When I was 15 I seduced a woman of 20 and we were together for a year and a half.
No, you didn't. But okay, *wink wink* let's say you did. While we're at it, did I ever mention the time I got it on with 12 Hawaiian Tropic models when I was 16? Shit was cash, yo.
That was pedophilia.
Unless you were a real late bloomer, or she was - and one of you hadn't entered hit puberty by the age of 15 or 20 respectively, then no, no it wasn't pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of adults to *prepubescent* partners. Onset of puberty is, on average, at or before the age of 12. Your little alleged fling with a 20 year old woman may have been, legally speaking, a sexual offense, and would result in your partner having to register as a Tier 1 (the lowest tier) offender, after being convicted of something like, "Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, not previously convicted." And yeah, it sucks for the 20 year olds who have 17 year old girlfriends, but you know, I'm struggling to find a single example of a case where two kids in a relationship happened to be railroaded because one of them happened to be over 18 and the other was under 18. While the potential certainly exists for these sorts of situations to occur, I simply can't find any situations that seem to fit the bill where there are not dramatically aggravated circumstances, e.g., rape, revenge-texting-of-nude-photos, etc. etc.
I did find one example of an 18 year old kid being busted for distribution of child porn after he got in an argument with his 16 year old girlfriend, and as revenge, sent nude photos of her to a couple dozen of her family and friends. And well, yeah, sucks to be him, but I'm having a little trouble feeling any sympathy for his plight, because what he did was an asshole thing to do, regardless of their respective ages.
But your alleged scenario where you "seduced" a 20 year old most certainly was NOT pedophilia, and your argument that it was simply shows exactly how ignorant of the legal and psychological definitions of the term you are.
In many cultures it has been the norm for youngsters of sometimes either gender, but especially males, to be introduced to sex by an elder. In the western world in general it was the norm for teenage girls to be wed to men old enough to be their father for longer than it has been abnormal.
Yes, and these cultures are well known for their forward thinking, progressive social attitudes. I mean, just look at Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, where 12 year old girls are frequently forced into marriages with 40 year old men, and essentially pressed into sexual slavery, complete with rape and physical abuse, for years. I think that's a culture we can *ALL* agree deserves to be replicated everywhere!
In some cultures the young are permitted or even encouraged to couple freely with one another, which is effectively legally pedophilia in the USA.
Once again, you betray your vast ignorance of what constitutes pedophilia. Two children engaging in a few rounds of "playing doctor," and exploring their sexuality is vastly different than a 30 year old man manipulating a prepubescent girl into sex - in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of anybody with a shred of common-fucking-sense, they are WORLDS apart. Pedophilia is wrong because there are vast differentials in power and authority, and there is no possible way a child can give informed consent in cases like that.
I could go on.
Oh, I'm sure you could. But you know that to do so would simply make you look like even more of an ignorant dolt than you've already managed to.
Who the fuck are you, you anonymous, cowardly cunt?
I'm not the guy you responded to, but since you seem to think that being logged in means my points are somehow more valid, please feel free to refute them with actual facts, rather than speculative made-up shit.
No, it doesn't. Because there are used cars with airbags available as cheap used cars today. You know, the ones which have NOT BEEN IN ACCIDENTS. It's perfectly reasonable for an old car to be worth less than $5k used, and not have been in an accident. When it DOES get in an accident, it may be totalled. Then you replace it with another car that hasn't.
By your logic, any car with an *engine* or an *automatic transmission* would be impossible to find as a used car, because replacing an engine or a transmission could cost several thousand dollars.
The used car market is still doing fine. Your logic is flawed.
You really mean to say that there's no such thing as a $5000 used car? Because I can point you in the direction of half a dozen used car lots within about 10 miles of my home that will sell you a decent used car for $5000 or less. There's no reason to think that the addition of $50 per vehicle is suddenly going to mean that used cars don't exist anymore.
What about when the airbag deploys in an accident where the passengers would not have been injured
This is why we have auto insurance. If it's going to cost you $4000 to repair your vehicle, then you pay your deductible (probably just a few hundred, unless you've explicitly taken a high-deductible plan), and your insurance will cover the rest. If the vehicle is totaled from $4000 damage, then you take your $4000 payout, and you go buy a used car somewhere (see my earlier point about used car lots. They do exist, and many of the cars are under $5000).
Again, I'm not sure I see how you're concluding that this is the action of some diabolical hand of The Man trying to crush The Working Man and prevent him from having things like a car.
They have increased the total cost of ownership of automobiles more than most people realize and are going to shorten the useful life an an automobile by a significant amount.
That depends on whether or not you factor in the life-saving (and thus labor-saving, and medical-expense saving) nature of airbags. Estimates suggest that the newest mandated side-curtain airbags will add about $33 to the cost of the vehicle. Cost of *replacement* after deployment seems to be in the 500-1500 range.
Since I can't find any references on the additional cost of front airbags, I'll assume it's a similar per-vehicle cost; I'd be surprised if it was much more than $100 per vehicle more for front airbags.
So, let's assume worst case scenario: you're in a car wreck, and driver & passenger front & both side airbags deploy. Your car's cost was increased by, let's say $200, by the inclusion of those airbags; You find your airbags are $1000 per airbag to replace. Total cost to you for those airbags: $4200.
Now, do a little math for me - how much medical care does $4200 buy you? (If you answered "not much," you're correct.) Now consider, you avoided some major injuries because of the air bags, and you're back at work in days, rather than weeks or months? Remember that the working-class guy who makes $40k a year is also the one who can't afford to be out of work for months, too, or who can least afford to be out of work on disability for the rest of his life. They are effective insurance, and rather cheap insurance when you figure in the lifespan of the vehicle.
1) Safely close the traveling distance between vehicles; That computer can process input far faster than you can;
2) Detect congestion forming, and route you off onto side streets which will be just as fast in getting you to your destination;
3) Eliminate "distracted driving" as a cause for a large number of slowdowns - your car isn't slowing down to 35, straddling two lanes;
And distracted driving is huge: I've seen people do this shit while...: trying to text a response to someone on their cell phone, or put on makeup, or read the newspaper, or eat a burger, or find their sunglasses, or change the radio station, or open the passenger side window, or take their shoes off, or put a sweatshirt on... (and yes, these are all things that I've seen people doing numerous times on the Mass Pike when I commuted into Boston);
Plus a driverless car would help eliminate the "idiot curves" where - despite the fact that the road is designed for safe 65+ mph travel - people always seem to slow down to about 40 going around these curves. My fellow mass pike travelers will recognize the curve just before the Natick (Rt. 30) off ramp (westbound) as one such point where the highway just mystically... "backs up" during any reasonably congested time of day. There's no good reason for it, except for people tapping their brakes as they drive into the curve and bleeding 20 mph of speed in the mistaken impression that "curve means I need to slow down."
None of these will eliminate the demand for roadway, but taken all together, they'd do a fair bit towards making sure we use the roadway we already have in the most efficient manner possible.
Really, no insurance costs, no fuel costs, no tire, brake, and other maintenance costs, no parking fees, no tolls, no garaging costs - over 20 years? Did you ever drive it?!
My car is 6 years old, and completely paid off, so I have no monthly payment. My insurance cost me $832 last year ($69.33 / month). I drive about 10 miles each way to work, 20 miles a day. Average price of gas is about $3.73 per gallon for Regular, and my car gets about 25 mpg ($89.52 / month gas costs, just to/from work.) If I drive more than that, costs go up. If I have to change the oil, rotate the tires, replace worn out brakes, costs go up. I had to spend about $250 in yearly registration renewal fees this year, so there's another $20 a month.
There's a reason why dealers love lease ("rental") programs rather than purchase plans - because they're more profitable for the dealer. If you see no way that a car service could "buy" cars, and then "rent out" use of them, and turn a profit, then you're just not trying. And if you truly only pay $80/month to own your vehicle, then you are by far and away the exception to the car-owning public. Most people don't have 20 year old vehicles that require no maintenance, no fuel, no insurance, and no tolls or parking fees. But congratulations on your economical purchase.
You could make this same argument for any safety system - airbags added to the cost of the vehicle, and yet, most cars come with them now.
It would probably also lead to the development of affordable car sharing (think: zipcar, but where the car can come pick you up) services - why buy a car, when you can get a vehicle sent to your house to take you where you want to go at any hour? I suspect that the availability of reliable services like this would mean many people would choose *not to own* a vehicle. Let somebody else worry about maintenance, upkeep, etc, I'll just pay for transportation as I need it. In fact, mass transit systems already operate on this same principle.
There will come a point where having a car at your door within 10-20 minutes of your request, ready to take you wherever you want to go for a reasonable fee, will be cheaper than car ownership, parking fees, maintenance costs, insurance costs, fuel costs, etc. The cost of the vehicle will be shared with the other people who use that car during the day when you're not paying for it to be parked in the lot behind your building.
"Car ownership" may become a status symbol of the rich, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the poor people's quality of life will suffer from not owning a car. In fact, they might actually save a lot of money that they can put to use elsewhere in their household.
so the driver less car, would, without hesitation, grill the deer,
Well, let's hope that the driverless car would have sophisticated and sensitive enough sensor systems that it would both detect the sudden approach of a large animal from the side of the road, and take appropriate steps to brake or stop before striking the animal, rather than just "floor it and push on through."
Test competency in the sciences for an 8th grader probably is a good thing. From the article:
Students were asked to identify chemically similar elements on the periodic table, name a function of the human organ system and explain the effects of human land use on wildlife. [...] In California, eighth-grade students are only taught in physical science, not in Earth or space sciences – another reason why they would struggle more, officials said.
I have trouble believing that questions like these are somehow unreasonable, unfair, or biased against black/hispanic/asian kids, or somehow socioeconomically biased. These are fairly basic science questions, and there are some fairly clear boundaries between right and wrong answers. If your kid cannot answer these questions after taking courses which are supposed to teach the answers to these questions, I think it's safe to say that there's a rather large disconnect between the educational system's goals and its outcomes.
We can argue the merits of standardized testing, and "teaching to the test" until the cows come home, but if your school system has adopted the test as a measurement criteria, and structured its curriculum around that test, and still achieves remarkably low results... something is wrong.
"Give me enough medals, and I’ll win you any war." Napoleon Bonaparte
In general, I agree - autonomy, interesting work, genuine appreciation, and easing administrative hassles are all things I value far more than "here's an extra 50 bucks, thanks." But the social value of those trinkets shouldn't be overlooked.
Think about it - how often do you walk around your workplace and see co-workers with various trinket-y awards, memos, plaques, etc. on display in their cubicles? The reason they're doing it is that there's some pride associated with it - it's a physical token of somebody's gratitude or respect for them and their work, that they can show off to their peers. Even though nobody's going to walk up and demand their autograph because "Oh my god, you have a Chairman's Appreciation Plaque award!" but people will notice it, and some will say, "Wow, that's cool, congratulations." It engenders positive feedback.
Now, you can certainly take it too far, and cheapen the gesture altogether by handing them out like candy, for meaningless reasons; But used judiciously, even the trinkets can be effective motivators.
Money, extra paid time (or flexible time), trinkets, autonomy, appreciation - all of these are (or at least can be, depending on the individual) motivational awards. The key is to use the right tools in the right proportion.
In every practical sense of the word, yes it is. This renders the entirety of your post moot.
That's an odd way to concede that I'm correct, but thanks for your concession all the same. I guess you missed the point where I said that "WORK - i.e., productive effort - is required to survive, but there is nothing saying that that work must be done for pay from somebody else."
Since you have offered no reason why it's impossible for someone to earn a living via productive work without requiring a paycheck from a corporate employer, you've fallen far short of demonstrating that a "paycheck from an employer" is a necessary requirement of survival. I guess this renders your whole argument moot.
A paycheck is not a requirement to survive. You can quite happily live as a subsistence farmer off the land, growing & hunting your own food, building your own shelter, and making your own furniture, clothing, and tools. People did it for centuries, and survived quite happily. WORK - i.e., productive effort - is required to survive, but there is nothing saying that that work must be done for pay for somebody else. Everybody *has* the right to work already. What they do not have is the right to demand that other people write them a check for their efforts.
Unless you're proposing complete nationalization of all industries, along with a complete redistribution of wealth, then discrimination laws need to remain quite narrow, and focused on unalterable physical conditions and genetic makeup - i.e., you can't choose to be not black, you can't magically become "not a paraplegic," and you can't just decide (despite the protestations of some fundamentalist ministers) to not be gay. You *can* decide whether or not you're going to support an organization's political aims, and associate with those people.
As I said above, and you blithely ignored, please remember that if you want to claim "those OWS protesters have a RIGHT to a paycheck from Bank of America, it's their right!" Then you must also concede that "that KKK member has a RIGHT to a paycheck from a Jewish business owner," and "that Birther has a *right* to a paycheck from MSNBC." If everybody has a right to a paycheck (a position that seems strangely popular here on Slashdot), then that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter, and yet I see countless comments suggesting that nobody would bat a single eyelash if all four of those people (plus everybody employee of Fox News) suddenly found themselves unemployed, simply because they hold unpopular-on-Slashdot opinions. This argument cuts both ways, and it is not one that you should be making lightly - I don't think you've though through this position very well, as it's clear you wish to ignore the full consequences of implementing it.
how an aircraft with sufficient safety mechanisms would allow you to execute a controlled flight into terrain.
If you're at 1000 meters, traveling forward at a rate of 100 k/h, and you can rise 10 meters per second, how far away from the ridge (or, how many seconds before you'd reach the ridge) do you need to begin climbing to clear a ridge in your flight path that is 1500 meters tall? Substitute in whatever numbers you please to accurately reflect performance characteristics of the aircraft, flying conditions, altitudes, and actual speeds, and there's still a "right answer" to this question, and any answer that's *shorter* than the right answer will end in a sudden violent stop.
Safety mechanisms don't provide you with a magical "suspend physics" capability. They are designed to inform the pilot(s) of errors, risks, and potential hazards, but they do not obviate the need for the pilots to be capable, familiar with and aware of the warning systems of the aircraft, and respond to them in a timely fashion.
"Certification", like all business related regulatory endevours in Russia, is more a test of one's ability to grease the right pockets than anything else.
Funny, I didn't realize that the European Aviation Safety Agency was a Russian regulatory agency. Or is it that Russians are so corrupt that they subverted the Europeans as well and just purchased a certification? And if that's the case, what point having regulatory agencies at all, if they're so easily subverted and worked around?
Your point would have been a real zinger, if it was the case that this Sukhoi was flying without certification or inspection. But since it received the same certifications and inspections that any Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc. plane must pass, it sort of makes you look like an idiot. Because it did go under "anywhere near the scrutiny a Euro or American one does," because it went through *the exact same scrutiny.*
On that topic, aren't modern airliners supposed to be filled to the brim with all sorts of safety measures designed to avoid exactly what you describe? You know, flying right in to the side of a mountain?
Safety systems don't trump physics and performance limitations, friend. Nor do they replace a pilot's experience and familiarity with the controls and operating characteristics of the aircraft. If your terrain warning goes off, it doesn't do much good if you don't have time or distance to correct your course. Given that they had descended to around 6000 feet, and the mountain is about 7000 feet, it's quite possible that they couldn't pull up in time. It's also possible that (like the recent cruise ship accident off the coast of Italy) the pilot was "showing off" and got a little too close to something he shouldn't have. It's also possible that the pilot responded improperly to the warnings he was given (i.e., Air France 447 which crashed into the Atlantic), or responded too slowly, or that he was given conflicting or bad warnings by a malfunctioning instrument.
There's dozens of possible explanations for how a plane can crash - assuming that it's "hurr durr no inspections" when all the evidence available suggests that the plane underwent the same exact safety and regulatory review (by the EASA) that any other aircraft in service did is simply obnoxious political posturing in a (vain) effort to make yourself look clever.
You're an idiot. The plane was certified by numerous agencies, and has been flying commercially since April of 2011.
It is certified as meeting the relevant airworthiness and safety requirements by the Interstate Aviation Committee and the European Aviation Safety Agency; The EASA certification is more or less identical in procedure and requirement to our own FAA requirements.
This has nothing to do with "insufficient safety regulations and inspection" in Russia, the plane passed all the same certifications it would need to pass here in the USA, and in fact, the certificate that was awarded by EASA may very well be valid in the US, as there is some reciprocity in these certification processes.
Initial reports suggest that it was CFIT, and they flew right into the side of the mountain; unless you've got access to the black box already, maybe you should hold off on hollow political posturing until an understanding can be reached as to what actually happened?
You're not the only person able to reveal what you're up to and short of excommunicating anyone with loose lips, people are going to know you have done objectionable activities.
So then why the hubbub about Facebook? If it's such "common knowledge" that you do objectionable things, an employer will find out about them anyway, won't they? Why is *Facebook* being singled out here as a privacy threat? Why not make it illegal for employers to do any background checks at all, and simply hire people blind in the hopes that they'll do a good job, and if they don't, well, fire them for poor performance?
The option is basically live perfectly in accordance to what you want everyone to know (which I'd call living in fear, personally, since it is what drives that kind of life), or deal with the fact people are going to see objectionable facts about you.
Here's the thing: this entire line of argument starts treading on the rights of those private employers. They have freedom of association, and their money (via a job) is not yours to do with as you please. If I'm a staunch Democrat, why should I be forced to hire somebody who is a "Birther"? If I'm an ardent advocate for pro-choice policy, why should I be forced to hire somebody who protests at Planned Parenthood clinics every weekend? If I own a McDonald's why should I be forced to hire the kid who attended a G20 protest a month ago, when that same group of protestors smashed my windows and tried to light my store on fire? If I'm a black business owner, why should I be forced to hire somebody who sympathizes with the KKK? (You see, don't you, how this cuts both ways? It's not just 'Evil bigwig CEOs will refuse to hire poor little democrats because they have an Obama sticker on their Prius!')
You see, there's a difference between "discriminating against someone for what they are (gay, black, mexican, transgender, handicapped, etc.)" and "discriminating against someone for their choices and associations (socialist, neo-con, pro choice, pro life, Birther, Truther, anarchist, apolitical housewife)." The former are simply unchangeable facts - who you are. The latter are choices and associations you make based on your values.
You have the right to associate with anybody you please; You do not have the right to compel other people to associate with you (and pay you for the privilege).
That said, I agree that employers should not be able to ask for access to your private and personal accounts, based on the principle that it's simply none of their business if I keep my personal activities personal, and my job performance does not suffer as a result of those activities.
Where we part ways is with this notion that people should have blanket protections for any activities they do outside the workplace, period. If your "objectionable activities" come to the attention of management in a *privately owned* workplace, you should not have any specific protections for those activities. It's YOUR responsibility to keep them private, and out of the view of an employer who may find them objectionable, and if they do find out, and object, they have the same freedom of association you do.
So really, your options regarding those objectionable activities are: 1) Be circumspect in the activities you know are objectionable, and make an effort to keep your personal life personal (and hope your employer doesn't find out about those activities); 2) Be blatant in your participation, and work for an employer who doesn't care, or actively supports and encourages your activities; 3) Don't participate in objectionable activities, period.
Whether it's Facebook posts, bumper stickers, ironic message t-shirts, blog posts, reading material - or anything else that might serve to announce your activities and beliefs to the world - if you know your employer is going to 'disapprove' of an activity, and you're concerned about the impact of that disapproval, you're going to need to 'live in fear,' as you put it, or 'be sensible about where and how you disclose your activities,' as I put it.
Well, nudity is allowed, expected, even the norm in some places. There are some communities where you'd look distinctly out of place wearing pants while walking down main street. Point was, if it's a shocking contravention of social norms in your community (or worse, illegal in your community)... don't post pictures of yourself doing it on Facebook.
Because living in fear is exactly what we should all aspire to, right?
Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?
Treat these services as public spaces - if you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown with your balls hanging out, don't do it on Facebook. If you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown smoking a crack pipe, don't post a picture of yourself doing the same thing on Facebook. This isn't "living in fear," this is "taking sensible precautions to maintain control of the details of your own private personal life."
I would still refuse to give a prospective employer my password on principle. But the fact is that, even if they were to hack their way in, the most shocking thing they'd be able to glean from my Facebook account is that I occasionally go to a bar with some friends, have a few drinks, and listen to some music. And I also occasionally chat with my family and some friends to catch up on what's new. All of these are, fortunately, completely legal pastimes.
If you entrust Facebook with information that could embarrass you if it became public knowledge, you're pretty much asking to be embarrassed or damaged by the accidental disclosure of that data at some point. Keep your secrets secret, don't publish them to a networked publishing and sharing platform and rely on a poorly designed "this is private" checkbox to keep you safe from embarrassment.
No to compel disclosure of the contents of the communications they need one of two things:
1) A search warrant; -- OR -- 2) a 2703(d) subpoena, as defined and allowed by the SCA;
I'll give you two guesses what type of subpoena it is. Hint: if you're leaning towards it being a 2703(d) subpoena, you're absolutely right.
For Twitter to refuse the subpoena, they must show - via legal logic & sound citation of precedent - that the subpoena does not meet the requirements of a 2703(d) subpoena, or that the court's legal reasoning in support of the issuance of the subpoena was faulty somehow. Just saying "sorry, we're not giving you contents," doesn't work, when the law specifically allows you to subpoena the contents of the communications under certain conditions which the judge has ruled are satisfied.
Yep, drowning and hypothermia would have been the big two.
As for those who may have *ingested* rather than *inhaled* seawater, they would have died from hypernatremia (too much sodium in the blood, not enough water = arrythmia, coma, heart failure as your nervous system begins malfunctioning) and dehyrdation from the enormous amounts of water their kidneys would need to excrete along with all the salts in seawater to try and maintain their blood electrolyte levels in a survivable range.
Water poisoning (hyponatremia from too much water intake) will manifest as cerebral edema (affecting a host of cognitive and sensory functions) as well as putting pressure on the brain stem, which can result in all those important regulatory systems shutting down, leading to coma, seizures, brain damage, and death.
Twitter would have to answer if they have an account from this person, if they have tweets by him, if those tweets were "deleted" and some other meta-information, if they were given a subpoena in the state of California. However, they would not have to reveal the actual content of those tweets, until a warrant was properly issued by a Judge.
This subpoena is a Section 2703(d) subpoena, allowed for under the SCA, per the ruling I linked:
In order to obtain the court order found in 2703(d), the People must offer “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the Tweets “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”(18 USC 2703[d]). This court finds that the factual showing has been made.
Section 2703(d) allows them to request the *contents* (not just subscriber information) using a subpoena provided the request meets certain specific criteria. The judge has ruled that they have been met. Since this is a Federal law, Twitter's only real option is to refuse the subpoena until the prosecution files an action in California to have a California court issue the same subpoena, and then *hope* that the California judge interprets the situation differently than the New York judge.
And, since the judge in NY has ruled that the 2703d subpoena criteria are met (requiring "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tweets are relevant"), it's a fairly small step to go from there to search warrant which will compel the disclosure of this info.
Not really. The argument says that if you grant a license to a copy of something you've published, the person who granted the "no restrictions" license loses any say in the matter of what the licensee does with their copy of the publication. It doesn't say that granting a license cedes all copyrights, it says that granting the license disclaims the copyright owner's rights to control what Twitter does with the copy they've licensed to Twitter. And that's what the government has asked for - the information Twitter holds on its servers, which the user has granted them a license to redistribute and reproduce in any form they desire.
Copyright in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for quashing a subpoena. The grounds for quashing this subpoena are rooted in 4th amendment and Stored Communications Act, and what needs to be considered is whether this request for records constitutes an "ureasonable search" that violates the defendant's expectations of privacy, and there are some specific standards set forth in the SCA to test whether or not a subpoena is valid. The subpoena (according to the court's reasoning) meets those standards; it's up to Twitter to show how they fail to meet those tests, and frankly, their response seems to mostly boil down to "But, but, but... 4th Amendment," as if exclaiming that will create additional protections for this data.
If that becomes a set precedent, it will have an incredibly chilling effect on online privacy.
It is known as third party doctrine - in essence, if you disclose information to another person via a third party, you lose your 4th Amendment protections relative to that information, at least insofar as the third party is concerned. The theory is that by revealing that information to (or via) the third party, you have waived your "reasonable" right to privacy. The Stored Communications Act actually enumerates some additional protections for electronic communications that precedent would have suggested is fair game under third party doctrine.
There's a really interesting review of the third party doctrine from the Michigan Law Review that discusses some of the criticisms of it, and offers some arguments in support of it. An interesting read, no matter which side of the argument you happen to agree with.
In the meantime for us lesser mortals who don't sit on a court or own a Congressperson, the best bet is to never ever ever assume that anything - especially incriminating evidence - that you write down or transmit via email or any other electronic service is "secure," "private," or "your property." It's bad practice to document your misdeeds to begin with, and even worse practice to store them in (or share them via) a platform like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, or anything else. That certainly doesn't solve the problem inherent to balancing privacy with third party disclosure, but it at least lessens your risk of a "bad" court decision allowing somebody free access into your Facebook data where you've carefully documented all of your criminal activity for the world to see.
No, because that would actually violate the license (which you specified was "unrestricted") even if it were valid. Just because a license grantor retains ownership does not mean they get to retroactively change the terms of the license.
Twitter is not attempting to appropriate the work as their own, nor is the court. Twitter is being told, "Hey, I need to look at your copy of those tweets for court business." And by your own argument, Mr. Harris has ceded all proprietary interest in Twitter's *copy* of his message by granting them that unrestricted, use anywhere license, and he certainly does not have possession of Twitter's copies - the second requirement for someone to demonstrate that they have standing to ask the court to quash a subpoena.
Again, I would encourage you to actually go and read the legal reasoning of the court, and familiarize yourself with the laws at play. This dogged insistence that "he retains copyrights" somehow makes his records immune to subpoena is simply incorrect. If you want to argue points of the Stored Communications Act, you should probably be familiar with its provisions.
So what you're saying is that you support restrictive EULA regimes which let the copyright owner tell you what you can and cannot do with an item, even after they've granted you a license to do whatever you want with it? That is a logical consequence of the statement you've just made.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you didn't. But okay, *wink wink* let's say you did. While we're at it, did I ever mention the time I got it on with 12 Hawaiian Tropic models when I was 16? Shit was cash, yo.
Unless you were a real late bloomer, or she was - and one of you hadn't entered hit puberty by the age of 15 or 20 respectively, then no, no it wasn't pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction of adults to *prepubescent* partners. Onset of puberty is, on average, at or before the age of 12. Your little alleged fling with a 20 year old woman may have been, legally speaking, a sexual offense, and would result in your partner having to register as a Tier 1 (the lowest tier) offender, after being convicted of something like, "Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor, not previously convicted." And yeah, it sucks for the 20 year olds who have 17 year old girlfriends, but you know, I'm struggling to find a single example of a case where two kids in a relationship happened to be railroaded because one of them happened to be over 18 and the other was under 18. While the potential certainly exists for these sorts of situations to occur, I simply can't find any situations that seem to fit the bill where there are not dramatically aggravated circumstances, e.g., rape, revenge-texting-of-nude-photos, etc. etc.
I did find one example of an 18 year old kid being busted for distribution of child porn after he got in an argument with his 16 year old girlfriend, and as revenge, sent nude photos of her to a couple dozen of her family and friends. And well, yeah, sucks to be him, but I'm having a little trouble feeling any sympathy for his plight, because what he did was an asshole thing to do, regardless of their respective ages.
But your alleged scenario where you "seduced" a 20 year old most certainly was NOT pedophilia, and your argument that it was simply shows exactly how ignorant of the legal and psychological definitions of the term you are.
Yes, and these cultures are well known for their forward thinking, progressive social attitudes. I mean, just look at Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas, where 12 year old girls are frequently forced into marriages with 40 year old men, and essentially pressed into sexual slavery, complete with rape and physical abuse, for years. I think that's a culture we can *ALL* agree deserves to be replicated everywhere!
Once again, you betray your vast ignorance of what constitutes pedophilia. Two children engaging in a few rounds of "playing doctor," and exploring their sexuality is vastly different than a 30 year old man manipulating a prepubescent girl into sex - in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of anybody with a shred of common-fucking-sense, they are WORLDS apart. Pedophilia is wrong because there are vast differentials in power and authority, and there is no possible way a child can give informed consent in cases like that.
Oh, I'm sure you could. But you know that to do so would simply make you look like even more of an ignorant dolt than you've already managed to.
I'm not the guy you responded to, but since you seem to think that being logged in means my points are somehow more valid, please feel free to refute them with actual facts, rather than speculative made-up shit.
No, it doesn't. Because there are used cars with airbags available as cheap used cars today. You know, the ones which have NOT BEEN IN ACCIDENTS. It's perfectly reasonable for an old car to be worth less than $5k used, and not have been in an accident. When it DOES get in an accident, it may be totalled. Then you replace it with another car that hasn't.
By your logic, any car with an *engine* or an *automatic transmission* would be impossible to find as a used car, because replacing an engine or a transmission could cost several thousand dollars.
The used car market is still doing fine. Your logic is flawed.
You really mean to say that there's no such thing as a $5000 used car? Because I can point you in the direction of half a dozen used car lots within about 10 miles of my home that will sell you a decent used car for $5000 or less. There's no reason to think that the addition of $50 per vehicle is suddenly going to mean that used cars don't exist anymore.
This is why we have auto insurance. If it's going to cost you $4000 to repair your vehicle, then you pay your deductible (probably just a few hundred, unless you've explicitly taken a high-deductible plan), and your insurance will cover the rest. If the vehicle is totaled from $4000 damage, then you take your $4000 payout, and you go buy a used car somewhere (see my earlier point about used car lots. They do exist, and many of the cars are under $5000).
Again, I'm not sure I see how you're concluding that this is the action of some diabolical hand of The Man trying to crush The Working Man and prevent him from having things like a car.
That depends on whether or not you factor in the life-saving (and thus labor-saving, and medical-expense saving) nature of airbags. Estimates suggest that the newest mandated side-curtain airbags will add about $33 to the cost of the vehicle. Cost of *replacement* after deployment seems to be in the 500-1500 range.
Since I can't find any references on the additional cost of front airbags, I'll assume it's a similar per-vehicle cost; I'd be surprised if it was much more than $100 per vehicle more for front airbags.
So, let's assume worst case scenario: you're in a car wreck, and driver & passenger front & both side airbags deploy. Your car's cost was increased by, let's say $200, by the inclusion of those airbags; You find your airbags are $1000 per airbag to replace. Total cost to you for those airbags: $4200.
Now, do a little math for me - how much medical care does $4200 buy you? (If you answered "not much," you're correct.) Now consider, you avoided some major injuries because of the air bags, and you're back at work in days, rather than weeks or months? Remember that the working-class guy who makes $40k a year is also the one who can't afford to be out of work for months, too, or who can least afford to be out of work on disability for the rest of his life. They are effective insurance, and rather cheap insurance when you figure in the lifespan of the vehicle.
No, but they might be smart enough to:
1) Safely close the traveling distance between vehicles; That computer can process input far faster than you can;
2) Detect congestion forming, and route you off onto side streets which will be just as fast in getting you to your destination;
3) Eliminate "distracted driving" as a cause for a large number of slowdowns - your car isn't slowing down to 35, straddling two lanes;
And distracted driving is huge: I've seen people do this shit while...: trying to text a response to someone on their cell phone, or put on makeup, or read the newspaper, or eat a burger, or find their sunglasses, or change the radio station, or open the passenger side window, or take their shoes off, or put a sweatshirt on... (and yes, these are all things that I've seen people doing numerous times on the Mass Pike when I commuted into Boston);
Plus a driverless car would help eliminate the "idiot curves" where - despite the fact that the road is designed for safe 65+ mph travel - people always seem to slow down to about 40 going around these curves. My fellow mass pike travelers will recognize the curve just before the Natick (Rt. 30) off ramp (westbound) as one such point where the highway just mystically... "backs up" during any reasonably congested time of day. There's no good reason for it, except for people tapping their brakes as they drive into the curve and bleeding 20 mph of speed in the mistaken impression that "curve means I need to slow down."
None of these will eliminate the demand for roadway, but taken all together, they'd do a fair bit towards making sure we use the roadway we already have in the most efficient manner possible.
Really, no insurance costs, no fuel costs, no tire, brake, and other maintenance costs, no parking fees, no tolls, no garaging costs - over 20 years? Did you ever drive it?!
My car is 6 years old, and completely paid off, so I have no monthly payment. My insurance cost me $832 last year ($69.33 / month). I drive about 10 miles each way to work, 20 miles a day. Average price of gas is about $3.73 per gallon for Regular, and my car gets about 25 mpg ($89.52 / month gas costs, just to/from work.) If I drive more than that, costs go up. If I have to change the oil, rotate the tires, replace worn out brakes, costs go up. I had to spend about $250 in yearly registration renewal fees this year, so there's another $20 a month.
There's a reason why dealers love lease ("rental") programs rather than purchase plans - because they're more profitable for the dealer. If you see no way that a car service could "buy" cars, and then "rent out" use of them, and turn a profit, then you're just not trying. And if you truly only pay $80/month to own your vehicle, then you are by far and away the exception to the car-owning public. Most people don't have 20 year old vehicles that require no maintenance, no fuel, no insurance, and no tolls or parking fees. But congratulations on your economical purchase.
You could make this same argument for any safety system - airbags added to the cost of the vehicle, and yet, most cars come with them now.
It would probably also lead to the development of affordable car sharing (think: zipcar, but where the car can come pick you up) services - why buy a car, when you can get a vehicle sent to your house to take you where you want to go at any hour? I suspect that the availability of reliable services like this would mean many people would choose *not to own* a vehicle. Let somebody else worry about maintenance, upkeep, etc, I'll just pay for transportation as I need it. In fact, mass transit systems already operate on this same principle.
There will come a point where having a car at your door within 10-20 minutes of your request, ready to take you wherever you want to go for a reasonable fee, will be cheaper than car ownership, parking fees, maintenance costs, insurance costs, fuel costs, etc. The cost of the vehicle will be shared with the other people who use that car during the day when you're not paying for it to be parked in the lot behind your building.
"Car ownership" may become a status symbol of the rich, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the poor people's quality of life will suffer from not owning a car. In fact, they might actually save a lot of money that they can put to use elsewhere in their household.
Well, let's hope that the driverless car would have sophisticated and sensitive enough sensor systems that it would both detect the sudden approach of a large animal from the side of the road, and take appropriate steps to brake or stop before striking the animal, rather than just "floor it and push on through."
Test competency in the sciences for an 8th grader probably is a good thing. From the article:
I have trouble believing that questions like these are somehow unreasonable, unfair, or biased against black/hispanic/asian kids, or somehow socioeconomically biased. These are fairly basic science questions, and there are some fairly clear boundaries between right and wrong answers. If your kid cannot answer these questions after taking courses which are supposed to teach the answers to these questions, I think it's safe to say that there's a rather large disconnect between the educational system's goals and its outcomes.
We can argue the merits of standardized testing, and "teaching to the test" until the cows come home, but if your school system has adopted the test as a measurement criteria, and structured its curriculum around that test, and still achieves remarkably low results... something is wrong.
"Give me enough medals, and I’ll win you any war."
Napoleon Bonaparte
In general, I agree - autonomy, interesting work, genuine appreciation, and easing administrative hassles are all things I value far more than "here's an extra 50 bucks, thanks." But the social value of those trinkets shouldn't be overlooked.
Think about it - how often do you walk around your workplace and see co-workers with various trinket-y awards, memos, plaques, etc. on display in their cubicles? The reason they're doing it is that there's some pride associated with it - it's a physical token of somebody's gratitude or respect for them and their work, that they can show off to their peers. Even though nobody's going to walk up and demand their autograph because "Oh my god, you have a Chairman's Appreciation Plaque award!" but people will notice it, and some will say, "Wow, that's cool, congratulations." It engenders positive feedback.
Now, you can certainly take it too far, and cheapen the gesture altogether by handing them out like candy, for meaningless reasons; But used judiciously, even the trinkets can be effective motivators.
Money, extra paid time (or flexible time), trinkets, autonomy, appreciation - all of these are (or at least can be, depending on the individual) motivational awards. The key is to use the right tools in the right proportion.
That's an odd way to concede that I'm correct, but thanks for your concession all the same. I guess you missed the point where I said that "WORK - i.e., productive effort - is required to survive, but there is nothing saying that that work must be done for pay from somebody else."
Since you have offered no reason why it's impossible for someone to earn a living via productive work without requiring a paycheck from a corporate employer, you've fallen far short of demonstrating that a "paycheck from an employer" is a necessary requirement of survival. I guess this renders your whole argument moot.
A paycheck is not a requirement to survive. You can quite happily live as a subsistence farmer off the land, growing & hunting your own food, building your own shelter, and making your own furniture, clothing, and tools. People did it for centuries, and survived quite happily. WORK - i.e., productive effort - is required to survive, but there is nothing saying that that work must be done for pay for somebody else. Everybody *has* the right to work already. What they do not have is the right to demand that other people write them a check for their efforts.
Unless you're proposing complete nationalization of all industries, along with a complete redistribution of wealth, then discrimination laws need to remain quite narrow, and focused on unalterable physical conditions and genetic makeup - i.e., you can't choose to be not black, you can't magically become "not a paraplegic," and you can't just decide (despite the protestations of some fundamentalist ministers) to not be gay. You *can* decide whether or not you're going to support an organization's political aims, and associate with those people.
As I said above, and you blithely ignored, please remember that if you want to claim "those OWS protesters have a RIGHT to a paycheck from Bank of America, it's their right!" Then you must also concede that "that KKK member has a RIGHT to a paycheck from a Jewish business owner," and "that Birther has a *right* to a paycheck from MSNBC." If everybody has a right to a paycheck (a position that seems strangely popular here on Slashdot), then that includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter, and yet I see countless comments suggesting that nobody would bat a single eyelash if all four of those people (plus everybody employee of Fox News) suddenly found themselves unemployed, simply because they hold unpopular-on-Slashdot opinions. This argument cuts both ways, and it is not one that you should be making lightly - I don't think you've though through this position very well, as it's clear you wish to ignore the full consequences of implementing it.
If you're at 1000 meters, traveling forward at a rate of 100 k/h, and you can rise 10 meters per second, how far away from the ridge (or, how many seconds before you'd reach the ridge) do you need to begin climbing to clear a ridge in your flight path that is 1500 meters tall? Substitute in whatever numbers you please to accurately reflect performance characteristics of the aircraft, flying conditions, altitudes, and actual speeds, and there's still a "right answer" to this question, and any answer that's *shorter* than the right answer will end in a sudden violent stop.
Safety mechanisms don't provide you with a magical "suspend physics" capability. They are designed to inform the pilot(s) of errors, risks, and potential hazards, but they do not obviate the need for the pilots to be capable, familiar with and aware of the warning systems of the aircraft, and respond to them in a timely fashion.
Funny, I didn't realize that the European Aviation Safety Agency was a Russian regulatory agency. Or is it that Russians are so corrupt that they subverted the Europeans as well and just purchased a certification? And if that's the case, what point having regulatory agencies at all, if they're so easily subverted and worked around?
Your point would have been a real zinger, if it was the case that this Sukhoi was flying without certification or inspection. But since it received the same certifications and inspections that any Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc. plane must pass, it sort of makes you look like an idiot. Because it did go under "anywhere near the scrutiny a Euro or American one does," because it went through *the exact same scrutiny.*
Safety systems don't trump physics and performance limitations, friend. Nor do they replace a pilot's experience and familiarity with the controls and operating characteristics of the aircraft. If your terrain warning goes off, it doesn't do much good if you don't have time or distance to correct your course. Given that they had descended to around 6000 feet, and the mountain is about 7000 feet, it's quite possible that they couldn't pull up in time. It's also possible that (like the recent cruise ship accident off the coast of Italy) the pilot was "showing off" and got a little too close to something he shouldn't have. It's also possible that the pilot responded improperly to the warnings he was given (i.e., Air France 447 which crashed into the Atlantic), or responded too slowly, or that he was given conflicting or bad warnings by a malfunctioning instrument.
There's dozens of possible explanations for how a plane can crash - assuming that it's "hurr durr no inspections" when all the evidence available suggests that the plane underwent the same exact safety and regulatory review (by the EASA) that any other aircraft in service did is simply obnoxious political posturing in a (vain) effort to make yourself look clever.
You're an idiot. The plane was certified by numerous agencies, and has been flying commercially since April of 2011.
It is certified as meeting the relevant airworthiness and safety requirements by the Interstate Aviation Committee and the European Aviation Safety Agency; The EASA certification is more or less identical in procedure and requirement to our own FAA requirements.
This has nothing to do with "insufficient safety regulations and inspection" in Russia, the plane passed all the same certifications it would need to pass here in the USA, and in fact, the certificate that was awarded by EASA may very well be valid in the US, as there is some reciprocity in these certification processes.
Initial reports suggest that it was CFIT, and they flew right into the side of the mountain; unless you've got access to the black box already, maybe you should hold off on hollow political posturing until an understanding can be reached as to what actually happened?
So then why the hubbub about Facebook? If it's such "common knowledge" that you do objectionable things, an employer will find out about them anyway, won't they? Why is *Facebook* being singled out here as a privacy threat? Why not make it illegal for employers to do any background checks at all, and simply hire people blind in the hopes that they'll do a good job, and if they don't, well, fire them for poor performance?
Here's the thing: this entire line of argument starts treading on the rights of those private employers. They have freedom of association, and their money (via a job) is not yours to do with as you please. If I'm a staunch Democrat, why should I be forced to hire somebody who is a "Birther"? If I'm an ardent advocate for pro-choice policy, why should I be forced to hire somebody who protests at Planned Parenthood clinics every weekend? If I own a McDonald's why should I be forced to hire the kid who attended a G20 protest a month ago, when that same group of protestors smashed my windows and tried to light my store on fire? If I'm a black business owner, why should I be forced to hire somebody who sympathizes with the KKK? (You see, don't you, how this cuts both ways? It's not just 'Evil bigwig CEOs will refuse to hire poor little democrats because they have an Obama sticker on their Prius!')
You see, there's a difference between "discriminating against someone for what they are (gay, black, mexican, transgender, handicapped, etc.)" and "discriminating against someone for their choices and associations (socialist, neo-con, pro choice, pro life, Birther, Truther, anarchist, apolitical housewife)." The former are simply unchangeable facts - who you are. The latter are choices and associations you make based on your values.
You have the right to associate with anybody you please; You do not have the right to compel other people to associate with you (and pay you for the privilege).
That said, I agree that employers should not be able to ask for access to your private and personal accounts, based on the principle that it's simply none of their business if I keep my personal activities personal, and my job performance does not suffer as a result of those activities.
Where we part ways is with this notion that people should have blanket protections for any activities they do outside the workplace, period. If your "objectionable activities" come to the attention of management in a *privately owned* workplace, you should not have any specific protections for those activities. It's YOUR responsibility to keep them private, and out of the view of an employer who may find them objectionable, and if they do find out, and object, they have the same freedom of association you do.
So really, your options regarding those objectionable activities are:
1) Be circumspect in the activities you know are objectionable, and make an effort to keep your personal life personal (and hope your employer doesn't find out about those activities);
2) Be blatant in your participation, and work for an employer who doesn't care, or actively supports and encourages your activities;
3) Don't participate in objectionable activities, period.
Whether it's Facebook posts, bumper stickers, ironic message t-shirts, blog posts, reading material - or anything else that might serve to announce your activities and beliefs to the world - if you know your employer is going to 'disapprove' of an activity, and you're concerned about the impact of that disapproval, you're going to need to 'live in fear,' as you put it, or 'be sensible about where and how you disclose your activities,' as I put it.
Well, nudity is allowed, expected, even the norm in some places. There are some communities where you'd look distinctly out of place wearing pants while walking down main street. Point was, if it's a shocking contravention of social norms in your community (or worse, illegal in your community)... don't post pictures of yourself doing it on Facebook.
Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?
Treat these services as public spaces - if you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown with your balls hanging out, don't do it on Facebook. If you wouldn't walk down main street in your hometown smoking a crack pipe, don't post a picture of yourself doing the same thing on Facebook. This isn't "living in fear," this is "taking sensible precautions to maintain control of the details of your own private personal life."
I would still refuse to give a prospective employer my password on principle. But the fact is that, even if they were to hack their way in, the most shocking thing they'd be able to glean from my Facebook account is that I occasionally go to a bar with some friends, have a few drinks, and listen to some music. And I also occasionally chat with my family and some friends to catch up on what's new. All of these are, fortunately, completely legal pastimes.
If you entrust Facebook with information that could embarrass you if it became public knowledge, you're pretty much asking to be embarrassed or damaged by the accidental disclosure of that data at some point. Keep your secrets secret, don't publish them to a networked publishing and sharing platform and rely on a poorly designed "this is private" checkbox to keep you safe from embarrassment.
No to compel disclosure of the contents of the communications they need one of two things:
1) A search warrant;
-- OR --
2) a 2703(d) subpoena, as defined and allowed by the SCA;
I'll give you two guesses what type of subpoena it is. Hint: if you're leaning towards it being a 2703(d) subpoena, you're absolutely right.
For Twitter to refuse the subpoena, they must show - via legal logic & sound citation of precedent - that the subpoena does not meet the requirements of a 2703(d) subpoena, or that the court's legal reasoning in support of the issuance of the subpoena was faulty somehow. Just saying "sorry, we're not giving you contents," doesn't work, when the law specifically allows you to subpoena the contents of the communications under certain conditions which the judge has ruled are satisfied.
Yep, drowning and hypothermia would have been the big two.
As for those who may have *ingested* rather than *inhaled* seawater, they would have died from hypernatremia (too much sodium in the blood, not enough water = arrythmia, coma, heart failure as your nervous system begins malfunctioning) and dehyrdation from the enormous amounts of water their kidneys would need to excrete along with all the salts in seawater to try and maintain their blood electrolyte levels in a survivable range.
Water poisoning (hyponatremia from too much water intake) will manifest as cerebral edema (affecting a host of cognitive and sensory functions) as well as putting pressure on the brain stem, which can result in all those important regulatory systems shutting down, leading to coma, seizures, brain damage, and death.
This subpoena is a Section 2703(d) subpoena, allowed for under the SCA, per the ruling I linked:
Section 2703(d) allows them to request the *contents* (not just subscriber information) using a subpoena provided the request meets certain specific criteria. The judge has ruled that they have been met. Since this is a Federal law, Twitter's only real option is to refuse the subpoena until the prosecution files an action in California to have a California court issue the same subpoena, and then *hope* that the California judge interprets the situation differently than the New York judge.
And, since the judge in NY has ruled that the 2703d subpoena criteria are met (requiring "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tweets are relevant"), it's a fairly small step to go from there to search warrant which will compel the disclosure of this info.
Not really. The argument says that if you grant a license to a copy of something you've published, the person who granted the "no restrictions" license loses any say in the matter of what the licensee does with their copy of the publication. It doesn't say that granting a license cedes all copyrights, it says that granting the license disclaims the copyright owner's rights to control what Twitter does with the copy they've licensed to Twitter. And that's what the government has asked for - the information Twitter holds on its servers, which the user has granted them a license to redistribute and reproduce in any form they desire.
Copyright in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for quashing a subpoena. The grounds for quashing this subpoena are rooted in 4th amendment and Stored Communications Act, and what needs to be considered is whether this request for records constitutes an "ureasonable search" that violates the defendant's expectations of privacy, and there are some specific standards set forth in the SCA to test whether or not a subpoena is valid. The subpoena (according to the court's reasoning) meets those standards; it's up to Twitter to show how they fail to meet those tests, and frankly, their response seems to mostly boil down to "But, but, but... 4th Amendment," as if exclaiming that will create additional protections for this data.
It is known as third party doctrine - in essence, if you disclose information to another person via a third party, you lose your 4th Amendment protections relative to that information, at least insofar as the third party is concerned. The theory is that by revealing that information to (or via) the third party, you have waived your "reasonable" right to privacy. The Stored Communications Act actually enumerates some additional protections for electronic communications that precedent would have suggested is fair game under third party doctrine.
There's a really interesting review of the third party doctrine from the Michigan Law Review that discusses some of the criticisms of it, and offers some arguments in support of it. An interesting read, no matter which side of the argument you happen to agree with.
In the meantime for us lesser mortals who don't sit on a court or own a Congressperson, the best bet is to never ever ever assume that anything - especially incriminating evidence - that you write down or transmit via email or any other electronic service is "secure," "private," or "your property." It's bad practice to document your misdeeds to begin with, and even worse practice to store them in (or share them via) a platform like Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, or anything else. That certainly doesn't solve the problem inherent to balancing privacy with third party disclosure, but it at least lessens your risk of a "bad" court decision allowing somebody free access into your Facebook data where you've carefully documented all of your criminal activity for the world to see.
Twitter is not attempting to appropriate the work as their own, nor is the court. Twitter is being told, "Hey, I need to look at your copy of those tweets for court business." And by your own argument, Mr. Harris has ceded all proprietary interest in Twitter's *copy* of his message by granting them that unrestricted, use anywhere license, and he certainly does not have possession of Twitter's copies - the second requirement for someone to demonstrate that they have standing to ask the court to quash a subpoena.
Again, I would encourage you to actually go and read the legal reasoning of the court, and familiarize yourself with the laws at play. This dogged insistence that "he retains copyrights" somehow makes his records immune to subpoena is simply incorrect. If you want to argue points of the Stored Communications Act, you should probably be familiar with its provisions.
So what you're saying is that you support restrictive EULA regimes which let the copyright owner tell you what you can and cannot do with an item, even after they've granted you a license to do whatever you want with it? That is a logical consequence of the statement you've just made.