No fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

Yay ignorant populace!

I love how making something illegal, no mater how innocuous and innocent that something is, immediately polarizes the populace against them. After all, that person is now a scumbag felon.

Who cares if they were railroaded. Who cares if the prosecutions abused the law. Who cares if the prosecutors used smear campaigns and black mail to destroy a persons life just so they can cut a notch on their belt during their next their re-election. None of this matters because the ignorant public (in case you didn't catch it, I'm referring to you, spire3661) see only the "label" of what they are accused of and instantly write off that person as a human being and are perfectly acceptable in watching that person's rights be violated.

I just fucking love how history keeps repeating itself.

I agree.

The only discretion available in a completely voluntary relationship where you are dissatisfied with the other participant, is to not participate. (I.E. boycott EA).

On the flipside, some of the things done by these companies can be considered fraudulent or criminal (particularly in the case of installing rootkits).

It's been that way for over almost a decade now.

DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs, school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces and the LAPD has been known to send out swat team members to deal with parking tickets.

The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

You're right, "Lawyer up" is more of something you do once you are arrested, regardless of how ambiguous or pretextual the whole encounter appears.

And Hiibel v. Nevada isn't applicable to every state, only those with Stop & Identify laws. IIRC Hiibel v. Nevada even mentions this in reference to Kolender v. Lawson.

There is quite a bit of difference between complying with legal requests by a law enforcement officer and answering vague open-ended questions that are superfluous to a LEO's execution of their job. Questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Why are you in such a hurry?" and my all time favorite: "Is there anything illegal in your possession that I should know about?"

But to be fair, you are absolutely right. When subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and give testimony there isn't much you can do. And historically federal criminal prosecutors have used subpoena's to force individuals to divulge sensitive information against other members of their family, friends, cliques, groups or organizations. But some subpoena's can be squashed (not saying that is very likely or easy with a federal subpoena...) and most importantly, going in with the mindset and knowledge that you aren't going to some how miraculously say the magic words that make the situation all better is an important piece of information to understand and remember when answering questions. I'm sure a practiced attorney could help coach an individual on how to answer questions and the exact scope of the required complicity a subpoenaed individual most provide.

I.E. if a criminal investigator is asking you questions, they aren't asking you questions to get information to exonerate your friend/family member/self, that is not their job (that is your friend/family's defense attorney's job). They are asking you questions to give them evidence and help them build a case to so they can bring charges and/or convict someone of a crime.

On a side note, I present this quote from Supreme Court Justice of the United States Stephen Breyer, quoted in the oft famous (and I think cited several times on by other commentators on this topic...) "Don't talk to the Police" youtube video, as quoted from Rubin v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html)

Again, you are absolutely right. There wasn't much Quinn Norton could do when subpoenaed, but still I think this quote is particularly applicable given the context of the situation that Quinn Norton found herself in her unwitting contribution to the miscarriage and perversion of justice executed against Aaron Swartz.

I think subpoenas and discovery motions are two elements of our legal system that are oft abused to the detriment of this nation as a whole. The former by the zealous over-criminalization of America and the latter by copyright attorneys extorting money from individuals otherwise protected from identification by law. This case is just yet another incident of the rampant abuse of our legal system and what saddens and disgusts me is that there isn't much that can be done about it.

Sadly, immunity wouldn't of helped Quinn Norton in this case as her words weren't being used against herself, but another.

Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.

When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.

Before they can do that, they have to show standing. I.E. they have to show that they were harmed/inconvenienced by FISA in some way.

It is the ultimate legal "chicken and the egg" situation. You can't "prove" you have standing to challenge the law until you can challenge the law so you can prove you have standing...

How is a "legal avenue" that will ultimately fail a "viable" avenue? You seem to be contradicting yourself...

You do understand what "PR" means right?


Think about it; which one sounds better from a PR perspective?

The difference, in case you missed it, is that most citizens-organized militias openly recognize they are civilians where as the police do not consider themselves civilians.

Do you see the distinction?

That's why the police in CA have all sorts of exemptions from the penal code:
Like the ability to purchase Off-Roster Handguns that aren't on the California Approved "Safe Handgun List" for personal use despite their department issuing them their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
The ability to buy standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for their personal firearms despite these magazines being provided with their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
Or the ability to purchase an Assault Weapons after the end of the registration period for personal use, despite their department providing Assault Weapons (or even actual Assault Rifles...) for their use in each squad car. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).

That is just one area where LEO's gain more "privilege" that us mere citizens, think of how LEO's can get out of traffic tickets, can disobey the law, get preferential treatment with all the discounts (despite making six figures...) and can perjure themselves on their official documents and/or in court at whim with impunity.

No, the Police are a Privileged class of citizen above and beyond a mere civilian.

And if you have ever heard LEO's talking to each other about us mere peasants, you'd realize how much contempt they have for, and how much they consider themselves above us mere civilians.

Gamesworkshop also used the claim of "trademark infringement" to go after online retailers of their product. Making them the only online retailer allowed to have a shopping cart system with their product. All other venders require customers to fill out a form to order product.

Gamesworkshop needs to have the shit sued out of them for their abuse of their claim to "trademark" to include everything under the sun.

It's not rubbish. It's reality.

Take the US Fish and Game code that says that is illegal to be in possession of any plant or animal life that is prohibited in any country. You'd never believe that such an open and sweeping law would ever be used, but it has been to arrest an innocent man and send him to prison for several years for a crime he didn't even commit. (It turns out the persons he bought his supplies from didn't properly fill out their paperwork.) Source.

Or, how about the grandmother in NY who took pictures of her grandchildren in the bathtub playing and ended up going to prison for making child porn (she had her film developed at a Walmart who reported her)?

You're incredibly naive and shortsighted (as well as delusional) if you don't realize how common the misuse of law is, and how creative prosecutors get when they try and shoe-horn otherwise innocuous actions into crimes so they can get another notch on their belt and look better when it comes time for re-election / promotion.

You commit 3 felonies every day.

The fact that you can lose that much money in a GAME is why EVE sucks.

It's not a game, it's a job.