1: Thank you for serving. Just remember that you and other soldiers like yourself (myself included) sacrificed their rights, in order to protect the rights of the people that are taking to this board to incite hate.

Funny that when its police, its nothing but cops with power complexes abusing their position. Fascist pigs who close ranks to protect their own abuses, and all that.

Or do you pipe up to tell us how they are they are the thin blue line putting their lives on the line to protect our freedoms from those who would commit crimes against us, take our things, harm us, force us to live in fear in our own homes...? No?

But if its veterens? Well... all of them, each and every one, is the noblest hero putting his life on the line to protect our rights. Any suggestion that any soldier is anything less? That they might be dim, facsist, power/violence loving... forget that... those guys all work for the police.

Just imagine a police officer who was also a veteran... could such a paradox even exist without imploding the universe?

People like that will never understand all that went into giving them the right to say what they want to say without fear of repercussion.

Comparing the ethics of the revolution to the invadion of Iraq etc? I certainly don't blame the veterans for the war in Iraq -- but nothing they did there did anything to preserve my freedom. They shouldn't have been sent there. Iraq posed no existential nor even significant threat to America. Nobody was there fighting for my right to speak freely.

But yes, I agree with you 100% about lego mindstorms as place to get started, and even get pretty advanced.

Yep. I wouldn't be happy, but then again I wouldn't be happy if they searched my home and found the bodies, but I would submit.

The 5th amendment is about government over-reach. If you assume the government is only looking for dead-bodies, and the only people hiding them are criminals then its easy to get swept up behind the idea that anything the governement can get a warrant for is fair game. Only criminals will be punished.

But there should be some limits. Even if that means some times some criminals don't get caught, because the alternative leads to a grossly oppressive state.

McCarthy style communist witch hunts etc. Your prosthetic eye, rats you out, and everyone else who was there.

The password to your private files? Too bad for you that you lost your hands in the war, we can just replay your password right out of your prosthetic fingers.

There SHOULD be some limits on what the government can take from us, even with a warrant.

Historically, the limit was defined at testimony. But in today's world, maybe that's not quite enough. I'm fine with DNA evidence, but object to their ability to store it in databases regardless of how it was collected, and I'm appalled that being related to a criminal whose been collected amounts to a collection of your own DNA.

"We found DNA... no full match in the system, but we know he's related to this guy who was arrested once for shoplifting -- he wasn't the guy, but they took his dna and now its in the system... but I digress... they share a grandparent... so its his cousin. We checked birth records ... he has 2, one lives in this city... so we're picking him up now..."

That's effectively being in a DNA database for not being particularly closely related to a guy who didn't do anything wrong.

what is available in different companies,

In different *countries*

Netflix for example, maintains separate servers with a separate library for Canada.

(And therefore complying with canadian content rules for the libary would not be particularly difficult)

Likewise, the Canadian government is not just impotent but incompetent to think they could actually control foreign entities

Of course they can. They can block netflix traffic at the canadian border.

And if netflix operates servers within canada, then those will be subject to the laws of canada.

Seems to me Canada can effectively regulate netflix for "canadian content requirements" if it wishes.

Whether this is 'good for canada' or "good for the internet" remains open questions, but it would be consistent with the regulation in place already for broadcast / cable tv, and the idea that they can't do it for select large internet streaming services is ridiculous. They most certainly can - half the work is done for them.

Due to licensing agreements for the content, major streamers already "arbitrarily" limit and restrict what is available in different companies, so all the infrastructure to do it is already in place. Incorporating a layer of government regulation wouldn't be particularly onerous.

I disagree with the Canadian content requirements, (although I do endorse the governments efforts to promote Canadian content); so I'm against what the government is proposing here. However, that doesn't mean its impractical for them to do it.

One months notice cancellation policies are pretty much industry standard.

That isn't a reduced right of privacy, the RIGHT is identical

Semantics. They are effectively subject to being monitored by their prosthetics for big brother.

If you wear your Google Glasses or carry a GPS tracker (ie. cell phone) or have medical devices that record logs of some sort, those devices could serve to incriminate or exculpate (great word, eh?) you whereas someone without those types of devices would obviously not be incriminated or exculpated

One has the option to turn them off and/or leave them at home. The guy with a pacemaker doesn't have that luxury. The guy with the prosthetic eyes shouldn't be in a position where he has to choose between privacy or sight.

I guess it would suck to be a eye-implant thief

That's the low hanging fruit.

" I would imagine that since the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of cases, are innocent of the crimes they are suspects of, such implants would tend to provide proof of innocence more often than mistaken evidence of guilt "

That boils down to little more than a restatement of "If your innocent then you have nothing to hide".

I will admit little sympathy for cases where true evidence of guilt is obtained through proper search warrants - that's how it should work.

Then come the day when we can stick a needle in your brain and dump your memories out as video, you would submit to that, as long as they had a warrant?

Lol they'll post the spacing in metric and people in the US will be totally lost. 145mm of room, wow thats a lot!!!

"I'm sorry sir, you can't fly in this seat without a Confined Space Certification from OSHA"

I was of the impression that most of the airlines were all bemoaning the low traffic, driving up the costs of flying because "nobody is flying anymore". If that is the case, why are they not making flight a more appealing option to draw more passengers?

It's easier to just reduce costs by run fewer flights with more people crammed into each flight.

Book your flight based on things like creature comforts. If the airline doesn't offer what you consider a bare minimum, DON'T Use them! Vote with your Money! If enough people did that, the airlines would Have to accommodate, or go broke in a hurry! Be willing to pay for what you want, or Not pay for a bad experience!

Unless you have days to drive or cruise to where you can fly in hours, the airlines are the only game in town.

There is actually precedent for protected communications like that.

That's not really a precedent for implanted electronics. Although its at least tangentially related.

But its more a special case of telecom / wiretap laws as anything to do with medical devices.

Frankly, we don't know anything about how these theoretical brain implants would operate

Your brain implants is futuristic and extreme. What about much more mundane situations that are already a medical reality. The diagnostic/logging capabilities of current implanted medical devices is already something that could potentially be searched with a warrant.

Should that categorically be protected against search?

Spigot mentions "Additionally access to the Spigot source code repository has been forcibly removed from GitHub following a similar DMCA takedown."

There's no way to credibly claim a GPL violation resulting from distribution of the source code.

perhaps not as prestigious as MIT, but more than sufficient for most people.

Sufficient for people who want to become a cog in the machine. Those people who are paying for the application service for top ranked schools want to go to those schools because they don't want to become cogs in the machine, they want to own the machine. It is a completely different mindset from "most people".

Second time I read this sentiment in this thread. It fails on two counts -- one that students at lesser schools want to become cogs in the machine; I knew quite a few from my state school who had founded their own company before graduation, and others who wanted to. Two, that MIT and other elite students don't become cogs -- there sure are a lot of MIT-educated "cogs" where I work; they're not any less a "cog" than me for having gone to MIT.

Plenty of smart people even at large mediocre state universities, though -- and they tend to cluster.

The FAA: Keeping the airspace around tornados safe for the public since 2013.

What, exactly, is controversial about this? The FAA is responsible for the safety of aviation, and a lot of corporations are deliberately, flagrantly breaking the law. Sounds like a good idea that the FAA enforce the law.

The FAA tried to fine one commercial aerial photographer for "deliberately, flagrantly" breaking this law. They lost in court. Not, mind you, a judicial determination: they lost in their own administrative court, where one of their own administrative judges ruled they did not have the authority to regulate these aircraft.

Legally, nothing has changed since then, though appeals are still in progress. The FAA, thus, is attempting to assert an authority that at the present time, they have been told by their own courts that they do not have.

That's what's controversial.

Just because you choose to hide the recorder inside your own body -- whether it's surgically implanted or just up your arse -- doesn't change the legal argument

Perhaps it should change the legal argument.

What if your 'cybernetics' are simple pacemaker that log's diagnostic information, tracking your heart rate over time. That information could be used as evidence of your physical state -- look his heart rate was elevated at the time of the crime, when we allege he shot the victim and then ran.

My heart can't provide testimony against me, no matter how many search warrants the police execute. Why should someone with a bad heart have to submit his pacemakers diagnotic information to police scrutiny, in exchange for life (even if the police need a warrant to get it).

And that's using technology today. 20 years from now, a man with a cybernetic replacement limb -- does he have no privacy? A police warrant pulling the limbs diagnostic logs, could establish that yup at 10:14 on Wednesday the arm was raised, and the index finger exerted force equal to the trigger pull weight of the gun believed to be the murder weapon... the jury will like that.

And you are right the current law, makes that a-ok. But its a good question whether that should be a-ok. Should a person have to choose between being made whole but having a 'bug' installed on them that can queried for information by the police with a warrant; or being disabled (limbless, blind, deaf, ...) or perhaps its no choice at all, perhaps without the enhancement they die (artificial heart, liver, etc).