Withholding or destroying evidence used to be called "Obstruction of Justice" which is a felony. Whether the police or a defendant does it, it's a crime. If a prosecution has evidence that would exonerate a defendant, they are obliged to turn it over in discovery. Failure to do so is, to my knowledge, not as clear-cut as Obstruction, but morally it comes close enough.
While a case is active I should think the police ought to be under obligation to retain all records, including recordings.
This case looks like one that should lead to legislation demanding these recordings be retained.
The Globe "story" is a true "rip and read" (or in this case, rip and post) item.
The newspaper failed to do the math, and failed to include the enormous subsidies which the transit "authority" running the scheme up here sucks from the public revenue stream.
Case in point is an unwanted commuter rail line, built over considerable environmental and community objection, whose true cost is yet to be fathomed - but using the numbers when it was in work one organization determined that the transit authority could purchase a home closer to the city for each of the projected 1,700 riders and still have some cash left over.
The disparity between what is charged for what passes as service and the actual costs would be untenable in almost any public and certainly private business setting. But here, where the streams of revenue are always ready to be tapped, and where there are plenty of the otherwise unemployable ready and willing to loaf, we will have what somehow passes as "public transportation".
When American citizens return from China to the Home of the Free, their laptops will be stolen (allegedly legally) by the US border guards.
Spied upon in China by the Chinese. Spied upon in China by the US. And get your electronics confiscated coming back in.
I'd say the current maladministration has nothing to crow about.
Growing Up in the Universe, produced some years ago, is another excellent contribution to science awareness from Richard Dawkins.
www.richarddawkins.net has links to it and other material, much of it available online and free.
I've been hit with the "I want to be a Rainbow Unicorn when I die" issue. My reply to our 5 year old twins, "Why wait? Do it now", is perhaps not very useful. Telling them that death is the ultimate end has been accomplished, but there's not much context.
Time to get a pet that lasts about 6 months, me thinks, or just wait for me to drop.
The difference is that the Japanese government actually cares about and cares for its citizens - all of them. The proof is everywhere: national health insurance; immediate and effective disaster response; a public transportation system second-to-none; national renewable initiatives. Sure, there are fowl ups and there are crooks, but compared to the criminal maladministration in the US, I'd take Japanese government any day, and I'd gladly sign up and participate in a national ID.
The difference is trust.
Back then it was, despite Regan's foaming at the mouth at the behest of the New World Order folks, still "unthinkable". Now?
If this happened present day even the most sensible of highly trained military specialists would likely shoot and ask questions later.
So, we're "safer"?
I guess the logic now must be, "You'll be safest if you're dead".
Time to find a different search engine entirely. The privacy issues have been taken too far.
I'm open to some suggestions but suspect that using another engine means cavorting with another large corporation which means that someday we will still be screwed.
>>Contact your local government contractor, with resume in hand, and you may be one of the lucky
>>developers to implement NIEM-capable software.
Lucky?
When are good and decent programmers and other tech folks going to lay down their arms, so to speak, and refuse to further enable these turds?
In an ideal world there would be a severe shortange of people who help enable the current US mal-administrations aims through technology.
I'll starve before I help them commit any more crimes. Anyone else?
This wouldn't be such a big issue if there were nothing, say, embarassing laid down on the video/audio tape.
Police do a lot of their work in public view and there is no expectation of privacy. Would this situation be any different if, say, the local TV station showed up and filmed from the street or, with the homeowner's permission, from inside?
Permitting police activities to be cloaked in secrecy serves no other purpose than to reduce public awareness of their actions and - importantly - how these are carried out. Protecting the public right to know and disallowing operation in secrecy has a tempering influence. Our national situation in the US is, I think, the direct result of the clamp down on public information and access.
Cameras seemed to be welcome when the "COPS" program glorified busting down doors at the expense of the unfortunate. When there's suppression of cameras turning in the other direction, we ought to worry a bit. Or a lot.
Without a warrant, Police have no authority to enter a home. If the story reads properly (and given all the emotions flying around on both sides, who can say) then it is the police who violated the mans rights. Putting your foot in the door and refusing to leave without a warrant and without exigent circumstances is plainly bogus.
It's likely that what we have here is attitude.v. attitude, with most of it caught on tape.
The "discovery" sounds more like a weak excuse for outright spying.
So what happens to the user who - shock - doesn't connect their fine Microshlock product to the public internet? Does the fine Microshlock operating system stop operating? Must one call in every week for permission to continue (trying) to use this fine operating system?
I don't buy the story and wish I could give windows the deep six it deserves.
Slashdot Mirror
Withholding or destroying evidence used to be called "Obstruction of Justice" which is a felony. Whether the police or a defendant does it, it's a crime. If a prosecution has evidence that would exonerate a defendant, they are obliged to turn it over in discovery. Failure to do so is, to my knowledge, not as clear-cut as Obstruction, but morally it comes close enough. While a case is active I should think the police ought to be under obligation to retain all records, including recordings. This case looks like one that should lead to legislation demanding these recordings be retained.
The Globe "story" is a true "rip and read" (or in this case, rip and post) item.
The newspaper failed to do the math, and failed to include the enormous subsidies which the transit "authority" running the scheme up here sucks from the public revenue stream.
Case in point is an unwanted commuter rail line, built over considerable environmental and community objection, whose true cost is yet to be fathomed - but using the numbers when it was in work one organization determined that the transit authority could purchase a home closer to the city for each of the projected 1,700 riders and still have some cash left over.
The disparity between what is charged for what passes as service and the actual costs would be untenable in almost any public and certainly private business setting. But here, where the streams of revenue are always ready to be tapped, and where there are plenty of the otherwise unemployable ready and willing to loaf, we will have what somehow passes as "public transportation".
When American citizens return from China to the Home of the Free, their laptops will be stolen (allegedly legally) by the US border guards. Spied upon in China by the Chinese. Spied upon in China by the US. And get your electronics confiscated coming back in. I'd say the current maladministration has nothing to crow about.
Growing Up in the Universe, produced some years ago, is another excellent contribution to science awareness from Richard Dawkins. www.richarddawkins.net has links to it and other material, much of it available online and free. I've been hit with the "I want to be a Rainbow Unicorn when I die" issue. My reply to our 5 year old twins, "Why wait? Do it now", is perhaps not very useful. Telling them that death is the ultimate end has been accomplished, but there's not much context. Time to get a pet that lasts about 6 months, me thinks, or just wait for me to drop.
The difference is that the Japanese government actually cares about and cares for its citizens - all of them. The proof is everywhere: national health insurance; immediate and effective disaster response; a public transportation system second-to-none; national renewable initiatives. Sure, there are fowl ups and there are crooks, but compared to the criminal maladministration in the US, I'd take Japanese government any day, and I'd gladly sign up and participate in a national ID. The difference is trust.
Back then it was, despite Regan's foaming at the mouth at the behest of the New World Order folks, still "unthinkable". Now? If this happened present day even the most sensible of highly trained military specialists would likely shoot and ask questions later. So, we're "safer"? I guess the logic now must be, "You'll be safest if you're dead".
Time to find a different search engine entirely. The privacy issues have been taken too far. I'm open to some suggestions but suspect that using another engine means cavorting with another large corporation which means that someday we will still be screwed.
>>Contact your local government contractor, with resume in hand, and you may be one of the lucky >>developers to implement NIEM-capable software. Lucky? When are good and decent programmers and other tech folks going to lay down their arms, so to speak, and refuse to further enable these turds? In an ideal world there would be a severe shortange of people who help enable the current US mal-administrations aims through technology. I'll starve before I help them commit any more crimes. Anyone else?
This wouldn't be such a big issue if there were nothing, say, embarassing laid down on the video/audio tape. Police do a lot of their work in public view and there is no expectation of privacy. Would this situation be any different if, say, the local TV station showed up and filmed from the street or, with the homeowner's permission, from inside? Permitting police activities to be cloaked in secrecy serves no other purpose than to reduce public awareness of their actions and - importantly - how these are carried out. Protecting the public right to know and disallowing operation in secrecy has a tempering influence. Our national situation in the US is, I think, the direct result of the clamp down on public information and access. Cameras seemed to be welcome when the "COPS" program glorified busting down doors at the expense of the unfortunate. When there's suppression of cameras turning in the other direction, we ought to worry a bit. Or a lot.
Without a warrant, Police have no authority to enter a home. If the story reads properly (and given all the emotions flying around on both sides, who can say) then it is the police who violated the mans rights. Putting your foot in the door and refusing to leave without a warrant and without exigent circumstances is plainly bogus. It's likely that what we have here is attitude .v. attitude, with most of it caught on tape.
The "discovery" sounds more like a weak excuse for outright spying. So what happens to the user who - shock - doesn't connect their fine Microshlock product to the public internet? Does the fine Microshlock operating system stop operating? Must one call in every week for permission to continue (trying) to use this fine operating system? I don't buy the story and wish I could give windows the deep six it deserves.