Those terms are not by any means mutually exclusive with objectivity.
Of course there are wrong opinions.
Just because opinions are subjective does not mean they can't also be wrong.
Your not offended by it or don't find it offensive? That's great.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed, if it can be demonstrated to be objectively offensive to the people it caricatures.
No, no one cares, except petty idiots who need something to complain about.
I've seen other people do the same thing, it barely affects the movie. Someone sneezing is 100 times more distracting.
If I thought for a second it was a legitimate concern, I wouldn't do it.
No, you're just a petty idiot. You wouldn't see the screen, although you might know what I was doing which would be enough to infuriate you, even though it wouldn't be any more distracting than reaching down to grab a packet of candy and open it loudly. Far less so in fact.
a phone with a dimming screen is not bright. I can turn the brightness completely off on mine, and no, it can't be seen. Especially if I check if hiding it inside my jacket while I do so.
Process takes about 5 seconds.
Maybe I know the difference and was just overtired and made a mistake?
I'll never get over the inherent stupidity of grammar nazi's in assuming the person making the mistake is never aware of the difference and needs to be told each time.
Maybe instead of impulse control, given that many people have a legitimate need to check a phone, people could stop being so petty and bothered by something so minor?
You know, if they consider themselves an adult.
I did demonstrate why you were wrong, you just decided to ignore it and chose to resort to insults instead of respond.
Which makes it pretty clear you have no argument, and you were just a waste of time to deal with.
Good to know I should avoid you in the future though. Thanks.
It's why I don't like this franchise. They have a ninche market in Austin, and I heard they are trying to expand to NYC (where they're petty nonsense won't fly).
Thing is, no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed to the lowest setting, or having Google Glass on their person if the use is not distracting or obtrusive.
This chain likes to ban anything with even the slightest possibility of distracting your movie, and appeals to only the pettiest moviegoers.
Moral of the story? Grow up, stop complaining about things that don't matter, and enjoy the movie.
*Obviously talking loud, having a bright screen for an extended period etc, are all different and legitimate things to complain about.
"and despite not being a lawyer, insist your interpretation is wrong" should read "and despite not being a lawyer, insisting your interpretation is right".
Oh, and 365 was obviously a typo. I've been to 36 countries. It wasn't obvious what I meant, but it wasn't 365 and you could have just asked. It's a further sign of your desperation if you have to attack an obvious typo.
Idiots like you were why I left the UK actually. Arrogant fools who think they are right and the answer is "obvious" and lack any ability to think critically and realize they might be wrong and their "obvious" answer was neither obvious or correct. All too prevalent.
Eh, best of luck to you.
I'm sorry kid, but the only idiot here is you.
You can't make your argument with facts and logic, and despite not being a lawyer, insist your interpretation is wrong while calling everyone else who doesnt share your flawed interpretation an idiot.
You're the one who is wrong here, and you have no idea how to read the law. Hint: The section you think proves your point, doesn't, as it immediately follows the section that proves mine.
Do yourself a favour, drop the arrogance, read up on why you're wrong, and everyone will be the better for it.
Till you're worth debating with, I won't be replying.
Sigh, OK, right.
I was going to write a longer reply, but I don't think it's worthwhile since you admit upfront to dismissing what I'm saying.
I've gone to the sources. I've read the notes. I've read RIPA. You don't seem to understand the law, or that it reverses the burden of proof. It is, quite simply and demonstrably a bad law, when measured against ethical and legal principles of the last 500 years.
You are, quite simply, wrong. I'll leave it to the readers of our conversation, if any to reach their own decisions, but the evidence is there if you're willing to look and don't insist on some combination of denying, reinterpreting or dismissing the laws and evidence available - which is I'm afraid what you're doing.
Having always lived in the UK doesn't give you the position of authority you think it does on the matter. I've been traveling for the last 16 years or so, been to 365 countries....you would probably be shocked at just how misinformed people are about their country of residence.
RIPA is bad. The law has been abused, and contrary to what you say, does in fact, in practice, assume that the owner of an encrypted file has access to the key for that encrypted file. See my previous post if you need this clarified.
It also doesn't matter if prosecutions have happened or been successful or not. The problem is with the law. It shouldn't exist as it does to allow such prosecutions. Successful prosecutions are not the metric by which you judge if a law is just or unjust.
Reasonable Doubt does not exist in the UK. This is fine, as it is, at least worded that way, a particularly American thing. The fact that the principle is largely absent in the UK though is disturbing. And yes, the appeal notes for the previously referenced case do indeed contain the quote Wikipedia uses.
We disagree, so lets leave it at that. For what it's worth though, since you seem to pride yourself on going to the actual sources to see what they say, you should double check a few things. Like the appeals notes for the case, and perhaps a legal breakdown (by a solicitor, plenty such breakdowns available) of just why RIPA is bad.
You might also want to try not telling people they don't have a clue. I'm tempted to say that about you, but that is needlessly antagonistic and not at all productive, factual as though it may be.
While we disagree, it would be nice if you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my arguments as nonsense conclusions that I'm jumping to.
The problems with police and photographers in the UK are frequent, and troublesome as I said. I'm not at home at the moment, but there is actually a site indexing complaints about this happening, and it was well over a thousand.
A small percentage perhaps, but a large enough number to be worrying.
As for R v Majid, I shall quote from the Wikipedia page on Reasonable Doubt :
However, juries in criminal courts in England are no longer customarily directed to consider whether there is "reasonable doubt" about a defendant's guilt. Indeed, a recent conviction was appealed after the judge had said to the jury "You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt." The conviction was upheld but the Appeal Court made clear their unhappiness with the judge's remark, indicating that the judge should instead have said to the jury simply that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty".
There is also a reference on that page for the quotes etc, if you need to verify.
Your breakdown of the law as written certainly seems logical and seems to make sense. I'd say I would agree with your conclusion were it not for troubling news stories which seem to contradict it.
I would think this Wikipedia page has a good summary.
The problem with the law is that it is still assuming that the person does have the key. I know that the law is worded to assume the person does not have a key unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but in practice that is apparently an easy thing to prove (and perhaps skirt the intention of that clause), based on prosecutions. The law is flawed...it shouldn't have such a clause at all.
The problem is the burden of proof is reversed. It shouldn't be.
You quoted section 53 (3), but that follows 53 (2), which is why RIPA is disturbing:
In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.
So basically, they assume you have it.
And what constitutes reasonable doubt? I have true crypt installed, perhaps that is sufficient?
Any such law like that should be written to only persecute people if they are known to have a key and refuse to hand it over. Anything else, even the clause in RIPA, leads to abuses of power. Demonstrably so.
Not to mention, the idea that you can be in jail until you hand over a key is horribly flawed, not to mention injust. The defense you mention that you feel justifies the act? You get to use that after you've already been arrested, jailed, fingerprinted etc...
Another point, what is the criteria for determining ifi information is encrypted or not? Lets say I have an encrypted partition disguised as a garbage file...they can't prove it is an encrypted volume, but what is to stop them from being sure it is and prosecuting me if they don't hand over they key?
If RIPA was nothing as you suggest, it wouldn't be such a cause for concern, domestically in the UK with financial institutions, media institutions etc. And, it is. You need only search to see the reactions to it.
Also of interest:
Thank you for your comment. I don't have the time to reply in detail, but just wanted to say if you search for examples to the things I note, they are plentiful.
The problem with photographers is yes, police who don't know better and harass photographers. It's actually a big problem and occurs far more frequently than you may realize.
The UK actually seems to be equal to the US according to RWB, on the WPFI. I guess the different problems balance out.
The problem with RIPA is the law itself. The execution doesn't matter. A law that relies on good intent, is problematic. Also, the burden of reasonable doubt does not apply in the UK, which is sad. Indeed, R v Majid was overturned due for this very reason.
The prison comment was not specific to the UK. Sorry for any confusion.
Using prison as a deterrent means that for some people, the punishment will not fit the crime.
That is not acceptable. Or, it shouldn't be in a civilized society.