I do think there's some truth to my claim that the "report" button is techdirt censorship, but overall I'm just making a joke. My ":)" in the first post was a clue.
I would only use the word stalking when referring to illegal conduct, not permissible conduct. From the context of the statement I was replying to, I took it he meant impermissible stalking.
So the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from noble to... What, exactly?
You are trying to put words in my mouth. I said that those who participate in sit ins are willing to be arrested for what they believe in. I didn't label those people, but the implication is that they are brave. Then I said that those behind the DDOS attacks act in secret like cowards. Notice that I never said that I personally thought any of them were noble.
So, to your question, the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from brave to cowardly.
Here's some Supreme Court caselaw for you. These cases I'm quoting are all good law. I'm not sure what cases you're referring to when you say there are "judgments going in both directions." None of those judgments could supersede the Supreme Court.
While capricious, random stops are not allowed, roadblock stops in general are fine according to the Court:
Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The judgment below is affirmed.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Suspicionless sobriety checkpoints are allowed under the Court's holding in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990):
At traffic checkpoints the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers’ authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion . . . . Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to the guidelines, and uniformed police officers stop every approaching vehicle. The intrusion resulting from the brief stop at the sobriety checkpoint is for constitutional purposes indistinguishable from the checkpoint stops we upheld in Martinez-Fuerte.
Martinez-Fuerte was a suspicionless border patrol checkpoints away-from-the-border case, in case you're wondering
Suspicionless checkpoints for narcotics are NOT allowed, though roadblocks to capture a terrorist or dangerous criminal would be allowed, under City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000):
The primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoints is in the end to advance "the general interest in crime control," Prouse, 440 U.S., at 659, n. 18. We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.
Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. See 183 F.3d, at 662-663. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction. While we do not limit the purposes that may justify a checkpoint program to any rigid set of categories, we decline to approve a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.
And a police checkpoint to ask motorists about a recent hit-and-run was upheld by the Court in Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004):
We now consider the reasonableness of the checkpoint stop before us in light of the
factors just mentioned. We hold that the stop was constitutional.
The relevant public concern was grave. Police were investigating a crime that had
resulted in a human death. No one denies the police's need to obtain more information at that
time. And the stop's objective was to help find the perpetrator of a specific and known crime, not
of unknown crimes of a general sort. Cf. Edmond, supra, at 44, 121 S.Ct. 447.
The stop advanced this grave public concern to a significant degree. The police
appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs. The
stops took place about one week after the hit-and-run accident, on the same highway near the
location of the accident, and at about the same time of night. And police used the stops to obtain
information from drivers, some of whom might well have been in the vicinity of the crime at the
time it occurred.
Most importantly, the stops interfered only minimally with liberty of the sort the Fourth
Amendment seeks to protect. Viewed objectively, each stop required only a brief wait in line-a
very few minutes at most. Contact with the police lasted only a few seconds. Police contact
consisted simply of a request for information and the distribution of a flyer. Cf. Martinez-Fuerte,
supra, at 546 (upholding inquiry as to motorists' citizenship and immigration status); Sitz, supra,
at 447, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (upholding examination of all drivers for signs of intoxication). Viewed
subjectively, the contact provided little reason for anxiety or alarm. The police stopped all
vehicles systematically. And there is no allegation here that the police acted in a discriminatory
or otherwise unlawful manner while questioning motorists during stops.
For these reasons we conclude that the checkpoint stop was constitutional.
And just to be clear, Rose, do you mean roadblocks, like where they're looking for an escaped convict, or do you mean checkpoints, like they might set up on New Year's Eve? Either one may be constitutional, and I have time, I'd be happy to point you to Supreme Court language to that effect.
c'mon joe, even you can tell there is a difference between user reports to hide what is incredibly likely to be a spam message and a government agent deciding what can and cannot be communicated.
But according to techdirt, it's censorship no matter who is doing the blocking, whether they're government agents or not, and no matter the reason the content is being blocked. Using techdirt's own definition of censorship, the "report" button is blatant censorship. The hypocrisy is inescapable.
I would argue that my emails stored on a remote server contain much more sensitive information than my phone records, and I certainly expect the former to have much better legal protection than the latter. "Cloud computing" makes things even more complicated.
Of course your emails are more sensitive, that's why they receive more protection than your phone records.
It's both. It's a public and private place, where the same rules that are in public (you cannot follow someone for days without being accused of stalking, even if you are the police, without a warrant) for the protection of private citizens still apply.
That is not true. The police can follow you for days on end without a warrant, and it's not stalking.
Scared people who are clueless about the law that is who and there is a lot of them out there.
I think they don't realize they should treat lawyers of any kind as hostile relationships, same goes for the police.
Don't ever talk to them directly, don't send them letters explaining anything, the right place to do all that is when you are inside a court room with witness and records being made.
You think there are clueless people who are just going to hand over a grand even before they've even been accused of anything? I seriously doubt it.
because it contributed so little to the conversation that a certain minimum number of people decided it was spammy enough to hit the report button? *shrugs*
In other words, it was censored using techdirt's built-in censoring "report" button. Good job, techdirt minions! Let's censor techdirt users while you lament censorship in general!
You are exactly right. Those calling it a "sit in" are trying to legitimize these actions by referencing something that is seen by some as noble. Sit ins occur in the open by those willing to be arrested for what they believe in. DDOS attacks are done in secret by cowards. These are cowards.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re:
http://www.truecrypt.org :)
I do love truecrypt. I use it on all of my computers and thumbdrives.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re:
You are trying to put words in my mouth. I said that those who participate in sit ins are willing to be arrested for what they believe in. I didn't label those people, but the implication is that they are brave. Then I said that those behind the DDOS attacks act in secret like cowards. Notice that I never said that I personally thought any of them were noble.
So, to your question, the preference to avoid arrest changes their acts from brave to cowardly.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While capricious, random stops are not allowed, roadblock stops in general are fine according to the Court:
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Suspicionless sobriety checkpoints are allowed under the Court's holding in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990):
Martinez-Fuerte was a suspicionless border patrol checkpoints away-from-the-border case, in case you're wondering
Suspicionless checkpoints for narcotics are NOT allowed, though roadblocks to capture a terrorist or dangerous criminal would be allowed, under City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000):
And a police checkpoint to ask motorists about a recent hit-and-run was upheld by the Court in Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004):
Fourth Amendment doctrine is one of my favs...
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But according to techdirt, it's censorship no matter who is doing the blocking, whether they're government agents or not, and no matter the reason the content is being blocked. Using techdirt's own definition of censorship, the "report" button is blatant censorship. The hypocrisy is inescapable.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re:
That is simply untrue. Checkpoints do not work that way, nor could they. I think you're buying the 4th Amendment FUD hook, line, and sinker.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re:
Of course your emails are more sensitive, that's why they receive more protection than your phone records.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re:
That is not true. The police can follow you for days on end without a warrant, and it's not stalking.
On the post: New Twist On Mass Pre-Settlement Copyright Shakedown Letters: Porn Company Asks Downloaders To Confess... And Pay
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think they don't realize they should treat lawyers of any kind as hostile relationships, same goes for the police.
Don't ever talk to them directly, don't send them letters explaining anything, the right place to do all that is when you are inside a court room with witness and records being made.
You think there are clueless people who are just going to hand over a grand even before they've even been accused of anything? I seriously doubt it.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, it was censored using techdirt's built-in censoring "report" button. Good job, techdirt minions! Let's censor techdirt users while you lament censorship in general!
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re:
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re:
I simply cannot resist clicking on them to find out why they were flagged.
Flagging and hiding the comments is censorship that begets the Streisand Effect. Techdirt is a police state that encourages prior restraint. :)
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Twist On Mass Pre-Settlement Copyright Shakedown Letters: Porn Company Asks Downloaders To Confess... And Pay
Re: Re:
On the post: New Twist On Mass Pre-Settlement Copyright Shakedown Letters: Porn Company Asks Downloaders To Confess... And Pay
Next >>