Ugh. It hurts my brain to think about the Venn diagram of privacy advocates and YC sycophants that hang out on Hacker News.
Flock, and anybody who funds them are the real domestic terrorists. Anybody who destroys these devices are patriots in my book.
And if I ever serve for jury duty over a case like that, they didn't do it.
While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.
Now you're bending facts. You can decide they are not guilty of a crime, but you can't make them have not done it.
Juries actually can “make them have not done it”, although that’s been used for good and ill purposes.
It was obvious what the rhetorical point `nekusar was making. I’ll give you the pedantic point of being technically correct when looking at it from a gods eye view.
I think as a citizen and a 2x juror, that it is our responsibility first to determine if a law should be a law for all. Secondly, if the law passes scrutiny, ONLY then should we determine guilt or innocence.
I am highly disincentivised in seeing victimless crimes as crimes. Like drug usage and all that. Or destruction of horrific security appratus like Flock.
Simply put, the laws wrong. And that means 'Not Guilty' for anyone I would have to judge, even if they admitted it in open court.
(I'm also aware that jury nullification has also been used to find black lynching perpetrators to be not guilty of the same nullification. I said that I judge a law if it should be. Murder is pretty clearly not victimless, but extenuating circumstances like self defense are a thing. Lynching is terrible, and so is freeing lynching perpe-traitors.)
*As long as it doesn't prevent us from getting rich.