Sorry, but there can be only one Highlander.
Keep your head.
Sorry, but there can be only one Highlander.
Keep your head.
I've got grandparents that lived without ever getting near a plane. You can take ship, train, bus, or just drive. It's more convenient to fly and for most travel it would be impractical to not fly.
Seriously though, the 4th amendment protects you from unreasonable search or seizure. I don't consider searching airline passengers for dangerous items as unreasonable, since it is balanced by the concern for the safety of the other passengers.
It doesn't state where you have to be to get those rights. It doesn't say you can be secure in your houses only. It lists those other things (persons, papers, and effects) precisely so the government can't wait around for you to leave your house and then search you or your stuff.
Your premises isn't just limited to your house. It can be your car, your pocket, or your satchel. That said you go to the airport or government building knowing that you could or will be search. It's much different than a police officer stopping you on the street and demanding to look inside your pockets or as in the case of this article secretly monitor your movements by accessing the GPS within your phone. Although if you read the text that you posted nothing explicitly states that the government is prohibited from always knowing your location.
You have the luxury of being 90 miles away from the nuclear plant, but I understand that you are sensitive to any remarks concerning this disaster. It's comparable to Americans being upset at people who make light of the September 11 attack on the twin towers. Fukushima is a national concern for Japan.
I don't particularly care for your "fuck yourself" comment because not only does it take away all the positive energy you projected on the people working at the site, it squashed most chances to have a positive dialog.
Some people are assholes and I experienced what you are talking about. I live on the US Gulf Coast and was in a disaster zone. I've seen comments condemning me and my neighbors for living where we do despite the fact that there are very few places that doesn't have some potential for natural disaster. There is nothing like being figuratively spit on by slashdot while you have to clean up debris, survey and repair damages, and care for your neighbors. That said I do think you are overreacting a little about the Godzilla comments.
You volunteered to be screened by the TSA. No one forces you to use commercial airlines when you travel. Also if you enter in any governmental building (federal, state, or municipal) you may see a sign informing you that by entering the building that you are subject to search.
The 4th amendment is suppose to protect you from government search and seizure in your own premise. Logically that extends to your cell phone that is on your person. As far as the 4th amendment is concerned, NSA is violating it while the TSA is "technically" not.
First did the school complain? If the school did not complain, did the officer ask the school if there was an issue?
A public school doesn't need to complain. An officer caught the guy using electricity from an outlet on public property without permission (a.k.a. theft). A police officer acts on behalf of the public. The article stated the officer checked with the school system prior to making the arrest. The guy was picked up 11 days after the incident.
If there was an issue, I am sure the officer or the school could have approached the man and asked him to stop using their plug.
From article 1 of 2 above:
Kamooneh had taken the liberty of charging the electric car with an exterior outlet at the school. Within minutes of plugging in the car, he says a Chamblee police officer appeared.
"He said that he was going to charge me with theft by taking because I was taking power, electricity from the school," Kamooneh said.
From article 2 of 2 above:
Kaveh Kamooneh plugged an extension cable from his Nissan Leaf into a 110-volt external outlet at Chamblee Middle School while his son was practicing tennis. A short time later, he noticed someone in his car and went to investigate—and found that the man was a Chamblee police officer. "He informed me he was about to arrest me, or at least charge me, for electrical theft," Kamooneh told Atlanta's Channel 11 News.
I noticed that the events leading up to the arrest are different in the two stories. The first one states that he was approached shortly after plugging it in and the second one states that he caught the officer searching his car. Which one is accurate? Both stories quote Kaveh Kamooneh.
There is a third possible scenario that the officer asked the guy to unplug the cord, the guy acted like an ass and the officer waited to confirm with the school board that the guy didn't have permission to use the outlet prior to making the arrest. You never see anyone admitting that they did something wrong to the reporters.
They could even post a sign saying "please do not use our plugs to charge your devices."
So you believe that unless you are specifically told to not do something you are free to do as you want?
If he filled up his thermos with water from the bathroom sink, would that be theft as well?
Probably not. There are ordinances that dictate that water fountains and in your example public toilets be provided on public property. Permission to use the water for drinking is implied (or actually given by the ordinance).
Now if you connected a water hose to a spigot and filled up a water tank or washed your car then that would technically be theft.
There are no ordinances that dictate that free electricity should be provided to charge electric vehicles (or for any use). The subject of the article had no permission to use electricity and therefore committed theft.
Your reply was attached to the wrong comment. I agree with your sentiment and have the same concerns.
I also don't like the idea of remote control aircraft flying at a low altitude over my property. Of course, they can alleviate that concern by flying only over public roads and right of ways until they reach the delivery address.
One of the really depressing things about American media is that hundreds of people could be killed by delivery drivers each year and it wouldn't make local news but the first time one person anywhere gets killed by a delivery drone it's going to be an international headline and the idiot public will be in arms about Amazon's deadly attack drones.
Why place the blame only on the American media? It's broadcast news in general. You said as much yourself since it would become an international headline. Broadcast news live on ratings and nothing brings in good ratings like an unusually tragic story or scandal. This has been true since the beginning of the media worldwide.
This does not mean that the owner should be immune from criticism if the stated or actual reason is invalid or morally wrong.
I see nothing wrong with someone saying "no google glass allowed" and complain on Yelp. However I am not convinced that the act of banning someone from playing with their favorite electronic gadget rises to the level of being "morally wrong".
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous
There are restaurants that won't allow cell phones to be used at all and this was before smartphones or phones with cameras. Patrons don't want to hear your side of a phone conversation.
Your suggestion assumes that someone would not disable the LED (easily done with black paint) in order to record without being detected.
Privacy is important, but you don't have an unlimited expectation of privacy everywhere you go. It is balanced against the rights of others, including, for example, the right to take photos or video recordings of public places - you don't get to demand that they stop doing so just because you happen to be in the picture, unless you're specifically being the target.
If I own a restaurant and I do not want to allow Google glass to worn inside then that is MY right. You can always vote with your feet and find another restaurant.
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain