Slashdot Mirror

<grammar mode="nazi">I know a lot of people who ...</grammar>

That aside, there are recent rulings on the topic of the 4th amendment. One in note:

Federal Court Rules on One of the Major Outstanding Constitutional Privacy Questions of Our Time -- 06/12/2014

Based on this event a couple weeks ago:

ACLU of Florida Files Emergency Motion Seeking Cell Phone Tracking Orders Hidden by Sarasota Police and U.S. Marshals -- June 3, 2014

And this is from the 11th circuit, no less.

Of course, your post is a lot of nonsense as well. Police putting up a fake mobile cell tower with the ability to intercept all calls within a geographical area really has most of nothing to do with the "amazingly complicated" internet.

We're halfway there:

http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/

we have this basic problem of incarcerating someone for a crime they MIGHT commit, which, most folks find unfair.

Yet nobody finds it unfair that we have lists of people who have to announce their crimes to their neighbours, who are barred from living or working in certain areas, and who have to now walk around with a bracelet on that starts beeping whenever they get "too close" to designated buildings? It has gotten to the point where sex offenders are actually forced to live under a bridge in some areas:

http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/

If this is not considered unfair, then why should a prison sentence be considered unfair?

Brett Bursey
Police dogs loosed on recruitment protestors
Other protestors arrested
Veteran arrested on Veteran's day for reading an editorial out loud
Not arrested, just confined behind barbed wire
Military treating Quakers like terrorists
Grandmother arrested over "Investigate Florida Votergate" sign

I'm sorry, but your definition of religious endorsement, while acceptable and reasonable, is not the ACLU's definition of religous endorsement. I wish that the ACLU thought as you did, but in reality they are rabidly anti-christian to the point of attempting to re-write history. At the same time, they do defend the rights of other religions such as Islam.

Here's a URL of their anti-christian tendencies:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprag er/2004/11/16/13670.html

And a URL of their pro-muslim tendencies:

http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2003/fre emanrelease052703.cfm

When it comes to religion, and as someone else said, gun control too, the ACLU does pick and choose their battles based on a clearly left-wing political agenda.

In the state where the prezident's brother is governor, they can't. (Until those damn activist judges knock this down as unconstitutional. Those damn activist judges, always upholding their "Constitution", like it makes them better than everybody else).

Some people practice a religion that proscribes the taking of or posing for photographs. Also, a number of states have enacted legislation that demands a compelling societal interest before infringing a groups or individuals religous freedom. This legislation has been used to compell states to issue drivers licenses without photos, I cannot see why identifying kiosk customers is more compelling than postively identifying the driver of a motor vehicle. Here's a link to page describing this very issue

Oddly enough, That is how it works in Florida YOu must apply for return of your voting "rights" that you resigned when you committed a felony, Sort of like a targetted literacy test.

you're fucking kidding, right? http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/applyin g_for_rights_restoration.cfm why don't you get your head out of the sand and actually learn the law, before you become someones bitch^H^H^H^H^Hsheeple.

In 2000, Florida contracted with DBT Online (Choicepoint) to purge the central voter list. The Commission found that the use of a private entity without clear and effective guidance from the highest state levels, coupled with the absence of uniform and reliable verification procedures, resulted in the disenfranchisement of countless eligible voters in 2000.

But it still does leave many questions. The report is very much a summary, and leaves out just about any detail.

Greg Palast claims to have 2 CDROMS with the complete felons' list. I suppose it would be a violation of privacy and stuff but it would be nice if they were published so we could look at them ourselves.

This Article on Greg Palast's website claims to detail how Choicepoint came up with the list. It would be nice to find an independent source to confirm the details that isn't just quoting from Palast or an associate.

The article said that the NAACP sued Katherine Harris' department and one, but didn't mention any details. I was able to find this page which seems to be the complaint and details specific incidents of people denied to vote. I'm not big on legalise and couldn't find a court case number. Anyone know how to look this up?

err.... I was trying to lookup something I had read before on Palast's website that I thought implied that he was published in the London Times reporting on the Felons' List. But now I can't even find that. Maybe he was refering to the Guardian instead of the Times. Anyone know what I'm talking about here?

Oh one more thing to ask: Supposedly there were lots of roadblocks out on the streets on Election Day 2000. Did anyone get pictures of these? Anyone know of any websites with pictures or specific details on this?

Documentation and sources are a good thing.

I was able to find this Salon article that says 173,000 names were removed from the voter roles, and that 8,000 of them were people who were convicted for misdemeanors, not felonies.

As to media bias, I think the mainstream media is biased, but not according to "liberal" or "conservitive" slant but towards the status quo. Rather than a bias of disinformation, it is underreporting that is the problem. In other words stories that would reflect badly on advertisers or the parent company go unreported. In this case challenging the legitamacy of the current administration would be upsetting to the status quo and bad for business in general. Too bad the economy is in the crapper.

Are Salon and The Guardian unbiased sources? :)

For the record, I didn't vote for Al Gore and was extremely frighten