The only difference being that there is no fundamental human right to own a lockpick, while there is a fundamental human right to self-governance and freedom of expression, both of which are ignored and debased by the actions of secret society and black government.
This is a weird ruling. It highlights how it is usually absurd to have a category of people who are journalists, and a category of people who are not, and a set of things which are okay if done by journalists but otherwise are not legal.
When the judge is parsing who is and is not a journalist, it's pretty much a lost cause. Same thing for whether something journalistic materials, or are but only in a very weak sense.
This is precisely why I think that journalist shield laws are counterproductive. Because now you have journalists arguing about their credentials and what are or not protected materials and all that business instead of focusing on the actual matter at hand - the people's right to know what is being done by their government and why.
You are exactly right because at a big enough scale, the builder simply can't absorb the losses. So whatever you extract for a promise from the builder, it doesn't matter, because their is no more money.
Even when "bonded", the amount of the bond can be insufficent. Then what?
That's why essentially every big government job has overruns and the people causing the overruns "pay for it", but not really. The contractor's only line of business is government work. Paying a fine or the cost of the overrun means that the next contract has that much more built in to pay the risk premium.
In the end, this type of scheme is just that a scheme, to shift risk from the party that stands to ultimately profit to a bit-player. It can only go on for so long.
But a traffic stop isn't enough for most purposes - they need a pretext for a search. A whiff of marijuana perhaps? A concealed bump on the log maybe? Who knows, you know?
Did they pass SOPA when I wasn't looking?
(I doubt the DEA is going to use secret sources of evidence or parallel construction to ensnare Joe Sixpack trying to score some recreational drugs. The fish will have to be worth the effort and the risk for the DEA to use this tactic themselves, but a casual word to the local sheriff might be used more often than you think.)
The problem is that while it's doubtable, we can't actually know. Every time a cop has ever testified that he just had a "gut" feeling about a certain car, we should instantly be skeptical that it was not a gut feeling, but rather, corruption.
And the presumption is now that everytime a cop says he or she did something randomly they are lying.
Given that his happens, the word of ANY law enforcement official, in any jurisdiction, in any part of the country, must not be trusted. Anything they say on the stand should be treated as hearsay, just like any other person, and the presumption should be that's false.
We don't need any new laws, we need the people who broke the system to go to jail, for a long time, and mass amnesty for anyone convicted with any evidence provided by the DEA.
This has almost no relevance to the discussion. Jacobsen holds that the evidence must be obtained not just plausibly but in actual fact by a person unconnected with the government or a government official. The intent is that private citizens who find evidence are not subjected to the 4th amendment or due process. When that evidence is found by a private individual, he or she can turn it over to the police and it is now "clean" and creates probable cause.
You can't apply Jacobsen to the NSA or DEA because they are clearly "a government official" and acting as an agent therefore.
They also protect bad teachers from legitimate termination, and the longer this goes on the more push back there will be. Then
This really isn't the case. I have read a number of contracts before, and there is nothing I've ever seen that leads to a teacher being protected from termination. What they usually set up is:
1. You can't be fired for a single incident, on the spot. People forget that teachers are humans, and can lose it for a moment. If any teacher who lost control, or showed a temper, or made a bad decision was able to fired on the spot, after a few years, there were be few teachers left. Sometimes kids, even my precious snowflakes (and yes I meant that) are assholes. And I think that's generally okay for the teacher to feel stressed about it. A huge part of the parent empowerment model is for parents to be able to feel like they can have a teacher removed if they disapprove. That is a huge problem. Parents are ULTIMATELY in control, and they have the ultimate trump cards - pull the kid, homeschool or private school. The ultimate trump card is not "I go to the teachers boss and get her fired".
2. There is a process that must followed to be fired. And that process includes a chance for remediation. This is an essential part of a fair contract. We forget, but a terminated teacher who has made his or her life in a local school district has a lot to lose. Finding a new job would often entail relocating, something which is often lost on people. Most people in general when push comes to shove already think that they can't be fired for no reason, and most people are wrong. When fired, most people think "you can't do that!!" before finding, actually, they can.
Leveling the playing field by removing this protection from teachers is one way to make the world fair. The other way is to extend that protection to all workers.
Yeah, disparate impact is one of those legal theories which are probably too clever by half. The problem is that law will not solve everything, and lawyers and judges and politicians hate that. The idea makes a little sense - before the end of Jim Crow, the law was flatly racists - "blacks can't vote". Then it was "you must pass a reading test or convince the registrar you are literate". Of course the test is administered only against blacks and is absurdly difficult to follow, allowing the one doing the grading all the power. And of course there is little hopes of an efficient appeal.
So disparate impact solves that. It says that you know, even if on the face of it, a policy is not racist, it is illegal if it disproportionately affects a protected group. So that literacy test which doesn't ask "are you black" but excludes 99% of blacks and 0% of whites is illegal, even though it's not racist on it's face.
And now, fast forward 50 years, you get silliness like using disparate impact to uphold race neutral standards of behaviour for schools (i.e. don't be late!).
True and sad. But there is much more public debate happening that I thought. And some media is continuing to make noise. I suspect there is still something big out there - a whale of a story - or else there would be radio silence from the government.
Yes you did break the law. Entering a home on false pretenses.
Snowden obtained the evidence he released by stealing usernames and passwords.
Says who? Right, says the Government. But even if it's true, it is clear from his account that he saw the system and how it was being abused and then decided to expose it. It is exactly analogous to breaking his word to not tell about child porn.
This isn't about what the NSA did (that is a separate issue and should be dealt with). This is about how Snowden obtained the evidence, and the manner in which he released said evidence.
The problem is that the NSA would not be dealing with, the political process would not be dealing with, nothing would be being done unless he did whatever exactly it is that he has done. For all you know there have been 100 would be whistleblowers who saw wrong doing, took it up the chain, and were quietly fired, and prevented from speaking about it to the press by a contract and promise not to tell. You literally have no way to know that hasn't already happened before, one, a hundred, or a thousand times. They lie to Congress. They lie to the public. They can't be trusted.
I think its an important distinction because if they were breaking the law then there are other avenues Snowden could have pursued that probably would not have required breaking his NDA
The fundamental problem is that the US government from top to bottom essentially agrees with Snowden. All independent reviews have agreed that the NSA is breaking the law, the FISA courts have started to show some backbone, Pres. Obama did a Friday 5PM document dump basically agreeing that the NSA was of outline.
Going public works. Past NSA and CIA whisteblowers either (a) we never learned their names, because they were fired and are unable to talk about it OR (b) are in jail.
The CIA and NSA and FBI all tell us that there work has to be secret. Methods and practices are all secret. But the reality is that obscurity is not a good a method of security. It's by it's nature insecure. Our enemies have long assumed worse about the NSA than has been revealed. The big intelligence wins we've had did not come from signals intelligence, it's been from classic intelligence work. When bin laden was caught it wasn't because you know what, he was overheard on an audio intercept. The CIA worked backwards from where his tapes were being dropped off, located the courier, traced the courier back to the compound, and then put boots on the ground to verify.
Police work and plain old investigation works. Everything else that's been built - replica's of fake TV sound stages, vast databases, are all speculative at catching bad guys. At most, they are useful for investigating ex-post facto. But when Boston was bombed, it wasn't the NSA who did a single thing to help. It wasn't the CIA helping. It was the Boston PD knocking on doors and ULTIMATELY it was a citizen who was alert and spotted a guy in his boat.
The problem is that police work is not helpful. When a Florida flight-school instructor called the FBI field office and told him that foreign nationals were taking flight lessons for large commercial craft, and no concerned about take-off or landing, there were not enough field agents to investigate that tip.
Think about how many agents are investigating intellectual property theft because Hollywood says so. How many are responding to calls from movie theaters about Google glass wearers. About how many are dedicated to investigating non-violent drug crimes, financial crimes, and all manner of administrative rules that should not even be criminal. Think about the FBI and federal agents involved in raiding Gibson guitar to search for obscurely source international softwoods used in making guitars. Think about the FBI and federal agents involved in investigating Aaron Schwartz. An then think about how we didn't have enough FBI agents to investigate solid tips from citizens who knew something was wrong.
The bigger problem is a lack of accountability. There isn't enough in Washington.
Snowden has been charged in front a Grand Jury. At least one count has been released to the public to thwart his ability to move internationally.
Do I get a free pass for my crime because I exposed a more despicable crime? Does my neighbor get charged despite the evidence being obtained illegally?
1. Yes, you would almost certainly get a free pass. For one, because presumably you are an otherwise law abiding person. And guess what, even in the US today, a law abiding person who goes rogue and breaks a law that involves only property damage or a breach of peace is almost always given a slap on the wrist or a no-prosecution.
2. Second, yes, your neighbor gets charged. That evidence was not illegally obtained by the police. They had probable cause (namely, you saw it) to believe it existed, so they obtained a warrant and executed a search.
A better example is:
"My neighbor asked me to come over and help fix his PC. Before he let me in the door he made my promise I wouldn't tell anyone what I saw. When I came in and saw his PC, it will filled with child porn. I called the police but they told me that I can't report it is a crime because it's a secret. So I took out a newspaper ad letting people know that my neighbor is a bad guy and is breaking the law. Since he's really big and has a lot of guns, I was afraid to go home, so I had to move half-way around the world to protect myself from being shot in the middle of the night."
That would be the appropriate parallel.