Lets make no mistake here, when the article mentions nation states intentionally sabotaging the cables and ships "dragging their anchors", these two things are one and the same.

Russia and China have been caught repeatedly destroying undersea cables by dragging anchors "accidentally". There is no "accidentally" dragging an anchor any considerable distance.

These cables are designed to be robust and long lasting (because replacement is expensive and a pain in the ass). Any damage is almost always intentional.

You mean the police panicking, and then shooting up the homeowners...

No matter what, the police are not our (us citizens') friends. They exist only to extort revenue and threaten compliance in the populace.

We should question every new tool they receive and understand how they will abuse it, just like they've done everything else.

I absolutely hate how they can arrest and detain without any measurable quantifier for DUI or speeding. Literally they just get to make shit up and courts back them.

I'm willing to bet the bricking is due to a security vulnerability with regard to IoT access to the camera OR to sabotage anyone elses ability too look into passive data collection they weren't supposed to be doing.

I recall a Cyber Security event put on by the FBI in 2014.

One of the things that stuckwith me is the point they made about vector for the most infected / hijacked electronic device genre in the world, which turned out to be "smart" TV's, refrigerators, washing machines and other home appliances that should have never had access to the internet.

Another thing that theypointed out, that I later learned in college when taking some EE classes related to the car canbus, is how little to non-existent most manufacturersdo to implementcyber security in their devices.

Case in point the 2013 Target Credit Card POS breach.

Yes. So the college admission programs have taken to judging applicants in such a way that it leaves no paper trail and is completely subjective. I.E. via extra curricular stuff.

https://asianamericanforeducat...

No. Only one side is against this. Democrats in CA are very much for affirmative action (aka: racism)

IIRC in legal theory for liability, they call this the "empty chair" tactic. Where each defendant points to an "empty chair" aka, a party not involved in the dispute and lays culpability to this non-party. If everyone confront then points to the "empty chair" they can shirk responsibility.

That's the justification. The reality is it's cheaper to fuck over and exploit your employees than be fair and equitable to them. And HR allows you to do that WHILE protecting you from the resulting lawsuits...

No. It's the tortious act of unlawful/false imprisonment, (at least in California).

Kidnapping requires the a force component (real or implicit) as the means of coercion.

As the title says, what was the impact on the neighbors, other than shit going on somewhere else ?

That is the problem. The history of this nation as well as the constitution says that ICE does not have this power. We fought a war with another nation over this very issue. But SCOTUS keeps upholding this power that is clearly the anti-thesis for the 4th amendment and reason we went to war.

context: The British were stopping anyone and everyone travelling and searching for communications or weapons and supplies for the revolutionaries. This is one of the preeminent reasons we have a 4th amendment.

Not true.

The "courts" have granted ICE this power, but the courts do not have the authority to grant powers, only the legislative branch does.

This is a part of the encroachment of law enforcement powers and authority that the courts have granted law enforcement without legislative process. This includes qualified immunity, the ability to "Terry Frisk" just about anyone, and several other powers.

It needs to be challenged by SCOTUS, but scotus is too much of a pussy to take up important cases that affect the nation. Only small ones that their self interest aligns with.

If you're not part of the solution, there is good money to be had being part of the problem.

So if police have no duty to protect the citizenry (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. DC), then how exactly does a City claim to have standing when in their claim to enforce "safety" for a citizenry, of which the vast majority who would be impacted by their claim exist outside of their jurisdiction?