Yes, I know how they are thinking and the pain you are feeling. To accomplish the implementation of this change management process you will need a lot of people working for you. Use this to your advantage. Quickly study up on the subject so your experience with the systems will not leave you with a dog pile of new bosses to tell you how to do your job. Instead insist that you need to hire more people to manage the overhead.
In the end that probably won't work and you'll be kept "at the bottom" where you are now.
These changes are going to be enormously expensive and despite all you have done, it will be perceived that you created this mess by not having a change management system in place to begin with. Of course, they will also see that you don't know about change management and will prefer to hire someone who already knows about it.
Now I'm not going to down change management processes. They can prevent problems and identify people who would otherwise deflect blame and hide in the shadows. But from what I have seen, you're just getting the beginning of the tsunami of changes.
Push for testing systems and additional hardware to support it. Of course it will also require more space and other resources. Try to get ahead of this beast.
Do exactly what they say to the letter. After the second "patch Tues" where they pound the ever lovin fuck out of Windows Server with updates and the CAB has a pile of paperwork big enough to roast a wild boar they'll suddenly regain a measure of common sense.
Necessity would not work. A necessity defense pretty much always requires prevention of immediate harm. Documenting a conspiracy to commit harm does not pass muster.
It seems that a reasonable change to the law would be to allow surreptitious recording when there is probable cause to believe that a crime is going to be committed.
While the surveillance state will love this (No need for a warrant, we just need probable cause to BELIEVE), it is a terrible idea. These laws exist for a reason. Weakening the criteria is not the solution. Something along the lines of making it a civil offense might work, but the cut-off should not be changed.
Out of curiosity, how many government watch lists do you think you're on now?
You are the worst expository write I have ever seen, and I teach writing to high school kids with 3rd grade reading levels.
How about instead of making meaningless references to 60 minutes stories none of us have watched, you just tell us what the hell you are talking about.
What is in the report? What "1 bleeding to death sign"? What did the report released by the cops explain? You've answered nothing in your post.
Actually it's worse than that, by giving them money you are making them comfortable in their current state and that keeps them from getting the actual help they need.
The uproar was that with computers long term storage the IRS could do things like make you pay taxes on something your parents did 60 years ago, or use the power of tagging to harass specific organizations based on political leanings. What absurd notions those people of ancient times had!
What could be worse than food!?
So, the more appropriate method is to ask (nicely, or send some guys with guns) the cell service providers to shut down all towers in the required area.
They are not going to do that because a cell tower covers a lot more area than any protest.
Consider the protest in Nevada recently over the Bundy Ranch cattle being taken by armed federal agents. If you shut down cell access for that group, you are shutting down cell access for a potentially very large area of I-15. That's just not going to happen.
The reason why the kill switch would be used is that it cuts off video/image feeds from newer devices, the older phones that still might work would not be as much of a concern. As long as the government can prevent video and images escaping real time they have a lot more latitude in dealing with civilians.
I guess there are a few things that should be cleared up for you..first, the government land in question has always been used to grazr cattle. Thats how blm land works- its open range granted to the government by the state to ensure it can be used. Typically, several people graze their cattle on blm lands and they have two round ups a year to brand their calfs and take market cattle out. Litterally think old wild west eith modern tools.
Next, this guy and his family has used this specific land for this specific purpoee since before the state was a state. What changed was the feds demanded he cull his heard so water rights can benifit farmers in California. Some people claim there is a connection to a solar plant that just went up about 30 miles away. Next, a 1975 or 76 law waa supposed to deed the land back to the states but this plot had been skipped. He paid his fees for the use of the land except he paid it to the state instead because the feds wouldn't accept the amount over the set number of cattle they demanded he reduce the herd to.
The only unfair advantage this guy got was due to not letting the feds dictate the terms of his making a living. You can argue if that is or is not an advantage but the change of rules and quotas is a bit arbitrary and shouldn't be made by the government.
You did hit up a good point. Farmers in a libersl state do greese yhe pockets of ppliticians where ranchers likely do not. If the reason of the day is true, someone chose to send water to another state verses keeping it in state and being used how it traditionally has been.
How many times do they do it a week without all that official authorization stuff?
If they use them in criminal investigations the usage eventually becomes part of the public record when entered into evidence. Using them for search and rescue ought to be non-controversial enough. "National Security" is of course the grey area, though there's a fair amount of overlap between National Security and criminal prosecutions, for offenses like espionage or terrorism, so a lot of that use would eventually make it into the public record as well.
How many times did a law officer knock on the door and ask for those they had warrants for?
You see, even if you are not defending the dividians, the entire law enforcement part was still wrong. They tried to storm the house insead of the front door. Google man dead after cops goto the wrong house. Its unreal that shit goes on. The fbi used a combination of nerve gasses on the compound knowing what it would do. There were innocent people inside that they killed on purpose.
And that was from the politics of we don't need to invade iraq because saddam was contained. But they couldn't wait out the dividians. We just had snipers and paramilitary suround a ranch ready to kill with a council man warning people to have their funeral plans while we let russia didle around with other countries and syria is using chemical weapons again. You would think a show of force would be better served elsewhere.
In San Francisco you "have to see the poor" daily as well. Hows that working out for them?
The trouble with the homeless is that they are not just poor, there are usually multiple problems at work including mental issues... so seeing them and giving them money is usually not helping much.
If you really want to help the poor I suggest going to Modest Needs, that is the best place I've found to help the truly poor directly before they fall off the bottom rung of the ladder.