71–80 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they are not regulating radio receiver usage, but the just the possession of it, which would be a separate kind of regulatory space.
That is accurate. Your vehicle is not allowed to be equipped with a radar detector that is powered or accessible to the driver. The police even have radar detector detectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They may do business in the EU, want to have that option at a later point, or may want to make it easy to be acquired by a multinational company. This is a possibility though I have usually seen these blocking pages on small, local web sites.
Specifically, only on "independent local" news sites. I have to wonder if they, or the entity who operates the website on their behalf, all belong to the same multinational. Like the "independent local" TV stations that are all owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group. I can't think of any other reason that so many local news sites would be affected, and so few other sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is accurate. Your vehicle is not allowed to be equipped with a radar detector that is powered or accessible to the driver. The police even have radar detector detectors.
I can’t be the only one thinking “so how do you build a radar detector detector detector?”
This is all under a warrant. Of course police can and do get location records from cell companies with a warrant, and it doesn't seem like a huge stretch for a warrant to require the cell company to "ping" to get the most quality location data. The problem here is the judges granting the warrants. Judges in Virginia are chosen by legislatures [1], which means they're accountable to political establishment who in turn…
These aren’t a panacea.
I’ve helped get judges elected in Manhattan. The primaries swung by tens of votes in some cases, usually no more than a few hundred. A few clubs, or one large tenant association, could decide the vote. (Counterfactual: judicial elections attract disproportionately-informed voters if they happen off cycle and without party affiliations, which in the context of primaries, applies.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virginia as a whole has some pretty absurdly pro police laws, at least re: driving. The lesser of either 20 over the speed limit or any speed over ~80~ 85 miles an hour (thanks jmisavage) in Virginia is a misdemeanor, and at least one auto journalist has been jailed in Virginia. https://jalopnik.com/never-speed-in-virginia-lessons-from-my... It's also the only state to prohibit radar detectors.
> Virginia as a whole has some pretty absurdly pro police laws, at least re: driving (Full disclosure: have never driven in the USA), but without wishing to sound like a know-all, how about sticking to the speed limit? I've been dinged exactly twice for speeding since getting my licence almost exactly 30 years ago this month. No points in either case. It's not hard, honest. My wife might disagree, but her licence, he…
Because the speed limit in much of the US is below the “natural” speed of that roadway. We have highways where 80+mph is the norm, but the posted limited can be anywhere from 55-70mph (I-95 along the east coast). Driving the speed limit actually becomes dangerous. At this point, speed enforcement becomes a hit-or-miss affair, where you’re at the mercy of the police officer. Better hope he’s having a good day and you don’t “look suspicious”, etc. Making it even worse, that same interstate (I-95) has the limit vary from 55-70 depending on state/town - the highway itself didn’t change, just the jurisdiction. And yes, the states with the lower limits are notorious for ticketing out-of-state drivers.
And that’s just the highway. Secondary roads through small towns are just a racket. https://www.newsweek.com/police-chief-quits-after-report-rev...
SCOTUS ruled in 2020 government agents can be sued for violating constitutional rights: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf
This…has always been the case? It’s a raison d’être for SCOTUS.
That seems like way too low of a bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Virginia as a whole has some pretty absurdly pro police laws, at least re: driving (Full disclosure: have never driven in the USA), but without wishing to sound like a know-all, how about sticking to the speed limit? I've been dinged exactly twice for speeding since getting my licence almost exactly 30 years ago this month. No points in either case. It's not hard, honest. My wife might disagree, but her licence, he…
A modern car with cruise control, either adaptive or not, will make the task of keeping to the speed limit a breeze. The only improvement would be that the car always knew the speed limit for any stretch of road.
Others use a speed limit database and GPS/accelerometer system to establish the speed limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hunh. Does this definitely use the e911 system for tracking? If so, there’s sort of a well-poisoning thing going on here. Most people would like 911 be able to figure out where they’re calling from in an emergency, but if this is going to be abused for surveillance purposes people are going to want to disable the phone-side portion of it - which prevents it from helping in an emergency. On that note, can this even be…
As I understand it is mostly handled by the chipset firmware these days, and no options are available to disable it because it is a legal requirement. But even if you were able to disable the functionality, the carriers towers can triangulate you.
Edit: I am specifically referring to the e911 ability to without owner interaction or knowledge send GPS coordinates, not to network-side triangulation, or even to sending GPS coordinates when the owner initiates a 911 call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I think we need to put as much blame on the carriers providing these capabilities to anyone , let alone the police. That the police are publicly funded and are buying this data with my money is also a huge issue to me, but if I had to pick one thing to change, I’d make selling this data illegal. That way, no one could have it.
That’s what the warrant requirement is all about, that’s where it’s broken. This technique should only be used for major felonies. On the flip side, if you want to commit major felonies, don’t take your phone!
Doesn’t the crime they were pursuing, dealing heroin in connection with an overdose, rise to that level? (No comment on the merits of the law. Just the facts of the investigation.)