5 ms·
No, I'm saying that if I really owned the video, I could decide whether or not the police can use it. I'm not arguing whether or not the police should be able t
by Johnny555 4y ago
No, I'm saying that if I really owned the video, I could decide whether or not the police can use it. I'm not arguing whether or not the police should be able to have access to private video, but that you don't really own the video if you can't tell them "no" when they subpoena it.
- jamiek88 4y agoThen you don’t actually own anything because I can think of a scenario where the government can take it. including your freedom and your very life. If the government does not have power to compel then property rights are moot anyway as the biggest warlord will just take your shit. Seems a sophmoric definition of ‘own’. Furthermore in this circumstance you aren’t even deprived of your video. They simply want a copy.
- NegativeK 4y agoThere is basically nothing physical in your life, excluding your body, that can't be subpoenaed. This is not a reasonable definition of ownership.