Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Mar 2018 @ 1:50pm
If it's classified, lock it up
It sure seems like a trivial pursuit for the government to store classified documents separately from other documents, and control access to those. If they had, then it would be a lot easier to show that those documents were in fact accessed illegally, and knowingly. Unless this guy is some super hacker.
On a separate subject, 50 terabytes of documents is one hell of a lot of documents. Maybe this shows how much, possibly superfluous, paperwork the government generates.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Mar 2018 @ 10:30am
Layers of stupid that are not game related but game triggered
Since I read the headline yesterday, I have been wondering why the Judge didn't order the kid to stop making stupid jokes?
I mean, the video game doesn't pose any kind of threat (it's a game), but the stupid joke got the police to do a stupid investigation and make stupid charges, which the judge stupidly compounded by accepting the stupid premise that video games might cause people to be stupid and do stupid things.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Mar 2018 @ 8:47am
Redaction
I move that redaction's should occur in Microshaft Word documents using the electronic version of 'markers' to do the redacting. Then we would all be able to see how the redactors think when viewing the underlying copy of the document without redaction's. Oh, and have a good laugh, that is until we realize just how perverted what the Government is hiding is, when we will start to cry.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Mar 2018 @ 5:27pm
Re:
Just how many checks does it take to answer your questions? Is there no way for the three CBP checkpoints to coordinate information? Or is it the actual purpose of the CBP checkpoints to harass anyone that does not support their harassment of US citizens going about their perfectly legal business, whatever that may be.
The answers are for question 1, one. For question 2, yes there is. For question 3, it definitely depends upon ones point of view, if one is anti Latino, then no, if one is pro Constitution, then the answer is yes.
The Constitution does not claim any 100 mile exclusion zone, though some courts have claimed that zone to be reasonable. For me, there should be no exclusion zones, only the Constitution. If there are things that need to be done, close to the borders that are not able to be done elsewhere, then the legislature should make laws that make those exceptions, and then expect Constitutional challenges to them. Which, I suspect due to the clumsiness of legislative language will be determined to be unconstitutional.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 1 Mar 2018 @ 11:45am
Extra anonymity required
"Phares anonymously posted a comment on an online forum for classical singers..."
The article above does not mention, but how did Phares get outed? Did the court order it? If so, given how they ruled, why did the court order the unmasking? Something is fishy here.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2018 @ 6:17pm
Two wrongs do not a right make
Maybe I didn't read closely enough, or I am too thick to comprehend the issue at hand, but if purely financial instruments are not in fact patentable, then how could there be a competing patent? Wouldn't the 'competing' patent also be excluded for that same reason?
I get the part about excluding patent holders, and that is stupid, but it does not clear up my confusion with the above.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Feb 2018 @ 8:01am
Implementation
So, all we have to do is 1) enable the FTC to be able to do their job (funding, staffing, etc.) and 2) get the FTC to do their job (motivation or coercion or both). Seems simple in theory, in practice...
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2018 @ 5:38pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Going the extra mile
What an ass.
A report is not a veto, asshole, it's a report. Congress then gets to do whatever they want with the report (as with CBO reports), but they then may or may not know that their piece of legislation may or may not pass Constitutional muster, but may have a better idea of whether it will or won't.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2018 @ 4:40pm
Re: Re: Going the extra mile
I wasn't thinking of the Supreme Court, but a couple or five lawyers trained in constitutional law, working from a non (as apposed to a bi) partisan office that reviews proposed legislation and language for potential problems, and then reports back to both houses. If Congress passes things that won't pass the 'smell' test, they they are making work for courts anyway, which isn't really in their job descriptions.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2018 @ 3:56pm
Going the extra mile
Things like this make me wonder why there is no mandate to review proposed legislation for Constitutionality, and then drop those that fail the 'smell' test.
Then I remember, it's Congress we're talking about.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2018 @ 3:30pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet we are not limited to the three iterated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
And still yet, it appears that the Declaration of Independence, no matter how significant it was/is in our democratic republic, has no force of law.
Hmm, maybe that should be a push for a Constitutional Amendment?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Feb 2018 @ 7:57am
Re: What right has the government annecting U.S. property?
The country is governed by the elected officials, and their appointed representatives. The constitution is an instruction manual. That the government does not follow the instruction manual is definitely a big problem. That the courts do not force those elected and appointed officials to follow the instruction manual is an even bigger problem.
We are supposed to be a country of laws, and when the laws are not followed (by the government and their appointees), and the system does not correct that, it is time to adjust the system.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Feb 2018 @ 7:11pm
Interesting postings
Lawrence posts about links that lead to broken or sex links. I found some broken links, but no sex. Makes one wonder about what constitutes sex for some. It might be prurient, but I went looking for the sex to see what p2p-next might be bringing to our children (not that our children cannot find links to sex on their own). I didn't find it, but I did find some things I wouldn't click on.
The other post is a long diatribe about... what they want to diatribe about, but has nothing to do with anything related to the history, but is actually related to the gun lobby. I do not care which version of the AR 15 you carry, nor do I care about how you decide to use it. The real question is... why do you post it here? What are you trying to tell us? Are you trying to change peoples minds about guns?
If that is so, then you are going about it the wrong way. If you want to change my mind about guns, then tell me why they are good. There are some reasonable arguments as to hunting. There are some (and I mean some) arguments as to personal protection. And there are some arguments as to the need, at some point, to refresh the tree of liberty. I am not agreeing to nor endorsing any of these arguments, but some of them are in fact reasonable.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Feb 2018 @ 5:01pm
Re: I have a signed tattoo on my leg;
Well, you could have your amputated leg serviced by a taxidermist. Whether that is legal may be of some contention. That still leaves the contention of who owns the leg? You, the taxidermist, or the tattoo artist that signed the leg? It might be contended that you own the leg, the taxidermist owns the 'embalmed leg', but the tattoo artist owns the artwork. How to divide? Could be a transcendent legal case. Never mind the surgeon who removed the leg and claims salvage rights.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2018 @ 3:38pm
On the other hand...
...it appears to me that the mistake the property owner made was not allowing some vandals to destroy the 'artwork' prior to his painting over it. Then, does this mean that all graffiti removal is actually illegal destruction of some 'creative endeavor', even if that 'creative endeavor' is destroying someone else's property?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2018 @ 12:42pm
We have a rating system
It's called elections. What? Need something more granular? How about annual election of the President, or, maybe we should call it a vote of confidence, without any electoral college crap. Straight up or down...no...something granular, how about on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being bad, confidence in the direction, and separately confidence in the leadership of the highest elected official in our land?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2018 @ 6:02pm
And therein lays the problem
Collective bargaining in the public sector gives law enforcement (amongst other public employees) greater rights than their employers, the citizens of those respective communities. There should be no greater rights. Those individuals should be subject to exactly the same pernicious rules as the rest of us. Don't like pernicious? There are legislatures for that.
They seem to think themselves as persecuted, when accused of wrong doing. How do they think citizens who are actually innocent of wronging, yet are accused, shackled, hauled into jail (and possibly abused) to await the system to prove them innocent, rather than being presumed innocent until proven guilty. While not a constitutional right, it is widely regarded as the defacto right of the accused, and in many states is actually the law.
Does the fact that they belong to some union make them above the laws and procedures the rest of us have to follow? Or is it just their imperious attitude that has over time been ensconced in collective bargaining agreements that never should have been allowed in the first place.
Maybe we should form a non public employees union that gives us greater rights than those assumed by members of public employee unions? Would that get us anywhere? If not, they why does the membership in a public employee union get them somewhere?
On the post: Judge Tells Prosecutors They Need To Prove Contractor Knew He Had Classified Docs In His 50-Terabyte Stash
If it's classified, lock it up
On a separate subject, 50 terabytes of documents is one hell of a lot of documents. Maybe this shows how much, possibly superfluous, paperwork the government generates.
On the post: Teen Who Made A Dumb School Shooting Joke On Snapchat Ordered By Judge To Not Play Violent Video Games
Layers of stupid that are not game related but game triggered
I mean, the video game doesn't pose any kind of threat (it's a game), but the stupid joke got the police to do a stupid investigation and make stupid charges, which the judge stupidly compounded by accepting the stupid premise that video games might cause people to be stupid and do stupid things.
On the post: Government Says FISA Court Should Stop Wasting Time Considering The ACLU's Request For Greater Transparency
Redaction
Any seconds?
On the post: Court Says Arizona Residents Hassled By CBP Encroachment Can Move Forward With Their First Amendment Lawsuit
Re:
The answers are for question 1, one. For question 2, yes there is. For question 3, it definitely depends upon ones point of view, if one is anti Latino, then no, if one is pro Constitution, then the answer is yes.
The Constitution does not claim any 100 mile exclusion zone, though some courts have claimed that zone to be reasonable. For me, there should be no exclusion zones, only the Constitution. If there are things that need to be done, close to the borders that are not able to be done elsewhere, then the legislature should make laws that make those exceptions, and then expect Constitutional challenges to them. Which, I suspect due to the clumsiness of legislative language will be determined to be unconstitutional.
On the post: Singer/Professor Tries To Sue Student For Bad Internet Ratings, Fails, Appeals, Fails Again
Extra anonymity required
The article above does not mention, but how did Phares get outed? Did the court order it? If so, given how they ruled, why did the court order the unmasking? Something is fishy here.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Buying A Bundle Of Diamonds
Two wrongs do not a right make
I get the part about excluding patent holders, and that is stupid, but it does not clear up my confusion with the above.
On the post: AT&T Fails In Bid To Kill FTC Authority Over Broadband Monopolies
Implementation
On the post: DOJ Tells Congress SESTA/FOSTA Will Make It MORE DIFFICULT To Catch Traffickers; House Votes For It Anyway
Re: Re: Re: Re: Going the extra mile
A report is not a veto, asshole, it's a report. Congress then gets to do whatever they want with the report (as with CBO reports), but they then may or may not know that their piece of legislation may or may not pass Constitutional muster, but may have a better idea of whether it will or won't.
What an ass.
On the post: DOJ Tells Congress SESTA/FOSTA Will Make It MORE DIFFICULT To Catch Traffickers; House Votes For It Anyway
Re: Re: Going the extra mile
On the post: DOJ Tells Congress SESTA/FOSTA Will Make It MORE DIFFICULT To Catch Traffickers; House Votes For It Anyway
Re: Congress?
I would say there is more of a distrust of the soft money problem in the election process.
But, then you know that and post your diatribes anyway.
On the post: DOJ Tells Congress SESTA/FOSTA Will Make It MORE DIFFICULT To Catch Traffickers; House Votes For It Anyway
Going the extra mile
Then I remember, it's Congress we're talking about.
On the post: Anti-NRA Censorship Efforts Echo Earlier Pro-NRA Censorship Efforts, And Learn No Lessons From Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet we are not limited to the three iterated in the Declaration of Independence:
And still yet, it appears that the Declaration of Independence, no matter how significant it was/is in our democratic republic, has no force of law.
Hmm, maybe that should be a push for a Constitutional Amendment?
On the post: Rancher Sues CBP After Officers Install A Camera On His Private Property
Re: What right has the government annecting U.S. property?
We are supposed to be a country of laws, and when the laws are not followed (by the government and their appointees), and the system does not correct that, it is time to adjust the system.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: February 18th - 24th
Interesting postings
The other post is a long diatribe about... what they want to diatribe about, but has nothing to do with anything related to the history, but is actually related to the gun lobby. I do not care which version of the AR 15 you carry, nor do I care about how you decide to use it. The real question is... why do you post it here? What are you trying to tell us? Are you trying to change peoples minds about guns?
If that is so, then you are going about it the wrong way. If you want to change my mind about guns, then tell me why they are good. There are some reasonable arguments as to hunting. There are some (and I mean some) arguments as to personal protection. And there are some arguments as to the need, at some point, to refresh the tree of liberty. I am not agreeing to nor endorsing any of these arguments, but some of them are in fact reasonable.
I will be waiting.
On the post: Court Destroys Future Public Art Installations By Holding Building Owner Liable For Destroying This One
Re: I have a signed tattoo on my leg;
Got the bucks?
On the post: Court Destroys Future Public Art Installations By Holding Building Owner Liable For Destroying This One
On the other hand...
On the post: Court Destroys Future Public Art Installations By Holding Building Owner Liable For Destroying This One
Once again
On the post: Trump Blames School Shootings On Violent Video Games, Movies; Suggests We Need Some Sort Of Rating System For Them
We have a rating system
Now, what to do with a poor rating result???
On the post: Court Realizes It Totally Screwed Up An Injunction Against Zazzle For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: Research Paper Links Police Unions To Increased Officer Misconduct
And therein lays the problem
Collective bargaining in the public sector gives law enforcement (amongst other public employees) greater rights than their employers, the citizens of those respective communities. There should be no greater rights. Those individuals should be subject to exactly the same pernicious rules as the rest of us. Don't like pernicious? There are legislatures for that.
They seem to think themselves as persecuted, when accused of wrong doing. How do they think citizens who are actually innocent of wronging, yet are accused, shackled, hauled into jail (and possibly abused) to await the system to prove them innocent, rather than being presumed innocent until proven guilty. While not a constitutional right, it is widely regarded as the defacto right of the accused, and in many states is actually the law.
Does the fact that they belong to some union make them above the laws and procedures the rest of us have to follow? Or is it just their imperious attitude that has over time been ensconced in collective bargaining agreements that never should have been allowed in the first place.
Maybe we should form a non public employees union that gives us greater rights than those assumed by members of public employee unions? Would that get us anywhere? If not, they why does the membership in a public employee union get them somewhere?
Next >>