And phones have a back door command, not yet activated, that will be provided to authorities: Camera Use Forbidden. Apple tried to patent the idea of crowd camera control (maybe succeeded); I'd assume it would be easy to implement. And since so many standalone cameras are radio-enabled now, part of the Internet of Things, those could be remotely shut off as well.

Or, they, being police, could have the authority to jam frequencies used by wifi/Bluetooth/cellular devices. Touch a button on their camera, and every broadcasting device but theirs is jammed.

Once more, I am not randomly positing things that don't exist; the tech is there. I'm predicting the present. The frog has to boil but a bit more, and authority camera control will be here. The past thirteen years have shown me that I'm far too optimistic.

If the police involved don't want to be recorded, they shut off the cameras or rip the antennas off the car. Not hypothetical - happens all the time. There are few consequences.

I'd predict the citizens will modify their behavior far more than the police will. Citizens can't shut off the camera - or turn the disabled camera back on. People will still be beaten or railroaded or extorted for cash if a cop decides it should be so.

If you don't see a point in having 7 children, don't have 7 children.

No, no. Standing is granted -- if the government hates the target. This is what corruption means. Ask anyone living in Italy. Helplessness becomes ingrained in the culture. The bad guys always win, while wearing powdered judicial wigs and spouting serious-sounding horseshit that boils down to, "Fuck you. We own you."

Contracts override revealing criminal activities or the secret creation of a police state? If contracts override such, perhaps the drug cartels should simply start making people sign NDAs. They'd be invincible.

The harm being, they were outed performing illegal activities. Not to mention insanely immoral.

That's just masturbating, pardon my Latin.

Fuck the NDA, and fuck contracts. The "spy-government" ignores any agreements or contracts or laws, as Snowden demonstrated. Why we are arguing legal niceities with a pack of criminals and would-be tyrants? The law doesn't apply to them. We can't even find out who the spy-government IS. They exist above the President, the Congress, or any law. We can't stop them. They'll take direction, until they don't feel like it. Why not? Who can stop them? The only intel operative that's gone to prison is the one who ratted them out on torture. Cheney and his people outed the entire Iran nuclear spy program by leaking Valerie Plame's name to take revenge on her husband. People REALLY were tortured and killed becaues of that - and no one is called on it. And they can stop you before you leave your house, because they know who YOU are. You can't play politics or law with a group that controls and monitors all communications.

I don't think politicians are in charge anymore. Who is? Good question.

Only if you are filing suit against Snowden and/or Manning. Else, you've no standing if you want to know what they're doing. Because Terrorism/Pedophiles/Gambling/Drugs/Anti-corporate uprisings/Union/Commies/Islamists. Because they say so. Because they'll drag you away and hold you naked in a solitary cell until you die if you manage to score a hit against them.
This is what tyranny means. Sadists and idiots take control - and those sadists and idiots who are not in power cheer them on vociferlously while masturbating, thinking about the torture they love so damned much. So much is explainable if you stop trying to comprehend this logically and instead realize about 12-33 per cent of the population is composed of sadists.

He'll be granted standing.
Which is really grating, as we as citizens don't have standing to sue the Federal spies for illegal activities because, as the court said, we don't have standing because we can't prove we were spied on.
Snowden's revelations give us that standing, as he's proven that they are spying on ALL of us. But try to argue that in front of a Fox-News-watching judge who thinks ISIS is running up his street, any second now.
But they'll have no problem entertaining this suit. Because it's not about justice, it's about power. They have it all, and we have none. That's what total surveillance means. They know what we're doing, and we aren't allowed - AT ALL - to know what they're doing.
Wait until someone who has an axe to grind starts using the Security State API.
And it's not just about the US. We've exported surveillance tech and surveillance laws all over the world. Now we have hundreds of would-be ultimate tyrannies about to be born.

That's what he did. He exercised his right to modify it, and he exercised his right to tell people what he did.

Yeah, that never accomplished much for me. And I still had to learn to relax in the face of frustration when I was grown. If I had simply learned that before adulthood, I probably would have had 80% of what I needed to get by productively and healthily.

I assume you meant "anglos"? Would it surprise you to learn that I'm raising them bilingually and interculturally?

I think you could benefit from some form of relaxation therapy. It's not always necessary or helpful to vent against lifestyles that you disagree with.

I have seven children. We almost never had to let a child cry themselves to sleep, but I do suspect that may have to do with our kids' individual wiring and that crying to sleep might be the best solution in other situations. Most of our infant sleep problems were resolved when we realized our kids were much hungrier than experts predicted and started feeding them a lot more! Giving the baby another bottle turned out to be the number one way to get our babies to fall asleep with less fuss. When they get a little older (around 3-4 years) there are occasional times when a temper tantrum goes right into sleep.