I would say that parlor was created to get away from big tech options and yet Apple, Amazon and Google were overreaching and IMO attacking the platform.
The reason for the ban was for failing to have a content moderation system at all. I think that was a fair thing to require.
And now that Parler has proven it has a system in place, Apple has allowed them back on to their storefront.
There are a lot of potential issues with the Parler ban -- namely the revelation of how monopolized online distribution is. But the ban had legitimate reasons behind it.
Famous people and their paparazzi followers probably know all too well that when you are anywhere an eye can see from a public location you can be recorded.
As I understand it (and IANAL) there is a pretty well-established legal distinction between people whose job or avocation inevitably involves being famous and noticed, and just ordinary citizens. If you become a politician, singer, actor, etc. it is assumed that your expectation of privacy is different than for most people. Again IANAL, but my understanding is that just because photographers are allowed to hound famous actors, doesn't mean they can do it to someone who isn't newsworthy or otherwise in a public profession. IANAL.
Public Figure Doctrine in the US. According to it, if you are a public figure libel and defamation have much higher burden's of proof whereas if you aren't a public figure you don't. And there are concepts like "Limited Purpose Public Figure" (as distinct from 'all purpose public figures'). All purpose public figures- people who are in "positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figure for all purposes"- like movie stars, sports stars, and politicians, have essentially an impossible time winning any court case bringing libel or defamation (they need to prove "actual malice" on the part of the person doing the defamation). LPPF's are people who make themselves public figures on a single controversy or issue, and have a hard time proving defamation on that topic, but are still private citizens for other purposes. Say, an otherwise unremarkable person who is the named defendant in a Supreme Court case- for the issue that went before the Supreme Court they will have a hard time proving defamation but in terms of the rest of their life they have the same protections that anyone else holds, and a lower burden of proof for damages.
All of this was worked out in the 1960's and 1970's, and I don't keep up on it so I'm not sure how courts have mapped Limited Purpose Public Figures onto modern social media: is an Instagram influencer a LPPF or a all-purpose public figure or a regular person?
> My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable."
In the solar industry, lenders will cut off a contractor pretty quick if there are any issues. The amount of due diligence done by the lender is a pretty solid guarantee to the customer.
Our dealer fees are between 21-30% of the total loan, but the term is usually 20-25 years long.
In the US, I was in a government office a few days ago because I was told that if instead of uploaded documents via a website and waiting 10-45 days to have them reviewed I could go into a local office and provide these documents and they would review them on-site.
So I set off on a 35 minute drive to the local office.
While the wait times were shorter in the physical building I had to chuckle when I thought they were just collecting documents and uploading them to the same online portal I was warned would take a fair bit of time, but that I needed to allow a few more days past the 45 day limit because they fax them into the same remote place periodically. Their email system for the document collecting office does not allow email attachment of documents.
My other option, I kid you not, was to used their "house" cell phone and login to sensitive accounts, bank ect. And screenshot the information and use the same web-form to upload said documents.
Oh, and covid, I could not touch the "house" cellphone but he would wanted me to write my logins in a piece of scratch paper and he could navigate for me based on my direction.
I've had this experience with better results. I had a tax issue that I tried to resolve via phone, email, and paper mail for over a year. Finally went to the local office and they resolved it on the spot in 10 minutes.
I had to drop off a bunch of property tax documents for the city assessor in a tier 1 city. There was just a cardbox box in a hallway with a sign taped to it 'Homestead Applications'. I could have taken all the other applications out of the box when I put mine in if i wanted to.
Emailing unencrypted documents honestly sounds a bit better to me then leaving all my info in a publicly accessible box.
Force individual officers to carry liability insurance similar to malpractice insurance for lawyers and doctors. If the insurance is forced to pay out a couple times the officer would be uninsurable and thus unemployable.
This is suggested quite often, but no one is going to sell you a liability policy to protect you from committing crimes.
When police officers commit blatant misconduct the officers involved should at least be fired and criminal charges should be applied to them if applicable. This is how it works for every other job, not sure why police should be different.
But is that accompanied with officers being exposed to individual liability? And removing qualified immunity? Because that would be the bigger argument.
Limit qualified immunity and require officers to carry personal liability insurance on the job.
Increase police training requirements. They're woefully undertrained in the US (at least relative to Germany and several other Western European nations).
National LEO registration or something similar to stop the movement of bad officers from one department to another.
You are right but its not merely the degree of training but how they are trained as well. As it stands many are trained that every interaction with the populace might get you murdered and you ought to be ready to murder them first.
If your cameras are IP and not coax you can just run a NVR locally. If they are coax then another dvr would work. Blue Iris is great for home use as a windows NVR server.
I can't recommend them anymore. Hikvision cameras with a Synology NAS is far better in every way.
Ubiquiti cameras are way overpriced. The NVR has no real advanced functions. And their small indoor cameras are wifi only but require POE to power up. Everytime a power interrupt happens the wifi cams don't reconnect and start broadcasting their setup ssid and have to be manually reconnected. Their awesome tech support has turned into absolute garbage and can have hours long queues to only have an inexperienced person tell you they will follow up with an email. I was once a fan, but now will not install anymore of their equipment.
