Manuel_D

But again, the data isn't private regardless of who collected it. Images taken of public spaces in plain view don't require a warrant to collect.

The Chatrie case is really relevant to ALPRS. The Chatrie case involves the government demanding private phone GPS location data from Google. This is not covered by the plain view doctrine because the data they're requesting is fundamentally not collected by observations in plain view.

Unlike the phone GPS location data, ALPRs are cameras set up in public locations recording what anyone with their own two eyes and a notepad could observe.

But the point remains: a cop writing down license plates on a notepad can build a similar database. And there's plenty of precedence indicating that police don't need a warrant to record observations in public.

A database can be used to stalk someone, but that doesn't make it a 4th Amendment violation. Remember, a cop can just tail you and follow you without a warrant too.

The laws governing radio usage also prevent the Nazis from jamming their local NPR stations. A world without restrictions on radio is worse, that's pretty clear to me.

And at the end of the day people still buy baofengs and operate them at 5 watts on FRS and GMRS channels unlicensed all the time, I'm not set of any enforcement.

RF usage is governed by the FCC. Amateur Radio exists at the mercy of the government, and if there is widespread abuse or careless operation by amateur radio operators then that will likely jeopardize the continued existence of amateur radio.

Are newer baofengs locked down? I thought you can still just hold down 3 buttons while power cycling the radio to unlock TX from 400 to 520 MHz.

Regardless, the Quansheng UV-K5 is largely supplanting the Baofeng as the go-to entry level HT, the 3rd party firmware for that radio is pretty impressive.

I'm referring to the 2025 executive orders that instructed the EEOC not to employ disparate impact theory: https://apnews.com/article/discrimination-trump-civil-rights...

Fear of disparate impact claims do not justify discrimination on the basis of protect class. This was argued all the way up to the Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

Furthermore, disparate impact theory has been largely rolled back in recent years.

2 and 3 are also likely illegal.

> They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage

Discriminating against candidates on the basis of protected class at the application review stage is no less illegal than discriminating during interviews.

#2 may or many not be illegal, depending what you mean by, "goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions." If this involves using protected class as a factor, in any way, on which candidates to advance to interviews, then yes it is illegal discrimination.

Few companies said that they only employ women. That would be too overt.

But plenty of companies very publicly instituted policies to financially penalize their employees if they fail to meet gender quotas. Remember, a policy of giving a bonus when an "inclusion milestone" of X% women in technical roles is reached is fundamentally the same thing as instituting a penalty when that X% quota is missed.

You can add IBM to the list. They paid a settlement for their practice of tying executive bonuses to quotas: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ibm-pays-17-million-resolve-a...

DEI practices I've witnessed at the companies I've worked at include:

* Creating separate interview pipelines for "diverse" candidates, with multiple chances to re-try failed interviews (Asian and white male applicants get one chance).

* Financial penalties when quotas on the basis of race and gender were not met. Of course, the company portrayed them as bonuses rewarded for reaching inclusion milestones, but ultimately a bonus and a penalty are indistinguishable.

* Designating separate headcount pools for women and URM hires.

What was even more concerning was that the people who were privately the biggest proponents of these practices would, like you, publicly condemn the idea that DEI involves discrimination as racist and misogynist.

To put this in perspective, Finland apparently cuts down 600-700k hectares of forest each year. 87% of Finland is forest, about 23 million hectares.

This doesn't necessarily change the dynamic, though. The government has a finite number of lawyers. Diverting them to write subpoena after subpoena to request Flock data is still a hefty opportunity cost relative to what those lawyers could be working on instead.

Paying a lawyer to petition a judge for a subpoena (which the judge may or may not grant) is probably much more expensive than whatever Flock charges.

She was arrested for making an off-topic opinion. Someone delivering a rant about abortion on a city council meeting would likewise be removed.

I don't see a government losing face, I see a bunch of online commenters demonstrating they don't understand that city council meetings have rules.

What part did I forget? Nothing in the First Amendment compels other people to listen to your speech.

My understanding of the story [1] is the CA claimed it was collecting data for psychology research, then turned around and used the data for political consulting.

> Cambridge Analytica then arranged an informed consent process for research in which several hundred thousand Facebook users would agree to complete a survey for payment that was only for academic use.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

Sunglasses are semi-opaque yes, but they aren't completely opaque with a set of front facing cameras like you're walking around with night vision goggles.

Yes, San Francisco still has a massive tech scene. Especially during the AI boom in the last few years. It's true that NYC recently eclipsed SF in terms of the raw number of tech workers, but considering the roughly order-of-magnitude difference in population that demonstrates just how tech-heavy SF still is.

You're entitled to freedom of speech. You're not entitled to an audience.

I thought Meta's approach to AR was pivoting towards transparent glasses with displays in the vein of Ray Ban Display and Orion (I realize that "VR" is in the title, but almost all the images show AR use cases). Their original vision for AR was to have people walking around with quest headsets in passthrough mode. But that's just too weird for the vast majority of people. I can't imaging walking around in public and ordering coffee with my eyes totally obscured behind a device. I saw a couple co-workers walking around wearing headsets like this when I worked at Reality Labs, but it was obvious to me and all my teammates that vanishingly few people would actually do that in public.

I guess the approach here is to shrink down the VR glasses and make them look more like normal glasses from a distance. But I still don't think I'd wear one of these walking around the mall or airport. Reduction in FOV is also a big negative. I'm not really sure where one would use this device over a Quest or the Ray Ban Display. It occupies this awkward middle point where it's not a transparent glass display, but it's also makes a lot of compromises compared to the rest of the VR line.

Getting linux on the Surface laptop series would be amazing. Good battery life on a small laptop running linux is my ideal device.

Uh huh. Regardless of your semantic quibbling about the word "schedule", at the end of the day there was neither the opportunity to make a public comment about abortion nor to make one about ALPRs. If someone went up to this comment section and started to rant about abortion they would be appropriately removed - just like Hyde was.

But that's an injustice! Hyde should get to flout the rules. Because her position is a "correct" one. Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.

There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.

As I wrote, the city council did not schedule a public comments period on the issue of ALPRs. I'm not sure why you think anything in your quote contradicts what I wrote in the previous comment.

The context of why she made the off-topic comments is that there was no scheduled public comments period with ALPRs as the topic.

Similarly, there seems to be no scheduled public comments period with abortion as the topic.

Of course, neither of these grants anti-flock or anti-abortion activists the right to make off-topic comments on unrelated meetings. Like I said, apparently it's an injustice when the government evenly applies its rules.

The facts of the article is that Hyder made off-topic comments and was removed accordingly. Just like what would happen if someone made anti-abortion comments during this meeting on sidewalk codes.

What I'm ignoring is that apparently we're supposed to see it as an injustice when the government evenly enforces its rules, instead of selectively enforcing them to permit off-topic comments when those comments express the "correct" views.

Of course you don't want to engage with the hypothetical: it highlights that you selectively condone disregarding the rules and procedures on public comments is based on your support for the person making off-topic comments. Obviously we can't just let anyone make off-topic comments, because then it'll just be a free-for-all of people soapboxing for unrelated topics. But Hyder gets a pass because you agree with her. It's not some principled free speech position, it's just partisanship.

Disregard for procedure and rules sounds fine when it's people you agree with that engage in this behavior. But when you're the one who doesn't get a chance to speak because of people ranting about abortion in the meeting that's supposed to be your opportunity to make your voice heard to the city council I bet your views on procedure will flip 180 degrees!

> Again, your hypothetical is not equivalent because it assumes that the "activists" a. had their own public comments section, and b. they monopolized the entire meeting. Neither of those things happened here.

What do you mean "it assumes that the 'activists' a. had their own public comments section"? In this scenario, neither the anti-flock nor anti-abortion activists appear to have had a public comments section on their respective topics. You're the one assuming that anti-abortion activists did have their own public comments section, which I cannot find any evidence for.

Whether or not they "monopolize" the meeting is just a question of degrees - just assume that the anti-abortion activists dominate the meeting to the same degree as the Flock critics in this scenario.

You can disapprove of the council's actions all you want - I don't really care about how much esteem or lack thereof you have in the city council. The point I'm making is: Hyder's rights are not being "trampled", as the root comment claims, any more than an anti-abortion activist that might have wanted use this comments period on sidewalk codes to voice their feelings on abortion. What happened to Hyder was completely normal: someone tries to abuse the public comments period to soapbox about an unrelated topic, and that person is removed.

The same logic you're using to justify Hyder's action here would also condone anti-abortion activists hijacking meeting after meeting to voice support their cause. But that's obviously an untenable situation. So, what then? Do you want the city council engage in selective application of procedural rules, and let Hyder and other anti-Flock activists take up time while anti-abortion activists are denied that opportunity? That would be an actual speech issue: time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are permissible but they cannot be selectively applied.