Slashdot Mirror

Just remember to explicitly invoke your right to remain silent.

http://www.abajournal.com/news...

According to this list, the civil service. Though, the one you were thinking of, law, seems to be the #2 professional background. According to this article the percentage of lawyers in Congress is actually shrinking, it used to 80% in the 19th century and had fallen to 40% as of 2016. For reference, according to Dr Dutton's list, civil service is 10th on the list of top 10 jobs with the highest rates of psycopathy.

Maybe congress needs more healthcare aide workers? That's the job with the lowest rate of psycopathy.

Full disclosure, I am a critical care physician (4 yrs college, 4yrs med school, 3 yrs IM residency, 3 years critical care)

How much do you think the average doctor gets for prescribing an opioid? Doctors aren't pharmacies. Doctors aren't pharmaceutical companies. Doctors aren't insurance companies.

This is a really rough estimate......

Look long and hard look at this reimbursement schedule (also look at how poorly Medicaid pays). Pay attention to these 2:

Office Visit, Initial, New Patient Level 2 - $75 for ~20 minutes

Offiice Visit, Established Patient Level 2 - $45 or ~20 minutes

So 3 patients/hour x 8 hours//day

Lets say half the patients you see are these types of visits, and of those, half are a mix of new and establishes (never is, most are established) 1.5 patients/hour x 8 hours = 12 patients daily

6 will be established 6*75= $450

6 will be new. 6*45= $270

The other 12 patients? Maybe you can see 12 really sick (6 established, 6 new)

6 * 200 = $1200

6 * 150 = $900

Hopefully your day would be filled with more complex patients, but it doesn't really matter. A new "complex" patient that you spend 60 minutes with will get you $200 reimbursement. So this person, for internal medicine, who went to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, then 3 years for residency is getting patient by Medicare (and likely your insurance company) $200 to spend an hour with you. Unless you like in rural America, you probably wont get a lawyer to sit with you for that price (I put that link in there because I did all my training at the #1 hospital in the US, but docs aren't reimbursed like that) for an hour.

So a really good day you can make $2820. Or about $700,000 revenue /yr. Now start to subtract your staff, and the time writing notes and billing queries (insurance companies are always trying to undersell how sick someone is, docs are trying to make their patients look sicker etc..), rent, EMR costs, malpractice (about 15000/yr), blah blah.....

For me, I do critical care. I bill a "99291" code for spending up to 74 minutes bringing your nearly dead loved one pack to life. The reimbursement is $239. Really? It is pretty much the same amount as sitting and talking to your elderly loved on who has 4 or 5 outpatient medical problems.

The dirty secret in medicine is right now if you want to make money as a doctor you need to specialize and do procedures. Even with volume, the numbers still add up 1 60 minute visit gets you the same reimbursement as 3 20 minute visits. That is the only way to "make money" in the ways that are often thought about in the sense of doctors make money.

If anything I hope this shows you that after 11+ (minimum) years of training, doctors are definitely not overcompensated and if anything you can make the argument that compared to other, essentially lesser trainer specialities (lawyer, engineers etc...) their "hourly" rate is undervalued. That is not even taking into account that most doctors are graduating with $200,000 or $300,000 of student loan debt.

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt

Yep, they don't give a shit about the law. That is the biggest problem with all the law enforcement agencies in this country right now.

I love how just this morning I heard on the radio that the DOJ is saying that Apple is not above the law. To anyone who looks at the situation and the law critically it is quite clear that the DOJ believes themselves to be above the law.

This is why I keep proposing that we need to bring back the guillotine for government employees or congress people that break the constitution. If you can't follow the highest law of the land we don't want you around trying to fuck up the country even more. Everyone at the DOJ that says Apple has to change their software is now marked. Once the supreme court hears the case and determines that it is an unconstitutional request then those marked people get terminated. And any politician that votes for a law that is determined to be unconstitutional later is also terminated. Right now they get no penalty for writing laws that take the freedoms away from millions of people. If I kidnap one person for 10 years I would probably get life in prison yet they can write a law that will imprison thousands illegally and get away with it. And when the law is overturned they just re-write it and try again. Sorry, that is not acceptable! Once they are dead they can't re-write the laws that failed and other people will think twice about trying anything similar.

Average billing rate for an associate lawyer - i.e., one of the "grunt" lawyers at a law firm - nationwide was $370 per hour in 2012. (Source: The American Bar Association)

Sounds like the NYC police negotiated a great bargain for the review of 190 hours of footage by legal experts. Not to mention their own time and material costs!

I'm glad they're such responsible stewards of the public's money, personally.

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

When the governments blatantly ignore it can you blame young people for seeing that the constitution is barely worth the paper it's written on?

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

ProTip: They don't care about you unless you have your own army or a mountain of cash.

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

Well, that's a shitty excuse.

Those relics we vote for who represent us should fucking know better, because they aren't the ignorant youth. Shit, they were probably around for the last half-dozen Amendments to be ratified. Using the attitude of the ignorant is no excuse to understand the law you should be following.

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

Another article here about a New Mexico court case that lost and lost on appeal. On precedent, I'd say the kid has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.

you don't get to throw the rules out the window just because it's on a shared server or it's part of the "cloud"

Actually, at least according to the Supreme Court, they do get to throw out the rules. It's called the Third Party Doctrine.

http://www.abajournal.com/maga...

For too long, application of the third-party records doctrine has permitted absurd results. A person who stores documents and items in a physical space controlled by a third party in the business of renting it out retains a Fourth Amendment interest in those items. But if she stores the same information with an online lockbox in the business of providing on-line document storage services, she loses that Fourth Amendment protection and it is available to law enforcement with a mere subpoena.

This article suggests that they were separate entities who behaved similarly.

> there are a lot of people who would have access to the true information and can benefit from its release, like certain senators,

huh? really? after all that shit about the CIA claiming feinstein's staffers stole files from them and how the agencies have been stonewalling the oversight committees for years and you still think these senators are going to have easy access to documents that can ruin careers of the people who control the documents? Want to bet that no one on the oversight committee even knew about the email that the NSA did release until today?

Look, I thought you were doing really well with your analysis of the game theory driving conspiracy theories. But your conclusions are based on reasoning that is at least as weak as any conspiracy theory.

However, the main universal exception to this rule involves discussions between an inmate and his attorney (just as in this case). Courts have even held that while even legal mail can be searched, it has to be done in the prisoner's presence and they can only glance at the actual correspondence itself.

Jail Mail from Attorney Must Be Opened in Inmate’s Presence, 7th Circuit Says

In your fantasy land ...

Listen, fuckwit. MEN AREN'T ENTERING THOSE PROFESSIONS.

Here in reality, things are dramatically different:
Here are the figures for Medicine and Law

Both are about 47/53 female/male

What was that you were saying again?

You bleating about male privilege is not backed up by the raw fucking numbers of men and women entering those professions.

Feeling foolish? I'll bet you do! Sorry about that. Reality is cruel sometimes...

uhm, the Prosecutors have pushed for and received broad, sweeping laws from Congress and the States that allow them to "crack down on crime." The problem is as the net has gotten bigger, there are cases everywhere where small fish get caught up and suffer tortuous charges for very petty things. That's how our Liberals and Conservatives in the country can sleep better at knight knowing that their jack-booted law enforcement is on the case. I had to hire an attorney a few years ago for my son because he decked a kid in school who'd taken a swing at him. He was facing a misdemeanor assault charge with up to a $4000 Fine and 6 months in jail. This was at 14 and happened because the schools are now treating petty incidents as crimes and it's happening all over the country because of the war on drugs and zero-tolerance policies. It's a direct result to make our schools "safe." https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/arrested-futures-criminalization-school-discipline-massachusetts-three-largest-school

It doesn't make them safe and schools all over the country now resemble prisons in terms of their policies and on-site police to enforce bullshit. It's a great lesson to teach our youth. How about breaking your arm for leaving crumbs on the ground? Doodling on your desk? Flying a paper airplane?

Yet, you want more laws to reign in prosecutors? We have enough laws and enough police all wearing their swat gear and bullet proof vests all supplied with funds from the DHS. While we were sleeping, this nation became a Police State and from your rights on the street to the prosecutors the deck is stacked against you and while we fault the Prosecutors here, which they should be, we also have to remember that if there wasn't a set of laws on the book that they could charge him with there wouldn't be a problem. The CFAA is overly broad and needs to be changed, narrowed or eliminated but the risk here is that we could get worse legislation by that band of Retards on Capitol Hill. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/hackers_hell_many_want_to_narrow_the_computer_fraud_and_abuse_act/

Swartz is one case, he at least had visibility. Think of all those souls in Prison who had a public defender and a plea deal lessening the charges or the duration of the sentence possibly faced. That's the game, build a case so big that if you go to trial the Prosecution by leveraging these vague laws will try to throw the book at you and put you away forever. That's why Aaron took the route he did, a big case, felony charges, years and years in prison and the Prosecution had the tools to do it. He should have put his faith in a Jury and the Legal Process and fought, instead he died and everybody is still debating it but not really doing anything about it. Why? Because we've become accustomed to all these new broad laws and powers we put in the hands of our government. That's so we're taking an active part in stopping crime. Crime is bad, so let's give the police and the prosecutors the tools they need to fight crime. The problem is broad-scoped laws can be used against you even though you send one too many e-mails or encourage to your members to do so.

It's time that the American public took back it's government and removed the Democrats and Republicans or at least took the approach of voting out all the incumbents. That's your last bastion of hope here folks because if you don't you'll get the same bunch of retards being re-elected over and over again and since they don't fear the voter, they'

Speaking of personal responsibility, they're holding him personally responsible for his actions.

...and we certainly can't have that! It undermines the whole basis of corporate capitalism.

This guy is an asshole. Anyone who bottles and resells tap water has a place in the special hell. Anyone who profits from exploiting the name of a great thinker ("Bucky"balls?) has a place in the special hell. He dissolved the company in order to avoid paying for the recall. Special hell.

Some more neutral coverage than the WSJ's:

• ABA Journal: Dangerous desk toy Buckyballs voluntarily recalled by retailers
• ABA Journal: Should this toy be saved?
• NYT: For Buckyballs Toys, Child Safety Is a Growing Issue

Speaking of personal responsibility, they're holding him personally responsible for his actions.

...and we certainly can't have that! It undermines the whole basis of corporate capitalism.

This guy is an asshole. Anyone who bottles and resells tap water has a place in the special hell. Anyone who profits from exploiting the name of a great thinker ("Bucky"balls?) has a place in the special hell. He dissolved the company in order to avoid paying for the recall. Special hell.

Some more neutral coverage than the WSJ's:

• ABA Journal: Dangerous desk toy Buckyballs voluntarily recalled by retailers
• ABA Journal: Should this toy be saved?
• NYT: For Buckyballs Toys, Child Safety Is a Growing Issue

Why would there need to be? It is a matter of controversy whether passwords/phrases are protected from disclosure under the 5th amendment; but physical unlock fobs that can be seized definitely don't enjoy anything more than 4th amendment warrant requirements (and, on a bad day, probably not even that...) A physical fob makes the system markedly more accesssible to authorities, even ones acting within the law.

Right, if they got your phone, chances are that they took it off of you, and have your Skip-Chip as well.
(Its actually not really even a fob, its just something to slide over your pants pocket or belt. (Better Picture Here).
Comes in a set of three, because you WILL soon lose it.)

But with an APP, and a cheap NFC stickers you can make your own with any android phone that has an NFC chip.

Some states are Not allowing mobile device searches without a warrant warrants, but that is a trifling impediment. When they confiscate your phone, they will certainly find your "Skip" or they will simply take your phone into their lab an crack it via other means.

This thing is aimed at the casual user that keeps their phone on their desk, and needs to keep it locked to keep busybodies away from it. Its not meant as protection from the police.

A court order is required to LISTEN in to your phone calls.

But, under the Third Party Doctrine, an attorney for the government can just fill in the blanks on a subpoena template, print it out, and send it to AT&T under his/her inherent authority as an officer of the court, and find out every person you have called or called you, along with date, time, duration, probably GPS info etc.

The 4th Amendment protects stuff you personally have from being searched, but does nothing to prevent stuff other people have about you from being obtained without a warrant.

In Smith, Michael Smith had robbed Patricia McDonough and then phoned repeatedly to threaten her. The police secured a pen register at the phone company (third party) to trace the numbers of calls placed to McDonough. Smith appealed his conviction, asserting that the pen register had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote that when Smith voluntarily "conveyed numerical information to the phone company and . . . its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information to the police."

As more and more information moves online, some have questioned whether this principle should continue to be applied. For example, in the Global Positioning System tracking case, U.S. v. Jones (2012), Justice Sonia Sotomayor's concurrence described the third-party records doctrine as "ill-suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks." The principle remains the same -- who entrusted their data to AT&T or Capital One in the 1970s are now entrusting their data to Google and Facebook. But the amount of data in the hands of third parties today is potentially much more revealing than in the 1970s. The question is whether that difference in quantity and quality has become a difference in kind.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited/

And yeah -- I totally agree this totally sucks and is plain wrong. But it is important to not live under the false impression of privacy because being wrong can totally screw up your life. Basically, if someone else holds it in any form, you should figure the Government can get it easily.

Bullshit - my papers and effects are my papers and effects, regardless of where I keep them.

This should not be labeled informative because it is likely to get people into serious shit.

Under the third-party records doctrine, a person cannot assert a Fourth Amendment interest in information knowingly provided to a third party. If strict application of the doctrine ever served us well, it no longer does, leading to absurd results. This is particularly true in an age where so much more information is communicated through intermediaries. ....

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited/

The doctrine holds that law enforcement does not need a warrant to search and seize information lawfully held by third parties, such as online file hosting services like Dropbox or online email providers like Gmail. Nojeim argues that the third-party records doctrine is outdated and an ill-suited legal standard for today's digital world. For example, people can use physical storage lockers rented out to them by a third party -- that is, a locker rental company -- and retain a warrant protection for their property stored in the lockers. However, if people use an online storage service provided by a third party, their warrant protection is lost.

https://www.cdt.org/blogs/suchismita-pahi/0108whats-wrong-third-party-doctrine-and-einstein-30

Yes, those all apply to email in your possession. But, not necessarily to those stored with third parties. It's called the Third Party Doctrine.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited/

In essence, the doctrine holds that information lawfully held by many third parties is treated differently from information held by the suspect himself. It can be obtained by subpoenaing the third party, by securing the third party’s consent or by any other means of legal discovery; the suspect has no role in the matter, and no search warrant is required.

The Supreme Court has NOT spoken.

It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day.

Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?

Boston Marathon.

Not only was every fixed security cam in range scoured for images, but private images were also solicited, and soon high res shots appeared via public submission of random grab shots.

At the first sign of something odd going on, in any American city, you will see every second bystander whip out a cell phone and start shooting pictures. Its everywhere. Even fender benders are photographed by uninvolved bystanders.

The cat is out of the bag, the Supreme Court has spoken, and nobody is putting down their cameras any time soon in the US.

That's not to say that all police reports are immediately to be trusted, simply that there is no place the police can hide either.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_posner_hits_goofy_trend_in_gop_says_hes_becoming_less_conservative/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email Here's a short piece in the ABA Journal, wherein Judge Posner mentions the same topic, and also says some interesting things about why he, despite having once been something of an inspiration for people like Justices Rehnquist and Scalia, is now becoming disenchanted with the Conservative movement. As usual (at least IMHO), he speaks with wit and insight. For those of you not familiar with him, Posner is a bit of a rock star in the legal profession, a brilliant, prolific author, and one of the driving forces behind the influential "Law and Economics" movement. When he speaks, even if my gut reaction is to disagree, I listen.

I'd assume* that anyone so gullible as to fall for a Nigerian scam isn't going to realise that the money will be obtained illegally. The reason I'd included "greedy and unethical" is because I vaguely remembered a story about a lawyer suing a bank over a cheque he sent to scammers. It turns out it was this story which didn't involve 419 scams.

* Though we all know what assumptions are the brother ^H^H^H^H^H mother of.

I envy you. The last judge I encountered was this fellow. Not exactly the poster boy for 'level headed, [and] very reasonable'.

IANAL but I would have thought exigent circumstances would have applied in this case.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_upholds_exigent-circumstances_search_of_apartment_that_smelle/

Bill Gates' mother was on the National Board of Directors of the United Way.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/virginia/microsoft-founder-bill-gates-w.html

Bill Gates' father was a prominent Washington State attorney who retired in 1998 from the firm he co-founded and helped grow, then known as Preston Gates & Ellis. During his 48 years of practice, Gates was an active bar leader, having served as president of the Washington State Bar Association and the National Conference of Bar Presidents.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_lawyer_bill_gates_sr._to_receive_abas_highest_honor/

And then the strawman : "Fashion and porn industries are either unprotected or effectively unprotected by copyright law". Says who? Of course they are pretty much protected by copyright laws. Whatever gave you any idea to the contrary?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/porn_industry_lawyer_is_new_copyright_king_with_16700_lawsuit_filed/

Are you arguing that because piracy exists we must give up on copyrights? Assuming that is your logic, should we do away with the police, doors and locks just because theft and murder will always happen?

The labour and effort in producing the particular configuration of data is what has to be compensated by the way. In your theft-happy cuckoo land, you fail to account for that. I never said that open-source companies do no make a profit. Redhat does. So does MySQL. They do so, by either keeping some of the IP secret and selling that as an enhanced product(both Redhat and MySQL do that) or to a lesser extent by using their additional knowledge/expertise to provide superior service. The latter has not been proved to be profitable on its own. Both Redhat and MySQL have been selling corporate/commercial versions of their products that have additional features. And they RELY on copyright law to prevent anyone from stealing their products. I dare you to open a website where you start distributing Redhat Advance Server or the commercial editions of MySQL to others, without their permission. See if you do not get shutdown and sued. Go on, I dare you.

People cannot make money without copyright. Opensource does not means there is no copyright involved, you moron!

And if folks do not share their ideas and findings with each other, then most of medical research would be downright impossible. Because if that professor in israel refuses to share his new technique of manipulating transporter proteins, you bloody well cannot do additional research based on it. And he will refuse to share his knowledge since some moron like you will deem it to be just "a mere configuration of scribbles on a piece of paper" and copy it without the other guy seeing a penny for all the materials and labour he put into getting his results. Welcome to trade secret hell. And since much of medical research industry cannot exist without copyrights, it bloody well should not exist at all, right? Moron.

Because the problem with your cuckooland world is that if folks have no financial incentive to share things, quite a few of them just won't. You will be provided only a fraction of service with maximum of restriction, just the way it was in your "good old days". People have never ever been able to make any profit without either copyright or trade secrets. And there are no other options. So perhaps you should just stop existing, since the real world seems to fail your expectations.

Here's where you get the "anecdote does not equal data" discussion.

Consider a comprehensive study of the issue in CA released last year: "Study: Calif. Courts Discipline Prosecutorial Misconduct Less Than 1% of the Time... in addition, the report states that the California State Bar Association has publicly disciplined only six prosecutors for misconduct during the past dozen years or less than 1 percent of the 707 times in which courts have found that prosecutors did commit misconduct."

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/study_calif._courts_discipline_less_than_1_of_prosecutors_they_find_committ/

In the federal courts, if both the prosecution and defense agree, any trial, even a felony trial, can be a bench trial. It is apparently a fairly controversial defense tactic, but I was reading an article the other day that contended that the conviction rates in bench trials had gone down during the period with federal mandatory minimum sentencing drug laws.

But barely a year after the introduction of federal sentencing guidelines, judges and juries began heading in different directions. In the 14 years from 1989 through 2002, the conviction rate of federal juries increased to 84 percent, while that of federal judges decreased to 55 percent. In 2006, jury conviction rates exceeded bench rates by 25 percentage points (89 percent to 64 percent, respectively).

The hypothesis is that while the jury is not allowed to know the weight of the sentence before convicting (and will thus convict fairly easily), the judge is much more careful about what constitutes a "reasonable doubt" in light of the certainty that he will be compelled to send some guy to prison for ten years for having a few pot plants.

The American Bar Association reported on this mere 17 months ago. I think it's less remarkable that some California firm got bilked as much as they got swindled while ignorant of a direct warning from their prime industry trade journal.

A more compelling version of the scam, to me, is overpayment of retainer fees as a new client. Fortunately, only idiot California firms are vulnerable as the ABA has warned about this variation as well. Interestingly, though, the tab appears to have been $500K in that one.

Barratry is alive and well, in both federal and many state judicial systems:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_awaits_verdict_in_barratry_trial_over_subpoena_sent_to_opposing_part/
http://www.lukegilman.com/blawg/2009/11/07/houston-lawyer-charged-with-barratry-for-having-homeless-man-hand-out-business-cards/
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/state-oklahoma-miller-v-king

In the case of "the offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones",
just making the accusation is often enough to make the attorney quit a case. They can be tried for it in court as well as being censured or disbarred, whereas the client can only be tried (often not understanding what it is and/or thinking their case's validity precludes such a charge). It may have been used successfully at least once in a context in which it is often discussed: "In Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode, 1994 WL 228607 (C.D. Cal. 1994), a Rule 11 sanction of $8,887.50 was imposed against Helena K. Kobrin, an attorney for the Church for bringing legally baseless, frivolous claims", however corroboration for this is lacking.

Apparently, the patent office is on a streak of common sense recently...

In both of the cases you cited, the police were acting under the impression that they were within the law in conducting the search.

But, they weren't. And yet, the evidence was allowed in court. Meaning that you no longer have protection against illegal searches. I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.

The exclusionary rule is not that old. Federally, it only goes back to 1961. According to this article three of the justices who started weakening the rule were once young lawyers working in the 80s to have it repealed flat out.

You still have your protection from an illegal search. You don't have protection from a presumed legal search. There is a difference. You don't like that difference, fine. I'm not arguing that it's good or bad, just that there is a difference and you have the same rights you had before 1961 apparently. There is such a thing as the 'wrong time' to bring a case before the Supreme Court, and this case happened to come at the wrong time. You are lucky, though, that the justices didn't clarify the law in either of those cases and form a formal opinion on how it should be used in the future. They left the rule in place for a future case to decide. One with, perhaps, justices whose opinions you feel better protect the constitution.

I worked for a company that had an off duty conduct policy. It was intended, I think, for people who get arrested or convicted for things that happen while they are not at work, eg drunk driving. However (comma pause for effect) it was generally used against people who complained about their boss or work on their own time. Kind of like this.

That company is IPC International Corporation. It's a contract security firm, so I doubt many people here would work for them, but throwing it out there just in case. It wasn't the way I would have liked to leave, but I thank G-d every day that I never have to deal with them again. It may seem like I have a lot of resentment toward them. Maybe I do... hindsight being 20/20 I should have taken unemployment and finished my degree. (which I am doing now.)

Also that policy applied to the guards, maybe not management. Or it may be even more restrictive for management.

That was Joel Reidenberg at Fordham Law.

Here's a brief article.

Scalia's response left a little to be desired.

And FWIW, I do advocate this sort of thing as long as it is within the bounds of the law. If we're going to point out why the law is flawed, then we need to show what the law really means in practice.

WRT to the ACTA situation, we have no recourse, since we cannot even examine the proposed treaty. Our only hope is to intercede with the Senate before the treaty is ratified. The chances of a successful intercession at that point are close to zero; furthermore, the US has acted within treaties it has signed even without ratification (assuming, generally correctly, that ratification would come at a later date).

In the end, though, we're SOL. IP is the only major area where the US has a dominant share of the global market. You can bet your bottom dollar that attempts to legally protect this valuable export will be made, regardless of how it suits *our* notions of freedom, or our notions of personal rights.

Big business rules the US, and they'll get what they want. Welcome to the future.

Do you have statistics that prove that whistleblowers DO get promoted over other similar qualified individuals in SAME company?

Again, they don't need to get promoted to disprove your claim. And by the way, YOU are the one who owes some statistics, because YOU are the one making the assertive claim. YOU have the burden of proof here.

Am not saying am immune to prosecution if i commit a felony: am saying that if i do an act that turns out to be illegal when found so in court and i was acting in best interests (not ignorance, even am not that stupid), the company is bound to defend me since i acted as its agent. Am talking about protection, not immunity.

Liar. Read your OP again. You specifically used the word "immunity". You specifically said you can't be charged. You were wrong. And you are ALSO wrong about the company being obligated to defend you. They are not. Period. They MIGHT choose to, if they think it's in their best interest, but that's NOT a given.

Much like Enron shielded its traders even though some were proven to have discussed hanging out california dry. Whistleblower protections have been diluted a lot in pst 8 years: just ask Bush.

Completely irrelevant, as neither support your claims.

Or take medical insurance claims, where valid claims are rejected by employees representing Aetna: Do the individual employees get sued?? NO.

That's a civil tort, you fucking imbecile. Denying a claim isn't a felony. No, not even a valid one.

If the employees complain to Feds about the illegal practice, what would Aetna do? Suppose i do get Aetna convicted, get a book deal, spend the money away in LA and now come back to work, tell me which companies would rush to hire me? (am not talking about Greenpeace or EFF), even when am well qualified.

That doesn't even remotely resemble the situation being discussed. You're taking a situation with an employee dealing with a potential legal problem quietly and internally (using channels set up by the company explicitly for that purpose) and comparing it to the biggest, most dramatic whistleblower scenario you could imagine. This is both stupid and dishonest.

Screw corporates, take Valerie Plame: she did nothing wrong, was exposed, sued Cheney, lost, and did the CIA rush to hire her in a desk job? Apart from a $2.5m book deal, she was not hired to work with any other company, let alone mercenary Blackwater.

Tell me what companies Plame has applied to work at, what positions she applied for, why she was rejected, and most importantly why Valerie Plame is in any way representative of the person you replied to in your OP, let alone all of corporate America. Back it all up with real evidence. If you don't, you're admitting that you're talking out of your ass.

Again i repeat, law is different from real world implications:

And you're wrong about both of them.

You may win every court battle, yet you lose the war: court battles, press, publicity, book deals etc. Yet Erin Brockovich still has only speech appearences and not a job.

Yes, she does. God damn, you're a moron.

History of the case here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/yale_students_unmask_anonymous_critics_legal_careers_at_risk/

"But instead of talking about the technological solutions, the lawyers fly half way across the world to meet with their clients. In fact, nowhere in the article is encryption even mentioned. Is it possible that lawyers don't even know about PGP?"

When you're up against the FBI, CIA, and NSA - which he presumably is - even PGP is not good enough. S/MIME? Forget it*.

PGP is a great way to protect messages in transit. But the problem here is not the security of the message in transit, it's the security of the message at every stage from composition to delivery, in both directions.

For example: Is the lawyer confident that his own laptop is private? He shouldn't be. Barring the laptop remaining in his sight at every moment from the time he took the case until this moment, there's the possibility that a sneak-n-peek has compromised his private keys, or that someone has even installed a keylogger. And did you notice that even the Ninth Circuit has now allowed laptops to be searched by border guards without evidence of a crime?**

Now consider that the lawyer's own laptop is probably the more secure end of the connection.

No. PGP is not good enough. In a case like this, he's right to do everything live and in person.

[*: The NSA is in a position to monitor S/MIME certificate exchanges with your key authority. Willing to bet your client's life or freedom that they can't they break the key delivery session?]
[**: '"We are satisfied that reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote (PDF) for the unanimous panel.' And this from the most liberal federal circuit.]

The text of the NJ court ruling is here: http://abajournal.com/files/A-105-06_State_v_Shirley_Reid.pdf

Reading the article (gasp!) left me with the impression that the Judge was ticked off because of the attorney's behavior and method of prosecuting their case and not that the Judge thought the patents were bogus. It's as if the plaintiff is getting nailed because it hired a pair of SOB's to press its case.

IV. Conclusion

Because this Court rejects the notion that there is an individual right to bear arms separate and apart from service in the Militia and because none of the plaintiffs have asserted membership in the Militia, plaintiffs have no viable claim under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Thus, plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed and their Motion for Summary Judgment denied as moot.

Really? Australia had 2 detainees in Gitmo, one released without charge, the other was given a 6 month sentence for training with the Taliban.

Then you have the British detainees who were released without charge.

First, I have to ask, why were these guys in Afghanistan? I know it's not illegal to be over there, but unless they are working for the Red Cross or in the military, why were they there? When you dealing with intelligence, you have to ask questions like that. We know that at least one was training with the Taliban... you know, the group that harbored Bin Laden... the guy who led Al Qaeda when they pulled off 9-11. Yeah, THAT Taliban! I think it's safe to say that this guy is a terrorist at least. More likely a traitor, guilty of Treason for fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan (Afghanistan is NATO operation after all, which Australia is a member). Now what were the other two doing there? (I noticed you didn't mention Johnny Walker Lindt... he was an American FIGHTING with the Taliban).

Released is not the term I would use here. Handed over to their respected government would be more accurate. This is what happens to ALL detainees that are released. Now as to what those governments do with them, who knows? What I find especially sad is that many of these guys don't want to be released to their governments because they know that they will be treated much worse at home than they are at Gitmo.

So, Go push your terrorist apologetics rubbish elsewhere.

Nothing was meant to suggest your particular non-profit was in any way unethical; just that the term "non-profit" doesn't mean much anymore. The only really formal definition of "non-profit" or "not for profit" is a corporation whose profits are not given to owners (like the board) -- the profits are just spent in other ways -- given to employees as salaries or to users in terms of lower fees or invested in new ventures or given to other non-profits (or sometimes unrelated individuals).

Top lawyers are now billing $1000 or more an hour:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/top_lawyers_bill_10 00_an_hour/
The formal results of their work (funded mostly by private clients) are almost all publicly available as the records of court proceedings. The law itself is almost entirely in the public domain. So, lawyers get paid vast amounts of money for helping clients craft client-specific solutions using their knowledge of the public domain. Why aren't more programmers doing this in terms of code?
And then most lawyers will turn around to those same clients and say everything related to code needs to be kept secret or proprietary. There is a ironical double-standard here isn't there?

Why then should programmers or their products be kept in (legal) chains, regardless of who pays for them?
But it is exceptionally more ironic when the money is public dollars -- it is a bad bargain for the public.

Ultimately it has to do with "power". And that balance is changing. It's one thing to have to deal with the system as it is to survive in it; it's another thing to like it and promote it as you seemeed to me to be doing here. Contrasting viewpoints:
"The Abolition of Work" by Bob Black, 1985
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolitio n.html
"Buddhist Economics" by E. F. Schumacher
http://www.schumachersociety.org/buddhist_economic s/english.html

Here is one lawyer who has gone rogue and is giving out the legal profession's deepest secrets: :-)
"The Mythology of Wealth"
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402
"Property and money are as mythological as Zeus. The first thing they teach you in law school - and I mean the first thing - is that "property" is a collection of legal rights. They are mental abstractions. They were created in more or less their present form in the middle ages by common law judges. They include things like "alienability" or the right to sell your rights, "inheritability" or the right to pass your rights to your heirs. They include the right to exclude other people from a defined section of planet earth. They include the right to subdivide or alienate less than all of your rights. For example, a person who holds "title" to a house, can "lease" it - that is he can convey the right to "possess" the land for a defined period of time, while he retains his rights that last "forever". He only has that right, because the law gives it to him. ... So, how are these "property rights" created? That's easy. They are created the same way all mythological realities are created - with a little "mumbo jumbo". ... It's all incantation and ritual that creates, transfers, modifies and extinguishes "rights". These rights are created by words uttered by the priests of the law. In fact there is an entire structure and system of pieces of paper with "magic words" written on them that create, transfer, modify and extinguish these rights. There is a hierarchy of these rights. Contracts rights are "private" rights created by individuals. Property rights are rights to the exclusive control