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?

Neither was anyone in this story.

But hey, thank you for making shit up that didn't happen and then getting angry at someone else for your made up shit that didn't happen.

You truly are the anonymous coward slashdot and the rest of the world needs, but does not deserve.

Backhoes and the all-mighty shovel have caused more outages than just about anything else.

No one demands AT&T, Version and Pac Bell to testify in congress about people using their networks to communicate for the purposes of committing crimes, why is it Discord, Twitch and Steam's responsibility to manage it also?

These platforms allow users to create private instances for their own private purposes. Why is it the platforms responsibility to police every abuse by their users?

I get so many phone calls a day from spam callers spoofing numbers that I don't even bother answering anymore.

Maybe if the government actually did something about this mess I wouldn't filter out any call not on my contacts list or that isn't hiding their calling ID?

Yes, I understand the "Do Not Call" registry exists, but it is half-assed and ineffective because the spam callers have worked around it. The spam dialers and call centers are not separate entities thus the people you end up speaking on the phone with are not the ones who made the call and thus aren't guilty of violating the do-not-call. AND they hang up immediately if you ever ask for a call-back phone number.

The phone company knows who's making all the calls. They just don't want it to to stop because they make money both ways.

So until all this background noise goes away, no one is going to response to a phonecall from a random entity.

No. I am saying google has the right to do what they wish with their property.

I specifically said they're a private company and thus no one cam claim First Amendment protections (because they're not the government).

Is it not Musks' property? Thus he gets to do with it as he wishes?

Or are you bringing it because you think someone else doing something wrong justifies another entity also doing wrong?

My position is that a private company has every right to filter as they wish on their platform, within the limit of the law, of which this issue does not qualify as a first amendment issue because Google is not the government.

However, they're all duplicitous assholes. And anyone who supports filtering like this, regardless of which side of the political spectrum gains ascendancy, is either ignorant, an idiot or disingenuous.

It's not that Republicans have a right to spam the shit out of people. Obviously there are not first amendment protections for a private comapny to handle spam the way it wants to.

The issue is that gmail ONLY filters republican political spam. And while I don't think there is much legal standing for the FTC, this is quite frankly, hypocritical bullshit.

Anyone who can't see the blatant hypocrisy is either ignorant, an idiot or is duplicitous.

It's more than a "possibility".

I remember an interview by a reporter who was arrested because the FBI wanted his sources. The fed offered him their phone back so they could call their attorney. When they unlocked it to call their attorney, the fed yanked it from their hand disabled sleep mode and then gave it to forensics to download all the data.

Because they're greedy fucks and want money. Hence they keep insisting on 4chan paying the fine despite them not being within their jurisdiction.

I thought that when it comes to criminal intent with regards to mens rea (guilty mind), the act of hiding something is indicative of criminal intent.

If the law says they must allow for something, but they actively obfuscate or hinder the publics ability to do what they are legally obligated to do, that is a crime.

When I graduated with a degree in EE in 2014, I saw a job posting for Western Digital. It was an entry-level intern postion requring a PHD in related field, or Masters + 8 years experience.

For an intern position.

A question:

How is the situation for entry level coding positions and companies outsourcing these positions to other countries with lower labor costs?