That is fucking ridiculous (not saying it's illegal, just ridiculous). The DJ paid fees to be able to play the music, and they expect the restaurant to also pay fees? Imagine if that extended to any other product. Oven manufacturer makes oven. Dealer purchases oven from manufacturer. Restaurant owner purchases oven from dealer. Should the manufacturer then be able to go after the restaurant owner for more money, even though the dealer already paid them?
How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?
Infinite.
So it's okay to violate the law by listening on telephone calls as long as you don't do it too much, because back in the day it wouldn't have been possible to do it too much? So then it's okay if I rob a bank and only steal a thousand dollars, because back in the day (because of inflation) that's all the teller's drawers would have had?
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible."
Sure, we're doing a lot of bad illegal shit, but we don't have time to do as much bad illegal shit as you think we are.
Imagine if that logic were applied by a bank robber: Sure, I robbed the bank, but I didn't have time to steal as much money as you thought I did.
"No more warrantless wiretaps if you element me." -Barrack Obama, 2008
"Fuck off, I'm president and I do what I want!" -Barrack Obama, 2015
Yeah, and right up until that line the summary was one of the best, informative summaries I've seen here. I suspect they were trying to be cute but it just revealed there complete lack of understanding of what science actually is.
Whoever came up with that title had read 1984
Yep, it does appear that 1984 is the manual they're using. That's what that book was for, right? A manual for the government to use?
the target of wiretaps does not have to be linked to a foreign power or terrorism.
I thought the point of the NSA was that they were meant to protect domestic communications from external threats. If the target is not linked to external threats, how can it be justified?
It doesn't have to be justified. That's the whole point of the Patriot Act and USA Freedom Act. If it were justified, that means they had probable cause and could get a normal warrant and wouldn't need the USA Freedom Act.
It gives the NSA the freedom to violate the constitution and do whatever the fuck they want.
Yes--Tesla has become a giant vaporware producer.
Vaporware? So those Tesla vehicles I see driving down the road aren't actually functional or driving? That's quite an impressive illusion. Just because production is low doesn't mean it's vaporware.
At least it becomes a new bill rather than a reauthorization. The stink that sticks to the yes voters is far worse for passing a new bill rather than just reauthorizing someones elses dirty work.
Like how the stink stuck with those who voted for the original PATRIOT act? Oh wait, no it didn't.
Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)
Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.
If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues. At our school, staff and volunteers are banned from taking anything home that has children's names on it like seating charts, absent logs, or even track schedules. It has something to do with the kids being minors.
No, it has nothing to do with the kids being minors, it has to do with FERPA, the law that is the education analog to HIPAA. It protects education information. It does not affect playing sports in a place anyone can see. Similar to how HIPAA protects a doctor disclosing your medical information, but it doesn't protect somebody else seeing your car in the parking lot of the doctor's office, or exercising in a public park even if it's because the doctor advised exercise, or even another patient posting on Facebook that they saw you in the office. Photographs of students participating in athletic events in view of the public is most certainly not FERPA protected information.
Who'd you side with? Your paying customer or some shady business that does nothing for you except cause you work without compensation?
Most companies will side with whoever has the most lawyers, which generally means the shady business.
What other job do you know of where a person can keep getting paid long after they quit the job
-CEO of a large company
-Politician
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
