbyist don't operate unmanned aerial vehicles. They operate what is called First Person View (FPV) aircraft that have limitations due to maintaining a video signal link as well as a flight control link. To operate such a FPV drone at extended distances through a mountainous/hilly terrain, such as where this fire is, is rolling the dice as to whether you will ever see your drone back again. And given the costs of a setup capable of maintaining a video/control link at the ranges alleged means such a FPV operator has some serious money invested in their equipment. The blogger mentions that such capable equipment capable of this is not available off-the-shelf.
2.) The fire department claimed the incident occurred at 11,000 feet. Is this 11,000 feet "AGL" (Above Ground Level?) or above sea level? Because if it is AGL, again this makes it less and less likely this was a hobbyist operated drone due to the extreme distances/elevation (effectively 2 miles up).
3.) The blogger mentions:
The color orange or red is frequently used by the U.S. Navy as well as other agencies to increase visibility of the unmanned aircraft, and is typically not a concern for hobbyists.
One user in the subreddit post pointed out that the El Mirage dry lake bed is approximately 10 miles from the fire area where allegedly
"there is a UAV/Predator testing site/company there".
While this is by no means conclusive, I'm inclined to call "Bullshit" given the scarcity of information. The lack of an arrested individual to publicly shame/ridicule (it's easy to follow a 4 foot wingspan bright orange drone back to it's controller...), ambiguous "facts" (actual elevation?, distance of separation?) and the proximity to a military unmanned drone testing site within 10 miles leads me to believe this was a military drone.
Leaving all of these media articles cropping up about this incident nothing more than F.U.D. designed to whip up hysteria about a topic that is somewhat controversial.
In addition to everything you've said, they are also require an Unauthorized Access to a Computer Device which is a federal crime (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), as pushing data and handshaking with the mobile device is part of the pairing process between a mobile device and a cell tower.
A person has rights to privacy, disclosing said person's personal information, particularly with regard to a controversial topic is at the very least negligent and at worst directly contributing to any potential harm that may befall them.
There is quite a bit difference from public access to 3D printer files and public access to personal information of a specific person.
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10... the "or to the people" part and just assume everything not theirs is purview of the states.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it a federal crime to unlawfully access any computer device that is used by an financial institution, government institution or a private computer that is used for interstate commerce or communication.
This already covers cell phones as they are 1.) Computers, 2.) Used for interstate communication and 3.) Used for interstate commerce.
Given that the Stingray Devices operate by performing a "Man in the Middle" style attack by masquerading as a legitimate cell tower and thereby intercepting cellular data from all users in the vicinity of the Stingray Device (regardless of whether they are the target or not), and part of the cellular data transfer requires (non-secure) authentication (identifying carrier, ID, etc), I fail to see how use of a Stingray Device is legal even via a warrant.
First, the basic nature of the Stingray Device requires a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to operate (connect to the cell phone and send/receive data). Combine this with how the Stingray Device cannot operate in such a fashion that it targets a single individual; it intercepts ALL communications in it's area. This device is the epitome of unconstitutional. It cannot even be operated legally with a warrant because it can't narrow it's target to a single individual and thus runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (in addition to 18 U.S. Code 1030).
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
This is true, in a public place you have no expectation of privacy... But this fact is completely irrelevant because the methods the stingray devices use to gain the data are deceptive. And more importantly, have absolutely nothing to do with whether you are in a public place or not.
You could be inside your own home, a location afforded and protected by the highest level of what is deemed to be "private", and a stingray device could still gain access to your private data. Again: being in public, or not, has absolutely NOTHING to do with how and why a stingray device operates.
The stingray devices deceives your wireless device into believing they are connected to a legitimate cell tower when it is, in fact, not connected to a legitimate cell tower. Then your phone, believing it is connected to a legitimate cellular tower, pushes it's data like it would to the carrier's cell tower.
The issue then, is not one of a location based privacy nature (re: public/private), but one of whether or not such actions by police are considered fraudulent. Clearly, in order for the stingray device to work, some form of deceptive action must be taken by the device at the behest of the police. The question then becomes: is such using deception to trick a person into believing they are dealing with a legitimate cell tower service that they are paying for a criminal act?
The answer is yes. Deceiving someone and intercepting their communications without their explicit knowledge is in fact a federal criminal act. Specifically, it is the criminal act known as "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications" colloquially referred to as wiretapping and defined in the following United States Federal Statute:
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—
(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;
(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
There is already a SCOTUS ruling on this issue: Kyllo v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)
In this case, the police used FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) cameras equipped on a police helicopter to look at the heat signatures through the walls of a house.
The courts ruled (5-4) that doing such is a defacto search of the property and a clear 4th amendment violation.
The point of the ruling, is not the intrusiveness or the technical means by which the police overcome the privacy and property rights, but the fact that doing so is a search of the property.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the presiding opinion, further went on to protect against all future attempts at bypassing the barriers of privacy and conduct searches of property without a warrant by the way he wrote his opinion. Again, it is not the technological means by which one overcomes the property's barriers to privacy, regardless how non-intrusive or passive such measures are, but the fact hat doing such is conducting a search of the property.
Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.
Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments, and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)
How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?
Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.
If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.
All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one and switching to the other when it's most convenient to them.
Because what we really need is another set of traffic rules to really confuse the shit out of people with.
Finding your stolen phone and arresting the perp, or writing 6 tickets in the span of an hour?
Modern policing has NOTHING to do with protecting society. It is all about revenue generation and enforcing the status quo so the populace doesn't get out of line.
Slashdot Mirror
... or in this case the Evidence or the Probable Cause?
How exactly did the authorities get a warrant but upon probable cause of the alleged child pornography, without first having evidence of child pornography on the suspects computer?
If the authorities had evidence, then they wouldn't actually need what is on the encrypted drive. If they didn't have the evidence, and the evidence they need is on the encrypted drive, then they never had the evidence to begin with to even get a warrant to seize the drive.
The word of a single person is not sufficient grounds to qualify as probable cause absent some other form of corroborating or circumstantial evidence.
So the question becomes: for what reason are they pursuing unsubstantiated criminal charges against an individual without any corroborating evidence?
Whoosh!
Because the issue is more complex than you realize.
Lets imagine that there are two farmers next to each other both growing wheat. Farmer A is "organic" certified and doesn't use GMO modified wheat. Farmer B does use GMO to maximize yield and thus profits. Both Farmers sell their wheat to two different food processing companies, who then process the wheat and sell it to a different food distribution companies, who then sells the processed wheat to end consumers.
One such consumer is a small independently owned bakery in Vermont who sells packaged bread to other local vendors. This bakery decides to sell only healthy organic, non GMO foods and purchases their food ingredients to conform to this.
Now here is the "crunch" question.
Farmer A finds out that his crop of wheat were cross pollinated from Farmer B's fields when Monsanto comes by, tests their wheat, and claims a patent violation by using unlicensed GMO wheat strains.
The Food Processing company that Farmer A sold his, what he believed was non-GMO "organic", wheat to has all of their food products now cross-contaminated with GMO food products.
The Food Distribution company that Farmer A's wheat is sold to is now selling food that "may" contain GMO without proper labeling.
The small Independently Owned Bakery that bought Farmer A's wheat is now selling baked goods that were supposed to be "organic" but now "may" contain GMO food products.
Who is legally culpable for violating the law? Who is legally responsible for any damages (re: lawsuit)?
Bonus question: What if one of the suppliers in the product distribution chain knowingly omitted labeling foods as containing GMO's to attempt to cash in on the "organic food craze" and make a quick buck by defrauding consumers. Are their consumers now legally culpable and responsible?
So, the police go after someone who uses a cell phone jammer. Now when are they going to go after themselves for using stingray devices which essentially do the same thing? (Overpower the local cell towers and pretend to be the closest one.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It was almost exclusively media hysteria.
The majority of incidents in my area that involved a Drone interfering with something turned out to be either a news drone, or drones being tested by the military.
But holy shitballs the media sure drove everyone into a frenzy about them! (When they were responsible for a bit of it.)
... it's quite evident that not many posters actually watched the video.
The lock isn't being smashed, bashed, smacked or slammed. It's being gently tapped with a brass hammer.
So mentioning bolt cutters, sledge hammers and acetylene torches is about as pertinent as launching into a diatribe about how Mandarin is a hard language to learn, with all of it's tonal inflections, when the discussion topic is about programming languages...
Is it better to assign much more police effort to white collar crime or to arrest 1,000 people trying to buy crack or carrying an illegal weapon?
The police and the DA will always go after low hanging fruit as this makes them look good when they tout statistics on how "tough on crime" they are.
Been watching a few too many movies... Next you'll say that bombs are identifiable by the blinking red light.
So what, nobody should have the right to fly a spying machine over your house.
I suggest reading up on Privacy Laws and Property Laws (specifically on who owns the airspace over your property). Your assumption, that nobody should have the right to fly a "spying machine" over your house, is incorrect and not supported in our current laws.
What's the more likely conclusion?
That a hobbyist intentionally decided to fly his long range drone into a mountainous area that is ON FIRE where he could lose his signal (due to the intervening terrain) and have the drone crash losing several thousand dollars...
or...
an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that was operating out of a testing facility located nearby accidentally wandered into the area of operations for an active fire fighting aircraft and got a little too close.
I'll take incompetence over malice as the most likely scenario. As to the "government conspiracy to discredit hobbyist?" You mean the "Media Conspiracy" to create alarm, concern and fear where this is none to drive up ratings? Yeah, doesn't sound far fetched at all. It happens all the time.
And the blogger raises several points:
1.) The alleged drone had a four foot wide wingspan fixed-wing aircraft with bright orange wings.
Most hobbyist don't operate unmanned aerial vehicles. They operate what is called First Person View (FPV) aircraft that have limitations due to maintaining a video signal link as well as a flight control link. To operate such a FPV drone at extended distances through a mountainous/hilly terrain, such as where this fire is, is rolling the dice as to whether you will ever see your drone back again. And given the costs of a setup capable of maintaining a video/control link at the ranges alleged means such a FPV operator has some serious money invested in their equipment. The blogger mentions that such capable equipment capable of this is not available off-the-shelf.
2.) The fire department claimed the incident occurred at 11,000 feet.
Is this 11,000 feet "AGL" (Above Ground Level?) or above sea level? Because if it is AGL, again this makes it less and less likely this was a hobbyist operated drone due to the extreme distances/elevation (effectively 2 miles up).
3.) The blogger mentions:
The color orange or red is frequently used by the U.S. Navy as well as other agencies to increase visibility of the unmanned aircraft, and is typically not a concern for hobbyists.
One user in the subreddit post pointed out that the El Mirage dry lake bed is approximately 10 miles from the fire area where allegedly
"there is a UAV/Predator testing site/company there".
While this is by no means conclusive, I'm inclined to call "Bullshit" given the scarcity of information. The lack of an arrested individual to publicly shame/ridicule (it's easy to follow a 4 foot wingspan bright orange drone back to it's controller...), ambiguous "facts" (actual elevation?, distance of separation?) and the proximity to a military unmanned drone testing site within 10 miles leads me to believe this was a military drone.
Leaving all of these media articles cropping up about this incident nothing more than F.U.D. designed to whip up hysteria about a topic that is somewhat controversial.
In addition to everything you've said, they are also require an Unauthorized Access to a Computer Device which is a federal crime (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), as pushing data and handshaking with the mobile device is part of the pairing process between a mobile device and a cell tower.
A person has rights to privacy, disclosing said person's personal information, particularly with regard to a controversial topic is at the very least negligent and at worst directly contributing to any potential harm that may befall them.
There is quite a bit difference from public access to 3D printer files and public access to personal information of a specific person.
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10... the "or to the people" part and just assume everything not theirs is purview of the states.
Have you heard of "Prelude to Axanar"?
It basically contradicts all of your objections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
It also helps if you don't buy everyone a corvette, company trips to hawaii, etc.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it a federal crime to unlawfully access any computer device that is used by an financial institution, government institution or a private computer that is used for interstate commerce or communication.
This already covers cell phones as they are 1.) Computers, 2.) Used for interstate communication and 3.) Used for interstate commerce.
Given that the Stingray Devices operate by performing a "Man in the Middle" style attack by masquerading as a legitimate cell tower and thereby intercepting cellular data from all users in the vicinity of the Stingray Device (regardless of whether they are the target or not), and part of the cellular data transfer requires (non-secure) authentication (identifying carrier, ID, etc), I fail to see how use of a Stingray Device is legal even via a warrant.
First, the basic nature of the Stingray Device requires a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to operate (connect to the cell phone and send/receive data). Combine this with how the Stingray Device cannot operate in such a fashion that it targets a single individual; it intercepts ALL communications in it's area. This device is the epitome of unconstitutional. It cannot even be operated legally with a warrant because it can't narrow it's target to a single individual and thus runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (in addition to 18 U.S. Code 1030).
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
This is true, in a public place you have no expectation of privacy... But this fact is completely irrelevant because the methods the stingray devices use to gain the data are deceptive. And more importantly, have absolutely nothing to do with whether you are in a public place or not.
You could be inside your own home, a location afforded and protected by the highest level of what is deemed to be "private", and a stingray device could still gain access to your private data. Again: being in public, or not, has absolutely NOTHING to do with how and why a stingray device operates.
The stingray devices deceives your wireless device into believing they are connected to a legitimate cell tower when it is, in fact, not connected to a legitimate cell tower. Then your phone, believing it is connected to a legitimate cellular tower, pushes it's data like it would to the carrier's cell tower.
The issue then, is not one of a location based privacy nature (re: public/private), but one of whether or not such actions by police are considered fraudulent. Clearly, in order for the stingray device to work, some form of deceptive action must be taken by the device at the behest of the police. The question then becomes: is such using deception to trick a person into believing they are dealing with a legitimate cell tower service that they are paying for a criminal act?
The answer is yes. Deceiving someone and intercepting their communications without their explicit knowledge is in fact a federal criminal act. Specifically, it is the criminal act known as "Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications" colloquially referred to as wiretapping and defined in the following United States Federal Statute:
18 U.S. Code 2511 (link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...)
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or (iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States; (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;There is already a SCOTUS ruling on this issue: Kyllo v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)
In this case, the police used FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) cameras equipped on a police helicopter to look at the heat signatures through the walls of a house.
The courts ruled (5-4) that doing such is a defacto search of the property and a clear 4th amendment violation.
The point of the ruling, is not the intrusiveness or the technical means by which the police overcome the privacy and property rights, but the fact that doing so is a search of the property.
Justice Scalia, who wrote the presiding opinion, further went on to protect against all future attempts at bypassing the barriers of privacy and conduct searches of property without a warrant by the way he wrote his opinion. Again, it is not the technological means by which one overcomes the property's barriers to privacy, regardless how non-intrusive or passive such measures are, but the fact hat doing such is conducting a search of the property.
First responders that don't have to worry about every person potentially having a gun will have that luxury. Welcome to the US gun culture.
But that's just it, first responders don't have to worry about every person potentially having a gun.
Because, (CLUE-TRAIN!), every person doesn't have a gun.
Welcome to left-wing sensationalistic bullshit.
Police also have qualified immunity. Which is the most important part that separates regular citizens and police from effecting arrests.
As per the FAA website:
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
http://www.faa.gov/news/update...
Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.
Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments, and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA)
How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?
Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.
If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.
All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one and switching to the other when it's most convenient to them.
Because what we really need is another set of traffic rules to really confuse the shit out of people with.
But what makes the state more money?
Finding your stolen phone and arresting the perp, or writing 6 tickets in the span of an hour?
Modern policing has NOTHING to do with protecting society. It is all about revenue generation and enforcing the status quo so the populace doesn't get out of line.