blind_boy_grunt
blind_boy_grunt on Hacker News
> So what happens when a company is acting on behalf of/as an extension of the government? And exactly how close can that relationship get?
FYI, the legal term you're looking for is "state actor". In case that helps with googling.
The same way any other unionized employees do: higher wages, better benefits, collective bargaining, serious representation in the corporate hierarchy, better job security.
Unless you've already eliminated them, I would also consider the XPS 13 and Asus ZenBook 3. Both are similar products and both run linux very well.
Yes they can, but they probably will not. Otherwise the Assistant AG's statement would have said so. Notice how he danced around it.
Judging is the act of applying law (general) to a particular case (specific). Since laws can't anticipate every future situation at their time of writing, no matter what there will _always_ be some disconnect between these two -- i.e. vagueness/generality in law, leading to edge cases.
Which is why two judges can come to two completely separate conclusions on a single issue, while drawing from the same laws, based on their own personal methods of interpretation and biases.
Oral argument is usually just for clarifications/questions over the written briefs. Judge Leon likely later read the written briefs on his own time (that is his job, after all).
> I have no more trust in the American government to not spy on its citizens than the Chinese government.
This is more than a little hyperbolic. In the US you need a warrant.
Yes, and congress could pass a law banning net neutrality. But under
current law, the FCC is not able to issue a directive doing the same thing.
A law banning NN will never get passed due to gridlock (thankfully), so barring some huge change in public opinion I don't see states being prohibited from enforcing NN.
In Tennessee v. FCC, [1] the FCC, under the authority of §706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, attempted to preempt state laws that prohibit municipalities from building their own broadband networks under certain circumstances (these laws were obviously lobbied and passed by ISPs in the state legislatures). This was struck down by courts because, although the supremacy clause means that federal law supplants state law, the federal law at hand was so far removed from what the FCC was doing in this particular case, that the FCC was essentially creating "directives" which overruled state law in pursuit of a vague goal that was defined in federal law. In essence, federal administrators/bureaucrats had the power to overrule state law. Although the ISPs "won" in that decision, it cuts both ways -- which means that any attempt by the FCC to preempt net neutrality regulations under §706 is likely to fail as well.
Sorry if my take is a little confusing, here is some more coverage: [2], [3].
[1] http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc-los...
[3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to-muni-...