That coupled with "zero tolerance" which equates to "no thinking by staff" we are ruining a generation of kids.
At least we are teaching them that those with authority and political power are not to be trusted.
If it is trivial why do they put so much effort into squishing it?
Did you ever consider it in terms of strategy? Companies try to use strategy instead of lazily waiting until the last minute to passively react the way so many individuals do.
It's trivial now but that could change. They are taking steps to keep it trivial and/or to make it more so. If they neglected it entirely, it might become a very large, entrenched, difficult-to-eliminate market by the time they get around to reacting to it. What would really entrench a used-games market with no artificial restrictions? That's easy: for it to be common and perceived as normal by the average customer, something they come to expect, something they would be outraged about if it were taken away.
The game companies don't want that to happen. They're smart, so they think of these things ahead of time. They're greedy control freaks, but they're not stupid.
Do yourself a favor and apply this strategic view to every action corporations and politicians take and to every word they say. The world will become mostly predictable then.
I don't have high expectations for any institution that's over 10% Scalia, but once in a while the government does manage to do the right thing, at least for the wrong reasons.
The 180-day limit is based on an antiquated legal standard, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was signed into law in 1986 - more than 25 years ago. At the time, email was still in its infancy, and "cloud"-based email providers like Yahoo, GMail, etc. simply didn't exist. Efforts are underway to update the act so that, among other things, law enforcement will need to obtain a warrant anytime they want to access email. But those updates aren't law yet, so the old statute still applies.
That old statute outweighs the Fourth Amendment? Interesting.
I host my own email server, so unless they know who sent it or who received it, my server could experience a catastrophic failure should the need arise...
They always told you to make backups, but you never listened. Damn, what a tragedy.
The term "house" is specifically used in the text of the 4th Amendment, and courts have basically ruled that this term refers to your home, whether that's a building you own or a single room in a shared apartment...essentially your "personal living space", where a polite person would be required to ask permission to enter. On the other hand, the e-mail on the server is no different from you giving your personal papers to any random third party, mostly regardless of the relationship, with a few exceptions.
Yes, because if the standard were the other way around, people would have too much privacy and obviously that would bring society to its knees!
I think the difference is that the case law pertaining to your dwelling was established long ago, back when people thought the USA was special, back when the USA would ridicule many other nations of the world for treating their citizens more like subjects who had no rights, only privileges. Electronic communications were invented long after the US government became something much more sad and typical, interested only in the expansion of its own power via the flimsiest claims to legitimacy.
<sarcasm>Because as we all know, anyone familiar with people like Thomas Jefferson would immediately understand that the Founders really did mean only physical hardcopy paperwork. Obviously, these men who wanted The People to be respected and left alone by their government when it came to things like postal letters and private notes definitely wanted The People's privacy completely trampled should any new medium of written communication come along. Duh.</sarcasm>
Just think, some of the Founders were opposed to having a Bill of Rights at all because they feared that other rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution would be overlooked!
Obviously, the American people are A ok with this as it's been going on for a while now. Nobody's proposing a new plan or ECPA at that. Then again, the state of cyber law in the US is a joke full of loopholes and free passes. The real question is do you blame the IRS for doing what it legally can to function as an entity, or the people for allowing it?
There is plenty of blame to go around.
What I don't understand is this idea that the Fourth Amendment applies to one communications channel (say, postal mail) but not other communications channels (e-mail) that achieve the same transfer of information. I say the burden of proof is on those who assert this. What's the rationale here?
That would also make the contracts much more expensive, meaning that more tax needs to be collected to fulfill them, harming local business. Basically, it is the broken window fallacy.
Sadly, taxes have had no real relationship to the government's need for revenue (spending, interest on dets) for a very long time now. I don't think that necessarily argues against your idea, but it does complicate it.
Since when is money an illegal good?
He knew they were moving large amount of money. That is it.
Right now I have a couple grand in my wallet, am I suddenly some sort of criminal?
My brother repaid a loan that I made him. I will either deposit this money or put it in my safe. If I put it in my safe am I suddenly some sort of drug lord?
In the (greedy) eyes of the law, quite possibly. Sure, your brother just repaid that loan, but sadly that doesn't mean that the cops won't seize that cash until you convince a judge that you're not a drug dealer. "Asset forfeiture" hits crooks and innocent people alike. I don't like it either, but try convincing your legislator and you'll just get some crap about "balancing liberty with the need to stop drugs, mmmkay?"
Most of the unreasonable bullshit comes from trying to make a crime out of things that are not crimes (what consenting adults do). It leads to laws that would be unenforcable without this police-state mentality. Rather than admit that such laws are inherently flawed, and repeal them, the government would rather expand its powers.
The problem was, they wanted to accept them in their own way on their own schedule.
Then I submit that they were not really so willing to accept new cosmological theories.
The correct way is according to the evidence. The correct schedule is according to when advancements are made and new evidence is discovered. Anything else is unwillingness and refusal.
Who was it that said "scientific progress advances one death at a time"? A scientist, no?
Yes, and it was a lament.
But really, how much rapid progress would you have expected from an organization which believed (at the time) that an effective way to spread the love of Jesus was torturing people to death? I mean, I've read the Bible and the words of Christ -- I couldn't find "hold an Inquisition" or "torture your neighbor" anywhere in it.
The problem was, they wanted to accept them in their own way on their own schedule.
Then I submit that they were not really so willing to accept new cosmological theories.
The correct way is according to the evidence. The correct schedule is according to when advancements are made and new evidence is discovered. Anything else is unwillingness and refusal.
The kids in the public education system might turn out to be pretty decent Jeopardy players; that is, if they don't forget everything they 'learned' a year after graduating from high school...
Jeopardy... I never did understand how "Popular Culture" belonged with things like History, Astronomy, and the like. Because people who learn about astrophysics are truly concerned about what Snookie is up to these days? I say leave that kind of information where it belongs: among the small-minded.
Seemed like a poorly-executed ratings grab to me.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra