Please don't project the laws and norms of Poland onto the US.
The US is a very big place. And in this place, we have fifty (!) different states. That's fifty different sets of rules relating to owning and driving cars -- nearly twice as many as the EU has member nations.
A Florida judge might decide that red light camera tickets are unconstitutional, while an Arizona judge might decide that they're completely OK. These two very different rulings can co-exist, without conflict, potentially forever.
Each state doing their own thing independently of the others is just how we roll here.
A sane and rational person might reasonably conclude that this situation is literally insane -- and they may be right! -- but it is this way anyway.
I don't believe the founders intended as much federal oversight as we currently have. It was supposed to be self-governing states with a few exceptions. So much of the constitution is to limit the feds.
Every photographer with expensive equipment that I know has insurance for their equipment. Sometimes it is included with homeowner, sometimes a separate rider, and sometimes part of their commercial insurance. So it would be covered.
However, that wouldn't help OP if they needed the lens for their trip, suddenly need to find another one, and needed to float the cash until insurance pays out.
And even if you could be made whole via insurance, the TSA agent not facing repercussions and the system not having a feedback loop to improve is the actual problem.
> the TSA agent not facing repercussions and the system not having a feedback loop to improve is the actual problem.
They do. A group of them play in the local co-ed sports leagues, including one in upper management. I had an issue at a different airport, filed a minor claim, and when I next saw them mentioned it wondering if it will just get filed away in the bin. They said I most likely just got someone fired. Later I heard that manager mentioned the story in a meeting reminding them of diligence and professionalism. Though, I've never had issues at my home airport where they work -- and they take issue with agents at airports like the other one that make their job more difficult/unpleasant. They take a lot of abuse.
Yeah, Best Buy is right out. So are most local camera shops (if you can even find one where you're going), since many won't stock a $3k lens.
But there are camera shops in the world that will deliver things very fast -- for a price.
Might there be insurance available that softens that kind of blow to an adequate level? Maybe not erasing your loss, but making it able to be absorbed and still get some work done in 16-24 hours or something?
For instance, Many insurers offer something akin to 'Valuable Property Insurance' (At least that's what mine is called) and for personal use it covers drop/breaks as well as theft.
You typically need proof of ownership; my insurer lets me upload that, so I usually make a point to upload a copy of the invoice/receipt as well as the camera/lens and closeup of the serial number (even better if the invoice has the S/N present!). That's more important for high dollar items typically.
-HOWEVER-
That's for personal use. A while back I actually hit a coverage threshold where my insurer sent me a letter basically saying "Hey, just so you know, you are not covered for business use". (I don't use for business, I just figured it was a cheaper hobby than a boat)
Edited to add:
FWIW the VPP policy is separate from a homeowners policy, however insurers may or may not (depending on state law etc) be able to use a claim on a different policy to impact rates/etc.
> Can objects like expensive precision optics be insured against damage from the TSA?
"You may file a claim if you are injured or your property is lost or damaged during the screening process."
It takes ~6 months or so, and you need to be very thorough and provide as much info as you can (like receipts to prove the cost). And they do actually investigate, even for minor claims and will send a check if they were at fault (ie, not the airline losing your stuff).
Your house insurance will generally cover it. However they then mark you as a increased risk for claims and so your rates go up. Thus it probably isn't worth making a claim for something that is "only" a few thousand dollars. Insurance is a great idea for rare things so expensive that you couldn't handle the loss on your own, but for smaller value losses self-insure is likely a better idea in the long run.
Of course you would need an accountant to run the real numbers for each case. Most people would find a $3000 lens breakage something they cannot easially cover out of pocket, which is why many will even if in the long run it isn't the best use of money.
Depends on the numbers/specifics. Some homeowners policies may exclude high dollar items or limit the coverage to items in the premises (i.e. if it was stolen off the shelf in the house, that could be covered, but not necessarily other scenarios.)
A specific policy can still be cheap however; mine comes in at about 311$ of replacement value per dollar of premium a month, if you're traveling a lot or shooting at places where stuff can come up missing it's not the worst peace of mind.
I agree with the concept. I should not be liable for the actions of others. If someone does something nefarious using my exit node (or the free wifi at my coffee shop) then that shouldn't be my responsibility.
After all, I have no way of knowing what they're up to. It may be good or it may be bad; I can't know. (I suppose I can set up a router to discard packets with the RFC 3514 evil bit set, as a show of good faith, but...)
So I think the risk should be low, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. My opinion doesn't mean that the risk is in fact low.
Has the risk of running an exit node ever been tested in court? Many people, myself included, simply can't afford to have that kind of experience even if we're reasonably sure that it will end up OK.
I appreciate the correction. It's been so long since I've looked at tor that I guess I forgot that relay nodes were a thing and conflated the two terms. Or maybe the coffee hadn't started working yet.
So with the correction, I agree completely: Running relay node (a thing that deals only with indecipherably-encrypted anonymized data) is not a meaningful risk.
IP addresses of relays are still known in the network, and IP reputation firms may flag your IP as potentially suspicious. This may or may not cause issues when dealing with orgs that filter based on "known bad IP address" lists. I've had it happen before, where everything was fine until a few days after running a tor relay (not an exit node, just a relay) everything suddenly wanted more verifications I was not a bot, some paid video services started blocking me, and a few other issues. Stopped running the node and later things cleared up.
It doesn't matter if you or I know it, the problem is when a vendor I'm wanting/needing to use is ignorant to the quality of their list they're using to block stuff.
Yes, many times. Once you explain what a Tor exit node is, you can't be convicted of downloading CP or whatever the anonymous user did, because you quite plausibly didn't do it. However, a verdict of innocence only happens after your life was already ruined by the process of getting to that point...
Some countries like Germany have strict liability, where you must pay a fine for any copyright infringement that happens on your connection unless you register yourself as an ISP yourself. If you're not sure, consult a lawyer to make sure you're not in one of those places.
>"If someone does something nefarious using my exit node (or the free wifi at my coffee shop) then that shouldn't be my responsibility.
Without even getting into the intricacies and ethics of pooling and providing Spartacus communal anonimty. Wouldn't lending tools that are used for a crime being an accessory, or an accomplice, or at least aiding and abetting?
It's even a bit ridiculous, "If someone does something nefarious with my gun, that's not my responsibility" Yes? Yes it is? Maybe that line is used for something more borderline, but that's definitely your responsibility, if you are allowed to do that at all it's only because of the difficulties of legal procedures and the pressumption of innocence, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to redistribute CSAM and leaked data.
It's murky AF, which is why I asked about precedent after stating [and justifying] my own opinion.
Intent has a lot to do with liability.
My intent with my hypothetical coffee shop is not to provide a dark corner for people to do illegal things online; it is instead my intent for smiling patrons to have a free slice of Internet to go with their not-free cup of coffee. It's just a service that I provide, along with a restroom and a place for people to gather. My options for monitoring it are limited, but if I do notice someone doing stuff that's NFG (whether on the internet or in person), then I'll turn off the taps and tell them to leave. They won't be my customer anymore.
That's not so dissimilar to my ISP's intent when they sell me a month of internet access at home. Their monitoring options are very similar: Observation is difficult (brought to you by NordVPN and https), but if they notice something that is definitely nefarious then I'm likely to be getting a sternly-written letter and/or disconnected.
Most people are generally good -- and most coffee shops (around me, anyway) have free wifi.
The precedent here is that it seems to work, and that we don't have a long and storied history of imprisoning owners of coffee shops and ISP networks.
---
Now, if a person were to hang up a sign on the front their coffee shop that says "FREE WIFI! GET YOUR CSAM HERE!" then that's... that's a rather different kind of intent, and in a fair and just world it wouldn't be too long before the person who hung up that sign would behind bars.
If I produce and sell widgets in my widget shop, then nobody but me gets to decide how I make those widgets.
The government can come into my shop and order sixty thousand widgets built exactly the way they say they want them built, and it may be something that doesn't run afoul of any laws at all.
But that doesn't mean that I am required or compelled to build widgets their way -- or at all.
I'm free to tell them to fuck off.
The government can then find go someone else to build widgets to their specifications (or not; that's very distinctly not my problem).
Yes but then the government can decide that the widget, which can suddenly and arbitrarily break and cause havoc because it doesn't work according to the government's desired spec, is risky to use and advise their other vendors to avoid it. And now we've caught up to today's story.
So we agree that everything is fine here, and that the only unreasonable position is that the military should pay for or endorse a supplier that tells the military to "fuck off". Yes?
If I agree to sell widgets to the government that meet certain agreed-upon specifications, and then I elect to forego those earlier agreements and tell them to fuck off, then that's different.
I reject the premise that the military can't request a change to the spec of military equipment they purchase. Obviously it was foolish to sign a contract that added any more restrictions than "all lawful purposes".
Huh? I'm trying to learn here. I don't have a dog in this race. :)
Suppose a buyer and myself agree on a contract for the production and purchase of 60,000 widgets of design C. Sometime later, they decide that they don't want design C widgets and insist upon design G instead. The buyer is in breach of contract -- not me.
Now, changes do happen. Buyers (people, businesses, and governments alike) can and often do decide to go in a different direction. It's the kind of thing that happens every day.
A new contract (or quite often, an amendment such as a change order) can be drawn up and -- if we can agree on the terms -- maybe I'll be producing design G widgets and everyone is happy. That also happens every day.
But one party (even the military) can't just unilaterally alter the terms of the deal, and I'm not obligated to agree to the new change at all.
At any given time, I can't be compelled to produce design G widgets unless I've previously agreed to produce design G widgets. That's illegal.
(Unless it has been made legal. We've definitely legislated that before, such as with the Defense Production Act in WWII that forced manufacturers to produce things like military trucks instead of other things like civilian cars.
But that definitely doesn't happen every day, and we aren't operating under those kinds of laws today as I write this in 2026. It can change -- and it can indeed change very rapidly -- but it has not yet changed.)
Actually, that is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that the govt is saying "Okay, we will not buy your widgets. Also, anyone who _does_ buy your widgets, regardless of what they are doing with them, we the government will not do any business with them." Which is waayyyy beyond just not buying widgets. That is outright retaliation and using your power to attempt to destroy a company.
The government signed a contract with Anthropic, then changed their minds and decided they don't like the terms of the agreement that they had already voluntarily signed, and then they designated Anthropic a supply chain risk.
It's like ordering a pizza to the Pentagon, and then saying "actually we made a mistake with our order; we want that pizza delivered to Venezuela, please do that". And then when Dominos politely says that's outside of their service area, you call them a threat to national security, say they're trying to dictate terms, and ban them from ever doing business with any of your vendors ever again.
The presentation is nice, but some of the conversions are questionable.
For instance: The cost section, wherein 1kWh in the US is figured as having a cost of 9.7 cents.
In reality, it's not that way at all. Unless we're fortunate enough to live in an area where we can walk over to the neighborhood generating station and carry home buckets of freshly-baked electricity to use at home, then we must also pay for delivery.
On average, in 2025, electricity was 17.3 cents per kiloWatt-hour -- delivered -- for residential customers in the US.
I looked at the electric car example for the United States. It has 3 kilowatt hours priced at $0.51, 17 cents per kilowatt hour, which seems about right. The "petrol car" example at the top of the chart isn't powered by electricity so its cost number is not directly comparable to the things that consume electricity.
The electric shower also seemed pretty optimistic. I live in an area with about 50°F/10°C ground temperature and my 14.4 kW water heater can just keep a relatively efficient shower head flowing at a comfortable temperature.
This one is resistive (tiny and cheap to purchase) but will be just an emergency-backup shower once my home renovations are done.
The house is getting a split-system air-to-water heat pump with an indirect tank for domestic hot water, so it should cut that down substantially (the unit maxes out at around 3kW input but likely will run longer to recover/preheat).
So they're useless for crimes not involving a reported license plate? Sounds like a pretty worthless marginal gain. The Chinese have done it better since their mass surveillance apparatus isn't contingent on reported license plates, or even the involvement of a vehicle. Start a fight on the street and they'll find you. Is America really this incompetent that they can't match a 10+ year old system?
So what you're saying is that I can report your[1] car as being associated with a crime, and the police will show up wherever you and/or your car is and treat you like a criminal?
> Now you have turn by turn navigation around ALPRs [that we -- regular people -- know about] on your phone [while still being observed by the ones we don't know about].
Can the context of the pre-revision, Instant response be simply be discarded -- or forked or branched or [insert appropriate nomenclature here] -- instead of being included as potential poison?
(It seems absurd that to consider that there may be no undo button that the machine can push.)
The US is a very big place. And in this place, we have fifty (!) different states. That's fifty different sets of rules relating to owning and driving cars -- nearly twice as many as the EU has member nations.
A Florida judge might decide that red light camera tickets are unconstitutional, while an Arizona judge might decide that they're completely OK. These two very different rulings can co-exist, without conflict, potentially forever.
Each state doing their own thing independently of the others is just how we roll here.
A sane and rational person might reasonably conclude that this situation is literally insane -- and they may be right! -- but it is this way anyway.
(And it is this way by design.)
reply