> I am surprised that no one has mentioned that
> nearly all stores have cameras and record every
> customer and transaction that takes place.
That's because most of us understand that the Constitution only protects against violations of rights by the government. Stores are private entities and as such are not covered.
> Only those with something to hide will find
> it objectionable.
Whenever one of my fellow cops says this, I always like to pose a question back: if you stopped me on the side of the road and wanted to search my car, saying to me that I shouldn't mind if I have nothing to hide, what would be your response if I told you, "Okay, officer, I'll give you consent to search my car, but only if afterward, we go to your home and you let me look through whatever I want-- everything from your personal financial files to the browser history on your computer to your wife's underwear drawer. Would that be okay with you, to have a total stranger looking through your private things? I mean, you shouldn't mind if you have nothing to hide, right?"
Funny how their tune always changes when presented with that scenario.
> I guess if a bunch of people were in their
> cars and protesting while going down the
> highway, then there might be a first amendment
> issue.
They don't even have to be driving down the highway for it to be a 1st Amendment issue. As in the UK example, using the cameras to document which cars are parked around these protest events, then using computers to cross-check the lists and develop databases of repeat protesters is a prime example of how this can be abused. (And if done in the USA, it would violate both the Constitution and the U.S. Code.)
> U.S. courts have ruled time and again that
> there are issues that trump first amendment
> rights. Traffic safety is one of those issues.
I would dearly love for you to cite me that case. The idea that local traffic ordinances trump the U.S. Constitution is ridiculous on its face.
Oh, and the cameras in question in Tiburon have nothing to do with providing traffic safety in the first place. All they do is record the license plates of everyone entering and leaving town. That doesn't enhance traffic safety one whit.
> It may be that my argument is simplistic, and yet,
> the cameras exist and challenges to the cameras
> on a constitutional basis have, thus far, failed.
I wasn't aware that there had even been such a challenge. Considering this program in Tiburon has just now been put into operation, if a challenge has already been heard in the district court *and* worked its way through the appellate system, that case would have to have set the all-time record as the fastest federal suit to ever go through the system.
> Though I do not know how accurate television
> shows are, you will note that CSI and NCIS
> show how easy it can be to locate people with
> GPS and to monitor their movements based on
> cell phone usage.
Well, as a federal cop and attorney myself, let me disabuse you of the notion that anything you see on a CSI show even remotely resembles reality. I enjoy watching CSI for its sheer comedy value. The entire premise of the show-- that crime scene techs are out interviewing witnesses, carrying guns, serving warrants, and conducting criminal investigations-- is ludicrous.
As for NCIS, I watched the very first episode of that show several years ago and gave up on it immediately when the lead character, Mark Harmon, essentially hijacked Air Force One after a presidential flight because a Navy officer had passed out and died on board before it landed. He didn't want the FBI to interfere with his case, so when he saw them approaching across the tarmac, he drew his gun and order the pilots to take off, then threatened to murder the lone Secret Service agent who stayed behind after the president left if she tried to stop him. This Secret Service agent was apparently so impressed with Harmon's insanity, that she quit the Service at the end of the episode and joined his NCIS team full time.
What I just described above is so far beyond reality that it might as well be a cartoon.
As for your claim that the police can just pull up your cell phone and track you at their whim, that's also false. If I want to do that with a suspect, I have to get a the US Attorney to authorize a warrant for the suspect and a subpoena for the cell phone provider and have a judge sign off on them, which won't happen if I can't meet the probable cause standard the Constitution requires.
> where is the constitutional right to drive on
> a road free of surveillance? What "right" is
> being violated by having a camera watching a
> road?
If the government uses the cameras the way the UK government was described as using theirs, then yes, the government would be violating the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment.
You see, in America, the government can't document and photograph protesters for purposes of creating an intelligence database. The federal courts have ruled that such government surveillance and record-keeping of protected 1st Amendment activity creates an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech. So just as an FBI agent can't walk around among a protest group photographing people for his files, neither could a city use its camera system to document which cars are present at which events for purposes of creating databases and "watch-lists".
Your whole "this is a public place so anything goes" argument is simplisitic at best. For example, the "expectation of privacy" standard only applies to 4th Amendment issues and analysis. It has nothing to do with whether the 1st Amendment is being violated.
> well if the beatee were gay, it would be a
> hate crime. You can not say lets beat all
> the gays these days. We have legislated thought
> crimes in the good old USA.
Wrong.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that hate speech is protected speech and cannot be outlawed. (See American Nazi Party vs. City of Skokie, Illinois)
If you actually beat up someone for being gay, that's a hate crime. If you just talk about how much you want to beat up gay people, that's hate speech, but it's perfectly legal.
> it does appear as if it was the dissemination
> of information over the net that raised concerns.
They can have raised concerns all they want. The fact that they have concerns does not translate to a legal obligation on my part to abide by those concerns.
Funny how he thinks everyone needs his permission to quote his father but I somehow doubt he obtained permission to quote ee cummings and LBJ, as he did in his "copyright notice".
He's apparently another one of thise "copyright is for everyone else, not me" types.
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session
Also, unless they basically confiscate all mobile devices from everyone as they enter the courtroom and hold anyone in contempt who is found using them for any reason ("broadcast" or otherwise), there's no way to enforce a Twitter ban among the non-participants in the gallery.
If I'm there just watching the trial and I Twitter something during the proceedings, at the end of the day, I'm walking away from the court and probably never coming back. By the time the judge becomes aware of my tweet, I'm long gone. He really has no remedy to punish such people like he would with the jurors or the litigants in the case, especially considering many people Twitter under anonymous screen names anyway.
What's the judge going to do? Serve subpoenas on an out-of-state corporation, demanding IP address data, then serve more subpoenas on ISPs (also likely out-of-state) to get subscriber info, then swear out an arrest warrant and spend police resources tracking down that person and having them arrested and charged with contempt... all for a Twitter post?
Any judge that takes that kind of heavy-handed, costly, and abusive approach to enforcing something which isn't even a violation of the law, but rather merely a violation of the judge's personal preferences, would likely find him/herself on the wrong end of an ethics investigation in short order.
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session.
Of course that standard would make even sending an e-mail to your spouse a "broadcast", which negates even the basic common-sense definition of the word.
> and Twitter is a broadcast - albeit relatively crude
If Twitter is broadcast, then posting anything to the internet is a broadcast. If a person in the gallery watching the trial decided to check TechDirt during a lull in the action and posted a comment about one of the articles here, would that be a broadcast also?
> even our constitution does not declare FREE
> and ANONYMOUS speech.
No, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to speak anonymously is implicit in the concept of free speech and hence is covered by the 1st Amendment.
> and they can prove that somebody in the UK
> read your statement, it is considered "published"
> and they can take you to court.
They can take me to court, they can even get a default judgment when I completely ignore them and don't show up, but good luck collecting on that judgment from me if I'm not in the UK.
They'd have to apply to an American court to have the judgment enforced and the American court will determine whether such a sanction is valid under American law. If the comment was made by an American citizen, in America, then the 1st Amendment is in full effect and if the libel laws in the UK sanction speech which would be protected in America, then the American court will refuse to enforce the judgment.
That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.
There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".
> Perhaps maybe because they are already in the
> business of selling answer books?
So? Now they have competition. It's called capitalism. Something we used to embrace in this country.
> Perhaps because they don't want answer books
> out there to make it easier for students to
> cheat in school?
Perhaps that is indeed what they want. However, such concerns are irrelevant to copyright law. Using copyright to further the desire of a book company to keep kids from cheating isn't legally justified anywhere in the U.S. Code.
Just because a company wants something doesn't mean they have the legal right to enforce their desires on the rest of us using copyright (or anything else, for that matter). Unless the law specifically provides for it (and copyright does not provide for prevention of cheating by school students), the desires of the company are moot.
> There is no money in piping US ads and
> bandwidth to countries around the world.
Sure there is. You just don't use the same ads. The system is already detecting the user's location. Just ad one more step. If the user is in the USA, they get a Coke ad. If they're in Britain, they get an ad for BBC News or whatever. If they're in Russia, they get an ad for a Russian mobile phone company. If they're in Australia, they get an ad for vegemite.
> Of course, the state of Kentucky probably
> couldn't care much less about what a court
> in England thinks
Which I'm sure will also be the attitude of the British courts toward Kentucky, should they try and seize a domain name belonging to a British citizen in the UK.
If Kentucky thinks it can ignore the rulings of a British court on a matter concerning British citizens in Britain, I'm not sure why they think anyone's going to give two flips what the Kentucky Supreme Court says about it.
> > Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone
> > to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which
> > are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers
> > and proofs of purchase)...
> You might want to check yours, but the last time I looked at
> any of my dollar bills they all have serial numbers. What's more,
> during part of my military training I actually had to keep track
> of all my money, including serial numbers. So don't try to say
> that "nobody does that". They do.
If that's true and you actually keep track of the serial numbers of every bill that enters your possession (and I don't believe you do), then you're one of maybe three people out of 300+ million who does that and the other two are mentally ill obsessive-compulsives. Hardly a statistically significant number. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people never even look at the serial numbers on the bills in their wallet. Hence the law considers cash in general fungible.
> It also sounds like you're saying it's only illegal to steal things
> that "have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of
> purchase".
If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're not paying attention or you have a comprehension problem. I clearly said that taking a found $20 bill isn't stealing at all because all states have laws that say it's not stealing.
> > Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> So, since you say it's not stealing, there's no reason to reason
> to cite the actual law that says so, huh? Kind of a self-fulfilling
> argument. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Since this is a matter of state law, there's no such thing as "the" law. There are 50 different variations on this particular type of law. But I'll be happy to cite one state's law as an example. From the state of Oregon:
98.005 Rights and duties of finder of money or goods.
(1) If any person finds money or goods valued at $100 or more, and if the owner of the money or goods is unknown, such person, within 10 days after the date of the finding, shall give notice of the finding in writing to the county clerk of the county in which the money or goods was found. Within 20 days after the date of the finding, the finder of the money or goods shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county a notice of the finding once each week for two consecutive weeks. Each such notice shall state the general description of the money or goods found, the name and address of the finder and final date before which such goods may be claimed.
(2) If no person appears and establishes ownership of the money or goods prior to the expiration of three months after the date of the notice to the county clerk under subsection (1) of this section, the finder shall be the owner of the money or goods.
> > ...what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you.
> > Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to
> > society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> And when you want my opinion, you'll give it to me, right?
Wow, you're one angry little man, aren'tcha?
And just so you know, you're opinion here is irrelevant. When it comes to the issue of stealing, only what the applicable law says is relevant.
> You may not like it when someone expresses an opinion
> contrary to yours, but you know what? That's tough. You
> see, we've got this little thing called the US Constitution
> and the very first amendment to it gives me the right to
> express an opinion whether you like it or not.
Again, opinions are irrelevant. You're not expressing an opinion contrary to mine. You're expressing an opinion contrary to the law. You're free to do so, of course, but insisting on doing so only makes you look idiotic. That's the great thing about that 1st Amendment you mentioned: it gives guys like you all the rope you need to verbally hang yourself.
> > Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods
> > in your city to see which areas have the highest incident
> > of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's
> > where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who
> > are stealing everyone else's cars.
> An then you go to the prisons and see what color of people
> are mostly there and target people of that color too, huh?
Wow. You're really pulling out all the stops here. A perfect example of a strawman argument emerges in full flower. You make up something I've done out of thin air, then condemn me for it.
Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
> "Only a moron" would apply the same enforcement effort
> to all races "due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky fairness".
Who said anything about race here? You're the only one who has brought up race in this discussion. That in and of itself is rather telling.
Nevertheless, I always get a good chuckle from guys like you. You would actually rather the police do nothing about a rash of vehicle thefts if they occur in certain neighborhoods because of the race of the residents who live there. In reality, all you're doing is penalizing the law-abiding citizens who live in those neighborhoods, leaving them open to be preyed upon by the lawless, all because of their race, and you'd go home feeling good about yourself for doing so. Who's the *real* racist here? Hint: it ain't me.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights versus privileges... (as btr1701)
> I am surprised that no one has mentioned that
> nearly all stores have cameras and record every
> customer and transaction that takes place.
That's because most of us understand that the Constitution only protects against violations of rights by the government. Stores are private entities and as such are not covered.
Re: Nothing to hide (as btr1701)
> Only those with something to hide will find
> it objectionable.
Whenever one of my fellow cops says this, I always like to pose a question back: if you stopped me on the side of the road and wanted to search my car, saying to me that I shouldn't mind if I have nothing to hide, what would be your response if I told you, "Okay, officer, I'll give you consent to search my car, but only if afterward, we go to your home and you let me look through whatever I want-- everything from your personal financial files to the browser history on your computer to your wife's underwear drawer. Would that be okay with you, to have a total stranger looking through your private things? I mean, you shouldn't mind if you have nothing to hide, right?"
Funny how their tune always changes when presented with that scenario.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights versus privileges... (as btr1701)
> I guess if a bunch of people were in their
> cars and protesting while going down the
> highway, then there might be a first amendment
> issue.
They don't even have to be driving down the highway for it to be a 1st Amendment issue. As in the UK example, using the cameras to document which cars are parked around these protest events, then using computers to cross-check the lists and develop databases of repeat protesters is a prime example of how this can be abused. (And if done in the USA, it would violate both the Constitution and the U.S. Code.)
> U.S. courts have ruled time and again that
> there are issues that trump first amendment
> rights. Traffic safety is one of those issues.
I would dearly love for you to cite me that case. The idea that local traffic ordinances trump the U.S. Constitution is ridiculous on its face.
Oh, and the cameras in question in Tiburon have nothing to do with providing traffic safety in the first place. All they do is record the license plates of everyone entering and leaving town. That doesn't enhance traffic safety one whit.
> It may be that my argument is simplistic, and yet,
> the cameras exist and challenges to the cameras
> on a constitutional basis have, thus far, failed.
I wasn't aware that there had even been such a challenge. Considering this program in Tiburon has just now been put into operation, if a challenge has already been heard in the district court *and* worked its way through the appellate system, that case would have to have set the all-time record as the fastest federal suit to ever go through the system.
> Though I do not know how accurate television
> shows are, you will note that CSI and NCIS
> show how easy it can be to locate people with
> GPS and to monitor their movements based on
> cell phone usage.
Well, as a federal cop and attorney myself, let me disabuse you of the notion that anything you see on a CSI show even remotely resembles reality. I enjoy watching CSI for its sheer comedy value. The entire premise of the show-- that crime scene techs are out interviewing witnesses, carrying guns, serving warrants, and conducting criminal investigations-- is ludicrous.
As for NCIS, I watched the very first episode of that show several years ago and gave up on it immediately when the lead character, Mark Harmon, essentially hijacked Air Force One after a presidential flight because a Navy officer had passed out and died on board before it landed. He didn't want the FBI to interfere with his case, so when he saw them approaching across the tarmac, he drew his gun and order the pilots to take off, then threatened to murder the lone Secret Service agent who stayed behind after the president left if she tried to stop him. This Secret Service agent was apparently so impressed with Harmon's insanity, that she quit the Service at the end of the episode and joined his NCIS team full time.
What I just described above is so far beyond reality that it might as well be a cartoon.
As for your claim that the police can just pull up your cell phone and track you at their whim, that's also false. If I want to do that with a suspect, I have to get a the US Attorney to authorize a warrant for the suspect and a subpoena for the cell phone provider and have a judge sign off on them, which won't happen if I can't meet the probable cause standard the Constitution requires.
Re: Re: Re: Rights versus privileges... (as btr1701)
> where is the constitutional right to drive on
> a road free of surveillance? What "right" is
> being violated by having a camera watching a
> road?
If the government uses the cameras the way the UK government was described as using theirs, then yes, the government would be violating the Constitution, specifically the 1st Amendment.
You see, in America, the government can't document and photograph protesters for purposes of creating an intelligence database. The federal courts have ruled that such government surveillance and record-keeping of protected 1st Amendment activity creates an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech. So just as an FBI agent can't walk around among a protest group photographing people for his files, neither could a city use its camera system to document which cars are present at which events for purposes of creating databases and "watch-lists".
Your whole "this is a public place so anything goes" argument is simplisitic at best. For example, the "expectation of privacy" standard only applies to 4th Amendment issues and analysis. It has nothing to do with whether the 1st Amendment is being violated.
Re: Re: Re: Rights versus privileges... (as btr1701)
> There is no right to drive in the constitution,
> and it is unlikely that there ever will be.
You do not, however, lose all your other rights merely because you happen to be in a car at the time.
Re: Re: Re: if anything we should be greatful to facebook (as btr1701)
> well if the beatee were gay, it would be a
> hate crime. You can not say lets beat all
> the gays these days. We have legislated thought
> crimes in the good old USA.
Wrong.
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that hate speech is protected speech and cannot be outlawed. (See American Nazi Party vs. City of Skokie, Illinois)
If you actually beat up someone for being gay, that's a hate crime. If you just talk about how much you want to beat up gay people, that's hate speech, but it's perfectly legal.
Re: Legality (as btr1701)
> it does appear as if it was the dissemination
> of information over the net that raised concerns.
They can have raised concerns all they want. The fact that they have concerns does not translate to a legal obligation on my part to abide by those concerns.
Quotes (as btr1701)
Funny how he thinks everyone needs his permission to quote his father but I somehow doubt he obtained permission to quote ee cummings and LBJ, as he did in his "copyright notice".
He's apparently another one of thise "copyright is for everyone else, not me" types.
Democracy (as btr1701)
> that method can result in discrimination because
> whatever group constitutes the majority of
> voters can dominate the ballot box
Yeah, heaven forbid the majority of the voters have their say in a democracy.
Re: Re: Re: The last absolute dictatorship... (as btr1701)
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session
Also, unless they basically confiscate all mobile devices from everyone as they enter the courtroom and hold anyone in contempt who is found using them for any reason ("broadcast" or otherwise), there's no way to enforce a Twitter ban among the non-participants in the gallery.
If I'm there just watching the trial and I Twitter something during the proceedings, at the end of the day, I'm walking away from the court and probably never coming back. By the time the judge becomes aware of my tweet, I'm long gone. He really has no remedy to punish such people like he would with the jurors or the litigants in the case, especially considering many people Twitter under anonymous screen names anyway.
What's the judge going to do? Serve subpoenas on an out-of-state corporation, demanding IP address data, then serve more subpoenas on ISPs (also likely out-of-state) to get subscriber info, then swear out an arrest warrant and spend police resources tracking down that person and having them arrested and charged with contempt... all for a Twitter post?
Any judge that takes that kind of heavy-handed, costly, and abusive approach to enforcing something which isn't even a violation of the law, but rather merely a violation of the judge's personal preferences, would likely find him/herself on the wrong end of an ethics investigation in short order.
Re: Re: Re: The last absolute dictatorship... (as btr1701)
> obviously what they want to forbid is any
> kind of communication from within the court
> while it's in session.
Of course that standard would make even sending an e-mail to your spouse a "broadcast", which negates even the basic common-sense definition of the word.
Re: The last absolute dictatorship... (as btr1701)
> and Twitter is a broadcast - albeit relatively crude
If Twitter is broadcast, then posting anything to the internet is a broadcast. If a person in the gallery watching the trial decided to check TechDirt during a lull in the action and posted a comment about one of the articles here, would that be a broadcast also?
Re: Hmmm (as btr1701)
> even our constitution does not declare FREE
> and ANONYMOUS speech.
No, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to speak anonymously is implicit in the concept of free speech and hence is covered by the 1st Amendment.
Re: Re: laws on the intarwebs (as btr1701)
> and they can prove that somebody in the UK
> read your statement, it is considered "published"
> and they can take you to court.
They can take me to court, they can even get a default judgment when I completely ignore them and don't show up, but good luck collecting on that judgment from me if I'm not in the UK.
They'd have to apply to an American court to have the judgment enforced and the American court will determine whether such a sanction is valid under American law. If the comment was made by an American citizen, in America, then the 1st Amendment is in full effect and if the libel laws in the UK sanction speech which would be protected in America, then the American court will refuse to enforce the judgment.
It's the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
Re: Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> 1) Without the questions, why bother?
That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.
There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".
> Perhaps maybe because they are already in the
> business of selling answer books?
So? Now they have competition. It's called capitalism. Something we used to embrace in this country.
> Perhaps because they don't want answer books
> out there to make it easier for students to
> cheat in school?
Perhaps that is indeed what they want. However, such concerns are irrelevant to copyright law. Using copyright to further the desire of a book company to keep kids from cheating isn't legally justified anywhere in the U.S. Code.
Just because a company wants something doesn't mean they have the legal right to enforce their desires on the rest of us using copyright (or anything else, for that matter). Unless the law specifically provides for it (and copyright does not provide for prevention of cheating by school students), the desires of the company are moot.
Re: Re: Re: (as btr1701)
> 1) Without the questions, why bother?
That's my business, not yours or anyone else's. If I want to waste me time on frivolusly publishing meaningless things, then that's my right.
There's no requirement in the law that everything I publish must have "meaning".
Re: Ads (as btr1701)
> There is no money in piping US ads and
> bandwidth to countries around the world.
Sure there is. You just don't use the same ads. The system is already detecting the user's location. Just ad one more step. If the user is in the USA, they get a Coke ad. If they're in Britain, they get an ad for BBC News or whatever. If they're in Russia, they get an ad for a Russian mobile phone company. If they're in Australia, they get an ad for vegemite.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Jurisdiction (as btr1701)
> Of course, the state of Kentucky probably
> couldn't care much less about what a court
> in England thinks
Which I'm sure will also be the attitude of the British courts toward Kentucky, should they try and seize a domain name belonging to a British citizen in the UK.
If Kentucky thinks it can ignore the rulings of a British court on a matter concerning British citizens in Britain, I'm not sure why they think anyone's going to give two flips what the Kentucky Supreme Court says about it.
Marketing (as btr1701)
> On personal property, if someone puts up a "guerilla
> marketing" sign, shouldn't that be their right?
In America it would be. Even the Olympics and their lobbyists can't trump the 1st Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote turnoff for cars (as btr1701)
> > Since money is fungible and it's very difficult for someone
> > to prove ownership (as opposed to a bike or a car, which
> > are unique items and have registrations and serial numbers
> > and proofs of purchase)...
> You might want to check yours, but the last time I looked at
> any of my dollar bills they all have serial numbers. What's more,
> during part of my military training I actually had to keep track
> of all my money, including serial numbers. So don't try to say
> that "nobody does that". They do.
If that's true and you actually keep track of the serial numbers of every bill that enters your possession (and I don't believe you do), then you're one of maybe three people out of 300+ million who does that and the other two are mentally ill obsessive-compulsives. Hardly a statistically significant number. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people never even look at the serial numbers on the bills in their wallet. Hence the law considers cash in general fungible.
> It also sounds like you're saying it's only illegal to steal things
> that "have registrations and serial numbers and proofs of
> purchase".
If that's what it sounds like to you, then you're not paying attention or you have a comprehension problem. I clearly said that taking a found $20 bill isn't stealing at all because all states have laws that say it's not stealing.
> > Since it's not stealing, your question is moot.
> So, since you say it's not stealing, there's no reason to reason
> to cite the actual law that says so, huh? Kind of a self-fulfilling
> argument. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Since this is a matter of state law, there's no such thing as "the" law. There are 50 different variations on this particular type of law. But I'll be happy to cite one state's law as an example. From the state of Oregon:
OREGON REVISED STATUTES - Chapter 98 — Lost, Unordered and Unclaimed Property; Unlawfully Parked Vehicles
98.005 Rights and duties of finder of money or goods.
(1) If any person finds money or goods valued at $100 or more, and if the owner of the money or goods is unknown, such person, within 10 days after the date of the finding, shall give notice of the finding in writing to the county clerk of the county in which the money or goods was found. Within 20 days after the date of the finding, the finder of the money or goods shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county a notice of the finding once each week for two consecutive weeks. Each such notice shall state the general description of the money or goods found, the name and address of the finder and final date before which such goods may be claimed.
(2) If no person appears and establishes ownership of the money or goods prior to the expiration of three months after the date of the notice to the county clerk under subsection (1) of this section, the finder shall be the owner of the money or goods.
> > ...what "seems to you" is irrelevant to anyone but you.
> > Pardon me for speaking about things that matter to
> > society at large and not realizing this was all about you.
> And when you want my opinion, you'll give it to me, right?
Wow, you're one angry little man, aren'tcha?
And just so you know, you're opinion here is irrelevant. When it comes to the issue of stealing, only what the applicable law says is relevant.
> You may not like it when someone expresses an opinion
> contrary to yours, but you know what? That's tough. You
> see, we've got this little thing called the US Constitution
> and the very first amendment to it gives me the right to
> express an opinion whether you like it or not.
Again, opinions are irrelevant. You're not expressing an opinion contrary to mine. You're expressing an opinion contrary to the law. You're free to do so, of course, but insisting on doing so only makes you look idiotic. That's the great thing about that 1st Amendment you mentioned: it gives guys like you all the rope you need to verbally hang yourself.
> > Absolutely. You profile the various neighborhoods
> > in your city to see which areas have the highest incident
> > of vehicle theft and you leave your bait car there. That's
> > where you're most likely to catch the knuckleheads who
> > are stealing everyone else's cars.
> An then you go to the prisons and see what color of people
> are mostly there and target people of that color too, huh?
Wow. You're really pulling out all the stops here. A perfect example of a strawman argument emerges in full flower. You make up something I've done out of thin air, then condemn me for it.
Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
> "Only a moron" would apply the same enforcement effort
> to all races "due to a sense of pie-in-the-sky fairness".
Who said anything about race here? You're the only one who has brought up race in this discussion. That in and of itself is rather telling.
Nevertheless, I always get a good chuckle from guys like you. You would actually rather the police do nothing about a rash of vehicle thefts if they occur in certain neighborhoods because of the race of the residents who live there. In reality, all you're doing is penalizing the law-abiding citizens who live in those neighborhoods, leaving them open to be preyed upon by the lawless, all because of their race, and you'd go home feeling good about yourself for doing so. Who's the *real* racist here? Hint: it ain't me.