That just makes it more important to contact her about it - to explain counter-positions as best you can, and to make it clear that you will not be voting for her if she supports this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, from what I can find online, it appears that the next Peoria mayoral election is in 2017 - which means that there's good odds this will have fallen off the radar, if not been swept under the rug, before then.
Not to mention that last time, Jim Ardis ran unopposed...
The "investors" in this term are not the people who invest money in the corporations involved, but the corporations which invest money in the state(s).
Theoretically investments in the states could be made by individuals, but in practice pretty much the only individuals who have the money to be able to afford to make such investments on a meaningful scale are also incorporated, and would make the investments through their corporation(s) in order to limit their own liability in the event of a failure.
I suspect that the rationale for requiring even briefs containing only publicly-available information to be filed under seal is that if only briefs containing confidential information are filed under seal, then the knowledge of which briefs are and are not thus filed - which is, itself, publicly-available information - will itself convey information *about* the information which is sealed.
In other words: whether or not a given brief contains confidential information is metadata, and by allowing briefs which do not contain such information to be filed unsealed, that metadata would be revealed. By requiring all briefs to be filed under seal, they're attempting to prevent that metadata from coming out.
According to my understanding, the AUMF was specifically an "authorization for the use of military force in Iraq" - i.e., it was specific to what is now called the Iraq war.
As I read this discussion, the "war" it's referring to is not the Iraq war, but the "war on terrorism", which AFAIK has never been - and, arguably, due to the nature of its adversary cannot be - declared by Congress.
If I recall and understand matters correctly, the only "under penalty of perjury" part is the statement certifying that the person filing the DMCA takedown request either is the copyright holder for the work they're issuing the claim under, or is acting on behalf of the same.
There are no apparent penalties in the law for making a false statement about the rest of it - including, again IIRC, the claim that the work at the identified location infringes on the copyright in question. You do have to certify that you have a "good faith belief" that some parts of it are true, but that's a very different thing from certifying that those parts are true, and virtually impossible to disprove.
Mercedes Lackey also used to prohibit fanfiction of her Velgarth novels, on the insistence of her agent, until (IIRC) Cory Doctorow picked up the same agent and managed to convince him his views were wrong.
I believe this deserves First Word status, although it's late enough at this point that it'll probably never get it.
For that matter, this deserves to be read out on the floor of the House and/or the Senate, as a good sound-bite component of a larger political "argument". (Scare quotes because of course much of what gets said on the floor of Congress doesn't more than vaguely resemble actual argument.)
His logic is probably that the digital TV tuner is retransmitting the received signal, and since the Court ruled that such single-recipient transmission counts as public performance (requiring a broadcast license) in the Aereo case, it must necessarily also count as a public performance (requiring a broadcast license) in every other case as well.
The Court would probably disagree that that logic holds, but many other people (including lawyers and other judges) would probably support it.
When a bill is read out on the floor of the House or the Senate, it is generally read only by its allegedly-descriptive title, and that title generally ends with the catchall "and for other purposes".
As a way to counter this, I've thought about the possible ramifications of having a requirement that before either house of Congress can hold a vote on a bill or amendment, the full text of that bill (as amended) must be read out on the floor of the relevant house of Congress.
If any bill is voted on without having been so read, the requirement would hold that the vote is invalid.
If any amendment is submitted, voted on, and accepted, then the requirement would hold that the bill is once again considered to not have been read out in full, since its as-amended text has been modified from the version which was already read out.
(Taking things further, I've also considered requiring that in order to be eligible to vote on a bill, a member of Congress must actually have been present on the floor during such a full-text reading. But I think that might be going a bit overboard.)
In addition to its obviously intended effects of making it harder to claim that a bill does one thing when it actually does another, this would have one major "side-"effect: vastly increasing the time required to pass a given bill, since you can no longer simply read out the title but must read the full text of the bill, possibly multiple times. Some people might consider that an advantage, and others might consider it a drawback, but it would certainly have to be taken into account either way.
It's possible that this might end up causing more trouble than it solves. But I think it's an interesting idea, nonetheless...
The sentence in that amendment has several semicolon-separated clauses. By the structure of the sentence, I think the exception which you emphasized applies only to the clause preceding it, of which it is part - not to all the clauses after it.
In other words, "In cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, an exception to the requirement of an indictment by an Grand Jury to hold a person to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime shall exist."
Interpreting that exception to apply to all clauses would imply, for example, that in military cases, double jeopardy is allowed. Does precedent support that? Do you think it should be allowed? I would certainly hope not, on both counts.
Applying the usual rules that hold for use of semicolons, the single sentence - and thus the amendment - could be split into multiple without changing the meaning, something like so:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.
No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
No person shall be deprived of of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
No private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There is one part of that conversion which I think might be slightly questionable: because the "be a witness against himself" point is separated from the "deprived of life, liberty or property" point only by a comma and not by a semicolon, it could reasonably be argued that the latter - like the former - applies only to a person "be[ing] compelled in any criminal case".
Taking that interpretation over the one I've used in the conversion seems like it would require more of a stretch from the text to the meaning, however, and in any case I think there's long-established precedent to the effect that "depriv[ation] of life, liberty or property" is prohibited even in cases where no criminal activity is alleged.
(Hmm. I wonder what precedent says about "due process of law" for a police officer shooting of an uninvolved person?)
A well-designed mail server should (and, I think, can) be able to be configured so that none of those issues, except for the "cost of replacement tapes" factor, will result in the loss of the E-mails.
One way to do it would be for the server to simply split off and archive everything that comes in, *before* it gets to the point of being visible on the server where a mail client could see it - just as the server can pull out mail it judges to be spam, before that mail gets to where a client has a chance to see it.
Another way would be for the server to respond to a client's "delete this message from the server" request (whether POP3 or otherwise) by either flagging the message "don't show", or outright archiving it on the server end (and removing it from where the user's account can access it, and ceasing to count it against the user's storage allotment), but not by actually deleting it.
The latter solution wouldn't address the IMAP issue you cite (at least not without opening the server up to a DoS from excessive disk-space consumption), but I think the former would.
Also, I'd think a well-designed backup system would let you restore individual E-mails - or at least individual accounts - rather than only the entire backed-up data set at once...
I think it *could* be done with something less extreme than that: just replace the current "single-choice" voting system with a Condorcet-compatible "ranked preferences" voting system.
At the very least, that would eliminate that "don't vote for a third-party candidate, because you'll just be throwing your vote away" argument, thereby making it much harder for existing powers to keep their stranglehold on access to power.
It might still turn out not to be enough; for example, monied interests still might be able to tout their own candidate(s) and bash or downplay the alternatives enough to prevent any significant chance of differing powers from getting into office. In that case, doing something about the "money in politics" aspect would still be necessary.
The whole "money in politics" thing is a much harder problem to solve, on a design level, however; it may not be much simpler to actually implement, politically speaking, but every design solution proposed so far has had problems. I'm also not convinced that fixing that part by itself would be enough, either; at best, it would only fix some of the problems, and still leave a dysfunctional system in other respects.
It looks to me as if throwing the current, corrupt incumbents out, and changing the rules about money and lobbying to help prevent corruption from recurring in the future, would only be treating the symptoms of the problem and would come at a considerable cost, in terms of compromise on principles - because in order to be effective at preventing the recurrence of corruption in the long term, you'd have to sharply limit what private citizens are legally permitted to do with their own money, and sharply restrict the ability of private citizens to contact and interact with those in power.
Fixing the voting system to allow people to better express what they actually want, by contrast, looks to me as if it would address some of the underlying problems, and leave a more stable, less corruptible system on which to build for the long term - without any of those trade-offs in restrictions on individual (or, I think, even collective) liberty. In the long run, I think it's a far better choice than just kicking money out of politics, and probably far more necessary.
If I'm reading things correctly, the distinction is "external to the country" vs. "internal to the country", where "the country" is the UK. Internal vs. external to an organization or a site or a person has nothing to do with it.
Assuming you're talking about the "cannot confirm or deny" response, in this case specifically "cannot confirm or deny the existence of that information":
Theoretically, if someone were to ask for the release of any information they have on something which genuinely does not exist, they would be able - and quite possibly required - to make the same response.
It's the same rationale under which your lawyer might advise you to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement even when the answer is "no, I'm not guilty of that".
If you answer "not guilty" to most questions, and "no comment" to a few, that reveals information; if you answer "no comment" to all questions, even if no one believes a word of it, you haven't revealed anything they didn't already know.
Similarly, if they answer "the information you have requested does not exist" to requests where that is true, and "we cannot confirm or deny" (or even "we refuse to turn over any such information") to ones where the information does exist, that reveals something about which requests are about information which does exist.
That may be a relatively unimportant point in the present context, depending on whether any of the requests which are being made are about information which happens to actually not exist. But the same governing principle still applies.
On the post: CISPA Take 3: Feinstein & Chambliss Draft Another Cybersecurity Bill, Designed To Wipe Out Your Privacy
Re: Not much I can do...
On the post: Open Source Seed Initiative: 'Free The Seed!'
Re:
On the post: Mayor Ardis Defends Police Raid, Complains That Parody Twitter Account Used Up All The Free Speech
Re: Next Election
Not to mention that last time, Jim Ardis ran unopposed...
On the post: James Clapper Giving Speeches To Students, Begging Them To Stop Thinking Of Ed Snowden As A Hero
Re: Re:
Attack Obama for what he is and does all you want, but outside of very rare circumstances, his skin color and ancestry have nothing to do with it.
On the post: How Corporate Sovereignty Threatens Democracy
Re:
Theoretically investments in the states could be made by individuals, but in practice pretty much the only individuals who have the money to be able to afford to make such investments on a meaningful scale are also incorporated, and would make the investments through their corporation(s) in order to limit their own liability in the event of a failure.
On the post: Court Says That Tweeting Someone Is 'F**king Crazy' Is Not Libelous
Re:
On the post: Government Forces Free Press Advocacy Group To File Its Amicus Brief In NSL Case Under Seal
In other words: whether or not a given brief contains confidential information is metadata, and by allowing briefs which do not contain such information to be filed unsealed, that metadata would be revealed. By requiring all briefs to be filed under seal, they're attempting to prevent that metadata from coming out.
On the post: Stewart Baker Deploys Shakiest Analogy Yet To Defend The NSA's Collection And Storage Of Non-Targeted Communications
Re: Re: Re:
As I read this discussion, the "war" it's referring to is not the Iraq war, but the "war on terrorism", which AFAIK has never been - and, arguably, due to the nature of its adversary cannot be - declared by Congress.
On the post: Qualcomm Uses DMCA To Shut Down Its Own GitHub Repository (Plus A Bunch Of Others)
Re: Perjury?
There are no apparent penalties in the law for making a false statement about the rest of it - including, again IIRC, the claim that the work at the identified location infringes on the copyright in question. You do have to certify that you have a "good faith belief" that some parts of it are true, but that's a very different thing from certifying that those parts are true, and virtually impossible to disprove.
On the post: EU Publishers Present Their 'Vision' For Copyright: A Permission-Based Internet Where Licensing Is Required For Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Enough Secret Law: Newly Released DOJ Drone Killing Justification Memo... Points To Another Secret Drone Memo
Re: The business of the American nation...
For that matter, this deserves to be read out on the floor of the House and/or the Senate, as a good sound-bite component of a larger political "argument". (Scare quotes because of course much of what gets said on the floor of Congress doesn't more than vaguely resemble actual argument.)
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re:
The Court would probably disagree that that logic holds, but many other people (including lawyers and other judges) would probably support it.
On the post: How The House Leadership Tried To Misrepresent Amendment That Defunded NSA Backdoor Searches
Re: Amazing.
As a way to counter this, I've thought about the possible ramifications of having a requirement that before either house of Congress can hold a vote on a bill or amendment, the full text of that bill (as amended) must be read out on the floor of the relevant house of Congress.
If any bill is voted on without having been so read, the requirement would hold that the vote is invalid.
If any amendment is submitted, voted on, and accepted, then the requirement would hold that the bill is once again considered to not have been read out in full, since its as-amended text has been modified from the version which was already read out.
(Taking things further, I've also considered requiring that in order to be eligible to vote on a bill, a member of Congress must actually have been present on the floor during such a full-text reading. But I think that might be going a bit overboard.)
In addition to its obviously intended effects of making it harder to claim that a bill does one thing when it actually does another, this would have one major "side-"effect: vastly increasing the time required to pass a given bill, since you can no longer simply read out the title but must read the full text of the bill, possibly multiple times. Some people might consider that an advantage, and others might consider it a drawback, but it would certainly have to be taken into account either way.
It's possible that this might end up causing more trouble than it solves. But I think it's an interesting idea, nonetheless...
On the post: Court To Government On Attempt To Bury Drone Memo: You'd Have A Case If You'd Bother To Shut Your Mouth Once In Awhile
Re: Re:
In other words, "In cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, an exception to the requirement of an indictment by an Grand Jury to hold a person to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime shall exist."
Interpreting that exception to apply to all clauses would imply, for example, that in military cases, double jeopardy is allowed. Does precedent support that? Do you think it should be allowed? I would certainly hope not, on both counts.
Applying the usual rules that hold for use of semicolons, the single sentence - and thus the amendment - could be split into multiple without changing the meaning, something like so:
There is one part of that conversion which I think might be slightly questionable: because the "be a witness against himself" point is separated from the "deprived of life, liberty or property" point only by a comma and not by a semicolon, it could reasonably be argued that the latter - like the former - applies only to a person "be[ing] compelled in any criminal case".
Taking that interpretation over the one I've used in the conversion seems like it would require more of a stretch from the text to the meaning, however, and in any case I think there's long-established precedent to the effect that "depriv[ation] of life, liberty or property" is prohibited even in cases where no criminal activity is alleged.
(Hmm. I wonder what precedent says about "due process of law" for a police officer shooting of an uninvolved person?)
On the post: German Newspapers Want Google To Pay Them For Appearing In Search Results (Even As They Try To Rank Higher)
Re:
On the post: IRS Now Says It Has Lost Emails From Six More Accounts Tied To The Investigation Of Its Targeting Of Tax-Exempt Groups
Re: Re:
On the post: IRS Now Says It Has Lost Emails From Six More Accounts Tied To The Investigation Of Its Targeting Of Tax-Exempt Groups
Re: Re:
One way to do it would be for the server to simply split off and archive everything that comes in, *before* it gets to the point of being visible on the server where a mail client could see it - just as the server can pull out mail it judges to be spam, before that mail gets to where a client has a chance to see it.
Another way would be for the server to respond to a client's "delete this message from the server" request (whether POP3 or otherwise) by either flagging the message "don't show", or outright archiving it on the server end (and removing it from where the user's account can access it, and ceasing to count it against the user's storage allotment), but not by actually deleting it.
The latter solution wouldn't address the IMAP issue you cite (at least not without opening the server up to a DoS from excessive disk-space consumption), but I think the former would.
Also, I'd think a well-designed backup system would let you restore individual E-mails - or at least individual accounts - rather than only the entire backed-up data set at once...
On the post: New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing
Re:
At the very least, that would eliminate that "don't vote for a third-party candidate, because you'll just be throwing your vote away" argument, thereby making it much harder for existing powers to keep their stranglehold on access to power.
It might still turn out not to be enough; for example, monied interests still might be able to tout their own candidate(s) and bash or downplay the alternatives enough to prevent any significant chance of differing powers from getting into office. In that case, doing something about the "money in politics" aspect would still be necessary.
The whole "money in politics" thing is a much harder problem to solve, on a design level, however; it may not be much simpler to actually implement, politically speaking, but every design solution proposed so far has had problems. I'm also not convinced that fixing that part by itself would be enough, either; at best, it would only fix some of the problems, and still leave a dysfunctional system in other respects.
It looks to me as if throwing the current, corrupt incumbents out, and changing the rules about money and lobbying to help prevent corruption from recurring in the future, would only be treating the symptoms of the problem and would come at a considerable cost, in terms of compromise on principles - because in order to be effective at preventing the recurrence of corruption in the long term, you'd have to sharply limit what private citizens are legally permitted to do with their own money, and sharply restrict the ability of private citizens to contact and interact with those in power.
Fixing the voting system to allow people to better express what they actually want, by contrast, looks to me as if it would address some of the underlying problems, and leave a more stable, less corruptible system on which to build for the long term - without any of those trade-offs in restrictions on individual (or, I think, even collective) liberty. In the long run, I think it's a far better choice than just kicking money out of politics, and probably far more necessary.
On the post: Secret UK Policy On Surveillance Of All 'External' Communications Revealed By Counter Terrorism Boss
Re:
On the post: NSA Can Neither Confirm Nor Deny It Uses The Phrases It Used On A Leaked Slide
Re: Does that EVER work?
Theoretically, if someone were to ask for the release of any information they have on something which genuinely does not exist, they would be able - and quite possibly required - to make the same response.
It's the same rationale under which your lawyer might advise you to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement even when the answer is "no, I'm not guilty of that".
If you answer "not guilty" to most questions, and "no comment" to a few, that reveals information; if you answer "no comment" to all questions, even if no one believes a word of it, you haven't revealed anything they didn't already know.
Similarly, if they answer "the information you have requested does not exist" to requests where that is true, and "we cannot confirm or deny" (or even "we refuse to turn over any such information") to ones where the information does exist, that reveals something about which requests are about information which does exist.
That may be a relatively unimportant point in the present context, depending on whether any of the requests which are being made are about information which happens to actually not exist. But the same governing principle still applies.
Next >>