"The courts may support them, but the courts are routinely too permissive when it comes to the powers it allows the federal government to have."
With regards to the census specifically, the courts have ruled this way from the very beginning. The objections you're raising have been raised pretty much since the census began.
You may disagree with the interpretation (I disagree with plenty Constitutional interpretations myself), but that's what it currently is until someone can make a strong enough effort to change it.
This one has had longstanding and unwavering acceptance, though, so the required effort will be substantial.
Yes, the TV can refuse. Usually the only time this happens is when something's screwed up. The way HDCP is supposed to work is that the HDCP-compliant player asks the TV if it's HDCP compliant. If it is, then it presents credentials to the TV. The TV won't display the image if it fails to validate the player's credentials.
[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
"in such Manner as they shall by Law direct" has been interpreted as being expansive, meaning that any question may be asked. The Census bureau has this to say on the subject:
Even though Congress has granted this broad discretionary authority, the questions asked in the Census and ACS are determined by what data are needed to implement a vast array of federal programs. Courts routinely have upheld the constitutionality of collecting census data, characterizing as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of statistics in the census.
The Courts have held that the Constitution, including the Fifth and Fourth Amendments, does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics in addition to the enumeration.
My home town newspaper's website includes a vibrant, well-used comment section. Almost no story goes by without at least a handful of comments.
I noticed that none of the Olympics stories that I've seen have attracted comments, though. Looking through all the stories they've run since the start (about 15), there has been a grand total one 1 comment -- and that one was someone scolding people for being insufficiently supportive of the Olympics.
It may not mean anything in the big picture, but I'm getting the impression that lots of people simply couldn't care less.
"the intended purpose of the census in the US is for the apportionment of representation"
That is the constitutionally required purpose, but is not the only purpose. Everything else the AC said about the purpose of the census applies to the US census as well, except that in the US, individualized information is not made available for 72 years rather than 100+.
"Do flat panel displays not having a TV receiver output detectable RF at TV frequencies?"
Flat panel display emit RF interference as well, but it's in an entirely different frequency range from analog displays. Aside from doing Van Eck phreaking* to look at the image being displayed, there would be no way to detect if the display is connected to a TV tuner or not.
"How would anybody detect if you were fibbing about your tvs attributes?"
Technically, you totally can determine this from a distance. The only black and white TVs that exist (to the best of my knowledge) are analog ones. Analog TVs emit radio interference that can be detected from a surprisingly long distance, and the signal patterns emitted are distinctly different for color vs black and white televisions.
"A variation for an author could be to give away short stories, letting people find out about them and the kinds of things they write that way, and sell the full length books."
This used to be common practice. It was common, even, to take sections of the full-length books and rewrite them as short stories for publication in newspapers and magazines as a kind of advertising for the book.
I still see it fairly often, except that the short stories are written on websites.
A million time this. I know the software industry the best, and in the software industry it is essentially impossible to write a nontrivial program that doesn't violate some bogus patent or another. Worse, it's essentially impossible to even be able to predict whether or not that program is free of patent violations prior to release.
"So why do people think it's correct that physical assault should be illegal, but verbal/psychological assault (essentially bullying) should not?"
Can you imagine the madness that would result if we treated low-level verbal or psychological "assault" as illegal? It would result in a society where people have to avoid interacting with each other out of self-protection. It's awfully easy to hurt someone's feelings without even knowing that you have.
But there does exist genuine and unambiguous verbal and psychological assault and, in the US anyway, that is illegal. It just has to rise to a very serious level, or happen in certain narrow circumstances.
Personally, I think that's a reasonable balance. We shouldn't make low-level verbal/psychological abuse illegal for a number of reasons.
In effect, such a law restricts Constitutionally protected activity. As such, the amount of harm the activity causes must be greater than the amount of harm that such a law would cause to overall freedom and society.
Measuring that harm is very difficult, though. Physical or property-related harm has an easy and objective method of being measured: money. Psychological harm has no such method. That means that we have made up a set of guidelines for how bad it has to be before we call it actionably harmful. It makes sense to me that the guidelines would only cover acts that are so egregious that the harm is pretty obvious.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
It is as close to guaranteed as anything is, I think. But if you are in favor of anti-monopoly regulations, then you agree that regulations are necessary.
On the post: Australian Government's Stupid Census Plans Puts Privacy At Risk, May Destroy Their Own Census
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With regards to the census specifically, the courts have ruled this way from the very beginning. The objections you're raising have been raised pretty much since the census began.
You may disagree with the interpretation (I disagree with plenty Constitutional interpretations myself), but that's what it currently is until someone can make a strong enough effort to change it.
This one has had longstanding and unwavering acceptance, though, so the required effort will be substantial.
On the post: EFF Asks FTC To Demand 'Truth In Labeling' For DRM
Re: "John F" and HDMI
On the post: Australian Government's Stupid Census Plans Puts Privacy At Risk, May Destroy Their Own Census
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"in such Manner as they shall by Law direct" has been interpreted as being expansive, meaning that any question may be asked. The Census bureau has this to say on the subject:
On the post: EFF Asks FTC To Demand 'Truth In Labeling' For DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast/NBC Ignores Lessons From The Cord Cutting Age, Buries Olympics Under An Ocean Of Annoying Advertising
Interesting anecdote
I noticed that none of the Olympics stories that I've seen have attracted comments, though. Looking through all the stories they've run since the start (about 15), there has been a grand total one 1 comment -- and that one was someone scolding people for being insufficiently supportive of the Olympics.
It may not mean anything in the big picture, but I'm getting the impression that lots of people simply couldn't care less.
On the post: Australian Government's Stupid Census Plans Puts Privacy At Risk, May Destroy Their Own Census
Re: Re:
That is the constitutionally required purpose, but is not the only purpose. Everything else the AC said about the purpose of the census applies to the US census as well, except that in the US, individualized information is not made available for 72 years rather than 100+.
On the post: BBC Now Training Its Secret, Likely Imaginary, Fleet Of Detector Vans On Your WiFi
Re: Detect the RF from TV sets
Flat panel display emit RF interference as well, but it's in an entirely different frequency range from analog displays. Aside from doing Van Eck phreaking* to look at the image being displayed, there would be no way to detect if the display is connected to a TV tuner or not.
*Van Eck phreaking is a way of reconstructing an image from the RF emissions of of a display device. It's easy with analog displays, but can be done with LCDs as well: https://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/04/seeing-through-walls.html
On the post: BBC Now Training Its Secret, Likely Imaginary, Fleet Of Detector Vans On Your WiFi
Re: VAn hoax
Technically, you totally can determine this from a distance. The only black and white TVs that exist (to the best of my knowledge) are analog ones. Analog TVs emit radio interference that can be detected from a surprisingly long distance, and the signal patterns emitted are distinctly different for color vs black and white televisions.
On the post: Australian Government's Stupid Census Plans Puts Privacy At Risk, May Destroy Their Own Census
Interesting definition of "secret" or "private"
On the post: EFF Asks FTC To Demand 'Truth In Labeling' For DRM
Re: Re: Another Possible Solution
On the post: Photographer Learns To Embrace The Public Domain... And Is Better Off For It
Re: Re: Excellent step, what to do about books?
This used to be common practice. It was common, even, to take sections of the full-length books and rewrite them as short stories for publication in newspapers and magazines as a kind of advertising for the book.
I still see it fairly often, except that the short stories are written on websites.
On the post: Minnesota Carpet Cleaning Business Sues US Olympic Committee Over Its Ridiculous Social Media Rules
Re:
It's not unfortunate. It's wrong.
If the Olympics cannot operate without being given special powers to restrict the rights of nonconsensual others, then the Olympics should not exist.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Lying To Protect The Cable Industry's Monopoly Stranglehold Over The Cable Box?
Re: unik news
On the post: Government Accountability Office Study Confirms: Patent Office Encouraged Examiners To Approve Crappy Patents
Re: Tread carefully
On the post: Government Accountability Office Study Confirms: Patent Office Encouraged Examiners To Approve Crappy Patents
Re: Re: Re: Quality vs Quantity
On the post: Is The DNC Hacking A New Cold War... Or Just The Continuation Of What Every Intelligence Agency Does?
Re: Re:
On the post: State Supreme Court Rolls Back Decision That Would Have Made Violating Company Computer Policies A Crime
Can we take much more?
On the post: Canadian Comedian Plans To Appeal $42k For A Joke That Insulted Someone
Re: Not neccesarily disagreeing with people
Can you imagine the madness that would result if we treated low-level verbal or psychological "assault" as illegal? It would result in a society where people have to avoid interacting with each other out of self-protection. It's awfully easy to hurt someone's feelings without even knowing that you have.
But there does exist genuine and unambiguous verbal and psychological assault and, in the US anyway, that is illegal. It just has to rise to a very serious level, or happen in certain narrow circumstances.
Personally, I think that's a reasonable balance. We shouldn't make low-level verbal/psychological abuse illegal for a number of reasons.
In effect, such a law restricts Constitutionally protected activity. As such, the amount of harm the activity causes must be greater than the amount of harm that such a law would cause to overall freedom and society.
Measuring that harm is very difficult, though. Physical or property-related harm has an easy and objective method of being measured: money. Psychological harm has no such method. That means that we have made up a set of guidelines for how bad it has to be before we call it actionably harmful. It makes sense to me that the guidelines would only cover acts that are so egregious that the harm is pretty obvious.
On the post: Pokemon Company Threatens Pokemon Go API Creator With CFAA Lawsuit
Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast Tells The FCC It Should Be Able To Charge Broadband Users A Premium For Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again Government Overreach
Next >>