"Rep. Issa want a site to report things like government waste and lazy federal employees, not to out operatives in foreign countries."
Ah, so only the barely worth knowing about stuff. Got it....
The sad thing, if this is the case, is that Issa is committing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, because this capability already exists and is run by the Government Accounting Office (FraudNET.) If he is using government funds to duplicate the efforts of an already existing service provided by a government agency, I might be the first person to report him to the GAO Fraud, Waste and Abuse group.
I suspect they are worried that having a lawyer present would make it more difficult to violate someone's rights.
Maybe, but since it is judges and not TSA behind this case law, I find it difficult to see them (who were once lawyers themselves) being part of some grand conspiracy. I suspect if TSA keeps doing what they're doing, eventually the Supreme Court is going to take this away from them.
I've never heard of this band until now...and when I see their CD, I'll be buying it (if it is available on iTunes or another, non-ridiculous music service.)
One of the links says the album this song is on comes out March 1st. Looking forward to buying it.
But apparently no right to a lawyer to help you make that case.
True, and don't let my statement make you believe that I am making excuses for what is happening here. I do not like what is happening here, and I've said so before and since. But this is the way the law works, and if Jacob Appelbaum's rights are being violated (which I believe is occurring because he is being unjustly persecuted for supporting a site which isn't violating any current laws,) then the law allows for him to sue the government for grievances.
In this case, however, detainment is not arrest, and until he is arrested, his right to have a lawyer present has been found to be unnecessary by the courts. I suspect this is because they are worried that by allowing lawyers to be present during entry to a country (or during a traffic stop) would be an unnecessary distraction and would cause more stress than it solves. I guess that they figure that afterwards, if a person's rights have been violated, they can contact a lawyer and go through the courts to become whole again.
and acting irresponsibly and mocking the procedure isn't very sane either.
When have I ever said that I protested in an airport? When have I acted irresponsibly? Sure, I mock procedure here, but I've been through the rape-scan device several times, and all I hope is that the person behind the curtain got an eyeful. The problem is that neither you nor I are a security risk, and while some security is good (as I said before,) going overboard is a problem, no matter what side of the security scanner you are on.
Since when has thoughtful protest (even at the airport) not been a right in a free country. If you don't like Freedom, I am sure they have a place for you in Iran.
How many people who live in California like what is going on? How many more people in California are going to be up in arms when gas is $6.00 a gallon (SF lead the nation as the highest priced gas a while back) and rolling black-outs are reintroduced, and now we're fighting over water too. I live here, and I am not too happy with our state right now.
I am just offering perspective for the Anonymous Coward that said Arizona was all screwed up. I am looking at Arizona right now and all I see is far more sanity beyond the border (sure, grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.) Now if there were jobs that I could work there, and I could afford to sell my house, I'd be heading east.
Honestly, if you show up in security wearing something that gets in the way of procedures, you look like you have something other than genitalia to hide. It is sort of obvious, no?
Honestly, if you have security procedures that require looking at genitalia, you're doing it wrong (or right, maybe, if you are into that kinky stuff.) It doesn't help security, and it only inconveniences the honest, non-terrorist folks as the terrorists just side-step the whole process.
The fact that a terrorist can easily bypass the security procedures in place by inserting bombs into orifices which aren't detected by the scan, or by putting bombs into air cargo, going to an airport which lacks the additional security, or detonating them in a busy airport checkpoint is what makes this all academic. Sure, having security procedures in place is good, terrorists have to keep guessing on whether they will trigger a trap or not. But making the process ridiculous adds no more security than having a sane process in place.
No, YOU don't understand the difference. You can be detained AND arrested pending an investigation. And the imormation is not 'stolen', it is 'infringed'. Get it right.
He is right. But only about the difference between detainment/arrest.
Wikileaks has not, and I'd argue that they will never be found to have, committed a crime. Being part of the organization should not be grounds for additional scrutiny. And what I believe is happening here is absolutely wrong. However, an arrest is always a detainment, but detainment is not always an arrest under the law.
btrussell is right; they don't understand the definition of arrest either.
No, unfortunately you are wrong, and neither of you understand the definition of arrest as it relates to legal detainment. A law enforcement officer can legally detain you without arresting you, such as during a traffic stop, with nothing more than reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. However, they must determine probable cause of you committing a crime before they can arrest you. If they can't, in a reasonable amount of time, they have to let you go. When entering a country, they may detain you long enough to determine whether you haven't committed a crime, and whether or not you're authorized to enter the country, and then they have to let you go.
So, they under the definition of arrest fine, and so long as he was not held longer than reasonable to determine if a crime was committed, no rights were violated.
That doesn't exactly answer my point. If you're not under arrest, they're still detaining you until they decide to let you in the country. The country in which you reside. Where are you supposed to go if you say "bye" before they do that?
Under the law, a detainment is not necessarily an arrest. They can detain you legally long enough to determine that a crime has not been committed, and then must let you go. The question is how long can they legally detain you, and the Supreme Court has said that it can only be as long as necessary to determine whether or not a crime has occurred, and no longer.
You cannot leave when you are being detained, just as you can not leave if you are being arrested, but with a detainment, the clock starts automatically, and if they detain you for a period longer than what is reasonable to determine whether a crime has been committed or not, then you have a case for a violation of your 4th Amendment Rights.
That sound you just heard was the sound of every 30/yo guy living in his parents' basement making flight arrangements at the same time.
Do I have to make flight arrangements? Figure I could just go on Craig's List and find someone that can give me a Freedom Fondle and bypass the whole travel/airport thing.
We were told not to wear the red cross as it makes you a primary target.
Iraq signed the Geneva Convention sections I-IV in 1956, but they could certainly argue that those who signed it were "pre-Sadam" and thus Iraq was no longer interested in upholding the requirements of GC. Terrorist organizations and Jihadists certainly aren't bound to the rules, so they aren't required to follow the rules either. As such, the US considers them "Non-Lawful Combatants", and the rules are different than when fighting "Lawful Combatants." Certainly nobody is expected to receive special treatment for wearing a red cross, and no quarter will likely be given to someone who is associated with the military with one.
I seem to remember that during WWII, Japanese soldiers would purposefully shoot corpsmen, because they reasoned that they could kill more people that way, since corpsmen would often rush to the aid of wounded soldiers, and without corpsmen, those soldiers would often die.
I'd guess that this ESP paper is more about how "random number generators" are not really random than ESP.
I'd tend to agree that this was bad peer review and failure to understand processes at work within their test.
Any computer scientist could have told them that random number generators aren't random...as they are usually based on highly non-random efforts to generate random numbers. Even PRNG/GRD and the other random seeding efforts rely on activity on the system processor/network/etc, which is not necessarily random. Only random generators that rely on truly random processes (decay of atom, cosmic radiation, etc.) can be completely random. Hence, most of these systems are called "pseudo-random number generator."
They seem to have some fucked up priorities in that state.
What do you mean? As a neighbor to the west, I think we pretty much take the cake for screwed up priorities. After all, we thought it was a good idea to sell our power generation capabilities to other states, which meant that when we needed to buy power, we had to do so at inflated rates from our neighbors because even though we had enough power generation capabilities, we gave them away. We also suck when it comes to finances (our governor just announced that he's raising our taxes, and if we are really good, he won't raise our taxes as much the next time,) and we tend to pay more for housing and gas then just about anyone else in the nation (except maybe Hawaii.) Then of course, you have the free health care, education, and food stamps to illegal immigrants.
there is a group of chimpanzees that would like to have a word with you regarding this script they worked out for a shakespere play.
We had the same problem when we turned on our infinite improbability generator. It was ok, though, as they all turned into a bowl of petunias and a rather confused looking whale.
Now, if the band really wanted to make money, they would have released the high-quality version on iTunes, and politely asked the blogs to point to that (without requiring that they take down the low-quality version, of course).
Or, take this experience as a "loss-leader" and put the song on a CD with other music and sell it to those who want it (with it being on iTunes and the other sites.) I've never heard of this band until now...and when I see their CD, I'll be buying it (if it is available on iTunes or another, non-ridiculous music service.)
So, they didn't lose a sale, they potentially gained one. Free advertising, that is how it works in the real, non-MAFIAA world.
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa -- Who Says Investigating Wikileaks Is A Priority -- Sets Up His Own Whistleblower Site
Re: Re:
Ah, so only the barely worth knowing about stuff. Got it....
The sad thing, if this is the case, is that Issa is committing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, because this capability already exists and is run by the Government Accounting Office (FraudNET.) If he is using government funds to duplicate the efforts of an already existing service provided by a government agency, I might be the first person to report him to the GAO Fraud, Waste and Abuse group.
On the post: Courtney Love's Twitter Defamation Defense: 'Twitter Made Me Do It'
Re:
Lots and lots of cold hard cash. Same thing that detaches politicians from reality.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe, but since it is judges and not TSA behind this case law, I find it difficult to see them (who were once lawyers themselves) being part of some grand conspiracy. I suspect if TSA keeps doing what they're doing, eventually the Supreme Court is going to take this away from them.
On the post: Band Discovers Leaked Song... And Its Response Is To Release A Better Version For Free
Re: Re: Re: Amazing
One of the links says the album this song is on comes out March 1st. Looking forward to buying it.
On the post: EU MPs Investigating US Info Snooping To See If It Violates EU Privacy Laws
Re: Re:
When they (the US government) or their corporations are the victims?
I don't know...I figure they have to care about it once in a while when it suits them.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, and don't let my statement make you believe that I am making excuses for what is happening here. I do not like what is happening here, and I've said so before and since. But this is the way the law works, and if Jacob Appelbaum's rights are being violated (which I believe is occurring because he is being unjustly persecuted for supporting a site which isn't violating any current laws,) then the law allows for him to sue the government for grievances.
In this case, however, detainment is not arrest, and until he is arrested, his right to have a lawyer present has been found to be unnecessary by the courts. I suspect this is because they are worried that by allowing lawyers to be present during entry to a country (or during a traffic stop) would be an unnecessary distraction and would cause more stress than it solves. I guess that they figure that afterwards, if a person's rights have been violated, they can contact a lawyer and go through the courts to become whole again.
On the post: TSA Warns That If You Wear Scanner Resistant Clothing, They'll Have To Grope You
Re: Re: Re:
When have I ever said that I protested in an airport? When have I acted irresponsibly? Sure, I mock procedure here, but I've been through the rape-scan device several times, and all I hope is that the person behind the curtain got an eyeful. The problem is that neither you nor I are a security risk, and while some security is good (as I said before,) going overboard is a problem, no matter what side of the security scanner you are on.
Since when has thoughtful protest (even at the airport) not been a right in a free country. If you don't like Freedom, I am sure they have a place for you in Iran.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Another Hate California Firster
I am just offering perspective for the Anonymous Coward that said Arizona was all screwed up. I am looking at Arizona right now and all I see is far more sanity beyond the border (sure, grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.) Now if there were jobs that I could work there, and I could afford to sell my house, I'd be heading east.
On the post: TSA Warns That If You Wear Scanner Resistant Clothing, They'll Have To Grope You
Re:
Honestly, if you have security procedures that require looking at genitalia, you're doing it wrong (or right, maybe, if you are into that kinky stuff.) It doesn't help security, and it only inconveniences the honest, non-terrorist folks as the terrorists just side-step the whole process.
The fact that a terrorist can easily bypass the security procedures in place by inserting bombs into orifices which aren't detected by the scan, or by putting bombs into air cargo, going to an airport which lacks the additional security, or detonating them in a busy airport checkpoint is what makes this all academic. Sure, having security procedures in place is good, terrorists have to keep guessing on whether they will trigger a trap or not. But making the process ridiculous adds no more security than having a sane process in place.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Re: Re:
He is right. But only about the difference between detainment/arrest.
Wikileaks has not, and I'd argue that they will never be found to have, committed a crime. Being part of the organization should not be grounds for additional scrutiny. And what I believe is happening here is absolutely wrong. However, an arrest is always a detainment, but detainment is not always an arrest under the law.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Re:
No, unfortunately you are wrong, and neither of you understand the definition of arrest as it relates to legal detainment. A law enforcement officer can legally detain you without arresting you, such as during a traffic stop, with nothing more than reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. However, they must determine probable cause of you committing a crime before they can arrest you. If they can't, in a reasonable amount of time, they have to let you go. When entering a country, they may detain you long enough to determine whether you haven't committed a crime, and whether or not you're authorized to enter the country, and then they have to let you go.
So, they under the definition of arrest fine, and so long as he was not held longer than reasonable to determine if a crime was committed, no rights were violated.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under the law, a detainment is not necessarily an arrest. They can detain you legally long enough to determine that a crime has not been committed, and then must let you go. The question is how long can they legally detain you, and the Supreme Court has said that it can only be as long as necessary to determine whether or not a crime has occurred, and no longer.
You cannot leave when you are being detained, just as you can not leave if you are being arrested, but with a detainment, the clock starts automatically, and if they detain you for a period longer than what is reasonable to determine whether a crime has been committed or not, then you have a case for a violation of your 4th Amendment Rights.
On the post: Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers
Re: Re:
Do I have to make flight arrangements? Figure I could just go on Craig's List and find someone that can give me a Freedom Fondle and bypass the whole travel/airport thing.
On the post: Congress, Once Again, Looks To Extend Patriot Act With Little Or No Debate
Re: Patriot Act...
Damn, Godwin'd and yet a perfectly legitimate argument.
Sadly, another case of those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat. Of course politicians don't have to understand history...they make it.
On the post: Highly Flawed 'Piracy' Report Used To Support Positions That Are Unrelated
Re: Introduction of faith-based evidence
Only in the court of public opinion.
In legal proceedings, however, they are not legal forms of evidence, and cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.
However, for the "pseudo-science" nutjobs who believe in faith-based science, you are absolutely correct.
On the post: Red Cross Says Theater Nurse Costume Violates The Geneva Conventions
Re: Re:
Iraq signed the Geneva Convention sections I-IV in 1956, but they could certainly argue that those who signed it were "pre-Sadam" and thus Iraq was no longer interested in upholding the requirements of GC. Terrorist organizations and Jihadists certainly aren't bound to the rules, so they aren't required to follow the rules either. As such, the US considers them "Non-Lawful Combatants", and the rules are different than when fighting "Lawful Combatants." Certainly nobody is expected to receive special treatment for wearing a red cross, and no quarter will likely be given to someone who is associated with the military with one.
I seem to remember that during WWII, Japanese soldiers would purposefully shoot corpsmen, because they reasoned that they could kill more people that way, since corpsmen would often rush to the aid of wounded soldiers, and without corpsmen, those soldiers would often die.
On the post: DailyDirt: Mind And Body Interactions
Re: Re: Tests
I'd tend to agree that this was bad peer review and failure to understand processes at work within their test.
Any computer scientist could have told them that random number generators aren't random...as they are usually based on highly non-random efforts to generate random numbers. Even PRNG/GRD and the other random seeding efforts rely on activity on the system processor/network/etc, which is not necessarily random. Only random generators that rely on truly random processes (decay of atom, cosmic radiation, etc.) can be completely random. Hence, most of these systems are called "pseudo-random number generator."
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re:
What do you mean? As a neighbor to the west, I think we pretty much take the cake for screwed up priorities. After all, we thought it was a good idea to sell our power generation capabilities to other states, which meant that when we needed to buy power, we had to do so at inflated rates from our neighbors because even though we had enough power generation capabilities, we gave them away. We also suck when it comes to finances (our governor just announced that he's raising our taxes, and if we are really good, he won't raise our taxes as much the next time,) and we tend to pay more for housing and gas then just about anyone else in the nation (except maybe Hawaii.) Then of course, you have the free health care, education, and food stamps to illegal immigrants.
On the post: Rovi Sues Amazon For Not Licensing Its Electronic TV Guide Patent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm Sky?
We had the same problem when we turned on our infinite improbability generator. It was ok, though, as they all turned into a bowl of petunias and a rather confused looking whale.
On the post: Band Discovers Leaked Song... And Its Response Is To Release A Better Version For Free
Re: Re: Amazing
Or, take this experience as a "loss-leader" and put the song on a CD with other music and sell it to those who want it (with it being on iTunes and the other sites.) I've never heard of this band until now...and when I see their CD, I'll be buying it (if it is available on iTunes or another, non-ridiculous music service.)
So, they didn't lose a sale, they potentially gained one. Free advertising, that is how it works in the real, non-MAFIAA world.
Next >>