Slashdot Mirror

This is a good step. Now I wonder if the Feds feel the same way when someone is taping THEIR activity? DEA? BATF? TSA? FBI? DHS?

This practice of blocking recordings, seizing and destroying cameras, etc. has been going on at the federal level as well, so I'm not about to fall on my knees and thank the DOJ for lecturing Baltimore.

Note that there ARE complications when videotaping because certain states have laws which prohibit audio recording of a conversation unless all parties give their consent. The cops have used this as an excuse to charge people with a crime for making video recordings of cops.

This is a useful resource from the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

So keep recording government abuses and posting them online, but know your rights and be careful.

I base it mostly on the fact that the people in charge did it more than once, and as far as I can tell, the same the same people are still in charge, despite exchanging their "Hi I'm Bob!" stickers for "Hi I'm Frank!" ones.

I'm still waiting for my Habeas corpus back from after 9/11: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/patriot_report_20090310.pdf

While we are at it, I'd like the ability to make private phone calls again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

I'd also prefer U.S. citizens get tried and convicted before they are killed: http://www.mediaite.com/online/us-citizen-and-top-terrorist-suspect-anwar-al-awlaki-killed-in-drone-attack/

I do get why Obama failed to deliver on his Guantanamo Bay closure campaign promise: extraterritoriality buys you the ability to not enforce constitutional provisions for the prisoners. Not really sure how I feel about that one.

-- Terry

And the actual motion explains some pretty compelling reasons why the subpoena went forward:

1) That Mr. Harris had to agree to Twitter's terms of service to have an account;
2) That the terms of service grant Twitter the following:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

The essential argument is that since the user is granting Twitter that license to his tweets, the user has no "proprietary" (ownership) interest in the tweets, because by posting, he specifically gives up his right to prevent Twitter from doing anything they wish with that tweet he's submitted. In essence, they conclude that he's "given away" his tweet to Twitter via that license, and that he therefore has no standing to claim that it is "his property" which may not be disclosed by Twitter without his permission.

Because the user has deleted all of his tweets before February 2012.

The prosecution believes that his tweets (including those deleted) will contradict his "anticipated defense" - specifically, that he was induced or forced to step onto the roadway by police, rather than stepping out onto the roadway of his own volition, and obstructing traffic. For instance, if they can show he tweeted a photo of himself and some other protesters dancing around in the roadway minutes before he was arrested, it sort of torpedoes the "The police threw me into the street!" defense.

The reasoning the court is using in supporting the subpoena (by rejecting the defendant's motion to invalidate it) is that the records are akin to bank records - they are *about* the user, but the user has neither possession nor a "proprietary" interest in those records - in other words, the records belong to the bank, and so a subpoena is sufficient for the bank to turn over records about the defendant. Given Twitter's terms of service (granting them a worldwide irrevocable license to reproduce, present and display... etc. etc.... your tweets) and the precedent of bank records, the judge has ruled that the defendant has no standing to challenge the validity of the subpoena.

You can read the full order here, and it goes into fairly deep detail about the issue, and is a fairly straightforward read.

It fizzled. In the meantime, record voter suppression laws have been successfully passed by the far right kooks in a number of states: http://www.aclu.org/maps/2011-voting-rights-under-attack-state-legislatures

2012 will host a bunch of important and close elections, and an even greater portion of the American public won't even be allowed into the polls. Other methods of voter suppression will happen on top of that insidious base.

Here

Pass it on.

It has been said that the TSA/Border Patrol can setup checkpoints something like 30? miles from a border

Try 100 miles.

2/3 of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border (which includes coastlines), which is effectively a Constitution-Free zone.

TSA Viper program has been pulling people over hear Memphis and Nashville for over a year now. They also have presences in many interstate truck weigh stations. It's all about controlling you.

It has been said that the TSA/Border Patrol can setup checkpoints something like 30? miles from a border

Try 100 miles.

2/3 of the US population lives within 100 miles of a border (which includes coastlines), which is effectively a Constitution-Free zone.

I didn't see a pic in the article of the artist. Is Canada like the States, where you can be strip searched for anything, even a traffic violation? http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-says-supreme-court-decision-upholding-strip-searches-puts-privacy-rights Maybe the police just wanted a private showing of the artist

Well when we have feds go after librarians for lists of who checked out books, we have constitution free zones that cover 30% of Americans and NDAA which states they can lock you away with ZERO trial if they stick the right label on you? I'm sorry but this librarian is hopelessly naive if she thinks all this wouldn't end up on someone's list somewhere. Remember it is NOT paranoia if they really are out to get you and everything we have seen from PATRIOT on up would bear out the assumption that if you don't get in line and wave the flag like a good drone you can end up on somebody's list.

I'm just glad my grandfather and his brothers who fought the Nazis in WWII aren't here to see this crap, hell you could probably power the entire southern USA by wrapping them in copper as i'm sure they are spinning like tops in their graves.

See, I've always recommended this map, also by the ACLU, that shows exactly where in the US your civil liberties are being protected properly.

I'll just leave this here...
https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Hey, you're the one who entered the Constitution-free zone, what did you expect. The majority of Americans live in that zone, by some amazing coincidence.

I have yet to see a single recruiting firm or employer called out on doing this.

Now you have.

Those who care about issues, such as Glenn Greenwald, and the American Civil Liberties Union, rather than partisan hackery do in fact give a shit, and have given Obama a hard time about this, and some have gone so far as to suggest supporting Ron Paul precisely because of his position on these issues.

Considering that the federal government willingly admits they have secret, non-publicized interpretations for laws, I would say that ignorance of the law (or rather, how it is being enforced) is now the perfect excuse.

But if you run afoul of those "laws", you still don't need to know them because you end up dead.

Considering that the federal government willingly admits they have secret, non-publicized interpretations for laws, I would say that ignorance of the law (or rather, how it is being enforced) is now the perfect excuse.

Here, through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here, here and here.

By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".

Here, through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here, here and here.

By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".

Here, through their NY branch. They have also opposed similar legislation here, here and here.

By the way, you're a disgusting individuals if you're OK with people's rights being trampled because they "don't deserve them".

They're a border control point, they're stopping EVERYONE.

Which is exactly the problem. Somebody traveling within the country in Texas on a public road shouldn't be subjected to a mandatory border control stop. A border crossing, yes. An interstate highway, no.

Try and use this argument for coming into the country, and see how far you get...

That's what they actually were granted authority for, yet it has gone down the slippery slope to policing huge swaths of areas where certain constitutional rights have disappeared, regardless if you are actually crossing the border or not.

While I'm a 'legalize it' kind of guy, I have to call you on the inflammatory rhetoric. I checked the map and none of the checkpoints are anywhere near the middle of Texas. The checkpoints all look to be in reasonable proximity to the border.

None of the permanent checkpoint on the maps you can get on the web, you mean... As far as the roving checkpoints, look at this map. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Also, to me a border checkpoint is at the border. Not an hour away. I need ID to go from one central town to another... (McAllen to San Antonio) Really.

Soooo basically I give up my 4th amendment rights simply because I live in a town within 100 miles of the border? Total crock of shit.....

Didn't you know? Most of the US lives in the Constitution-Free Zone.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

No, as it happens Austin is pretty much the middle of texas, and at least 1/3 of Texas is in a "constitution free zone" thanks to the fucking stupid law that allows for "checkpoints" like this.

Yup. For 2/3 of US citizens the constitution doesn't apply:

http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

That seems perfectly reasonable to any true patriotic American. Why do people who disagree with this hate America so much. Hey, look, waffle covered corn dogs. Yum!

http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map

If you try to take drugs through a border checkpoint, you're going to get caught. Should this surprise anyone?

It should if the people in question are driving from one part of the US to another part of the US. Why the FUCK do we have "border checkpoints" on roads that don't CROSS THE BORDER?

Because 2/3rds of the populous lives within 100 miles of any border or airport, which is considered the "Constitution Free Zone".

This is nothing new.

Any location within 100 miles of a US federal border is an officially Constitution-free zone. This neatly covers the homes of roughly 2/3 of all Americans.

You have no rights, so stop deluding yourself and do something about it.

From the ACLU:
Are You Living in a Constitution-free Zone?
Constitution-free Zone Fact Sheet
Constitution-free Zone Interactive Map

This is nothing new.

Any location within 100 miles of a US federal border is an officially Constitution-free zone. This neatly covers the homes of roughly 2/3 of all Americans.

You have no rights, so stop deluding yourself and do something about it.

From the ACLU:
Are You Living in a Constitution-free Zone?
Constitution-free Zone Fact Sheet
Constitution-free Zone Interactive Map

This is nothing new.

Any location within 100 miles of a US federal border is an officially Constitution-free zone. This neatly covers the homes of roughly 2/3 of all Americans.

You have no rights, so stop deluding yourself and do something about it.

From the ACLU:
Are You Living in a Constitution-free Zone?
Constitution-free Zone Fact Sheet
Constitution-free Zone Interactive Map

"Your point seems to be you want unfettered internet access and think it is due you simply because you pay tuition."

Not just tuition; you also pay room and board, and fees for things such as internet. If it were ONLY tuition, I think it would be more up to the school. But regardless of just exactly how it is being paid for, it *IS* being paid for. Universities do not supply services for free. They are paid by fees or by taxes, one of the two.

"Every time I reply to you, you say "I didn't say that;" despite having done so earlier."

I say that when you twist my meaning. For example:

""So you are in favor of censorship, as you would define it, as long as it's not you that is being "censored.;""

The fact is that I did NOT write that, or anything like it. You may have interpreted my words that way, but it isn't what I actually wrote and it sure is hell does not even remotely resemble anything I meant.

"As I pointed out above, you brought in the aCLU, 1st amendment issues and then backtracked"

No, that is not correct. YOU brought up the 1st Amendment. It wasn't me. YOU have kept insisting that the only justification the ACLU has to intervene is the 1st Amendment, but but that just isn't so, as I tried to tell you earlier. I neither stated or implied that the 1st Amendment was involved. You did.

"In addition to backing down whenever I called you on your argument..."

I have done no such thing. I haven't backed down from ANY of the statements I actually made; I only denied that I wrote the things that YOU were claiming I stated... but which I actually did not. Those are two very different things. I repeat: I was not making the arguments you have kept insisting I was making. I simply said that the student should contact the ACLU. I did not state or even imply that the 1st Amendment was involved. If I did, no doubt you will have no trouble quoting the words you claim I wrote which actually said that? I'd like to see them. As that link proves, the ACLU gets involved in academic freedom issues that do NOT involve the 1st Amendment. Just like I actually DID state.

"you consistently fail to address the salient point: ... Does a university have the right to control the use of limited resources to the broader university community can use them as needed? You never have answered that, despite my providing a number of examples which you dismiss as straw men since you seem to have no other response."

I never answered because it was a straw-man argument that, I repeat: has nothing whatever to do with the statement I originally made. I don't owe you answers to questions that aren't even relevant to the point I made.

But since you seem to insist that I answer the question, relative or not, answer me this first: why do you keep insisting that they are "limited resources", without any evidence or citations to back that up? It is actually nothing more than an unfounded assumption. The universities with which I am familiar have internet resources that can hardly be called "limited", in comparison to regular cable service in the area. Also, they definitely charge for the privilege, as part of the cost of room and board... NOT as part of the tuition.

In the meantime, you are thinking up ways to cover your ass when you next go "protest" in a "free speech zone" with an "Anonymous" mask on your face and a lawyer on speed-dial.

More often than not, people who protest here are worried about official tactics and strategies designed to neutralize protests in the first place. Getting arrested or even possibly shot can be an acceptable risk if you can get your message across in the process, which with many of the tactics in use here today is questionable at best. And as of yesterday, it's possible for certain three letter entities to grab us right off the street before we even get to where a protest is happening.

And trust me, there are plenty of people in this country who understand the profound injustice of herding anyone with any objections into "free speech zones" far from anywhere they could be effective at all. That's required some creative adjustments in protest tactics, and for the most part, the majority here are still so blinded by the mythology of the USA as a place where "it can't happen here" and there are still so few of us who see the reality that pushing too hard just gives the powers that be an excuse to crack down and shut us up by force. That will change, I'm sure, but the numbers just aren't there yet .. it's a hearts and minds game at present. Different country, different situation, different rules, different strategies.

the Intelligence Community is not authorized to collect on US Persons, except where allowed by law or authorized by a properly adjudicated warrant from a court of law. I know people on Slashdot don't like to believe this, and prefer to imagine that the sole purpose of the Intelligence Community is spying on our own citizens instead of, you know, doing the jobs they've been charged to do.

If that is the case, then how do you explain this or this or this. Sorry buddy, but you have to get your head out of the sand.

The government of Canada has the legal right to ignore the constitution (google notwithstanding clause). In the USA they just make up an excuse why it doesn't apply (google unlawful enemy combatant).

You forgot that areas in close proximity to US borders are Constitution free zones, as described by the ACLU. And "close proximity" is 100 miles. Remember that if you ever need a restraining order ...

The FBI has been violating the Constitution for years by attaching GPS tracking devices to suspect's cars without a warrant. And the FBI has been violating the law with regards to National Security Letters.

Put that in your smipe and poke it.

FTFY

The FBI has been violating the Constitution for years by attaching GPS tracking devices to suspect's cars without a warrant. And the FBI has been violating the law with regards to National Security Letters.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The Genie is out of the bottle and won't go back easily, if at all.

Examples: National Security Letters

"The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power."
(from: http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters )

Catch 22:
From: Susan Herman's book, Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy:

"A number of courts have declared that no one has standing - that is, the right to bring a lawsuit - to challenge eavesdropping programs unless they can prove that the government has been listening to their own telephone calls or intercepting their own-mails. That is a true Catch-22, when the whole point of secrecy is that the target is unaware of being the target."

Bingo!
Issue a NSL to an ISP for all web traffic of a particular person, erroneously accuse a person of {something}. Defense lawyer can't do his job, person disappears.

The US Constitution applies to all US Citizens... no matter where they are at.

Are You Living in a Constitution Free Zone?

Of course they may not be sentenced to prison. That does not, however, preclude them from harassment, arrest and/or attempts to throw them in prison.

Phil Mocek was arrested and tried for filming a TSA checkpoint. Oh, and the video of the arrest was deleted while Phil was in custody. Here is a list of 7 incidents that occurred in 2011 alone that involved the arrest, threat of arrest, intimidation or assault of someone photographing or videotaping a public official in public.

This is not BS. It's happening with alarming regularity in the United States. This is despite multiple federal court decisions upholding the right of individuals to film.

I don't know about the TSA, but the Border Patrol regularly harasses people at the Rochester, NY bus/train station. If you don't believe me, just go over there, you can't miss them. Apparently those guys can stop and question people anywhere at or near the border. Which sounds innocuous, except they use an incredibly liberal definition of "near the border": anywhere within a 100 miles of a land border, or a sea coast, or the coast of the Great Lakes.

I've shown you repeatedly that the bill does no such thing.

- you have never shown me anything, you have said it every time, but that means zilch.

You never provide sources, and when you do post links they don't say what you claim they say.

- links and quotes and more links.

The President cannot round people up into concentration camps. That's simply not true.

- ACLU and directors of CIA, FBI and National Intelligence say you are wrong and he can.

--

I have MORE information, this time

Part 1

Part 2

This is by Joanne Mariner, a Justia columnist, is the director of Hunter College's Human Rights Program. She is an expert on human rights, counterterrorism, and international humanitarian law.

Her conclusion is that you are WRONG and the provision 1021 of NDAA MUST BE REPEALED.

Of-course Ron Paul introduced a bill to repeal that section of NDAA, we'll see how that goes.

My understanding is that it was within 100 miles of the border. As far as sources I can offer these after a quick google search:

This one about searches in Tennessee

Or this from the ACLU about the constitution free zone

Or any number of incidents that have occurred. Granted the border patrol isn't the TSA but they are both part of the DHS and even have some permanent "interior checkpoints" as they call them most are on the southern border but it is mentioned that there are number in northern states within 100 miles of the Canadian border.

and I am going to provide a retort every time I see your lying propaganda shill, plant and stooge posts appear on /. about this topic.

ACLU

UPDATE I: Don't be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

--

ACLU: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority."

Huffington Post: History Will Judge Obama On NDAA

Obama's WORTHLESS signing statement

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.

--

Forbes: President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.

and I am going to provide a retort every time I see your lying propaganda shill, plant and stooge posts appear on /. about this topic.

ACLU

UPDATE I: Don't be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

--

ACLU: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

âoeWe are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,â said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAAâ(TM)s detention authority."

Huffington Post: History Will Judge Obama On NDAA

Obama's WORTHLESS signing statement

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.

--

Forbes: President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.

Where it becomes bad is if they harass or in any way mistreat people who aren't threatening violence.

Where it becomes bad is that they harass or in any way mistreat people who aren't threatening violence.

FTFY

Is there any evidence that they're doing that?

It's called "Flying"
I envy you for not having to do so at all in the past decade, I truly wish I could say the same.
Since you haven't been there to see first hand, nor seen the news and stories of what's going on, here is the evidence you requested:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

http://tsaabuse.blogspot.com/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/18/1027775/-TSA-Arrests-Me-for-Using-the-Fourth-Amendment-as-a-Weapon-(Tales-from-the-Edge-of-a-Revolution-2)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-groping-out-of-control.html

Border guards are charged with keeping child porn out of the country. They can enter any house, car, motor home, whatever, and search whatever computers, cameras, laptops, or whatever without requiring a warrant. The can do it to anyone living within the border. It's called a constitution free zone for a reason.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling

TRAVELLING WITH BREAST MILK

Soviet Russia called they want their Papers please, Comrade.

Most people in the country haven't been safe from these searches since the original Patriot Act was signed. Within 100 miles of the US border? No 4th amendment rights included: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/tsa-seeks-expand-airport-experience-everyday-life

And

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling

http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/tsa-seeks-expand-airport-experience-everyday-life

And

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling