• 11 Posts
  • 846 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 19th, 2023

help-circle








  • I don’t agree that the reason single-family detached homes with lawns are necessarily unaffordable primarily because of greed. That might be one factor, but I think the main factor as to why they’re unaffordable is simple geometry. Councils don’t want to pay for miles of roads, pipes, and electrical cables just to serve less than a hundred families, so these costs get imposed on the developers and homeowners. Some states, including mine, will require new single-family developments to have an HOA, which is responsible for paying for the upkeep of some of these resources. That directly results in higher assessments for ratepayers. Or, where the council absorbs the costs, they still get passed on to owners and renters through higher property taxes.

    So while I’m sympathetic to your arguments, I feel that blaming only greed is a shallow understanding of why nobody can afford a house.







  • You’re going to have to be more specific about what you mean by people using the data of a dead person to commit fraud. Upon death, a person’s identity documents, identity numbers, and other legal identifiers will deactivate and can no longer be used.

    Social media accounts of the dead person can be tagged with a flag that notifies viewers that the subject is deceased.

    Deleting a dead person’s information so that their social media profile’s contents can’t be copied to a new account masquerading as them does nothing, because them being dead is immaterial to fraudsters being able to copy their profile’s contents.


  • There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of ANPRs (automatic number plate recognition) as these are called in the rest of the world. It’s more of an issue that there is a complete lack of laws surrounding how that data is to be used, and especially when it’s controlled by a private company. If there were strict laws limiting the situations where ANPRs could be used, such as requiring a warrant to begin searching for plate numbers and automatically discarding data from non-matching plates, I doubt people would complain as much about these.


  • So far, in the cases which have actually run to completion in the ICC, they have been about crimes committed in countries with weak or non-functional judiciaries. This, I would assume, is the court’s primary purpose.

    Your assertion that the ICC Prosecutor is obligated to respect the decision of a state party’s procuratorial authority to not prosecute seems unsupported by the text of the Rome Statute. Article 20, Section 3 of the Statute only precludes the ICC from trying offences which have been fairly and impartially tried in another court. The key here, is that the accused must have actually been tried. A decision not to prosecute by local prosecutors does not prevent the ICC Prosecutor’s Office from pressing charges.

    I do, however, agree for the most part that the United States can avoid the issue with respect to its own citizens by simply prosecuting all the possible crimes domestically in American courts, which would remove the jurisdiction of the ICC, averting all the nasty due process violation concerns. The US can accede with a reservation that all crimes involving US citizens will instead first be referred to the US Department of Justice for local prosecution, and then domestic legislation can force the Department of Justice to at least put some effort into a prosecution to satisfy the requirements of Article 20, Section 3 and foreclose ICC jurisdiction.

    There are also some arguments about how the US being obligated to arrest visiting foreign heads of state or government with active warrants against them would be detrimental to the general peace-building process, but I don’t agree with this interpretation. Article 98 of the Rome Statute states that state parties are not required to extradite in violation of other obligations of international law, presumably including diplomatic immunity.

    So yes, I agree that it is a weak argument for not adopting the Rome Statute. To be clear, I think the real reason the US did not ratify the Rome Statute is because the US military has its fingers in so many pies that it’s inevitable that some criminal conduct has occurred somewhere, but having even a single US service member appear before an international war crimes tribunal would be geopolitically embarrassing, especially since neither of the two other contemporary world powers subject themselves to ICC jurisdiction.


  • I will be honest, the genuine reservations voiced about the ICC and the due process problems are legitimate. I don’t agree that they outweigh the benefits of joining the ICC, but I do understand that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.

    For one, ICC proceedings take years and there is no right to a fast trial. Article 67 of the Rome Statute gives the defendant a right against “undue delay” but this clause is essentially toilet paper in reality. A defendant can spend years in detention awaiting a resolution to their case, even if they are later acquitted and released (which has happened).

    For comparison only, there is a right to a speedy trial in American law. If exercised, this usually results in a trial scheduled in mere weeks, at most a month or two for complex cases.