For example, pass a law making the distribution of PII unlawful if the intent of the distribution is to cause violence or unrest. The law itself would cover everyone evenly.
With a few sentence enhancement clauses, the same statute that protects everyone equally can add additional terms of incarceration or mandatory minimums for judges and law enforcement.
There are well-established exceptions that include incitement to violence. Wikipedia's summary:
"Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."
Yup. Thankfully in a criminal investigation, the burden of proof for "intent" is typically on the prosecutor. I'd rather give the prosecutor a harder time than a defendant.
The New Jersey statute itself is arguably vague with respect to what constitutes "risk" and an intent to cause harm. Such arbitrary laws give law enforcement and prosecutors significant discretion and open the door for abuse to such an extent that I could see this being used to violate peoples' First Amendment rights. Another unconstitutional law out of New Jersey, color me shocked. :o
The public should be able to hold peaceful protests and hold public officials accountable.
Because unlike the most influential private individuals, they live in homes with sidewalks - not large gated compounds with their own security details, both designed to make sure the public don't get any chance whatsoever to protest.
Or is that somehow different? If they're politically influential - why, exactly?
Practically, it would mean that you'd have to have a police presence there, wouldn't it? Or are you going to assume that the mob will always play nice, and never decide to storm the house?
Brown also has their students cellular telephone numbers. It's feasible that the University acquired/purchased their students geolocation history via their mobile providers.
There is a saying that "if libraries did not exist for millennia, no government would create one in the 21st century. They would instead give people a means-tested tax credit for buying books and call it a day".
I think this sentiment applies to much more than libraries or infrastructure. Laws against wiretapping and opening postal letters are vestiges of the past. They never got updated when communication moved digital. They would not be passed today. They are kept on the books only because of inertia. If they didn't exist in the first place, no government would create them in 2020.
A government didn't create them in the first place, at least not in the US. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted by small committees, and later ratified by each state outside of the existing (paralyzed) governmental process.
Is that kind of information really for sale on an individualized level, by mobile providers? Surely they have brands to protect, and don't like being sued.
The information being sold there wasn't from mobile providers, they were collected by apps. See the first paragraph of the third article: "location data quietly harvested from ordinary smartphone apps over 10,000 times". The same applies to the other two articles.
Shouldn't there be like laws to protect against those, and a few huge class-action lawsuits, forcing the telcos to pay millions and millions of dollars because of that?
Of course there should be. We stopped expecting them during the Reagan Administration because private industry would upset the entrenched monopolies that were keeping us down.
And safe. So now people think unions are icky and representatives that care about people rather than corporations are fantasy.
I live in europe, we have many such laws, and noone can get that data. ...except government agencies, local and foreign spies, system administrators, etc.
As the article states, WiFi monitoring is likely happening on a large scale. Why purchase outside data when you have better data (including authenticated users) already in house?
Yeah that number is outright false for "mass shootings". This figure originates from the approximate 33k people that are killed by firearms per year. Of that number, somewhere around 23k are individual suicides with firearms. Of the remaining approximate 10k deaths, 80% are gang related incidents. Source is the FBI UCR.
