Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities' suffering

Totally different from hurricanes, floods, and tsunamis, right?

There's also the heightened risk -- according to state and local fire officials -- that individuals could be tempted to commit arson in order to make sure their bets are successful

This is, actually, a valid concern. I don't think, freedoms — including the freedom to bet one's own money — should be curtailed by such concerns, but it is valid.

Funny, how the authors don't hate the would-be arsonists — nowhere close to their disdain for the "rich and powerful", who might (might not!) profit from the betting...

The act of surveilling someone is a form of search (Carpenter v. United States (2018)

You are incorrect. What the Carpenter determined, was not about generally "surveilling", but the particular act of requesting historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers.

The Court's majority did rule, that the 4th Amendment protects reasonable expectation of privacy, and the collection of the particular records violated this. But not in general case. What's between your cellphone and the cell-tower can be expected — reasonably to stay private. (Though personally I disagree even with that — anyone carrying an active radio should not expect it to be unnoticed.) But a visible presence in public — detectable by unaided human senses — definitely not. Police have tailed suspects for as long as law enforcement existed — and Bill of Rights' authors certainly knew about the practice existence — and there is nothing wrong about it.

Further, they didn't extend the "third-party doctrine" to the particular case of cell-site records, but they didn't repudiate it completely either.

While the average citizen is allowed to record anything they see in public [...] When the government does it, it is considered a breach of an individuals 4th amendment rights

Nope, it does not — not per Carpenter. Maybe, that's how things should be — though I'm not certain even of that. But it is not, how they are. And the list of earlier court-decisions (which I already posted twice) — the Knotts in particular — shows it.

Further, I was not talking about "the average citizen" — I was talking about a police officer. If one can watch you — without a warrant — he can also record you.

I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law

What "Constitutional Law"? Citation needed. Needed so badly, I'll do it for you:

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Oh, wait...

The used-game market isn't nearly as important to new gamers as it is to older gamers. They're used to change, and for the majority of ALL gamers, it's not a big deal.

This decision was almost certainly backed by market studies and accounting projections. They realize there will be "resistance", but like the Borg, resistance is futile. There won't be enough of it to get anywhere NEAR break-even with the revenue increase this move is going to create.

In the end, it's all about the Benjamines. They're confident that when the dust settles, it's going to be a net-positive for their stock price. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to them.

We need some new laws on the books though, enshrining strong consumer protection for digital assets.

oh no! AI is coming for my click-bait articles!

It's just another pebble on the "AI is good" side of the scale if you ask me.

people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices

Maybe, we should not, but there is not law prohibiting government to do this.

AI may be new, but the problem is not, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed government's right to surveil us in public without any warrants (list courtesy of Grok). The second item — known as Knotts — is particularly telling...

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Besides, how can the 4th Amendment include cameras, which didn't exist in the 18th century, if the 2nd doesn't protect "assault rifles"? :-)

Wikipedia has some great examples of what happens when someone that's been promised "points" (a share of the net profit) on a movie has enough money to sue the studios that try to rip them off.

They scurry under the fridge like cockroaches and settle for big amounts to avoid having their accounting practices further scrutinized. I don't see why they're so afraid of it, everyone knows they do it.

My expectation is that the mechanism that puts an end to it will be the IRS or similar. Like Al Capone learned, the government lets powerful people steal from the powerless, but it doesn't tolerate it when you steal from the tax man.

Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.

It most definitely is not. The actual text of the Amendment, for your benefit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The camera is not peering into your pockets, or windows. It is only looking at what's publicly visible...

Very simple, obvious, common-sense argument: whatever a human policeman can see and memorize, an electronic device can record too.

Governments don't have the right to do mass general surveillance

Huh?! Why not? Let's focus on American (Federal) government in particular — what is prohibiting them from conducting "mass general surveillance"?

Not saying, it is good — or bad — just want you to substantiate your claim, that it is somehow illegal...

Sounds similar to the practice of "hazing" new pledges at college fraternities. Too many times the frat organizations kept saying "it's not our fault, we didn't know, they were acting independently!". Finally campuses basically said the buck stops with the org, it's such a common problem you can't turn a blind eye and say you didn't know it was going on. It's your responsibility to be actively LOOKING for it and making sure it doesn't happen. And if it still happens, you'll be held partly responsible.

Funny how the (severe/dangerous) hazing suddenly stopped after that. Hold the managers responsible for what goes on during their watch and suddenly they start doing their jobs.

Yes, it was theft.

I asked about genocide, not theft...

we signed treaties with the natives and then BROKE LITERALLY EVERY ONE OF THEM

What treaties?.. But do enumerate the genocides first, before you go rambling further off topic...

The responses it provides are "the right responses, most of the time", so it comes with the same risks.

Like when you're working in the kitchen and swing your elbow and bump the handle of a knife and it flips off the counter and starts to fall. And you "instinctively" reach out to grab it, only just stopping yourself in time to avoid cutting your hand.

Your cerebellum said "I got this!", and it took your brain a split second longer to "countermand" the order to grab the knife. It took a little longer to process all the context of the situation, so it wasn't just looking at the "catch falling thing before it hits the floor". Your brain realized that on this specific occasion (when the falling item has been identified as a knife, and previously learned knowledge says it's dangerous to carelessly grab it) that was not a good idea. The cerebellum lacks the "memory" of the cerebral cortex, or the "processing power" to identify the falling object, so it's doing the best it can with the information it's got. In MOST cases it's a good response, so the CT provides a fast, strong response to reach out and grab it.

Computers that try shortcuts run into essentially the same problem. As a rule, computers are good at coming up with quick solutions to either very general OR very specific problems. They struggle in the middle-ground where analysis of context and history can change the desired response.

iirc that's entirely the job of the Cerebellum. It monitors stimulus on the way in and responses on the way out, and when it's seen it enough it creates "shortcuts" that allow for both faster and more automatic responses.

Indeed, the first one we learn is walking. (balance without a cerebellum is very hard) There's a rare defect where the cerebellum fails to form / fully form, and those people have a really hard time living all their lives on "manual mode".

Riding a bicycle is a good extension from walking, your cerebellum gets to go back into intense learning mode all over again.

I really don't see why any of this is "news", we've known about the concept for centuries, and the mechanisms behind it for decades.

You name it, our government has done it, including coups, assassinations, coups, genocides, false flags, drug trafficking, human trafficking, willfully selling munitions to international criminals

Genocides — plural — is the worst accusation here, and warrants a follow-up question. What genocides (two or more) has our government committed — within our lifetimes?

They're going to make an example out of him and give him the maximum.

"They" who? A jury of his peers?

I doubt it...