【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】

This is not an area of law I stay up to date on, but that did not used to be the case. Is that a rather new development?

Last I knew most courts were holding that since customers are sharing this information with third parties (sharing with their phone companies, Apple and Google, Facebook, etc.), giving everything away anyway, most individuals have waived any claim to an expectation of privacy. The right to privacy is founded upon reasonable expectations. I did hear about some pushback on that, more recently, but not from the Court of Appeals from DC, which has jurisdiction over appeals taken from federal agencies, prior to the Supreme Court. I’d be grateful to be shown otherwise. About time, if true.

Search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment, only applies to State actors. The only exception is when a private entity is acting as an agent of the government, such as in the case of private prisons.

Congress needs to pass consumer protection laws aimed at privacy in the digital age. They haven’t updated this sort of thing I believe since 1996. It used to be legal for adult video stores to disclose the tapes people rented, but Congress passed a privacy law forbidding it when some journalists disclosed some of their rentals. The scandal had some cool name. I forgot what.

Dumbass do you realize that in 2015 they completely restructured Google specifically to avoid claims of antitrust?

What happened illegally between 2015 and now that thwarted Google’s plan?

Didn’t Google already break up? It’s called Alphabet now.

Oh well it’s already a better app. without them.

Based on all the comments in this thread, this seems like the best course to me.

Honestly, I didn’t know much about this and didn’t have a strong opinion from the beginning. I just looked quick on Google and saw the results for America was to only seek treatment if there’s been a confirmed bite or scratch.

This Canadian advice makes way more sense. I like that last paragraph that explains the protocol from 1998 to 2009 would have required treatment of 314,000 people to prevent one case. This poor kid in the article might have been that one case.

But it seems like under the current recommendations the kid would not have been tested. It says now treatment only only after direct contact, defined as a bat touching or landing on a person. In this situation, I think they didn’t know if the bat had touched the kid at all.

Okay that’s sort of what I thought.

So the protocol, from like an insurance coverage decision-tree standpoint, in this situation, would have been to test the bat if possible and if not possible administer the vaccine?

I was under the impression that the vaccine is pretty awful and a health ordeal in itself, and that while the dose wasn’t expensive, the aftercare is.

And that is why, as I understand, the CDC protocol is only seek medical attention if there’s a visible bite.

What do you mean? Yes. They checked the kid over and saw nothing. Obviously there was an exposure that either left no mark, left a mark that appeared normal, or the parents didn’t see it.

I looked at the CDC website before posting Aunt. It says the only indication for treatment is a bite or a scratch from species known to carry rabies. It doesn’t say anything about testing for mere exposure.

I guess I see the counterpoints.

It’s a kid. The duration of the exposure is unknown. Whether there was any contact is unknown. Bat. Bites or scratches can be invisible. Bires or scratches could be mistaken.

What’s the scuttlebutt here, your saying in this situation to test the kid or administer a vaccine?

I’m certain the medical staff 's determination of The credibility of a fact attested to by a child is not a factor.

We’re also assuming this kid isn’t a straight up victim of healthcare inequality. The article is light on details. Perhaps the parents considered this, searched the web, searched for bites or scratches, and the cost of seeking care felt too great for this family? I didn’t catch if this happened in a civilized nation with universal health.

Fuck, this story is terrifying. Reminds me in some ways of when a kid dies in a hot car.

Sounds possible. Bats are mammals, maybe it sneezed, covered, but didn’t wash it’s hands, gave the kid a high five, and then the kid wiped a booger out of his eye with it.

Poor kid, never had a chance.

There’s like eleven kinds of blood tests for rabies. None of them work on people, or is it by the time they work it’s too late?

The indication for testing according the CDC is a bite.

The rabies test is cheap. Could have tested the kid or the bat, but again why would they do it if there’s no indication for exposure. This was the first case in the province of someone being infected with rabies inside their own home since 1967.

When you hear hoofbeats you don’t think it’s zebras.

Obviously they overlooked a scratch or a bite. Rabies isn’t airborne.

No scratches, no bite. Why would they?

This is why you have to install the latest software updates on your license plate. One time I let my gas cap firmware get outdated and someone downloaded my car.

Nobody in the military or foreign service world think this was indiscriminate. So you can make up your own definition of discrimination, but this was a highly targeted attack.

Proper discrimination is a question of the feasibility of treating protected persons as distinct from soldiers. Period. This attack did that by intercepting pagers marked for Hezzbollah, rather than pagers marked for general sale to the public. See the difference? The attack treated military targets as distinct from the general public. Therefore, nobody can say the attack was indiscriminate. That’s just not what the word means.

If it was discriminate, was it proportionate? The 3,000 pagers were for 3,000 members of Hezzbollah, and specifically those members whose work could not be done in cell phones because of the secret military nature of the communications and Hezzbollah’s fear that the cell networks were compromised. That’s a very valuable target. Killing them would be a huge strategic advantage, especially in the midst of daily rocket attacks, being coordinated on the very pagers that were turned into weapons. The chance that some Hezzbollah member doesn’t use the pager given to them by their employer, and instead gives it to some innocent person is minimal. The chance that someone standing nearby the person also gets hurt was very high. I think the strategic advantage clearly outweighs the risk. Virtually all 3,000.of the pagers were going to be in the hands of the people responsible for coordinating conducting the rocket attacks against Israel which are actually discriminate.

Further, it’s the incidental civilian casualties that must be avoided, not the accidental ones. In other words, that a guided bomb may have a guidance malfunction and strike a civilian target does not ex ante make the attack indiscriminate. There was clearly going to be both come incidental civilian casualties and some accidental casualties. Incidental being the case where, for example the target is struck correctly but maybe was driving when the pager detonated, causing the car to crash into civilians. That’s incidental. Accidental is the pager gets picked up by a kid instead of the Hezzbollah member that owns it. It was not feasible to limit those casualties, so the strategic advantage must be balanced. See how this logic works?

Here’s a good article on the legal analysis that focuses on the order, and the logical sequence of the analysis. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-lethal-misconception-in-gaza-and-beyond-disguising-indiscriminate-attacks-as-potentially-proportionate-in-discourses-on-the-laws-of-war/

The problem with doing the analysis out of order, is that if you do, you will find that all anyone has to do to win any war ever is bring their families to the front. Suppose your country is being invaded, and all the invading soldiers have their families with them. You agree that you can kill the soldiers and their families right?

That kind of gets back to your point about people being both civilians and fighters. That’s not a thing. If you’re a fighter, you’re a fighter. If you’re supporting fighters, you are also a fighter.

You have a bunch of random sentences strung together. You haven’t even attempted to refute a single thing I said and apparently cannot do basic math. You’re at the peak of Mount Stupid looking down when you should be looking up.

Projecting your own shit.

Is that what Israel said? No.

98% of Gaza is still alive after one year of all this indiscriminate bombing and genocide.

There’s a very obvious reason why the civilian death toll and Gaza is so high and it’s because that is the strategy of Hamas, to purposefully raise that number. They have literally no other leverage then to try and get as many people as possible killed while the elite Gazan’s hide underground, and run to the ICJ and claim war crimes. Remember that first week of airstrikes last October, when Hamas launched a social media campaign to convince people that the evacuation warnings and airstrike warnings were a hoax?

Look how well it is working on you. Why are you siding with the view taken by Iran, Qatar, Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, all of them led by far right nationalists, dictators and monarchs, against the view taken by America, Canada, Australia, Japan, and France? That’s not a red flag to you that maybe your moral compass has led you astray?

Maybe you’re right, and you think the west should abandon Israel. You think they’re just going to let their flawed democracy be taken over by insane religious fascists from Iran? No. Israel will turn Iran into a sheet of glass before they let Iranian soldiers March into Jerusalem. Tens of millions of people will die.

How sad are you going to be when Middle East states start attacking Israel and the resulting humanitarian and refugee crisis results in 50,000 people dying by lunch time, day in day out, for months or years?

I bet you’ll be so sad that you won’t even be able to post TikToks about it.

You have no clue what you’re talking about. You’re a real life Dunning Kruger curve.

I learned International law in law school and in my profession of decades, not from Googling links and pretending to be an expert.

I’m not going to call you an anti-semite for these bullshit arguments you read online because I know it’s just that you’re ignorant, but the reason many people would is because you are applying a heightened standard of law to Israel but not anywhere else, you are holding Israel to a standard that you do not apply to Iran and the violent pan-Islamist nationalists that it backs on all sides of Israel, and are willing to defend it when pan-Islamists do mass shootings and mass kidnappings of civilians, which is their new thing, ever since suicide bombings became faux pas.