no, then they burgle your house while you're gone.
combine the two and now they know that the person who was at shop A at time X, shop B at time Y, and shop C at time Z also appears to live at address Q and work at address R, and there you go: anyone who can get the "anonymized" data knows where you live, and that you just bought not only new living room electronics but also airline tickets.
The right to remain silent is (construed as) a right to not be forced to _generate_ evidence against yourself. It is not a right not to be forced to _produce already existing_ evidence against yourself. Papers in a safe already exist. Files on a hard drive already exist. If they can't prove the drive/safe is yours, then revealing the password/combination could be used as evidence that it belongs to you, and in that case you could argue that revealing the password/combination would be self incrimination. But if they already know and can prove it's yours, then they can require you to hand over the password/combination and punish you for refusing.
The difference is that it's a lot harder for them to get into your files without a password than to get into a safe without a combination.
"We grant you immunity for the contents of your password." Which does not mean that whatever your password is confessing to is now safe, it just means that the password isn't usable as probable cause to investigate it. What's behind the password, on the other hand...
would it not be simpler to say "that one got vetoed so it was never an active law" than just saying "there was never such a law" and inviting argument?
Not necessarily. Eliminating prohibition crimes would reduce both plea bargains and trials, which would allow some of the other crimes that get plea bargained to be actually tried. How much the total case load would change depends on the amounts of time currently spent on plea trials and real trials of both types. It could conceivably even reduce (though I wouldn't put money on it).
that's pretty much the "prosecutorial discretion" that the person you're replying to postulated didn't exist anymore, isn't it?
mmm... not sure. Signatures use cursive, if not much else does. How important it is that signatures be in cursive, I couldn't say for sure, but it _seems_ like it would be a little harder to forge.
Have you never lost your temper and regretted it later?
As far as I can tell, all he really said was "if you say something insulting you cannot expect there to be zero consequence", which is pretty much true. If I insult you, I cannot reasonably expect you to be happy about it, and you being unhappy is going to have consequences (your opinion of me will drop, you may choose to avoid associating with me, you may express your dislike of me to others and affect their opinions of me, etc). He also said that murder was over the top as consequences go, which is also (in my opinion) true.
I don't see how acknowledging reality makes him less hip/with-it, given that (in my opinion) much of his hipness came from the fact that he was willing to acknowledge reality on other topics.
ah, you are correct. I was looking inside the quote.
I still wonder which part of Mexico AC lives in that has 4 providers.
Since TFS does not contain that word, I assume you mean TFA, which uses it in only one place. So which part of Mexico do you live in?
I also use TaxAct. They charge for other stuff too, like State taxes, but I have no problem with that.
which security issue is addressed by "the first rule of Dev Club is you cannot talk about the rules of Dev Club"?
That's why he suggested the stuff doesn't actually get removed until it's been determined to infringe.