Freedom of course always comes at a cost: what constitutes a victory for personal rights and freedom of speech also facilitates the spread of illegal messages, since decentralized networks make it harder to control what information is exchanged. Legality is of course a tricky matter, as some countries instate laws that prevent their citizens from voicing opinions that would be legal elsewhere.

free software is provided, "without liability". That rule should be enforced.

In what follows, we refer to text, audio, images, and videos as “content,” and to content that is to be blocked by a CSS system as “targeted content.” This generalization is necessary. While the European Union (EU) and Apple have been talking about child sex-abuse material (CSAM)—specifically images—in their push for CSS [12], the EU has included terrorism and organized crime along with sex abuse [13]. In the EU’s view, targeted content extends from still images through videos to text, as text can be used for both sexual solicitation and terrorist recruitment. We cannot talk merely of “illegal” content, because proposed UK laws would require the blocking online of speech that is legal but that some actors find upsetting [14].

Some observers say law enforcement’sinvestigative capabilities may be outpaced by the speed oftechnological change, preventing investigators fromaccessing certain information they may otherwise beauthorized to obtain. Specifically, law enforcement officialscite strong, end-to-end encryption, or what they have calledwarrant-proof encryption, as preventing lawful access tocertain data.

After a Sheriff’s K-9 attacked an unarmed, surrendering track driver

That’s paid for by the state from a $40 million fund approved by the legislature.

查扣盜砂船是個需要「天時地利人和」的任務：風浪太大、能見度不佳、抽砂船船體過高，都會加大海巡執法的難度。好在那天風平浪靜，也沒有馬祖春季常見的濃霧，而滿載海砂的展盛98號吃水頗深，甲板幾乎和海面等高，要攀爬上船也容易一些。張士宏想了想，天時地利有了，他現在只需要一艘更靈活的小艇、額外的人力支援，就能靠近展盛98號登船執法。於是他用無線電，請隊部加派一艘小型CP艇海巡的沿岸多功能艇，是海巡噸位最小的船型之一，僅8噸重；由於船身小巧，機動性較強，適合用於併靠登檢。前來。

(F) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (B) of this section that the impersonation of the peace officer, private police officer, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation was for a lawful purpose.

We need police.

(A) concise, clear, and conspicuous

Anita: Of those occasions immigration never picked, and never gave them to them... Chicago's a sanctuary city.Rodolfo: No, Chicago's a sanctuary city, yeah. That's why I don't understand why I was picked up. The day I got picked up, I was driving to work. I parked my car and out of nowhere a Ford truck, it was unmarked truck, they didn't even have the DHS seal on it. I didn't understand it, because I even told them all, "Isn't this a sanctuary city? Can you guys do this, is this against my Constitutional rights? I'm not that sure, not that well-educated in that aspect of it, but here, give me a book, I'll read it and I'll tell you what it is. I'm not stupid bro." That's why they separated me from the other people I was with, because it wasn't only Mexicans that I was with. I was with somebody from... I was with two Somalians.Rodolfo: They were brothers actually, two Somalians. I told everybody, "Man, don't sign anything, don't talk, don't say anything. Just tell them you want a lawyer and that's it.” I remember they told me, "Shut up," and they put me in a different cell, because I kept on telling everybody not to sign anything. Yeah, that's what I didn't understand—I didn't understand how they were able to go get me, but as I understood then and now, obviously federal laws are always gonna trump state laws. That's in the door, that's why you still see the dispensary in Colorado get raided, because it's a federal offense, and not state offense. I was literally a federal walking broken law.Anita: That's sad.Rodolfo: That's the way I saw it. Even though I'm cool, I'm all right and in Chicago, a sanctuary, but that's only state. They can come and just tear the place up into whatever they want because they're the government. And we can't do anything about it because I'm not from here.Anita: I'm gonna have to go in another room, can we pause for a second?Rodolfo: Yeah.Sergio: So, after you were detained, how was your experience? What happened?Rodolfo: After I was detained, I've got to say my experience going through the immigration, it was something I had never experienced in my life. I mean, I was never deprived of my freedom. And it wasn't because I committed an actual crime. I didn't go and take somebody's laptop, or I didn't go into a store with a loaded gun and ask for money. No, it was one of the most horrible experiences I've ever been through. It was more their idea of housing me because I'm not from there or it was...Rodolfo: [Pause]. I remember when I first got picked up, they took me to Wisconsin—I'm sorry, they took me to Rock Island, Illinois—for processing. That was the processing center.

The encapsulation is enforced by the language. It is a syntax error to refer to # names from out of scope.

The first is that the presence of surveillance means society cannot experiment with new things without fear of reprisal, and that means those experiments—if found to be inoffensive or even essential to society—cannot slowly become commonplace, moral, and then legal. If surveillance nips that process in the bud, change never happens. All social progress—from ending slavery to fighting for women’s rights—began as ideas that were, quite literally, dangerous to assert. Yet without the ability to safely develop, discuss, and eventually act on those assertions, our society would not have been able to further its democratic values in the way that it has. Consider the decades-long fight for gay rights around the world. Within our lifetimes we have made enormous strides to combat homophobia and increase acceptance of queer folks’ right to marry. Queer relationships slowly progressed from being viewed as immoral and illegal, to being viewed as somewhat moral and tolerated, to finally being accepted as moral and legal. In the end it was the public nature of those activities that eventually slayed the bigoted beast, but the ability to act in private was essential in the beginning for the early experimentation, community building, and organizing. Marijuana legalization is going through the same process: it’s currently sitting between somewhat moral, and—depending on the state or country in question—tolerated and legal. But, again, for this to have happened, someone decades ago had to try pot and realize that it wasn’t really harmful, either to themselves or to those around them. Then it had to become a counterculture, and finally a social and political movement. If pervasive surveillance meant that those early pot smokers would have been arrested for doing something illegal, the movement would have been squashed before inception. Of course the story is more complicated than that, but the ability for members of society to privately smoke weed was essential for putting it on the path to legalization. We don’t yet know which subversive ideas and illegal acts of today will become political causes and positive social change tomorrow, but they’re around. And they require privacy to germinate. Take away that privacy, and we’ll have a much harder time breaking down our inherited moral assumptions.

Large societies need other enforcement mechanisms: government, religion, written codes.

Guidelines do very little. Developer discipline is not a reliable method of encouraging best practices, they have to be enforced to be reliable.

What if, as in the case of anonymous résumés, the DA had no clue about the race of the accused? For that matter, what if you also removed identifying information on the victim and even the location of the crime? In 2019, the San Francisco DA’s office began anonymous charging, removing potentially biasing information from crime reports DAs use to decide whether or not to bring charges (http://bkaprt.com/dcb/02-30/). It’s too soon to tell the outcome of that experiment but, again, the removal of a decisive element may enhance an experience rather than detract from it.

Security agency frustration at the lack of lawful interception for encrypted messaging is understandable, but the problem with global over-the-top platforms is that once those weaknesses are inbuilt, they become potentially available to bad actors as well as good.

EFF describes this as “a major threat,” warning that “the privacy and security of all users will suffer if U.S. law enforcement achieves its dream of breaking encryption.”

Once the platforms introduce backdoors, those arguing against such a move say, bad guys will inevitably steal the keys. Lawmakers have been clever. No mention of backdoors at all in the proposed legislation or the need to break encryption. If you transmit illegal or dangerous content, they argue, you will be held responsible. You decide how to do that. Clearly there are no options to some form of backdoor.

While this debate has been raging for a year, the current “EARN-IT’ bill working its way through the U.S. legislative process is the biggest test yet for the survival of end-to-end encryption in its current form. In short, this would enforce best practices on the industry to “prevent, reduce and respond to” illicit material. There is no way they can do that without breaking their own encryption. QED.

Governments led by the U.S., U.K. and Australia are battling the industry to open up “warrant-proof” encryption to law enforcement agencies. The industry argues this will weaken security for all users around the world. The debate has polarized opinion and is intensifying.

Such is the security of this architecture, that it has prompted law enforcement agencies around the world to complain that they now cannot access a user’s messages, even with a warrant. There is no backdoor—the only option is to compromise one of the endpoints and access messages in their decrypted state.

As EFF has warned, “undermining free speech and privacy is not the way to protect children.”

“not only jeopardizes privacy and threatens the right to free expression, but also fails to effectively protect children from online exploitation.”

Just to make this clear, I'm on the side that adding strict rules doesn't necessarily improve a situation. Especially with something that is subjective like a commit message.

Good commit hygiene in general is a tough thing to enforce. It requires manual labor and descipline, from both the author and the reviewer.

I still feel like unless there is a very significant increase in staffing, they are probably going to have to pick and choose the enforcement actions that they bring,

The data protection authorities have other tools as well, which might be even costlier than fines, Kagan said.In some cases, EU regulators can tell companies, “You have 90 days to rectify the thing you are doing wrong with the data, or after 90 days you cannot use the data.” Sometimes, even the big fines won’t make or break them, but the data will if it is a core component of their business.

Having said all that, I think this is completely absurd that I have to write an entire article justifying the release of this data out of fear of prosecution or legal harassment. I had wanted to write an article about the data itself but I will have to do that later because I had to write this lame thing trying to convince the FBI not to raid me.

I could have released this data anonymously like everyone else does but why should I have to? I clearly have no criminal intent here. It is beyond all reason that any researcher, student, or journalist have to be afraid of law enforcement agencies that are supposed to be protecting us instead of trying to find ways to use the laws against us.

Lest U.S. companies think they will escape GDPR because they are headquartered in the U.S., Milla believes there will be fines applied to companies in the EU, the US and other jurisdictions.

applying the principlesapplicable on an application for judicial review

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said Thursday that Motel 6 shared the information of about 80,000 guests in the state from 2015 to 2017. That led to targeted investigations of guests with Latino-sounding names, according to Ferguson. He said many guests faced questioning from ICE, detainment or deportation as a result of the disclosures. It's the second settlement over the company's practice in recent months.

nforcement(1) The OEP may make a review application in relation to conduct described in adecision notice given to a public authority as a failure of the authority tocomply with environmental law.(2) The OEP may make a review application in relation to conduct of a publicauthority occurring after a decision notice was given to the authority that issimilar, or is related, to conduct that was described in the notice as a failure ofthe authority to comply with environmental law.(3) In this Act, a “review application” means—(a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, an application to the HighCourt for judicial review, or(b) in Scotland, an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Courtof Session.(4) Neither subsection (1) nor (2) overrides any requirement for permission of thecourt to be obtained before making a review application

The last time I checked, the environmental directorate of the EU had taken 34 cases against the UK Government, of which it had won 30.

The Swedish school system has wholeheartedly, and probably too quickly and eagerly, embraced this new agenda. Last fall, 200 teachers attended a major government-sponsored conference discussing how to avoid "traditional gender patterns" in schools. At Egalia, one model Stockholm preschool, everything from the decoration to the books and toys are carefully selected to promote a gender-equal perspective and to avoid traditional presentations of gender and parenting roles

Trayvon Martin

One respondent noted that NSF doesn't have an enforcement policy. This is presumably true of other mandate sources as well, and brings up the related and perhaps more significant problem that mandates are not always (if they are ever) accompanied by the funding required to satisfy them. Another respondent wrote that funding agencies expect universities to contribute to long-term data storage.

This is the contradiction of the Google Bus, and it’s one that should resonate across the country. The Google Bus is the embodiment of a system that indemnifies the actions of corporations while increasingly criminalizing and punishing individuals. Google and its ilk have always known that they could break the law right up until the day they were invited to make new laws. That is the power of corporate wealth, and in San Francisco as in the rest of the country, it rules supreme.