I mod a worryingly growing list of communities. Ask away if you have any questions or issues with any of the communities.

I also run the hobby and nerd interest website scratch-that.org.

  • 957 Posts
  • 1.61K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle


































  • The discontinuity is good, although the major close ties between the movies mean that I hope we never see another movie where the Citadel plays a major role. For as much discontinuity as there was, there was also so much close connection that I don’t want more material to flesh it out, especially if it starts getting out of George Miller’s hands because I don’t trust other writers not to make things more literally and cinematic universe style.

    For the folk tale aspect, the ending of Furisoa heavily leans into it with a sort of chose your own adventure ending, and the “true” ending being so absolutely insane that it has to be a folk tale.

    I do wish the beginning of Furisoa had played up unreliability of the details regarding the green place, only because what we saw on screen was a bit preposterous if taken totally literally, and would have gone down easier with some vasoline on the storytelling lens.



  • There are two related but distinct issues, and I hope to keep them separate otherwise the conversation goes in circles:

    1 - Can police under the circumstances look at the contents of the phone at all? This is to say, if the phone is completely unlocked, can they look through it?

    2 - If the police are allowed to look at the contents, but the phone is locked, in what ways can the police unlock it?

    Subject 1: This is by far the more important question, and the one that seems to get ignored in discussions of phone searches like this. I would argue that under most circumstances there is no probable cause to search a phone- the phone can not contain drugs or weapons or other contraband, so to me this is the larger hurdle for police. Police should have to justify what illegal thing they think is on the phone that gives them probable cause, and I don’t think that pictures of illegal things are the same as the illegal things themselves. Lawyers would have to hash this out, because I do notice the suspect here was on parole so perhaps there is a clause of parole for this or something. But this is the bigger, much bigger issue- can police even look at the contents? There is an argument from the pro-search side that constants of an unlocked phone are in plain view, and so that right there is a big nexus for the issue.

    Subject 2: If we assume yes, only then does subject 2 become an issue. How much can police compel? Well, they can’t compel speech. A passcode would count as protected speech, so they can’t compel that. Biometrics however, from what I have seen of court reasoning, tend to be viewed as something a person has rather than something they know. This would be analogue to a locked container with a combination lock compared to a key. The police can not compel the combo, but if they find they key in your pocket they can take it and use it.


    If you are up in arms about privacy, my view is not to fall into the trap of focusing on 2 and the finer mechanics of where the line for what kinds of ways to lock a phone are, and focus on subject 1. Reduce the circumstances in which searching a phone is acceptable, even if the phone is unlocked to begin with.