First, I think we should acknowledge the possibility that getting used to transgressing a traditional social boundary can indeed lead one to believe that such traditional social boundaries are often arbitrary and need not be respected. That being said, the vast majority of people have no interest in murder, child molestation and other distasteful activities. Just because there is no balustrade and people can get close to the edge does not mean they are going to jump.
In there are many benefits to be gained from people not feeling as constrained by social pressures. "Out-of-the-box" thinking is by its very nature transgressive and has given us some of the most amazing innovations in existence. In the sexual realm, being exposed to many ideas may allow some people to realize that there are safe and consensual ways to explore fantasies that they may otherwise have expressed in truly harmful ways.
But that's all intellectual masturbation. The cold hard facts tell the story. And the story is that countries with tighter controls on access to pornography tend to have a higher incidence of rape. In other words, the quoted historian should look long and hard at considering a different career.
I think a good approach would be to limit the number of sealed orders. So for instance we could say that no more than 10% of surveillance orders may be sealed. (or more realistically, sealed for longer than 3 months) Keep a count of sealed and unsealed orders and if at any time the number creeps above 10%, judges are no longer allowed to issue sealed orders until the number has fallen back under 10%. Would it make sense as a policy? Not really. But it would make sense as an incentive. It would force agencies to hoard their number of allowable sealed orders using them only when absolutely necessary.
My guess is that they are referring to data which they computed about you based upon data you provided. Some of that data may reveal proprietary information. For instance they may calculate a certain number of scores about you which allow them to better target ads at you. Depending upon what disclosure means, they may have to disclose some proprietary information about what they look at or how they compute such scores... I can see why they might want to avoid doing so.
Otherwise, I think the data disclosure requirements imposed on private companies are absurd. As long as the original gathering is legal, it's not your data anymore. It's their data.
Oh come on! Transformers was the best movie is the history of cinema! It was amazing! It had robots, guns, attractive women, cars and heavy machinery! What more could you ask for?!?!?!?!?!
I remember finding a vulnerability in a couple of smallish websites. I dutifully tried to bring it to their attention. I never heard back from any of them and they never fixed it. I have come to the conclusion that security is just not something that most developers think or know anything about. As for the business people... well, let's not go there... They won't care until the PR guy shows up with newspaper articles of your database being broken into.
I agree his explanation is BS. The legislature was doing its job here of setting the rules so the courts could interpret them. The thing to remember is Jerry Brown used to be the AG. AGs are not well known for their love of civil liberties. They live and die by their conviction rate and so pretty rapidly, everyone starts looking like a criminal to them.
When I go to buy a comic book, I spend most of my time chatting with the owner or an employee getting recommendations as to what I should buy. What that means is I'm just not going to go into a large chain store and buy a comic book. I don't know how prevalent that attitude is, but if few people are buying comics from B&N anyways, maybe they can afford to try to scare DC into giving them digital rights. But let's be honest. Digital comic books are a really poor experience. Maybe it will get better, but right now, I can't imagine they make a big market.
1) Change the Constitution to redefine treason to include using the powers granted by an office of the United States in contradiction to the Constitution.
2) Create a new offense.
I believe such an offense belongs in the Constitution but at this point, even a law would be nice. Unfortunately, you are probably right. Torches and pitchforks it what it's going to come down to.
I'm not sure why such a limitation needs to be in place. If I ask my lawyer and they incorrectly tell me that a particular action is legal, that does not protect me from being convicted. I think that if the law passes constitutional analysis before the vote, that should be a mitigating circumstance, but not exonerating.
We need a simple reform: Voting for or signing an unconstitutional law should be considered treason. Then when lawmakers pass into law such things, we can throw them in jail. I'm afraid if that sort of thing doesn't happen, instead we'll see torches and pitchforks. Not that I'll cry for them, but oh well...
My wife and I are long distance and we use the full range of communication services, video-chat, phone, social networks, email, IM and yes, snail-mail mostly for packages. We tried USPS, but gave up on them. They take too long, their insurance service is a scam and the service is poor to mediocre. If USPS wants to be used, they should try to provide a better service.
"anyone on the path from one mail server to another can read your mail if they want to."
You mean kind of like dozens of postal employees handle my mail and have the opportunity to open it? Or the way if my mailbox is full or the postal worker is confused, my mail will sometimes be left in front of my door where anyone steal it?
"Not to mention the email admins at your school or business who have access to all of your email."
Yeap. That's somewhat reminiscent of the way anyone at your company's mail-room could open your physical mail if you have it delivered there.
"A letter in an USPS building or truck, or your postmaster-general-approved mailbox, is protected by federal law."
That sort of reminds me of the way the 4th Amendment makes it illegal to read someone else's email.
I'm guessing HADOPI will be gone in less than 2 years. The Socialists were opposed to it from the beginning and they are very likely to win this upcoming election. (2012)
"They have woken up and realizes there is about 10 - 15 ACs right now actively posting, and they want to "sort us out" so they can play the game of trying to discredit us by name."
You mean like respond to your arguments and hold you accountable for what you said?
I think that would probably depend. If you blow on the mouse in order to turn off the screen saver, I bet that's a search. On the other hand if he has a very sensitive mouse and the mere act of walking next to the desk turns off the screen save, I think that would not be a search. If a cop really wanted to be a jerk, I bet he could get away with bumping against the desk, to move the mouse and claimed it was accidental. That's a lesson: Password-protect your screen-saver. Then you won't have to deal with 4th amendment issues when it comes to that.
You're not being any more nit-picky than anyone else on this. It all depends how you define "guilt". Are we talking about "guilt" in a whodun'it sort of way? (+mens rea etc...) Or "guilt" is a "convicted" sort of way? Not a particularly interesting discussion.
In other words, I think I respectfully agree with you and feel stupid for once again getting involved in a definitional argument. Keep promising myself not to do it, but it's too tempting.
That's just a short-hand aphorism. The concept of the presumption of innocence is much more nuanced and rich than is expressed in that one-liner. Presumption of innocence is a rule of proof. It can best be summed up as saying that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecutor in criminal proceedings and doubt must benefit the accused.
If you like the most common formulation, it is better said as "Deemed innocent until proven guilty." Your guilt is a matter of fact. If you did something you are guilty of it. However, the courts only recognize guilt after all the proper hurdles have been cleared.
On the post: What If A Court Gave An Important Ruling, But We Were Not Allowed To Know What It Was?
Re: Re:
On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right -- The Internet Is Our Enemy
In there are many benefits to be gained from people not feeling as constrained by social pressures. "Out-of-the-box" thinking is by its very nature transgressive and has given us some of the most amazing innovations in existence. In the sexual realm, being exposed to many ideas may allow some people to realize that there are safe and consensual ways to explore fantasies that they may otherwise have expressed in truly harmful ways.
But that's all intellectual masturbation. The cold hard facts tell the story. And the story is that countries with tighter controls on access to pornography tend to have a higher incidence of rape. In other words, the quoted historian should look long and hard at considering a different career.
On the post: How Certain Judges Let The Feds Hide Questionable Spying Activity
On the post: Facebook Says Some of Your Personal Data Is Its 'Trade Secrets or Intellectual Property'
Otherwise, I think the data disclosure requirements imposed on private companies are absurd. As long as the original gathering is legal, it's not your data anymore. It's their data.
On the post: Woman Sues Over Misleading Movie Trailer; Wants To Make It A Class Action
Re: Re: Typical
On the post: Find A Massive Security Hole At American Express? If You're Not A Cardholder, It Doesn't Care
On the post: CA Governor Lets Police Search Your Smartphones At Traffic Stops
On the post: Barnes & Noble Doesn't Get Digital DC Comics, Throws Hissy Fit
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
Re: Re:
1) Change the Constitution to redefine treason to include using the powers granted by an office of the United States in contradiction to the Constitution.
2) Create a new offense.
I believe such an offense belongs in the Constitution but at this point, even a law would be nice. Unfortunately, you are probably right. Torches and pitchforks it what it's going to come down to.
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead
Re: know what business you're in
On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead
Re: Re:
You mean kind of like dozens of postal employees handle my mail and have the opportunity to open it? Or the way if my mailbox is full or the postal worker is confused, my mail will sometimes be left in front of my door where anyone steal it?
"Not to mention the email admins at your school or business who have access to all of your email."
Yeap. That's somewhat reminiscent of the way anyone at your company's mail-room could open your physical mail if you have it delivered there.
"A letter in an USPS building or truck, or your postmaster-general-approved mailbox, is protected by federal law."
That sort of reminds me of the way the 4th Amendment makes it illegal to read someone else's email.
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like respond to your arguments and hold you accountable for what you said?
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re:
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, I think I respectfully agree with you and feel stupid for once again getting involved in a definitional argument. Keep promising myself not to do it, but it's too tempting.
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's just a short-hand aphorism. The concept of the presumption of innocence is much more nuanced and rich than is expressed in that one-liner. Presumption of innocence is a rule of proof. It can best be summed up as saying that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecutor in criminal proceedings and doubt must benefit the accused.
If you like the most common formulation, it is better said as "Deemed innocent until proven guilty." Your guilt is a matter of fact. If you did something you are guilty of it. However, the courts only recognize guilt after all the proper hurdles have been cleared.
On the post: Courts: Search A Cell Phone? No Problem. Touch A Mouse? Violate 4th Amendment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amanda Knox Is Guilty... Of Making Newspapers Jump The Gun On Guilty Headlines
Re:
Next >>