Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
I think proving tortious interference is impossible as well. The airline suffers no harm when a passenger doesn't show up for a flight (if anything this is a benefit), so why would a passenger not showing up for a leg of a flight be any different? Even if the ticket, terms, or anything in the relationship, constitutes an arrangement where tortious interference applies, proving that harm comes from the breach seems impossible.
It is to your disadvantage to speak to any law enforcement outside of these proceedings, or without an attorney present, in any situation. If you do, you're basically just trusting the cop not to mess with you, because just about anything is illegal these days since there are too many damn laws.
This is a useful lecture at Regent Law school was illuminating to me a few years back. Basically, your 5th amendment rights are also designed to protect you against answering any questions which may in any way incriminate you, even if those activities are not the subject of a particular police investigation.
Unless you are actually under oath, you have exactly zero reason cooperate with law enforcement.
Well of course. The question is, will it be hacked while it's in beta, or after it's officially launched?
Not mutually exclusive
But my core claim here is that the AT&T is behaving rationally due to regime uncertainty. I don't disagree that the ISPs are up to no good, but at the same time they do what they are allowed to get away with by us and the government. But most of all, businesses respond to incentive structures. So I say let's force that.
The kind of legal action I would be in favor of would be breaking up these telco/isp/content-provider cartels. The cable companies in the United States were, initially, the only game in town with the infrastructure pre-existing that could handle moderate broadband access. This met the needs of the general public until about 2006-ish, the speeds were OK, and cable TV wasn't competing with cable internet in essence, because streaming wasn't that big yet.
This is no longer the case, and people are opting more and more to cut the cord and just get internet access for the content needs. So now the cable companies are going to try to get up to mischief because one of their services directly competes with another, or you can access competitor-cartel content with their access and they want you to stay with their sphere of influence.
I believe the solution is to make it so that ISPs can only be ISPs. We're reaching a level of cartel like behavior that provoked the anti-trust backlash of the gilded age; and I think it's time to sharpen up the Sherman Act for a new millennium. While Title II would enforce utility like behavior on the ISPs, it would still allow them to be connected to their parent institutions, and they would still have incentives to get up to mischief. I say remove the incentive to do mischief rather than make it illegal to get up to it. Then we can get truly competitive behavior from people who are fundamentally in the businesses of providing you the best internet.
So when I say that Title II isn't the right way to achieve net neutrality it is because I think incentive structures are a more powerful way of influencing behavior than regulation. Title II provides an incentive to be a utility company; and I don't remember the last time my utility company did anything except raise my rates for the exact same service.
Writing this into law is more complex than simply saying what the FCC chair said he wanted: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business."
But basically AT&T's logic is sound. They don't want to roll out a huge upgrade when they have no idea of the legal regime they will be operating under. And there decision is understandable and rational.
Not defending it, but it's still important to understand these things in context.