saveferris

SCOTUS gets into it in their opinions on Chartrie, you should check it out.

They wrestle with the balance there of 4th amendment protections and mass surveillance. It's evolving and generally courts are moving to not allowing mass surveillance -or less so than they have allowed in. Courts have been split on it, and someone already pointed it out that SCOTUS will eventually come up with tests for it.

There were some really interesting parts of those Chatrie opinions that really will test the idea that someone in public gives up their right to any privacy - the fundamental underpinning of why governments can currently point cameras at public places and dont need a warrant to search that video.

Chatrie protected the aggregated viewpoint versus any single public moment - And SCOTUS said the aggregated viewpoint (mass search of location data with no specific person(s)) is not allowed under the 4th amendment. A very interesting precedent.

Gorsuch had an interesting take in that he argued that in Chatrie the location data was Chatrie's personal property and therefore protected from illegal searches from government.

There are a lot of similarities to how ALPRs work, and key differences. Mostly Chatrie deals with a private firms data collection of locations - google vs ALPRs are generally on publicly owned property and recoding things in public.

Still, many justices opened the door to the idea that the government can't mass surveil citizens. We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

I am very much of the opinion the government should need a warrant to search through ALPR data (and video for that matter). So, I am hopeful that the tenets of Chatrie extend to ALPRs, video, etc.

Edit: Gorsuch argues that the data is personal and not the government's data - this is what prevents the government from searching for it without a warrant. He did not get into why a body cam or something like that is different.

It would be trivial though to do the same thing for sports. Create the market, contracts on either side....

How is Kalshi paid today? They take a cut of each transaction, just like the bookmaker does. Neither cares who wins or loses

Turning it around, the bookmaker really isnt who you bet against, I get that technically you do. but in practice.... You bet against all the other bettors. Bookmakers offset bets with other bookmakers, etc if the balance is off.

In practice bookmakers arent trying to be on one side or the other in a bet. Some do, but they dont last long. They want the odds to make a 50/50 market in bets and they pocket the vig.

Oversimplified but that is the gist of it. Also, my knowledge of bookmaking is from my neighborhood and I assume the legal variety works the same way though.

Heck, I live in the burbs and do Costco delivery all the time. I dont want to carry them either :-)

But, this decision didn't take those powers from Congress. It took those powers from federal agencies. Congress empowers the agencies, yes. But, Congress also deferred any technical decisioning to the agencies. Those agencies are filled with actual experts who are fully committed to their field. Now, the court just said that those experts aren't the right place to enforce anything but judges are.

Today it is. While not the existential threat to the US that communism/China are or perceived to be, Japan was very much a threat to the US in the 80s/90s. All kinds of concerns not just about the car market but manufacturing in general, how much real estate Japan owned, how much treasuries Japan owned, etc,

I know a few people who lost their collective minds when a Japanese guy bought Pebble Beach. Turned out to be a terrible move on his part.

Japan was very much a threat to the US back then. Maybe more perceived than reality but a lot of the same rhetoric/narrative you see today about China, was Japan vs the US back then.

Off the top of my head.... -How was the labor sourced for those services? -Child Labor, illegal immigrant labor? -What are the working conditions for the labor?, is it sweatshop -what inputs go into the goods/services? -what do they do with their waste? -where do the inputs come from? My country, another country, my town, a town in my state...

you may think the government plays a role to enforce some of these, and they do to a point...

You can go on in your own head about all the things behind that simple exchange of money for something. If it's a perfectly competitive market sure, that may work but there aren't many if any markets in the US that are that level of competitive.

A personal anecdote for you. My uncle owns an auto parts re-manufacturer, so they rebuild car parts and sell them. I worked there a lot growing up. The normal input is buying "cores" from service stations....your starter motor isn't working and you get a new one, that old one is sold to someone like my uncle who refurbs it.

Often we had people come by with very clearly stolen parts....should we have just exchanged money for those? This ranged from a tweaker who would show up with one part, to full scale organized theft rings with pallets of parts...

So, do we buy those since the price is much, much better? There is a an ethical decision there...

You can look at it like this... They jury was concerned about the speech by the think tank. They don't want anyone else to have to suffer through it. The plaintiff though didn't have actual monetary damages from it, but you and me might have.

The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged.

The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful.

That's how I read into the monetary awards...

So, I think you are correct. The jury messed up, wasn't explained to properly, etc. There are thresholds on how much punitive damages can be awarded and they are some multiple of the other damages...this one is more than that.

The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”

So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did.

That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.

And it's not like it hasnt been known for a long time how dangerous silica can be. I worked in a chemical manufacturing plant as an engineering intern in the 80s, at a plant that made marine coatings. One of the products contained silica as an ingredient. The precautions that went into the production of that product were crazy, workers entering the area had to wear what amounted to space suits with full respirators. I vividly recall putting these suits on any time we had to do any work in that production area.

I am only half serious about that....should have pointed that out. Interesting links though. Correct that not everyone with income is required to file, though they should. I did not know the income level was that high though, would have guessed half that.

Just a guess but I think that overlap is probably pretty large. I would think the majority of people who don't owe taxes are due to lower incomes who would not be required to file and that is offset with deductions....purely a guess though.

I am curious what you think could happen. I did a lot of looking after all the allegations and all the lawsuits. It is remarkably secure today, all the lawsuis that have been filed, etc. and nothing was found.

Where do you think the vulnerabilities are that can be exploited?