It is relevant because the excuse made for disabling bootloader unlocking is that unlocking the bootloader can defeat a carrier lock. They are interrelated.
868 karma · joined July 21, 2022
Normally this is a pretty comfortable role for each party and leads to something that looks like justice. The lawyers think they are making really strong arguments and the court gets to shed accountability, which is a judicial aphrodisiac.
The game fell apart here because the attorney general switched sides, ostensibly after contracting an independent review of the conviction, and left the court without any cover for upholding the conviction. So now we have a situation where all parties agree the court should act (and in my recollection of 8th amendment case law, it is actually obligated to act to prevent cruel and unusual punishment), but it will not.
In the Scalia quotation, he was using his lawful-evil dissent persona to cast aspersions on a very common review mechanism. This was his much regarded "style," but it doesn't really help people understand the state of play in this situation.
You fall into the trap. Unlike the golf commissioner (if they even regulate golf in OK counties), the habeas court is actually sitting in the center of its constitutive authority when making decisions on actual innocence in capital habeas.
For example, sometimes in my line of work a prosecutor reads a mitigation report (pitch deck) and offers a good plea bargain because they learned something that moved them. But there are other times that a prosecutor wants to make a better offer and wants a little administrative cover. They might text me, "Send me some mitigation. Sooner is better, nothing fancy." Those are the cases with the best outcomes, but not really the best "pitch decks."
Also, Muslim countries commonly offer amnesty or executive clemency at the Eid to people who have been convicted of crimes, so that's something else to correct for/think about. For example, if I am a judge adjudicating a case for theft and I know that the defendant will be pardoned on the Eid, I might acquit or pronounce a light sentence. This is a different issue than the sibling comments RE spiritual reflection, more like a concession to a larger policy imperative.
Edit to add that state sponsored leniency at the Eid is likely happening in Pakistan but not India.
The OP's argument is likely that the police didn't arrest an attacker because they knew that the DA wouldn't do anything. There is the plausible alternate explanation that the police were engaged in a bad-faith work stoppage or slow down. The third explanation--nonunique to DA--is that the police were overworked or incompetent.
There are hints in the court record which, despite sealing of an indictment, would give a determined investigator enough information to speculate on the charges in the grand jury. The DA office probably just provided the media with some top-line updates on the process so that there would be a general understanding of the big news to head off speculation or a leak.
That's certainly your opinion. My opinion is that this thread of analysis (a) is not interesting; (b) tends to propagate harm.
I think the discussion is not interesting because it lacks intellectual rigor. I mentioned that the subject of having kids is an irrelevant red herring. I think we can call your thesis a form of "whataboutism." You actually double down on this in your response. Kids on a farm? Whatabout cows? (It's a vegetable farm. Try again, I guess.) Let me also add that there is no logical limit to your analysis. Who is responsible for your carbon use? You or your parents? Is this toxic comment on the internet something I should address with you or your grandmother?
The harm-causing part is more important. You are saying--here and in siblings--that "other people" can/should have children and that society will be sustained by babies who are "born anyway," but that people who procreate have lost the moral agency to participate as your equals in the climate discussion.
This is toxic (harm-propagating) because it treats biological procreation as a distasteful externality. Procreation is not an external process when we are considering anthropogenic climate change. Worse, you are drawing an artificial line to separate people who can have valid policy opinions on climate change from those (parents) who can't. Ironically, this is the same thing that you accused me of doing when you objected to my use of the word "toxic."
Of course if everyone dies, we mitigate anthropogenic climate change, but that doesn't really further our analysis of the issue. There is nothing inherent in children that uses carbon, it is human behavior in the context of petro-capitalism that uses carbon. If I have thirteen kids and they live on a farm cooperative, I'll be responsible for less carbon than the parent commenter.
What is super interesting to me is the damages theory, which is apparently that the cops themselves had the right to profit from their likenesses so Afroman making money damaged them.
Let's parse this out: these police personas don't have inherent value--nobody would pay for a picture of one of these people on his way to the laundromat. There is also nothing interesting about their behavior in the abstract. For example, it's not like they broke into his house and recited original poetry, which he then sold in his own poetry book. Afroman repurposed the harmful conduct of police into an artistic work. The value of their conduct to the artwork was that it was harmful to the artist. So their argument is that they were damaged when he profited from the harm they caused because they had the right to profit from that harm instead?
It's nothing more than an erotic fantasy of mine, but it is possible to sanction the lawyer who filed this pleading under FRCP 11 or whatever is the local equivalent.
The true issue is that legacy technology like telephone and US mail are being removed in favor of the surveillance-capitalist dystopia described here. Yes, they read your mail and record your phonecalls, but the new generation of rights abuse is indescribably worse.
Sibling comments mention that the EFF may not be the proper organization for this, but I think that it's valuable to have them in the conversation since they are experts in the policy implications, alternatives, and real impact of this type of user-hostile technology.
Let's say for example, we tried doing that underground on Pluto.
Try to remember that policy, law, and major social trends tend to have slower feedback loops than other machines. It's hard to know today where we will innovate that will ultimately make a contribution to societal progress, but I can tell you with pretty high certainty that giving up won't help change anything for the better.
Like the lady said, "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable--but then, so did the divine right of kings."
It's me. I wake up in the morning, have coffee, put on my pants, then go to court and formally complain about things like this all day.
1) Why? What did they all do?
2) How on earth are they only laying off 500?
Lawyer enters the thread.
It's more common than you think. When complex work is done within power structures, it's just not enough to be "right" about something. You also have to be able to sell your solution to people who are wrong and powerful, which is sometimes not possible.
I agree that we should be willing to pay some nontrivial price to have more eyes on policing, but this camera installation push (both here and subway) is a big concern because we don't know how it will impact arrests and prosecution yet.
In seriousness, having more surveillance on police action is probably good, but this seems to also come with indiscriminate surveillance on regular people as well, and that's going to have a lot of negative side effects.