singleshot_

75 ms·

1291.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
> How could he not? Well, he’s not a lawyer, for one…
1292.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
Out of perhaps an over abundance of curiosity, what would be your take on, say, Massachusetts Rules of Evidence Section 1104? What sorts of things do you think Massachusetts would promise a witness?
1293.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
This is not correct. Plenty of would-be defendants take deals to testify. Negotiating a deal after you testify is a ridiculous idea and if it has ever happened once, I would love to hear the story.
1294.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
Protection from liability when aware of a crime and responding accordingly; that’s exactly what 18 U.S.C. 2258A gives corporations, in the context of child sexual exploitation materials. Sadly, I think you will find we don’t have any consti
1295.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
YMNBALBYTLY: you may not be a lawyer but you’re thinking like one. I want to again make clear that I think this kind of scanning sucks. I line the idea of a line. I like the idea of the line being that I decide which software functionality
1296.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
Your point is valid and I think it makes me change my argument somewhat. On the other hand, Riley (and Wurie , from the companion case) were arrested, though, prior to their phones being searched without a warrant. Here, though, there is no
1297.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
A lot to unpack here. First, I don’t think a civil suit by people caught by the hash-checking would be the remedy any of them would seek. More than likely, they would be trying to convince a court that Apple, acting on behalf of the governm
1298.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
> Nearly. If the government is requiring this then it becomes improper. Even if the government does not require it, if it acquiesces, and the action is the exclusive province of the government, it’s state action (i.e., improper). But yes
1299.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
> In my personal opinion, when Apple began these scans, they effectively became an agent of the state. I think reading United States v. Miller (982 F.3D 412) will probably convince you otherwise. Here, the state actor doctrine is defined
1300.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
> Obviously it’s not legally binding Obvious to you, but not quite factually correct. This is, of course, not an attempt to form a contract or NDA (which would be ridiculous) but instead, an attempt to put a certain kind of recipient in
1301.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
There are four reasons to incarcerate, as near as I can tell: Retribution: punish the offender. In the state of nature, if someone offended against you, you could hurt or kill them. Now, the state has a sanitized responsibility to fill that
1302.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
This was always the misconception about Twitter as the "public square": that authoritarians could somehow leverage something to force people to listen to their bad ideas. I'm forced to walk through the public square on my way
1303.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
Student debt is not “not dischargeable in bankruptcy.” It’s more difficult to discharge in bankruptcy than some other kinds of debt but it’s not “not dischargeable.”
1304.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
What about a law that says you are entitled to a lawyer when arrested? Or a law that says if you overpay on your taxes, the government has to make you whole?
1305.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
I get what you’re saying but I think we approach this from different philosophies (which is fine). I agree that there is no disincentive to passing laws that the judiciary will nullify (other than the fact they get nullified and have to be
1306.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
Is a law that will, in the future, be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court unconstitutional before they find it to be so? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to view this phenomenon within the context of the balanced powers of government?
1307.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
The reason why you do not hear of courts issuing writs of mandamus against someone to compel them to take some private commercial action is because that is not what a writ of mandamus is. A writ of mandamus obligates a government official d
1308.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
I have heard of such cases. The situation regarding the difficult recipe could be handled under the Uniform Trade Secret Act, as adopted in various states, or under common law related to tortious misappropriation of classified information.
1309.
by singleshot_ 4y ago
> not a single shot was fired This is a perfect example of disinformation. According to a contemporaneous report by the New York Times, the “concerned citizen” (which of course is a strange thing to call a criminal, but leaving that asid