"Not Safe For Work"? In my definition that's something like not wearing a hard hat on a construction site. Or drinking medium to large amounts of alcohol while operating heavy machinery.
But that's a European point of view; the US one might include any accidental behaviour someone else at a workplace might consider objectionable.
Yes, secret laws can be legal. In the same sense that a tyrant (in the aristotlean sense: "one who rules without law") can legally do everything.
It's a question of a) your form of governance and b) the underlying principles of that.
The underlying principle is typically the "Rechtsstaat": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat Basically, this codifies things like "due process", that everyone has to follow the law, and consequently all laws must be made public. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights define an implementation of such a "rechtsstaat".
How you define how laws are made is not covered by this principle. You can have a monarchy that is a rechtsstaat, although this isn't a prerequisite.
However, with some forms of governance, it is. Namely with all those that involve the public. Republics, democracies and such. Because, without it, the public can't be sure that what they decide is actually done at all. They can't be sure whether somebody decides to ignore your votes, they can't be sure somebody would decide to throw people in jail that might vote against them and so on.
So, by allowing secret laws, you can't be a democracy any more. Neither can you by ignoring due process. Yes, a democracy can actually decide to abolish the rechtsstaat, but then, it abolishes the democracy itself.
Since the US actually did that (in violation of their own Constitution), it is neither a rechtsstaat nor a democracy any more, so yes, the law in the US can be totally arbitrary and even secret, "legally", within its own frame of reference.
Actually, your US rights _do_ follow you around the world. Because the US Constitution grants them to everyone. But they only apply to the doings of the US government, not any foreign government.
So yes, the FBI is bound by it, everywhere in the world.
It won't help you if you get interrogated by the GCHQ, but the FBI can't even ask the GCHQ to imprison and interrogate you without the FBI having a warrant and probable cause (at least, it can't do it without violating the Constitution).
Absolutely. Even more, the Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE.
Yes, nowhere in the Bill of Rights it says anything about "citizens" (although, it refers to them in the constitution and other amendments regarding voting and such), it always talks about "people".
It's quite clear that this is what the authors intended. And one reason I admire the founders of the United States, it does express such an enlightened spirit. Of course, the whole thing gets ignored, trampled on by lawmakers for decades and so on, but still, the spirit is there.
Of course, the USA can only enforce the Bill of Rights where no other nations interfere, but that absolutely means that it must follow it itself.
- The NSA spying on foreign people (not governments): Unconstitutional. (Note: This is also not about spying on terrorist-suspects: There obviously "but upon probable cause" applies).
- Holding people imprisoned without speedy trial in Guantanamo: Unconstitutional.
- Torturing (foreign or its own) people in foreign countries: Unconstitutional (Well: Theoretically allowed with a warrant and "upon probable cause").
Mr. Rogers would probably have been shot in a duel by Mr. Washington or Mr. Jefferson for suggesting they would be "unpatriotic" by protecting the Constitution.
Well, to the NSA it might be Snowden. But actually, it's their own attempt to hide their (wrong-)doings.
To the USA (and much of the rest of the world), the real threat is actually the NSA.
One of the reasons this NSA got so severely out of hand, is the problem of classification. You should classify as little as possible (and certainly NEVER try to classify the workings of an agency such as the NSA), so as to allow as many people as possible to work without any clearance.
2 Million people with "top security" clearance is just a ridiculous amount. And mind, most of these couldn't really work without it, because some idiot classified the materials they need to do their work with.
The solution is as simple as impossible to get through the bureaucracy: revoke the clearances of about 1.9 Million people, and revoke the classifications of about 99% of all classified material.
The preliminary ruling is rather tame. According to just about every copyright within the EU, he could also have ruled:
- That digitisation of a collection in its entirety is absolutely within the rights of libraries (because copyright is about publishing, and not about what the holder of a physical copy of a work does with it).
- That offering the work on a reading station is ok; because that's not actually leaving the library, and thus is not actually "publishing" (It could be argued it is. But it would be rather unclear how the library should display the work otherwise).
- But even more, that the possibility of copying a work onto a USB stick may be allowed, but must not be done by the library itself. You see, if you loan out a work you MAY copy it for yourself. You always have the right to copy everything, whether it's bought, loaned or stolen -- just not to publish.
This is actually the US Mercantilism Special Interest Wishlist.
The idea is to "shame" other countries for their trade barriers (like declaration needs or environmental concerns or the geographical indicators mentioned), and for not implementing the trade barriers in the interest of US mercantilists.
And nobody could read .CHM anywhere else than on a Microsoft-OS decently, and if your reader had any other notion of how big pages were supposed to be, you had page headers and footers all over the place.
Yes, we get it, people who drink in excess, use, and have flamboyantly promiscuous sex are just trying to have fun. How dare those awful moral toting people get in their way!!!
Yes, totally so.
Also, when are we going to finally get rid of all the guns and take away the rich people's money while pretending $20K a year is too little to live on?
Totally NOT. That's the opposite of liberal. It's called authoritarian.
I mean conservatives are just idiots, amirite?
And that is a progressive position in the first place (the opposite of conservative), and has nothing to do with liberal or authoritarian in the first place.
On the post: Consume, Conform, Obey: What Homeland Security's Targeting Of Anti-Consumerist Activities Says About The Government's Desires
Re:
On the post: Delaware Attorney General Throws Subpoeana At Reddit Over Comment On Photo Of Two People Having Sex Behind A Dumpster
Re: Re: NSFWing
But that's a European point of view; the US one might include any accidental behaviour someone else at a workplace might consider objectionable.
On the post: NJ Attorney General's Office Trying To Push State Supreme Court To Overturn Precedent Requiring A Warrant To Access Phone Billing Records
Attorney general wants help breaking the constitution?
On the post: Details Leak On How Secret Global Treaty Will Force Countries To Further Deregulate Financial Sector
Re: Can secret law even be legal?
It's a question of a) your form of governance and b) the underlying principles of that.
The underlying principle is typically the "Rechtsstaat": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat Basically, this codifies things like "due process", that everyone has to follow the law, and consequently all laws must be made public. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights define an implementation of such a "rechtsstaat".
How you define how laws are made is not covered by this principle. You can have a monarchy that is a rechtsstaat, although this isn't a prerequisite.
However, with some forms of governance, it is. Namely with all those that involve the public. Republics, democracies and such. Because, without it, the public can't be sure that what they decide is actually done at all. They can't be sure whether somebody decides to ignore your votes, they can't be sure somebody would decide to throw people in jail that might vote against them and so on.
So, by allowing secret laws, you can't be a democracy any more. Neither can you by ignoring due process. Yes, a democracy can actually decide to abolish the rechtsstaat, but then, it abolishes the democracy itself.
Since the US actually did that (in violation of their own Constitution), it is neither a rechtsstaat nor a democracy any more, so yes, the law in the US can be totally arbitrary and even secret, "legally", within its own frame of reference.
On the post: Don't Weep For The Past; Plan For The Future
And I add another thing: I realized there's tons of things happening, sometimes VERY important, no paper (and no radio or TV) even mentioned.
On the post: DC Court Confirms That Government Agents Can Abuse US Citizens' Rights With Impunity If They Leave The Country
Re: you realize
So yes, the FBI is bound by it, everywhere in the world.
It won't help you if you get interrogated by the GCHQ, but the FBI can't even ask the GCHQ to imprison and interrogate you without the FBI having a warrant and probable cause (at least, it can't do it without violating the Constitution).
On the post: DC Court Confirms That Government Agents Can Abuse US Citizens' Rights With Impunity If They Leave The Country
A Bill of Rights for Everyone
Yes, nowhere in the Bill of Rights it says anything about "citizens" (although, it refers to them in the constitution and other amendments regarding voting and such), it always talks about "people".
It's quite clear that this is what the authors intended.
And one reason I admire the founders of the United States, it does express such an enlightened spirit. Of course, the whole thing gets ignored, trampled on by lawmakers for decades and so on, but still, the spirit is there.
Of course, the USA can only enforce the Bill of Rights where no other nations interfere, but that absolutely means that it must follow it itself.
- The NSA spying on foreign people (not governments): Unconstitutional. (Note: This is also not about spying on terrorist-suspects: There obviously "but upon probable cause" applies).
- Holding people imprisoned without speedy trial in Guantanamo: Unconstitutional.
- Torturing (foreign or its own) people in foreign countries: Unconstitutional (Well: Theoretically allowed with a warrant and "upon probable cause").
On the post: Why Does South Korea Want To Turn Australia's ISPs Into Hollywood's Copyright Cops?
Re: Re: Re: The issue
On the post: Mike Rogers Says Google Is Unpatriotic For Not Wanting NSA To Spy On Its Users
Re: Patriotic - Huh
On the post: More Details Emerge Showing The US Government Has No Idea How To Solve A Problem Like Snowden
Re: Re: Nothing up my sleeve.....
On the post: More Details Emerge Showing The US Government Has No Idea How To Solve A Problem Like Snowden
Re: Re: Prevention is worth a pound of cure?
On the post: More Details Emerge Showing The US Government Has No Idea How To Solve A Problem Like Snowden
The real threat
To the USA (and much of the rest of the world), the real threat is actually the NSA.
One of the reasons this NSA got so severely out of hand, is the problem of classification. You should classify as little as possible (and certainly NEVER try to classify the workings of an agency such as the NSA), so as to allow as many people as possible to work without any clearance.
2 Million people with "top security" clearance is just a ridiculous amount. And mind, most of these couldn't really work without it, because some idiot classified the materials they need to do their work with.
The solution is as simple as impossible to get through the bureaucracy: revoke the clearances of about 1.9 Million people, and revoke the classifications of about 99% of all classified material.
On the post: Advocate General Says EU Libraries May Digitize Books In Their Collection Without Permission
tame copyright-maximalist apologism
- That digitisation of a collection in its entirety is absolutely within the rights of libraries (because copyright is about publishing, and not about what the holder of a physical copy of a work does with it).
- That offering the work on a reading station is ok; because that's not actually leaving the library, and thus is not actually "publishing" (It could be argued it is. But it would be rather unclear how the library should display the work otherwise).
- But even more, that the possibility of copying a work onto a USB stick may be allowed, but must not be done by the library itself. You see, if you loan out a work you MAY copy it for yourself. You always have the right to copy everything, whether it's bought, loaned or stolen -- just not to publish.
On the post: USTR's Special 301 List Of 'Naughty' Countries Without Strong Enough Patent And Copyright Laws Is A Complete Joke
US Mercantilism
The idea is to "shame" other countries for their trade barriers (like declaration needs or environmental concerns or the geographical indicators mentioned), and for not implementing the trade barriers in the interest of US mercantilists.
On the post: USTR's Special 301 List Of 'Naughty' Countries Without Strong Enough Patent And Copyright Laws Is A Complete Joke
Re:
Spain lacks Spine.
On the post: Supreme Court Unanimously Smacks Down CAFC Two More Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: about PDFy ...
Thank you, no. I hope this is dead and buried.
On the post: Former CIA Director And Defense Secretary Says CIA Tried, But Failed, To Do Economic Espionage
Re: Re:
Yes, we're talking (a bit) about copyright and (totally) about patents.
On the post: Apple Pulls Popular Weed-Growing Game From App Store, Ignores All The Unpopular Ones
Re:
I am.
Yes, we get it, people who drink in excess, use, and have flamboyantly promiscuous sex are just trying to have fun. How dare those awful moral toting people get in their way!!!
Yes, totally so.
Also, when are we going to finally get rid of all the guns and take away the rich people's money while pretending $20K a year is too little to live on?
Totally NOT. That's the opposite of liberal. It's called authoritarian.
I mean conservatives are just idiots, amirite?
And that is a progressive position in the first place (the opposite of conservative), and has nothing to do with liberal or authoritarian in the first place.
I think your definitions are all screwed up.
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As opposed to arrowheads ;). Arrowheads not found within a context (like plowed up on a field) are generally quite useless for archaeology, you can get them by the dozens on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=arrowheads&_sacat=0&_from=R40
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Updating Classic Clothing
Re: Good leather belt?
And right now, you can get much cooler belts that probably will last as long:
http://www.duvallleatherwork.com/shop/british-snake-buckle-belt/
Next >>