Manuel_D

But again, the data isn't private regardless of who collected it. Images taken of public spaces in plain view don't require a warrant to collect.

The Chatrie case is really relevant to ALPRS. The Chatrie case involves the government demanding private phone GPS location data from Google. This is not covered by the plain view doctrine because the data they're requesting is fundamentally not collected by observations in plain view.

Unlike the phone GPS location data, ALPRs are cameras set up in public locations recording what anyone with their own two eyes and a notepad could observe.

But the point remains: a cop writing down license plates on a notepad can build a similar database. And there's plenty of precedence indicating that police don't need a warrant to record observations in public.

A database can be used to stalk someone, but that doesn't make it a 4th Amendment violation. Remember, a cop can just tail you and follow you without a warrant too.

The laws governing radio usage also prevent the Nazis from jamming their local NPR stations. A world without restrictions on radio is worse, that's pretty clear to me.

And at the end of the day people still buy baofengs and operate them at 5 watts on FRS and GMRS channels unlicensed all the time, I'm not set of any enforcement.

RF usage is governed by the FCC. Amateur Radio exists at the mercy of the government, and if there is widespread abuse or careless operation by amateur radio operators then that will likely jeopardize the continued existence of amateur radio.

Are newer baofengs locked down? I thought you can still just hold down 3 buttons while power cycling the radio to unlock TX from 400 to 520 MHz.

Regardless, the Quansheng UV-K5 is largely supplanting the Baofeng as the go-to entry level HT, the 3rd party firmware for that radio is pretty impressive.

2 and 3 are also likely illegal.

> They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage

Discriminating against candidates on the basis of protected class at the application review stage is no less illegal than discriminating during interviews.

#2 may or many not be illegal, depending what you mean by, "goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions." If this involves using protected class as a factor, in any way, on which candidates to advance to interviews, then yes it is illegal discrimination.

Few companies said that they only employ women. That would be too overt.

But plenty of companies very publicly instituted policies to financially penalize their employees if they fail to meet gender quotas. Remember, a policy of giving a bonus when an "inclusion milestone" of X% women in technical roles is reached is fundamentally the same thing as instituting a penalty when that X% quota is missed.

DEI practices I've witnessed at the companies I've worked at include:

* Creating separate interview pipelines for "diverse" candidates, with multiple chances to re-try failed interviews (Asian and white male applicants get one chance).

* Financial penalties when quotas on the basis of race and gender were not met. Of course, the company portrayed them as bonuses rewarded for reaching inclusion milestones, but ultimately a bonus and a penalty are indistinguishable.

* Designating separate headcount pools for women and URM hires.

What was even more concerning was that the people who were privately the biggest proponents of these practices would, like you, publicly condemn the idea that DEI involves discrimination as racist and misogynist.

To put this in perspective, Finland apparently cuts down 600-700k hectares of forest each year. 87% of Finland is forest, about 23 million hectares.