Slashdot Mirror

Read the memorandum in the case.

Many of those stops were on Broadway. I've walked down those very same streets many times. I'm white and I've never been stopped, even when I was walking home late at night. Black guys get stopped.

The thing that impressed me about their testimony is that they sound like really cool guys. They're black law students, medical students, teachers, social workers, etc. They're getting hassled by cops all the time, they're tired of it, and they're responding in reasonable ways. The cops are unreasonably arbitrary and rude, and according to the judge's decision, the cops repeatedly broke the law. These guys filed protests with the police department, complained to the ACLU, and finally took the cops to court. They've got balls. They're complaining that they're being singled out all the time because they're black, and if you read the court documents, they made a pretty good argument.

DAVID FLOYD, et al. vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
David Floyd, et al. vs. The City of New York.

OPINION AND ORDER
08 Civ. 1034 (SAS)
Case 1:08-cv-01034-SAS-HBP Document 373
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/12/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-decision.html
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/750446/stop-and-frisk-memoranda.pdf

I don't remember that, and don't see it mentioned in the Wikipedia article

Of course not. For all their online outrage and indignation, no one seems to have taken five minutes to read the indictment.
I guess that would be too much like reading TFA.

The next day, October 9, 2010, Swartz used both the "ghost laptop" and the "ghost macbook" to systematically and rapidly access and download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR. The pace was so fast that it brought down some of JSTOR's computer servers.

In response, JSTOR blocked the entire MIT computer network's access to JSTOR for several days, beginning on or about October 9, 2010.

November and December, 2010
During November and December, 2010, Swartz used the "ghost laptop" (i.e., the Acer laptop) at MIT to make over two million downloads from JSTOR. This is more than one hundred times the number of downloads during the same period by all the legitimate MIT JSTOR users combined.

MIT's network admins shouldn't have to deal with this shit.

To me this sounds like it is time to file a bunch of freedom of information act requests. The bigger question is what if anything will the media do with this newf ound info.

I requested more info for you, here is some you should enjoy
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/716069/boozallenhamiltonnsa.pdf

Apparently Booz employees forgot that their cloud documents are.... well, public

Link

Not much there.

The government certainly finds it useful to get search warrants and such to look at suspect's email, including gmail.
That's very much not Google's doing. Google does more than any other company, probably any company in history, to fight against that.
By law, they are required to honor National Security Letters asking them to give up information. Their policy is to refuse to provide the
information, even though the law (since 1978) says they have to hand over the information. Google claims the law is unconstitutional and
therefore void. In Doe versus Ashcroft, the judge agreed. (Courts have gone both ways.)

Just two weeks ago Google filed suit to have these information requests ruled unconstitutional:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/680852-googlemotion.html

They are the only company I know of which publicizes how many supeonas and national security letters they get. That itself is thumbing their nose at the
FBI because those letters include a gag order saying Google isn't allowed to talk about them. (Which is why their name wasn't made public in Doe v Ashcroft,
they aren't allowed to reveal the things they revealed in that suit. (It's a pretty safe assumption that Doe was Goog.)

Google has founded an organization to protect their users from such government intrusion and regularly funds other organizations with the same goal.
No doubt, Google wants to HAVE information about you, but they do everything they can to avoid sharing that data with the government, with their
executives actually risking jail time for openly defying the laws requiring them to give up the info. You can't possibly ask them to do more than that.

they could just move their mail operation overseas with no US operatives.

they do it for taxes already, so why the fuck not...

Lee added that the Scripps Hackers eventually used Wget to find and download "the Companies' confidential files." (Wget was the same tool used by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg in the film The Social Network to collect student photos from various Harvard University directories.) The rest of the letter pretty much blamed the "Scripps Hackers" for the cost of breach notifications, demanded Scripps hand over all evidence as well as the identity and intentions of the hackers, before warning that Scripps will be sued.

Folks, there was a big bad security breach. Now, *adjusts his massive belt buckle* we're investigating this like we would any other serious crime. And right now we're just trying to identify weapons used in this heinous attack. Now, we've discovered that the hackers were using a very vicious mechanism in this attack. In a murder, you might find a revolver used to put two bullets into the back of a poor old defenseless lady's skull in order to get all her coupons and a couple of Indian head pennies out of her purse. Or perhaps in a pedophile case, you'll find the "secret candy" that was used to lure the children into a white panel van with painted over windows.

*expels a long tortured sigh*

Well, I gotta say, in my thirty years on the force, I wish we were only dealing with something like that today, honest to God Almighty I really do. Instead this artifact was discovered at the scene of the crime. Now, I'm not asking you to understand that -- hell, I'd warn you against even openin' up your browser to the devil's toolbox. But let me, a trained law enforcement professional, take the time to explain the gruesome evidence just one HTTP request away from you and your chillun'. The page is black. Black as a moonless night sky when raptors swoop from the murky inky nothing to take your kids and livestock back up with them silently. On it is a bunch of white text that makes no sense to any God fearun' man on this here Earth. That's what they call a "man page" probably because it is the ultimate culmination of man's sin and lo and behold it displays a guide to exact torture on innocent web servers across this great and holy internet.

Even if you want to use this "man page" for WGET to learn how to use Satan's server scythe, you would have to read through almost twenty pages of incomprehensible technobabble like what that kraut over in Cali -- the one who took his wife's life -- spoke. And if you want to just see an example, it's not at the top! No, why, it's all the way down at the bottom. For this one, they don't even have examples. Just enough options to kill a man. Probably gave Steve Jobs cancer, they never proved all these options in these pages didn't. Buried in the mud of a thousand evils lie more evils.

And why, oh why are we even wasting taxpayer money on these Scripps Journos? Who needs a trial when the evidence is in the tools they used? Folks, I think it's time we WGET one last thing, I'll WGET a rope and you WGET your pitchforks and torches ... let's go down to Scripps and put all this computer business behind us. Okay?

Read point 5 of the supporting facts in the search warrant http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/628278-search-warrant-dated-december-14-2012-redacted.html

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/346138-essay-awarded-a-top-grade-by-e-rater.html

The Judge struck down the ordinance on Ohio Constitution grounds based on
1. It is possible to enter the village and a camera enforced area, without encountering a sign warning of the camera (as required by Revised Code 4511.094)
2. State & Federal Constitution require "due process of law", meaning the ability to contest the fine. However the contest procedure involves only hearsay evidence from the Village (They just read the company's report... no witness). Furthermore, if you claim you're not the driver, you have to prove you're not the driver by coughing up the actual driver. If the driver was your spouse, you're then required to testify against your spouse, in violation of the Spousal Immunity statute 2917.02(d).

I think the real LOL is in the Bond decision. In case the injunction is determined to not be valid, the plaintiffs (you and me) are required to post a bond to cover any damages in the meantime. But since the city has flatly declared the ordinance is not about the money, the Bond to cover the potential millions of dollars of loss is... $1.
I like this judge.

IANAL. This is just my own layman's interpretation of the ruling.

Zimmerman most likely decided to approach Martin, angainst the "suggestion" that he did not intervene.

There's no need for "scare quotes" here. Read the transcript:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok.

Nowhere else in that call does Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher talk about following the suspicious person. It's obviously not a command and the dispatcher didn't even phrase it unambiguously as a suggestion not to follow the suspicious person.

He is a citizen who made a mistake, got in over his head, and ended up killing another person. As far as I can tell, this would be a cae of manslaughter.

Or a case of legal self defense. The stand your ground principle seems relevant in that it might turn what could have been a manslaughter case into a justifiable homicide case. Without stand your ground, I gather Zimmerman would have been on much weaker ground legally by following Martin.

My limited experience with self defense law is that usually, one has to demonstrate that they were unable to disengage from the assault in question (say because they had no escape routes or were pursued) as well as having a reasonable expectation of grievous bodily harm or death.

Stand your ground means you don't have to show that you tried to disengage at least under whatever limited circumstances are allowed by the law in question. I am ignorant of Florida law here, but given that the "stand your ground" law is talked about at all, indicates that at least some think it applies to Zimmerman's story.

Let me focus on just the incentive to cheat aspect. As you noted, in 2012 nineteen states were totally uncompetitive. In those states under the current system there is zero incentive to cheat because the outcome is binary: either you manage to successfully flip a previously uncompetitive state without getting caught or you fail completely. The risk of any kind of cheating at the presidential level in these states simply isn't worth it. This all changes in a National Popular Vote (NPV). Now cheating in uncompetitive states can be very rewarding.

Let's look at a close election: 2000 Bush v. Gore. Under an NPV, Gore's margin of victory in 2000 would have been about 544K votes, or 0.52% of the total popular vote. If you look at just two uncompetitive states, NY and TX*, you need only swing the vote in those states by about 4% to reverse the results of the NPV election (NY: 4%, TX:4.2%), and that's just in two uncompetitive states. Throw California into the mix^ and you now only need to swing the vote by about 2.5% in each state to flip the election. Spread out to all 50 states, you only need to come up with 10K votes in each state to completely reverse the election.

You don't even have to cheat to make this happen. Consider the voter ID laws that are proposed or on the books in many states. There's a reasonable argument to be made that voter ID laws protect the election process by mitigating vote fraud. However, some studies # estimate that voter ID laws depress turn out of lower socio-economic voters, who typically vote for Democrats, by as much as 10%**. If we can assume this is true, and the recently rejected TX voter ID laws were in place in the 2000 election, Democratic voter turn out there may have been lower by about 640K votes; more than enough to flip the election.

Under NPV, all 50 states have a powerful incentive to monkey with their voting laws because with just a little nudge they can affect the outcome of the entire national election. Hence, the eventual outcry for a national system of standards for elections.

* New York: 6.8M votes, 25% margin of victory for Gore; Texas 6.4M votes, 21% marge of victory for Bush
^ California: 10.5M votes, 12% margin of victory for Gore
** State of Texas v Holder http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/415387/texasopinion.pdf
# 2011 paper by Dr. Michael Alvarez of the California Institute of Technology http://vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/vtp_wp57.pdf

Here is the original indictment. Look at page 3 under "Overview of Offences".

> It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the
> phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.

You're only reading half the story. They are not allowed to bring anything back in after the park is "cleared".
http://i.imgur.com/TMxmg.jpg

It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

As far as the "private property" argument, something about that sounds dubious. If it were a private corp who owned prime space in downtown new york you can damn betcha it would have apartments stacked up as far and wide as legally possible.

A judge even thinks so this morning too.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266582-order-re-liberty-park/

You can assemble, you just can't squat/live there.

> It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the
> phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.

You're only reading half the story. They are not allowed to bring anything back in after the park is "cleared".
http://i.imgur.com/TMxmg.jpg

It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

As far as the "private property" argument, something about that sounds dubious. If it were a private corp who owned prime space in downtown new york you can damn betcha it would have apartments stacked up as far and wide as legally possible.

A judge even thinks so this morning too.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266582-order-re-liberty-park/