Slashdot Mirror

Shanghai Bill insisted:

Exactly how is requiring groups who engage in lobbying and who presume to weigh in on scientific debate to reveal their actual sources of funding censoring speech in any meaningful sense of the phrase?

Many people believe that the right to speak anonymously is fundamentally important. This right has been defended by the EFF and ACLU. You might also want to read the American Civil Liberties Union's viewpoint on Citizen's United. It is tempting to reach for a censor's pen, rather than rebutting an argument. But remember, once our rights are gone, they are gone for all of us.

Again, in what way does requiring those who claim to be scientists disputing scientific consensus on a scientific basis to reveal the sources of their funding represents ANY infringement on their free speech?

The short answer is: it doesn't. The long answer is: the fact that the sources of funding for climate scientists who argue for anthropogenic global warming have ALL, ALWAYS been public knowledge, but the sources of funding for the scientists in denial have, in general, been kept purposefully opaque tends, quite rightly, to call into question the motive for their opposition to the consensus - while in no way denying them the right to hold, argue, and publish those opinions. Sure, they're free (under current law) to keep those sources secret - but, since the scientist-deniers' own identities are (necessarily) public knowledge, the presumption HAS to be that they're keeping the sources of their funding secret in order to conceal that their opinions are paid for by the very parties who stand most to benefit from their arguments contra the overwhelming scientific consensus.

In other words: they're trying to hide the fact that they're paid whores of the fossil fuel industry.

The overwhelming majority ...

The right to express an opinion should not be based on the popularity of that opinion. It is all the more important to defend the expression of dissenting opinions when they are unpopular or go against the consensus.

Again, no one's questioning their right to express their opinion. Not me, not anyone.

What's being questioned is their integrity - and it is completely legitimate to do so, so long as they refuse to reveal who's paying them to disagree.

Exactly how is requiring groups who engage in lobbying and who presume to weigh in on scientific debate to reveal their actual sources of funding censoring speech in any meaningful sense of the phrase?

Many people believe that the right to speak anonymously is fundamentally important. This right has been defended by the EFF and ACLU. You might also want to read the American Civil Liberties Union's viewpoint on Citizen's United. It is tempting to reach for a censor's pen, rather than rebutting an argument. But remember, once our rights are gone, they are gone for all of us.

The overwhelming majority ...

The right to express an opinion should not be based on the popularity of that opinion. It is all the more important to defend the expression of dissenting opinions when they are unpopular or go against the consensus.

Who the hell links to an article about the ACLU's work, without Linking directly to the work in question instead

2/3rds of the US population lives within the constitution-free zone

Anyone have a more accurate proportion of how much the country this covers?

Sure do.

2/3rds of the US population lives within this zone.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/homeland-security-assuming-broad-powers-turning-vast-swaths-us

Hey -- I like the ACLU. Lots. But the ACLU is not a "progressive" (tm) organization. For example:

ACLU chief 'disgusted' with Obama
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

ACLU ad showing Obama morphing into Bush:
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-ad-what-will-it-be-mr-president

ACLU: Obama Has Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/28/ACLU-Obama-Has-Quadrupled-Warrantless-Wiretaps

ACLU condemns court for keeping details of Obama's assassination program secret
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/02/aclu-condemns-court-for-keeping-details-of-obamas-assassination-program-secret/ ... this could go on for pages and pages.

The ACLU is an enemy of Obama, not a friend, and suggesting that its laudable attempts to shed light on the Can-Do-No-Wrong-Obama is some push back from Democrats, is to miss the point entirely. The Democrats are part of the disease that needs to be pushed back against, and the ACLU is doing that as much as it can. That is not however evidence that Democrats are pushing back against their own policies, which were the same policies (or even worse than) of GWB.

One should keep in mind that the NDAA defined "battlefield" to mean domestic as well as foreign soil...

The government has the right to do, whatever its elected officials decide to do, and is not deemed unconstitutional. I believe its called democracy, or in otherwords 'the social contract', which makes you a lawless teabagger.

WRONG. GOD DAMN WRONG. YOU are the reason the government has been able to incrementally erode our natural born rights. Let me ask you something. If the government decides you have to report your whereabouts every day, or else you go to jail, I bet you'll do that too, right? No questions asked, "I'ma lay on my back for the greater good because I was told to"...

You are a shill of the -worst type-. Worst motherfuckin type! Read a history book, like, ever? Look up, yes, the Nazi takeover in Germany. The communist takeover in Russia, China, East Europe...that is a motherfuckin terrible way to live...under the boot of one guy who is simply obeyed because...what...he "has the right"? Ok, so let's say the government says that the constitution doesn't apply to you...or certain people anymore...then what?

Oh...they already did that... Give yourself a round of applause...go ahead...thank yourself for it. You deserve the praise. Don't be shy.

And the funny thing is that you won't save your loved ones...or even yourself...it's the motherfuckin "teabaggers"...the libertarians...the guys and girls that stand up for motherfuckin LIBERTY that are fighting for YOUR motherfucking rights, too. Fighting so you have a right to be a douche all day long.

That's not true at all.

Democrats/Lefties have a long tradition of supporting more and stricter gun restrictions and outright bans, even going back to the 1920s. And I remember the debates that occured during the AWB's voting, and republicans were primarily against it and dems primarily for it. There was no arbitrary decision by the NRA to support just one party; they have long tended to support Republicans (though in reality they base their support on a canidates actual opinion on guns, leading them to support Democrats who favor the 2nd amendment and not support Reps that don't).

And you make it sound like they all got together and all passed the AWB. They didnt.
Senate: 61-38 ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295 )
House: 235-195 ( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll416.xml )

Furthermore, the AWB was merely one part of the massive Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, one of the biggest crime laws and expansions of federal law enforcement powers ever created. The AWB was just one part of that bill, a bill that was created in reaction to several high profile violent crimes (ie, emotional knee jerk reaction law, ala the PARTRIO act, and several others....stop making decisions in the heat of the moment people!!!), such as the waco disaster.

And the ACLU is hardly an unbiased organization. I heartily support and applaud their many attempts to preserve civil liberties, even when unpopular (the nazi's marching in the chicago suburb), due to the consequences of letting even,a ndone go undefended. But the ACLU has never supported the 2nd amendment, and further, does not even consider the 2nd amendment a civil liberty issue ( http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment ). So the ACLU are hardly the all protective organization of our rights that you think they are.

Is not an org but a multi-agency center intended to make it easier for various agencies share information and bring their agency's talents to bear in the fight against terrorism.

This would be fine but why is the threat they claim to be facing outlined as being so broad so as to include "crime" in general? Anything could be a crime or made into a crime. Terrorism is highly specific and a threat to national security so there is a reason for the feds to be involved but "crime fighting" isn't the role of the feds.

"Once information is acquired, the new guidelines authorize broad new search powers. As long NCTC says its search is aimed at identifying terrorism information, it may conduct queries that involve non-terrorism data points and pattern-based searches and analysis (data mining). The breadth and wrongheadedness of these changes are particularly noteworthy. Not only do they mean that anytime you interact with any government agency you essentially enter a lineup as a potential terrorist, they also rely on a technique, datamining, " http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-hearddited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists."

I actually disagree with this quote. I support datamining to catch terrorists. So to start off I want to say that.

"Perhaps most disturbing, once information is gathered (not necessarily connected to terrorism), in many cases it can be shared with “a federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign or international entity, or to an individual or entity not part of a government” – literally anyone. That sharing can happen in relation to national security and safety, drug investigations, if it’s evidence of a crime or to evaluate sources or contacts. This boundless sharing is broad enough to encompass disclosures to an employer or landlord about someone who NCTC may think is potentially a criminal, or at the request of local law enforcement for vetting an informant."
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-hearddited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists."

The problem is here. This is very radical. First they want to share it with an entity not part of the government. Why? What entity which is not part of the government should be involved in this and why? The other problem is the sharing can happen basically for ANYTHING, not just national security investigations but evidence of a crime (there are probably so many crimes that any of us could be a criminal under the local, state and federal government so that applies to anyone). There are reasons behind having this capability but they need to be very precise with information sharing and for the reasons why it's shared.

Employers should have a right to know if someone is a criminal, so should landlords, but it shouldn't be abused. How can we prevent it from being abused or used for fishing expeditions?

Is not an org but a multi-agency center intended to make it easier for various agencies share information and bring their agency's talents to bear in the fight against terrorism.

This would be fine but why is the threat they claim to be facing outlined as being so broad so as to include "crime" in general? Anything could be a crime or made into a crime. Terrorism is highly specific and a threat to national security so there is a reason for the feds to be involved but "crime fighting" isn't the role of the feds.

"Once information is acquired, the new guidelines authorize broad new search powers. As long NCTC says its search is aimed at identifying terrorism information, it may conduct queries that involve non-terrorism data points and pattern-based searches and analysis (data mining). The breadth and wrongheadedness of these changes are particularly noteworthy. Not only do they mean that anytime you interact with any government agency you essentially enter a lineup as a potential terrorist, they also rely on a technique, datamining, " http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-hearddited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists."

I actually disagree with this quote. I support datamining to catch terrorists. So to start off I want to say that.

"Perhaps most disturbing, once information is gathered (not necessarily connected to terrorism), in many cases it can be shared with “a federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign or international entity, or to an individual or entity not part of a government” – literally anyone. That sharing can happen in relation to national security and safety, drug investigations, if it’s evidence of a crime or to evaluate sources or contacts. This boundless sharing is broad enough to encompass disclosures to an employer or landlord about someone who NCTC may think is potentially a criminal, or at the request of local law enforcement for vetting an informant."
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-hearddited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists."

The problem is here. This is very radical. First they want to share it with an entity not part of the government. Why? What entity which is not part of the government should be involved in this and why? The other problem is the sharing can happen basically for ANYTHING, not just national security investigations but evidence of a crime (there are probably so many crimes that any of us could be a criminal under the local, state and federal government so that applies to anyone). There are reasons behind having this capability but they need to be very precise with information sharing and for the reasons why it's shared.

Employers should have a right to know if someone is a criminal, so should landlords, but it shouldn't be abused. How can we prevent it from being abused or used for fishing expeditions?

In information security compartmentalization, least privilege, need to know and other similar concepts are considered a good thing. These concepts exist to security confidentiality of information. But the NCTC has the authority to share the information with anyone according to the ACLU: "Perhaps most disturbing, once information is gathered (not necessarily connected to terrorism), in many cases it can be shared with “a federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign or international entity, or to an individual or entity not part of a government” – literally anyone. That sharing can happen in relation to national security and safety, drug investigations, if it’s evidence of a crime or to evaluate sources or contacts. This boundless sharing is broad enough to encompass disclosures to an employer or landlord about someone who NCTC may think is potentially a criminal, or at the request of local law enforcement for vetting an informant." http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-heard

Now it's perfectly understandable that they have to vet informants and sources, investigate terrorism, and defend national security because that is the fundamental purpose of a federal government. Some of that of other stuff however is highly political and some of it gives far too much power to far too few people and is ripe for abuse. "Crime" is vague and could mean literally anything, and I'd be willing to say we are all criminals so that applies to all of us. Drug investigations are highly political because not all of us believe in the war on drugs and in fact a majority of us aren't even for these sorts of investigations in the first place so to include that is highly political and ripe for corruption. To share information with a person not part of a government or with individuals? What reason would they have to ever do that?

The problem I have with the NCTC isn't their spying capability but the fact that they bypassed the Democratic process and the will of the people, and that they aren't following any sort of information security protocol in their sharing. You can share information with people who are cleared, or who have a need to know, but the more you share the more leaks there could be, the more problems there will be. And the more broad the excuse to spy on people the more corruption and oppression there could be in the process. Let's spy on this citizen because they jay-walked or ignored a red light or have a marijuana plant in their closet. So now we got to unleash the full power of the federal government, NSA, CIA, Satellites, and all? That to me is bullcrap and highly political.

For these reasons I think media attention should be brought to this not to get rid of the spy program itself but to restrict it to a narrowly defined purpose. To simply spy on everyone just to give the government power over people and then to spread that power out to random people who aren't even necessarily American citizens is a problem and probably isn't even Constitutional.

I mean really. TFS has a link to Wikipedia (OK, now we know what the NCC is and I guess it's not a space ship), then a paywalled article.

OK, I'm willing to go along with the concept that the US Federal government has gotten even more intrusive however, a little real info would be nice. Very nice. How about taking 30 seconds more and finding a better link.

I know some feel that the ACLU is a bit on the left wing insane side, but it's a nice balance to the the WSJ right wing insane. And the blog is at least free, readable and nominally interesting.

tl;dr - we're doomed.

The ACLU has a good summary of why this violates due process and in particular constitutes "prior restraint" (a big no-no).

If you are interested in seeing what is currently being done:

http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

and

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/cellular-customer-data/

I understand what the cops are getting at, creating a standard they can use. However they tried something like this on ISP up here and Canada, and there was a bit of row to say the least. Cops it seems in general will constantaly ask for more and more powers in order to basically make their job easier. I can't really fault them for that, or for trying. However it has to be a balance in personal rights of privacy also. Which means the public has to say "No" at a certain point when they feel it is too much. Up here in Canada I think we do a better job or that. There are a whole lot of crazy laws down in the US that will let the state pretty much arbitrarly spy on you. The usual arguement is you got nothin' to fear if you ain't got nothin' to hide.

I would prefere at least in this case to let companies set their own standards, and let the market figure it out. I know I think I would pick the one with 0 rentention if given the chance.

One could also make the arguement just like the conservatives might say, criminals don't register guns, well if I am going off someone, I think I'll encrypt it using another method if I really feel the need to text it to someone. Of course there dumb criminals also... Then again, cops shouldn't have dificulty catching those ones. Besides, most phones record the information anyway unless your purposly delete it. Get warrent, find phone, etc... Phone encrypted?

http://xkcd.com/538/

do you honestly believe that?

You're the one full of beliefs. I only traffic in facts.

Yep, it's also just like how "redlining" for mortgage rates or for loan applications by banks was just a shadowy-sneaky way of putting race-based triggers into a fancy "computer expert decision system" so that the statistical correlations could be blamed: we're not charging them more because they're black: we're charging them more because they fit the criteria x+y+z which we happened to pick so that they select this particular category. Look up redlining.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
.
It's the sameway that the airlines had to use to check passenger names with CAPPS and CAPPS-2, the sequel. Look at http://www.aclu.org/national-security/problems-no-fly-list-show-problems-capps-ii-airline-profiling-system to see "Problems With No-Fly List Show Problems With CAPPS II Airline Profiling System." Effectively, it's a sequel and another instance of CAPPS again. (Had to search for phonetic matching airline and nofly to find these references).

Ever since Columbine, we now have to treat our schools as institutions where kids are now treated no differently in some cases as inmates in a prison. Parents and administrators want complete situation awareness of where the kids are and there are thousands of vendors out there who will sell you any solution to fit any imaginary problem. I can certainly understand where this student is coming from because these solutions are often in direct conflict with educational institutions being safe and open places that foster learning and creativity. All of this however is throw out the window where potential benefits such as "tracking" and "safety" start getting thrown into the conversation. Other terms like "efficiency" and "freeing up teachers to teach" also get put into the sales pitch.

RFID is a cheap way to control access and for location tracking. If a parent comes to school to take their kid to a Dr. appt. No problem, just have the sensors ping and you can find the kid. The problem is that it all starts to sound a bit Orwellian and it will eventually lead to simple associations like "well if we put an RFID badge on them, why not a GPS?" It's a slippery slope and once it starts who knows where it will lead.

Look at the controversy now over license plate scanner technology. A tool to catch parking ticket violators and felons on the run has now turned into a tracking system whereby even if you're not a suspect you're getting tracked and now it's a source of data that can be mined. It's already started with putting these scanners everywhere, even the DEA wants to put them on highways to track drug traffickers.

The question we should all be asking ourselves is "Wait, where does this stop? Where does my privacy come into all of this? Where does my right to go about my business or travels freely without tracking my every stop come into this equation?" The sad, simple answer is that your privacy is the last thing any of the bureaucrats ever think of and trust me there's a stack of information on all of us now being collected, stored and probably mined that you don't have any visibility to. Yeah sure, we all want to prevent crime and we want our kids safe but this isn't the way we should be doing it because it creates a lot more problems than it solves and these are the kinds of problems that allow our government agencies to control us. Everyday now we have patents (like the one just mentioned this week from Apple) about new ways to track our every movement in every sense of the word and we should all be very, very concerned about this.

We should all have a right to "be forgotten" and not to be tracked for every damn thing we do. We should be able to opt-out and to actually know who's tracking us and why but guess what, you don't have that right.

So, let me give you a pragmatic example. I have two sons in High School. After Columbine and after a few other events like it, the local schools have essentially become locked-down campuses, most with dedicated local police onsite. If I go to the school for a meeting, I have to show a government issued photo id that is scanned into a computer to make sure I have no warrants or other items in my file somewhere that would represent a threat to the students, my kids, or staff. What criteria that is, the school will not tell me. If I'm in a divorce, could that mean I could be barred from taking my kids out of class? I don't know they won't tell me and that's all to have a parent conference or to attend a school function during regular school hours when the administrators are on the job. After class hours, the barriers become a little less constrained.

At the same High School where my sons attend, recently a girl was abducted on campus right after the school day ended by a known person, taken a few miles away, shot and dumped into a river. This known person was awaiting trial for

In some areas he has *expanded* Bush's damage:

warrantless wiretapping under Obama

Yes, Americans have much bigger problems than fake voting now. The party in power doesn't even need to win the election with votes; they can just declare whatever opposition they're most worried about terrorists to remove them. If your ability to be free citizen can be taken from you without trial, whether you can vote or not is really irrelevant. And that's where we are now in the USA.

Yes, Obama has been very clear, you're allowed to see your gay spouse, no problem, unless one of you is considered a terrorist. Then it's off to indefinite detention for them with no trial, as approved by the man himself. The reason to support a third party here is very simple. Obama has trashed the ultimate civil liberty, the right to be a free citizen. The only acceptable platform for Romney would start be "I will eliminate Obama's destruction of civil liberties". Since it's not, a vote for either is agreeing that's acceptable behavior. That's why 3rd-party candidates are needed, to provide some alternative to the madness of both existing major parties. Picking one based on trivia like gay rights is ridiculous when this situation exists.

don't forget warrantless wiretapping

I would like to introduce you to the concept of the "Constitution-Free Zone".

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone
http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

Just a friendly reminder that you don't actually have any rights. Any illusion of rights is performed solely to keep you from flipping the fuck out and starting a riot.

Brought to you and supported by your foolishly elected Authoritarian leaders (hint: all of them).

I would like to introduce you to the concept of the "Constitution-Free Zone".

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone
http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

Just a friendly reminder that you don't actually have any rights. Any illusion of rights is performed solely to keep you from flipping the fuck out and starting a riot.

Brought to you and supported by your foolishly elected Authoritarian leaders (hint: all of them).

And you didn't even mention the most egregious police state set up: constitution-free zones manned by ICE and various other border agencies. California, for example, has nearly 100% of its population living there. Other states have 100% of the entire state covered by it. Fun times: http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

The same way secret interpretations of law work, I suppose.

I think your first line there is a little bit off. Allow me to fix that for ya.

Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and transfer all of Gitmo's defining human rights violations to a new facility in Illinois.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu

some detainees might be held for military commission proceedings in Illinois while others might be held at Thomson [Correctional Center in Illinois] indefinitely without charge or trial.

Since military drones are headed to our local police departments sporting Linux, what is your position on the limits of civilian law enforcement use of drone technology? What are your politics concerning drones?

Since military drones are headed to our local police departments and running Linux, what is your position on the limits of civilian law enforcement use of drone technology? What are your politics concerning drones?

We have a 100 mile wide "no warrants" zone adjacent to our entire border. Within which, by the way, 200 million of our citizens live.

Australia has a loooong way to go to catch up to our Orwellian fuckery.

But hey. If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about right? I mean, it's not like they'd just take your money without a warrant or anything, right? RIGHT?

http://www.aclu.org/
Protecting our freedoms at a time when religious and gov forces are trying to take it away...

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

If you live within 100 miles of a U.S. Border, no warrant is needed. That's 66% of all Americans. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

However, not being an American, and being on my way out of the country, I had no choice.

Maybe not then, but you do now.

My choice is not to visit the US. At the moment, their airport security there isn't something I'm willing to subject myself to.

I've been lightly frisked elsewhere (politely, and not overly invasive), which is fine because I refuse to get into that scanner thing. But compared to what I've heard of the idiocy with TSA ... not happening.

Ever since Alberto Gonzales said habeus corpus isn't actually guaranteed, there's been a fairly obvious conclusion that pesky things like the US Constitution just get in the way. (How an Attorney General can have no idea how your laws work still baffles me.)

And since now apparently there's a huge Constitution Free Zone ... if it doesn't apply to citizens, I sure as hell don't want to be a foreign national.

Sadly, 9/11 was when America jumped the shark in terms of her historical defense of rights.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247321.php
http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/tools-toys/this-is-your-brain-on-fmri

http://gizmodo.com/5922208/scientists-invent-mind+reading-system-that-lets-you-type-with-your-brain

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/high-tech-mind-readers-are-latest-effort-detect-lies

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/04/06/mobile-brain-scanner-ibrain-stephen-hawking

Do more research. It's already here even if you don't know about it.

It's already much worse than that. You don't have to be black. Anywhere within 100 miles of any US border, they can stop you any time they want, search you, detain you, and confiscate anything you're carrying, including money. And it doesn't matter what color, sex or creed you are. The only limits to this power the government has cobbled up begin at 100 miles.

Two thirds of the US population live within that 100 mile zone.

That is not crossing a state border, but it is "crossing" the 100 mile thick country border.

Come to think of it, it is probably why the idea of acceptance seems so harsh, considering that the opposing viewpoint is the erasure of religion by those enlightened enough to follow the ACLU, et al.

Anybody truly following the ACLU is hardly an advocate of the complete erasure of religion.

Though if you make a really powerful one, they may decide it violates other unspecified laws and take it away.

I just can't imagine...

Not only is this a stupid decision - that my genes can be patented by a third party - but it's a decision which will allow the patent trolls to monopolise them and will result in many, many deaths worldwide. These judges should be ashamed of themselves on both levels.

Judge Alan Lourie writes: “Each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter.. Oh bullshit. I've noticed when lawyers try and make decisions regarding science and technology - be it copyright or biosciences - more often than not they balls it up and the public is left to bear the cost of their arrogance. In this case research will be curtailed by other scientists not wanting to go anywhere near what may be patented technology, and members of the public will die. Talk about judicial arrogance.

It was Judges Lourie and Moore who fucked this up. Bryson dissented. With such a narrow decision I hope the victims can appeal.

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/10-1406_0.pdf

Although it is easy to blame mass ignorance when pointing to those appointed to sit behind a bench (which could easily be the case here), did you ever stop and consider that the decision was made with full knowledge and understanding?

I'm not trying to purport wrongdoing in this case, but when you consider the hundreds of billions of dollars that Big Pharma (or other patent holders) stand to make with a decision like this, one cannot remove the possibility of wrongful influence. The benefit is far too one-sided to not consider it.

Not only is this a stupid decision - that my genes can be patented by a third party - but it's a decision which will allow the patent trolls to monopolise them and will result in many, many deaths worldwide. These judges should be ashamed of themselves on both levels.

Judge Alan Lourie writes: “Each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter.. Oh bullshit. I've noticed when lawyers try and make decisions regarding science and technology - be it copyright or biosciences - more often than not they balls it up and the public is left to bear the cost of their arrogance. In this case research will be curtailed by other scientists not wanting to go anywhere near what may be patented technology, and members of the public will die. Talk about judicial arrogance.

It was Judges Lourie and Moore who fucked this up. Bryson dissented. With such a narrow decision I hope the victims can appeal.
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/10-1406_0.pdf

Here's a couple:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/asset-forfeiture-wisconsin-bail-confiscated_n_1522328.html
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police

These are just a couple I pulled off a Google search for "civil forfeiture abuse" but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases.

512 (C)
(1) A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, ... for infringement of copyright ... if the service provider-
(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material

there is no basis to assume that intelligence officers are routinely, intentionally, and wantonly violating the law.

The FBI routinely, intentionally, and wantonly violates the law when it comes to NSLs. Notice that the report linked in the article is the THIRD one about the problem, I don't see why I should assume the NSA is any better.

I think you're also misinterpreting his comment: cops don't get fired when they botch an investigation on Constitutional grounds because they aren't willfully violating the Constitution

Cops dont' get fired because the system is too corrupt to fire them. We live in a world where two police officers can anally rape a man with their taser, on tape, absolutely confirmed to have happened, and the police ombudsman recommends nothing more than additional training. There is no honest excuse for that and it betrays a deep deep perversion of the law enforcement culture in this country.

That is the reality of the world in which we live. I know it would be wonderful if we could just trust the authorities to adhere to and uphold the law, but that's a dangerous fantasy. Our public officials aren't all looking to get us, but they are more than willing to turn a blind eye to some terrible abuses of power. Especially when it means bigger budgets and job security.

When any government official steps outside of their legitimate authority they should feel the full force of the law any of us would experience if we did the same act. In fact, there should be an extra penalty for the violation of public trust. Anything else makes a mockery of the rule of law. Every overreach of government power is a crime.

The DOD has an Intelligence Oversight office whose sole purpose is to ensure that intelligence operations do not run afoul of the law with respect to US Persons.

Yes, and I'm sure they're about as interested in prosecuting actual crimes as our friend the Idaho ombudsman is. Internal review boards serve no purpose but whitewashing. Are documents like this really supposed to make me any more comfortable? The document itself is whitewashed!

If you want me to trust that authority is responsibly wielded, start holding people responsible who fail to do so. Is that so unreasonable?

The oversight of the Intelligence Community is, and always has been, accomplished via:

â" The Executive branch (the President, who is the ultimate consumer of US intelligence)
â" The Judicial branch (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court)
â" The Legislative branch (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Intelligence Committees of both houses of Congress)

In other words, there is institutional oversight, and no direct oversight of surveillance activities.

Tell me, who was the last person criminally tried for illegally surveilling US citizens? We already know that the FBI wantonly abuses their NSL authority. We can expect that the NSA abuses their authority too. Can you name one person? I can name several who have been tried for exposing crimes committed by the government, I can't name one who has been tried for committing those crimes.

You yourself admitted that "Does all of this mean the government has never done anything wrong, that there has never been any abuse, that citizens shouldn't be watchful? No." We both know there have been abuses. Where are the prosecutions of the criminals who broke the law?

What is interesting to me is the reaction that if there ever has been any abuse, or if there are any current examples of abuse, that everything must be abuse, alongside the bizarre belief that the number one priority of the Intelligence Community is to illegally spy on Americans

Once trust is broken, it's hard to repair it. Start prosecuting agents who break the law, and we might believe you have our best interests at heart.

What reason is there to believe any government agency ever obeys the law? Could it be that most people in government are public servants who take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and the people of the United States seriously?

If that's the case, why was Thomas Drake prosecuted and not one spook prosecuted for the illegal survillance of Americans? Do you not see how this looks bad? Why would I trust people who do this?

There is actual tyranny and oppression in the world.

Yes, and this is why we have to be eternally vigilant at home. There, but for openness and accountablity go we.

I don't suppose you have a reference source for this?

I found a reference, but it seems to indicate that the length of time the various providers store location information is shorter than I had remembered.

http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

- ACLU

s/FAA/FISA

Nope, it's FISA Amendments Act.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) rewrote our surveillance laws, which had generally required a warrant or court order for surveillance of people in the US. Under the FAA, the government can get a year-long programmatic court order for general bulk collection of Americans' international communications without specifying who will be tapped. It is up to the administration to decide that on its own after the fact, without any judicial review. The major requirement is that no particular person in the US should be targeted.

So, it's the warrant-less wiretapping stuff for domestic stuff. FISA is for foreign intelligence.

DuckDuckGo.com is now my default search engine for exactly this reason. They simply don't keep historical search records that are identifyable to me. Of course, they too would have to legally comply with any government request, but their historical data is of little use.

While I trust Google to be as secure as can be reasonable, I do *not* trust the likes of the FBI (readup on National Security Letters), or other TLAs that decide they have a bee in their crotch and want to through their legal weight around for little reason.

With NSA's warrantless wiretapping laws fully protected now, I don't trust the government to honestly care about my privacy. I trust Google to Do The Right Thing (TM), but they're hands are tied when the government wants something.

Leniency is given to non-habitual offenders- ie. based on prior behavior, not potential. Please reconsider voicing an opinion on legal issues until you're a whole lot less ignorant.

I suggest you do the same. Without a Card to Play, Texas Grandma Sentenced to Life Without Parole for First-Time Drug Offense