SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Michigan Votes to Require Warrants for Police to Seize and Search Digital Devices
Michigan votes to require warrants for police to seize and search digital devices:
Voters in the US state of Michigan have decided that searches of laptop, phones, and associated electronic data will require a search warrant going forward.
Michigan Proposal 20-2 to require a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications passed overwhelmingly, with 88.7 percent (nearly four million people) voting "yes," and only 11.3 percent voting "no."
At the same time, the proposal amends the Michigan Constitution to bring the existing protections from unlawful and unreasonable searches of homes, documents, and other personal possessions up to date, and include electronic data and communications on people's devices.
The goal of Proposal 2 was to make sure the new rules explicitly state a private citizen's electronic data is equally protected, thus removing any vagueness and various interpretations. Currently, law enforcement must have a warrant before searching a home and somebody's personal belongings, including papers and other items, but electronic versions of these stored on devices like phones and laptops are not mentioned in the language of the legal solutions that far predate the technological transformation of society.
Massachusetts Voters Approve Ballot Expanding Open Repair Data in Blow to Auto Industry
Massachusetts voters approve ballot expanding open repair data in blow to auto industry:
(Reuters) - Voters in Massachusetts on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure forcing automakers to provide expanded access to mechanical and electronic repair data and allow independent shops to repair increasingly sophisticated technology.
The decision delivers the first significant win in a fight over who will control the $390 billion U.S. auto data aftermarket in the digital age.
[...] "This referendum...means that despite advances in technology, owners will be able to have their repair data shared directly with their trusted independent shops," Bill Hanvey, president and CEO of the Auto Care Association said in a statement, adding the group worked with cybersecurity experts to ensure privacy during data transfers.
Under the state's ballot measure, approved by 75% of voters, on-board diagnostic and mechanical data will have to be made available via an open-platform app for 2022 vehicle models and beyond.
Four states vote to legalize marijuana.
Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana all passed legislation Tuesday permitting the possession of weed by adults, which means 15 states have legalized recreational weed or voted to legalize it.
See more on the story here.
As a life long resident of the red state of South Dakota, I'm glad to see people who need this for medical purposes can have access and the police can spend their time on serious crimes instead of wasting it on recreational marijuana users.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday November 06 2020, @10:32PM (8 children)
Or we could return the power to regulate most of these things to the states. Then a federal initiative system wouldn't be needed and different states could choose to have different laws that their residents preferred.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2020, @10:40PM
I agree but, unfortunately, the federal government has assumed too much power.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 06 2020, @11:32PM (6 children)
It will take some serious voter initiative to seek out, nominate, and elect the politicians that can do that. Gotta be more active in the primaries if they want to steer the Party in the right direction.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:02AM (5 children)
True. The most realistic way I can think of is a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th and requires the federal budget to be funded out of the state treasuries. The most abusive way the federal government leverages the states is to tax the citizens directly and then put conditions on getting that money back through federal programs. That would end and federal programs would have to stand on their merits, weighed against how that funding could be spent within the states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @02:44AM (2 children)
Great post. I never thought of this. Not that I agree or disagree but it's great out of the box thinking.
So if I'm understanding this correctly you are trying to say that the federal government should tax states based on how much in tax states collect from their citizens. This also gives the state governments incentive to tax their citizens less so that they pay less in taxes and keep their money within their borders.
Some comments.
Under this system each state can decide how it wants to implement its tax plan directly to the citizens. One state may have a progressive tax with tax brackets and another state may just have a flat tax.
The federal government may also decide how to implement its tax plan against the states. It could have a flat tax. For instance if the federal government levies a ten percent annual flat tax against the states that means that if one state hypothetically collects a total of $1,000 from its citizens (for simplicity) and another state collects $10,000 then the federal government would collect $100 from the first state and $1,000 from the second state.
If the federal government wants to levy a progressive tax against the states then that progressive tax should be on taxes collected on a per capita basis. A state that collects more in taxes only because it has more dependents to collect taxes from shouldn't be in a higher tax bracket than a state that collects less in taxes only because it has fewer dependents to collect taxes from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @08:55PM
No, it was IMPOSSIBLE for the federal government to levy a progressive tax. That was the entire problem, or at least by my reading. here is what happened:
1) tax was passed
2) unfairly targeted poor people because it was a flat tax
3) got repealed because flat tax is garbage
4) progressive tax passed, and lasted five minutes
5) feds did not try to tax income
6) amendment passed to allow feds to tax income
The feds could tax income, but ONLY on an x per citizen basis.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @05:01PM
A lot of the possibilities you stated and questions you are posing are the things that I think our federal elected representatives should be discussing. What's the most fair way to divide up costs between states? What are the benefits/drawbacks of making a law or program apply nationally? Can we use that money better within our home state?
I don't know what the end result would look like exactly, but to me it seems to focus the efforts of our legislators in a more fruitful direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2020, @02:54PM (1 child)
I think it's a great idea, but how do you get it through when MIC lobbyists own DC?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @05:11PM
Good question. I don't really have an answer for that. The best I have come up with so far is to organize groups within the states to draft up a constitutional amendment and then push to have that ratified by the states. If enough states do that, then maybe the states could pressure their legislators to take up the amendment or call a constitutional convention if there's too much resistance in Washington. Of course that's a really challenging path, which is why I haven't tried to organize the effort myself.