It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Krakatoa
I don't see it as a miss-use of this law, I see it as using it for what it was intended. If you and or others were mislead about what the real intention of the law was then that is on you or anyone who bought it in the first place. Am I using simple enough words for you here? Are those sentences too long?
Capitalism = private property
Private property is defended by US law
Google is a private corporation and hence, is entitled to that protection, Unless you might be willing to challenge the root of this problem, capitalism and only whine about some of it's naturally authoritarian aspects then you are not really willing to face the problem.
OH, by the way, those ''big words".. Did I use some that are over your head? I just scanned that post again and all I could find that might be termed, ''big words'' was dissemination. Do you need me to define that one for you? Now, that is patronizing so I take it back. Sorry.
originally posted by: lordcomac
Fortunately, it sounds like their ploy didn't work and the laptop was handed over to the Justice department.
So, what's the backlash for swatting someone for personal gain?
Do these "google executives" have to pay a fine or anything for this blatant abuse of badly written laws? If they had accused the guy of raping them, wouldn't they now face charges for their slander?
I'm glad the guy didn't get shot, and I'm glad the laptop did not get returned to google.
Unfortunately I don't trust the Justice Department to not let the FBI delete whatever they want from it, and the FBI is obviously not working for we the people.
originally posted by: Krakatoa
originally posted by: lordcomac
Fortunately, it sounds like their ploy didn't work and the laptop was handed over to the Justice department.
So, what's the backlash for swatting someone for personal gain?
Do these "google executives" have to pay a fine or anything for this blatant abuse of badly written laws? If they had accused the guy of raping them, wouldn't they now face charges for their slander?
I'm glad the guy didn't get shot, and I'm glad the laptop did not get returned to google.
Unfortunately I don't trust the Justice Department to not let the FBI delete whatever they want from it, and the FBI is obviously not working for we the people.
If he was smart, and I do believe he was, he would have (and likely does have) a dead man's switch that will release ALL the data in the event he commits suicide that cannot be definitively determined from an autopsy.
The Red Flag law was SUPPOSED to be uised to remove people's firearms when they are reported as being a danger to someone's life. it was NEVER meant to be used in a case of simple corporate theft (or any other reason).
Your prior attempt to deflect by using long winded diatribes is simply not cool. Please, that merely reveals your contempt for others viewpoints. It also was a blatant attempt to deflect.
originally posted by: Grambler
Who cares if we have research that shows google can sway up to and over ten million votes for establishment democrats?
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
So if google misuses my private data, ie private property, will police go after them with the same intensity?
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
So if google misuses my private data, ie private property, will police go after them with the same intensity?
You do know that youtube is a google subsidiary don't you?
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Krakatoa
I don't see it as a miss-use of this law, I see it as using it for what it was intended. If you and or others were mislead about what the real intention of the law was then that is on you or anyone who bought it in the first place. Am I using simple enough words for you here? Are those sentences too long?
Capitalism = private property
Private property is defended by US law
Google is a private corporation and hence, is entitled to that protection, Unless you might be willing to challenge the root of this problem, capitalism and only whine about some of it's naturally authoritarian aspects then you are not really willing to face the problem.
OH, by the way, those ''big words".. Did I use some that are over your head? I just scanned that post again and all I could find that might be termed, ''big words'' was dissemination. Do you need me to define that one for you? Now, that is patronizing so I take it back. Sorry.