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...

I dont see what is wrong with download vs disk? If you want it on a disk, burn it. From what I read, the Playstation even runs Linux and can store stuff on an external hard drive. They are just making the brick and mortar expense disappear for them. Best Buy should care, Target should care, and Game Stop should care. You should not. Downloads are more convenient, and dont run out. No longer have to wait to find Halo 3 in stock on launch day. This is better for consumers all around isnt it? What am I missing?

Now, if they made it cheaper saying "Since we dont have to sell to retailers at bulk prices and can keep more of the profits", that would be extra cool, but its not like its worse.

I checked the Connecticut courts, and don't see any evidence there that he is a serial litigator. This is the only case filed by a David Figueroa against someone else, except for a custody case.

I had a similar suspicion, but when you mentioned it, I decided to go take a look. There are cases for David Figueroa, David A. Figueroa, David J. Figueroa, and Mr. David P. Figueroa - which is this case. The rest of the cases are family law or debt collection.

Somebody seems pretty damn intent on keeping me from commenting. I don't know who, but all the downmods seem to be on replies to two people. I guess there should be a -1 option for "I concede the argument"

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"? :-)

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...

"Mostly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here:

So three out of seven got home confinement, but one of them had it come after the completion of a prison sentence. One of the remaining two was "a contract intelligence analyst" which is hardly an executive. The last is "a manager of global intelligence" who reported to someone who got prison time ("senior manager of global intelligence) so I would also say "not an executive."

WRT to the CEO, I agree he got off easy and should have been prosecuted, for, at the very least, destruction of evidence. It appears his response to being notified of a litigation hold because there was an ongoing criminal probe was to... delete everything.

Oddly, the wikipedia page disagrees with the lengths of various sentences but does tend to support that "home confinement" was not really how executives were handled. It also mentions Ebay's internal investigation (which was conducted by an outside party) found that he neither directed that knew criminal acts would follow. While I am suspicious of "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing," the outside firm suggests this was above board. One would hazard to guess that the destroyed evidence may very well have shown that he did, but here we are.

By the way, your sig is amusing as heck.

Well, a 100% accurate representation of what you assume goes on in places you aren't.

That aside - Imagine what could be gained by taking the greediest and showing them the only way to assuage that greed is by competing with other greedy and underhanded people over who can provide the best goods and services for everyone else.

Well, first off, what trillionaires? Musk was the first and only trillionaire, for a couple of days. Now he doesn't even have the $750 billion you want to seize.

We live in a dynamic world, not he static one you seem to see. Nobody stays on top forever. Fortunes are lost just as often as they are made. Maybe Musk will stay the richest person in the world until the day he dies, but that day will come and it won't change your life in the slightest.

It's clever though, right? Get your competitors to engage in an illegal activity and then stab them in the back by not participating.

You can't eliminate psychopathy, but if you can force them into competing with each other in a way that allows society to extract some general benefits from them, their evil can be turned into good.

And you don't see how that makes you look bad? Someone ran crying to a lawyer because they saw someone take a pie to the face. That is weak, pathetic, childish, and disgustingly greedy. I am proud that I am not associated with that, while you seem to me proud to have chosen to take the side of miserable inadequacy.

I can't help but notice that you're insulting me despite me never doing so to you. I've treated you like an adult despite your behavior. I criticize the complainant here for their far more childish behavior.

To me, you resorting to insults indicates that you know you're on the wrong side of the argument, so maybe I should just assume that and accept your concession. Sound good?

And now it's sexual harassment as well. Do you not see how stupid this is? A never-ending cycle of ever dumber claims.

That you can't see how ridiculous and pathetic this is baffles me. This guy is suing because he saw someone get hit with a creme pie. Just think about that for a minute.

Rationally, there must at least be an intent to cause physical harm. combined with potentially injurious physical contact Any divergence with legal application must be our fault for letting lawyers and crybabies stretch the definition past any reasonable limit. I must reject such an assertion as insane.

There can be no intent to cause physical harm with a cream pie, it's a thin, flaky crust holding a pile of whipped cream. I defy you to hurt someone with whipped cream. Or a flaky crust. You don't need to think about it very hard to see how the claim is both absurd and pathetic. At best, a dishonest cash-grab.