Agreed on that... personally, I see a lot of ISP's shutting down or being shut down under these laws when they refuse to censor discussions on all sorts of things.
As I keep on saying EVERYONE has something to hide that they don't want other people to know about.
That can be that they are attracted to black women, that can be that they are attracted to men, etc.
It's time to stop with the bunk that people have 'nothing to hide' unless we totally legalize everything save murder, forcible rape, stealing from someone, physically assaulting another person, and forcing someone to do or not do something that they do not or do wish to do (sexual or not, regardless of age or lack of age).
THEN, people will have 'nothing to hide' because the police will not be able to look at something you are doing, look up an obscure law because they don't like what you are doing, and put your butt in jail for it.
I would say pass a law saying that 95% of premiums have to be used for health care, or whatever percentage is differing from that 95% has to be returned to the people who are buying health insurance.
5% profit is MORE THAN ENOUGH profit for a company to be making in the real world.
Term limits don't work. It has us getting our best and brightest out of the legislature too soon, while getting the most egregious idiots out soon enough.
Best thing: Recall votes. Amend ALL state Constitutions and the federal constitution to make it so that Congressmen/Senators/Reps can be recalled at any time, at the local/state/federal level.
On some things, they are not following the Constitution.... mainly because the Supreme Court is willing to let them get away with ignoring the Constitution with those conservative idiots in there.
Yep, that's right people: the fact is that CONSERVATIVE judges are more likely than liberal judges to allow power grabs by the federal government.
Bingo! The Second Amendment doesn't help very much when people have been brainwashed into thinking that it is illegitimate to use it to protest against a government overstepping it's bounds.
What is with these senators and the loopholes! Simply say that unless someone's life is in imminent danger or someone is connected with terrorism, that you have to have a warrant to get any of this information.
Actually, a toilet flushing could just be someone in the home going to the bathroom. Again, the police should ALWAYS have to get a warrant unless they hear something that equates to someone being in imminent danger of death: gunshots being the most common thing; or see something that tells them that someone is seriously injured (a blood pool, etc.).
I have to agree with that. I would not be surprised if people after seeing this ruling start to arm themselves and 'shoot first and ask questions later' when someone breaks into their home.
If we don't start stopping them with protests and even, I have to reluctantly say, physical violence.... yes, they will.
It's getting to the point where I have to say that there needs to be a second American Civil War to reinstate the Constitution's protections, and that a bunch of these idiots on the Supreme Court need to be arrested and thrown in prison for violating the oath they swear to uphold the Constitution.
Sorry, but it's not a 'tough case' in the slightest. They could have EASILY called in for a 'quick warrant' from a judge, which takes maybe 5 minutes. I doubt that would really be a 'long' time to wait nor raise the possibility that 'evidence might be destroyed'.
This is weakening the law to the point where the police are going to say "WHY THE HELL SHOULD BE BOTHER WITH A WARRANT ANYWAY! WE WILL JUST CLAIM EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES!"
I can very well see them doing that in the future.
Agreed totally.... the more rulings I see from the Supreme Court like this, the more I think that these old idiots on the court have gone insane or demented.
There is no reason why 'just hearing a noise' that sounds like scrambling should allow the police into a home.
With that reasoning, the police could say that just because they hear a woman groaning/screaming, they can assume that a woman is being raped.... and they will be witnesses to a lot of home births in that situation!
They can say that just because they hear a child yelling, that they can assume the child is being raped.... and will walk in on a lot of cases of parents tickling their children or playing with their children.
The Fourth Amendment is getting weaker and weaker as time goes on because of stupid rulings from the Supreme Court like this one.
Correction: Don't trust anyone over 30 who has not kept up with technological progress and still talks fondly about the days when "MILK COST A NICKLE A GALLON!" like my uncle does.
I finally got testy with my uncle the other week when he was spouting that, and told him "UNCLE! SHUT UP! Those days are GONE FOREVER! Stop referring to them like they were better than today! They weren't!"
On the post: India Descends Into Extreme Internet Censorship
Re:
On the post: India Descends Into Extreme Internet Censorship
Re: I would shut my ISP down
On the post: Judge Tells John Steele To Stop Mass Suing Anonymous People For File Sharing
They could have had a friend use their connection, a relative use their connection, etc.
These lawyers really need to get up with technology in the world today.
On the post: Privacy Is Not Secrecy; Debunking The 'If You've Got Nothing To Hide...' Argument
That can be that they are attracted to black women, that can be that they are attracted to men, etc.
It's time to stop with the bunk that people have 'nothing to hide' unless we totally legalize everything save murder, forcible rape, stealing from someone, physically assaulting another person, and forcing someone to do or not do something that they do not or do wish to do (sexual or not, regardless of age or lack of age).
THEN, people will have 'nothing to hide' because the police will not be able to look at something you are doing, look up an obscure law because they don't like what you are doing, and put your butt in jail for it.
On the post: Senator Leahy Supports Bringing Drugs In From Canada... And Also Banning Such Sites From The Internet
Re: Congress..
5% profit is MORE THAN ENOUGH profit for a company to be making in the real world.
On the post: Senator Leahy Supports Bringing Drugs In From Canada... And Also Banning Such Sites From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: realpolitik
Best thing: Recall votes. Amend ALL state Constitutions and the federal constitution to make it so that Congressmen/Senators/Reps can be recalled at any time, at the local/state/federal level.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re:
Yep, that's right people: the fact is that CONSERVATIVE judges are more likely than liberal judges to allow power grabs by the federal government.
On the post: Congress Just Sold You Out: Leadership Plans To Extend Patriot Act For Four Years With NO Concessions
Re: Re: Thank God For The Second Amendment!
On the post: Bezos: Attempts To Collect State Sales Tax On Amazon Sales Is Unconstitutional
Why? Because each one's edicts can come into conflict with the other.
On the post: US Decides That If There's No Real Cyberwar, It Might Just Escalate Hack Attacks Into A Real War
Re: Is the reverse ok too?
The United States might want to be VERY leery of this, because some countries might say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Leahy Wants To Update Digital Privacy Law; Some Good, Some Bad
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re: Toilets flushing, obviously
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re:
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re:
It's getting to the point where I have to say that there needs to be a second American Civil War to reinstate the Constitution's protections, and that a bunch of these idiots on the Supreme Court need to be arrested and thrown in prison for violating the oath they swear to uphold the Constitution.
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re:
This is weakening the law to the point where the police are going to say "WHY THE HELL SHOULD BE BOTHER WITH A WARRANT ANYWAY! WE WILL JUST CLAIM EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES!"
I can very well see them doing that in the future.
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re: I heard a noise
There is no reason why 'just hearing a noise' that sounds like scrambling should allow the police into a home.
With that reasoning, the police could say that just because they hear a woman groaning/screaming, they can assume that a woman is being raped.... and they will be witnesses to a lot of home births in that situation!
They can say that just because they hear a child yelling, that they can assume the child is being raped.... and will walk in on a lot of cases of parents tickling their children or playing with their children.
The Fourth Amendment is getting weaker and weaker as time goes on because of stupid rulings from the Supreme Court like this one.
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re: Re: Letter to my Senator Dianne Feinstein
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re: Re: DRM Thought Police Chips is coming soon
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re:
I finally got testy with my uncle the other week when he was spouting that, and told him "UNCLE! SHUT UP! Those days are GONE FOREVER! Stop referring to them like they were better than today! They weren't!"
Next >>