It would be trivial though to do the same thing for sports. Create the market, contracts on either side....
How is Kalshi paid today? They take a cut of each transaction, just like the bookmaker does. Neither cares who wins or loses
Turning it around, the bookmaker really isnt who you bet against, I get that technically you do. but in practice.... You bet against all the other bettors. Bookmakers offset bets with other bookmakers, etc if the balance is off.
In practice bookmakers arent trying to be on one side or the other in a bet. Some do, but they dont last long. They want the odds to make a 50/50 market in bets and they pocket the vig.
Oversimplified but that is the gist of it. Also, my knowledge of bookmaking is from my neighborhood and I assume the legal variety works the same way though.
It's obviously different in that Chatrie was about google location data, and there actually was a warrant. SCOTUS ruled that warrant was too broad since it captured everyone in that location, not a specific person(s).
Constitutional scholars have pointed out the ALPR are next in line to face challenges based on the same principles as Chatrie - LEO can get a warrant for a specific person(s) to search but cannot search the entire universe.
That would not prevent ALPRs from existing, but it would require a warrant to search them. Which seems reasonable and completely in line with the 4th amendment.
OK sure, but do they now also need a warrant to look at their own footage from their body cam, or their dashcam? What about the camera on the side of the municipal building?
Compelling parties to give up data is different than looking at your own data. And it is firmly established that recording and reviewing footage in public space is totally fine.
So we are back to square one...How do we define scale such that a police camera on a police car is OK, but a police camera on every corner is not. Or that individuals can record in public but police cannot.
SCOTUS gets into it in their opinions on Chartrie, you should check it out.
They wrestle with the balance there of 4th amendment protections and mass surveillance. It's evolving and generally courts are moving to not allowing mass surveillance -or less so than they have allowed in. Courts have been split on it, and someone already pointed it out that SCOTUS will eventually come up with tests for it.
There were some really interesting parts of those Chatrie opinions that really will test the idea that someone in public gives up their right to any privacy - the fundamental underpinning of why governments can currently point cameras at public places and dont need a warrant to search that video.
Chatrie protected the aggregated viewpoint versus any single public moment - And SCOTUS said the aggregated viewpoint (mass search of location data with no specific person(s)) is not allowed under the 4th amendment. A very interesting precedent.
Gorsuch had an interesting take in that he argued that in Chatrie the location data was Chatrie's personal property and therefore protected from illegal searches from government.
There are a lot of similarities to how ALPRs work, and key differences. Mostly Chatrie deals with a private firms data collection of locations - google vs ALPRs are generally on publicly owned property and recoding things in public.
Still, many justices opened the door to the idea that the government can't mass surveil citizens. We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.
I am very much of the opinion the government should need a warrant to search through ALPR data (and video for that matter). So, I am hopeful that the tenets of Chatrie extend to ALPRs, video, etc.
Edit: Gorsuch argues that the data is personal and not the government's data - this is what prevents the government from searching for it without a warrant. He did not get into why a body cam or something like that is different.
Do yourself a favor and submit a FOIA request for some body camera of something you're trying to understand. If the footage is too long, they'll deny your request for being unduly burdensome because of the need to review/redact those records, even in public.
It took 8mo for Chicago Police to review and redact bodycamera footage from a protest in Chicago. It was 95% blurred. Almost hilariously, one of the only parts that wasn't blurred was a moment where one cop commented on another cop's mustache.
So from the FOIA perspective, the public isn't able to get gobs and gobs of footage just because it's public.
Sometimes the law is vibes, SCOTUS will probably create a set of tests where lower courts will have to look at how many points it hits and decide whether it's over the line on a case by case basis.
But, this decision didn't take those powers from Congress. It took those powers from federal agencies. Congress empowers the agencies, yes. But, Congress also deferred any technical decisioning to the agencies. Those agencies are filled with actual experts who are fully committed to their field. Now, the court just said that those experts aren't the right place to enforce anything but judges are.
Today it is. While not the existential threat to the US that communism/China are or perceived to be, Japan was very much a threat to the US in the 80s/90s. All kinds of concerns not just about the car market but manufacturing in general, how much real estate Japan owned, how much treasuries Japan owned, etc,
I know a few people who lost their collective minds when a Japanese guy bought Pebble Beach. Turned out to be a terrible move on his part.
Japan was very much a threat to the US back then. Maybe more perceived than reality but a lot of the same rhetoric/narrative you see today about China, was Japan vs the US back then.
So, KPI wise you can make an argument that it is effective. I may not agree with that argument in that we (USA) spend a lot of money and impose a lot of restrictions on the general population to get there.
Crime has always been a "the sky is falling" kind of a thing even if it's literally one crime. We are more safe than we were in 2001 by any objective measure, whether or not that is "safe enough" is going to be different for everyone...
Off the top of my head....
-How was the labor sourced for those services?
-Child Labor, illegal immigrant labor?
-What are the working conditions for the labor?, is it sweatshop
-what inputs go into the goods/services?
-what do they do with their waste?
-where do the inputs come from? My country, another country, my town, a town in my state...
you may think the government plays a role to enforce some of these, and they do to a point...
You can go on in your own head about all the things behind that simple exchange of money for something. If it's a perfectly competitive market sure, that may work but there aren't many if any markets in the US that are that level of competitive.
A personal anecdote for you. My uncle owns an auto parts re-manufacturer, so they rebuild car parts and sell them. I worked there a lot growing up. The normal input is buying "cores" from service stations....your starter motor isn't working and you get a new one, that old one is sold to someone like my uncle who refurbs it.
Often we had people come by with very clearly stolen parts....should we have just exchanged money for those? This ranged from a tweaker who would show up with one part, to full scale organized theft rings with pallets of parts...
So, do we buy those since the price is much, much better? There is a an ethical decision there...
I'm curious, do you personally buy any goods or services? It seems like the logical conclusion to this kind of thinking is to just not ever purchase or use anything.
I'm curious, do you personally make any decisions? It seems like the logical conclusion to this kind of thinking is to just not ever consider or decide upon anything.
I do make decisions and often times people many degrees removed get hurt or exploited as a result of it.
I choose not to focus on that though, whereas the person I replied to apparently does. I was curious how such a person manages to live a just life in the modern world.
You can look at it like this... They jury was concerned about the speech by the think tank. They don't want anyone else to have to suffer through it. The plaintiff though didn't have actual monetary damages from it, but you and me might have.
The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged.
The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful.
I know that's what the jury thought they were doing, but that isn't actually constitutional in the US. Juries are not empowered to decide whether speech isn't allowed and should be punished, they're empowered to decide whether speech is defamation and how much harm was done by said defamation.
Here, they found there was ~no harm done. That means that, constitutionally, they are unable to levy a substantial fine.
So, I think you are correct. The jury messed up, wasn't explained to properly, etc. There are thresholds on how much punitive damages can be awarded and they are some multiple of the other damages...this one is more than that.
The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”
So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did.
That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.
How is Kalshi paid today? They take a cut of each transaction, just like the bookmaker does. Neither cares who wins or loses
Turning it around, the bookmaker really isnt who you bet against, I get that technically you do. but in practice.... You bet against all the other bettors. Bookmakers offset bets with other bookmakers, etc if the balance is off.
In practice bookmakers arent trying to be on one side or the other in a bet. Some do, but they dont last long. They want the odds to make a 50/50 market in bets and they pocket the vig.
Oversimplified but that is the gist of it. Also, my knowledge of bookmaking is from my neighborhood and I assume the legal variety works the same way though.