Slashdot Mirror

Thanks for the link, I saved the page. I don't recall if the ruling you cited is the same I was thinking of, all I recalled was that it was in the 1800s and I thought it involved a railroad but wasn't sure, so I googled and found this:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [1886]
Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood" (whether 14 th Amendment covered corporations), the decision subsequently was cited as precedent to hold that a private corporation was a "natural person." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise.

I also tried Findlaw, searched for "personhood", and got ten results. None of them had anything to do with corporate personhood. Because my question of whether the USSC ruled to give corporations legal personhood status hasn't been answered guess I'll have to spend more tyme researching it.

Thanks for the link, I saved the page. I don't recall if the ruling you cited is the same I was thinking of, all I recalled was that it was in the 1800s and I thought it involved a railroad but wasn't sure, so I googled and found this:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [1886]
Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood" (whether 14 th Amendment covered corporations), the decision subsequently was cited as precedent to hold that a private corporation was a "natural person." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise.

I also tried Findlaw, searched for "personhood", and got ten results. None of them had anything to do with corporate personhood. Because my question of whether the USSC ruled to give corporations legal personhood status hasn't been answered guess I'll have to spend more tyme researching it.

I will give you what I consider the most blatant and insane example.

U.S. Constitution article III

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now to me and I think to 99.999% of americans the phrase ALL clearly means every single instance.
To judges and lawyers however this is apparently different. As it currently stands you do not have the right to a jury trial.

I will give you what I consider the most blatant and insane example.

U.S. Constitution article III

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now to me and I think to 99.999% of americans the phrase ALL clearly means every single instance.
To judges and lawyers however this is apparently different. As it currently stands you do not have the right to a jury trial.

"Under the Sherman Act a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce is illegal per se"

-- U.S. Supreme Court - U. S. v. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150 (1940)

Ummmm....you haven't been paying attention, have you?

heck

>Is that torture? Were they permanently injured?

"Is that torture?"
Rape, according to a military investigation

>How would you interrogate people and obtain information if lives were on the line?

I'd try something that works. Look at what John McCain, a torture victim, has to say on that subject. Torture does not get you information to save lives, it gets you whatever you want to hear.

Stop and think that a lot of police departments hire former MPs. These people maybe, the ones who weren't caught for sure, will be questioning Americans in a few years.

>But let me ask you, what damage to our civil rights actually occurred

USAPATRIOT section 215, searches without warrant, review, or opportuity to challenge after the fact. "Free speech zones" surrounded by barbed wire. Open ended detention of US citizens without legal counsel or court review. Not all under the current administration but all within the last few years.

From the ruling

(a) Two inquiries guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See Pickering, supra, at 568. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on the employer's reaction to the speech. See Connick, supra, at 147. If the answer is yes, the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the government employer had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. See Pickering, supra, at 568. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker's expressions and employment. Without a significant degree of control over its employees' words and actions, a government employer would have little chance to provide public services efficiently. Cf. Connick, supra, at 143. Thus, a government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its employer role, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect its operations. On the other hand, a citizen who works for the government is nonetheless still a citizen. The First Amendment limits a public employer's ability to leverage the employment relationship to restrict, incidentally or intentionally, the liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597. So long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively. See, e.g., Connick, supra, at 147. Pp. 5-8.

When I read this, it's seems pretty sensible. Say you're working for BestBuy, and you tell a customer that the widescreen TV they're looking at is actually a refurb being sold at full price. You just blew the whistle on your boss while on his time.

This ruling states that BestBuy ( if it were a public company as in a truly communist state ) could discipline you for undermining the company while being paid to represent the company. No one argues that this is BestBuy's right. The same goes with the LA Attorney General's office. If you are subpenoed to talk about a case, that doesn't make it your job to hand over physical evidence that would torpedo the case. Your job is to talk about the case. You can even talk about the memo you wrote, but the memo is the official property of the AG's office. The onus is on the defense then to subpenoa the memo itself as evidence.

It clearly looks like this Deputy DA overstepped his authority here. That sounds shitty, but I'm not advocating his silence. But if he wanted a protected way to let the defense know the police broke the law, he could have done it in some way as a private citizen and the Supreme Court would probably not have bothered to hear the case, letting stand the ruling in favor of the Deputy.

Given the time of writing, it seems fairly obvious (though apparently much debated) that it is intended to include all forms of communication (since it lists them, given the time period), rather than those explicitly outlined.

An amendment adjusting the wording of the 4th to include "and all private communication" would certainly be benificial however, considering how often it's been argued that a new method of communicating should not be, or is not, covered under by the 4th amendment. (see the various arguments regarding, for instance, the telephone.)

See also: UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) regarding the current debate about such things (and the other references for the other arguments about it).

Encrypting all electronic communication is a rather complicated social/technical problem (all users need keys, all users need the means to retrieve the public key of any other party, etc). Given the failure of PGP to achieve this among the general public, it seems clear that it not only needs to be possible, but in fact easy to do this. Not least, there's a critical mass of non-technical people making extensive daily use of email and associated forms of communication, a method of encrypting same would require significant marketing and effort to give it any particular usefulness.

Given the time of writing, it seems fairly obvious (though apparently much debated) that it is intended to include all forms of communication (since it lists them, given the time period), rather than those explicitly outlined.

An amendment adjusting the wording of the 4th to include "and all private communication" would certainly be benificial however, considering how often it's been argued that a new method of communicating should not be, or is not, covered under by the 4th amendment. (see the various arguments regarding, for instance, the telephone.)

See also: UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) regarding the current debate about such things (and the other references for the other arguments about it).

Encrypting all electronic communication is a rather complicated social/technical problem (all users need keys, all users need the means to retrieve the public key of any other party, etc). Given the failure of PGP to achieve this among the general public, it seems clear that it not only needs to be possible, but in fact easy to do this. Not least, there's a critical mass of non-technical people making extensive daily use of email and associated forms of communication, a method of encrypting same would require significant marketing and effort to give it any particular usefulness.

Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990) (internal quotes omitted). A necessary corollary of this rule is that when Congress attaches conditions to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied. Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983).

Point me to a statute that explicitly recognizes the right of a private citizen to bring suit against the NSA for this kind of thing, and then we'll continue the discussion. (The Fourth Amendment might be used, in conjunction with Article III section 2 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 or 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), but there's a tricky issue of standing to be resolved. Without at least some evidence of the NSA spying on the plaintiff individually, there's no way to support a claim of actual injury, and the case will be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.)

Under settled principles of sovereign immunity, the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit, save as it consents to be sued. United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990) (internal quotes omitted). A necessary corollary of this rule is that when Congress attaches conditions to legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, those conditions must be strictly observed, and exceptions thereto are not to be lightly implied. Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983).

Point me to a statute that explicitly recognizes the right of a private citizen to bring suit against the NSA for this kind of thing, and then we'll continue the discussion. (The Fourth Amendment might be used, in conjunction with Article III section 2 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 or 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), but there's a tricky issue of standing to be resolved. Without at least some evidence of the NSA spying on the plaintiff individually, there's no way to support a claim of actual injury, and the case will be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.)

The "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" analogy was used to stop the distribution of flyers opposing the draft during World War I. The decision was that the flyers were illegal because they interfered with military operations (illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theater
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=249&invol=47

My memory of Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink suggested there might be some parallel. Looking at it closely, there's at least enough for a brief, but maybe not enough for a case. OTOH, I'm not even in law school.

(On a side note, in my opinion copyright law itself isn't constitutional right now -- Congress is granted the power to establish copyrights to promote the advancement of science and the arts, and it seems clear to me they're doing the opposite. Unfortunately no one's asking my opinion yet ...)

I'd agree, but Eldred v. Ashcroft pretty much blows any hope for that legal theory out of the water.

My memory of Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink suggested there might be some parallel. Looking at it closely, there's at least enough for a brief, but maybe not enough for a case. OTOH, I'm not even in law school.

(On a side note, in my opinion copyright law itself isn't constitutional right now -- Congress is granted the power to establish copyrights to promote the advancement of science and the arts, and it seems clear to me they're doing the opposite. Unfortunately no one's asking my opinion yet ...)

I'd agree, but Eldred v. Ashcroft pretty much blows any hope for that legal theory out of the water.

FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech.

Uh. This just isn't true. Libel does not require actual damages at all. (Slander does.) If I get up on a newspaper opinion poll and write about how much I think (insert politician here) is a (insult horrible lie here,) and it turns out I'm writing for a newspaper with 0 readers, I have still incorrectly defamed his character and I'm still liable for libel. (By the way, liable means "I am responsible for the outcome of these actions." There is no such thing as "liable speech." It's called libel. Please don't comment on the nature of a five letter law you can't even spell.) Libel requires only that the medium of conversation is lasting, which implies writing and covers well the internet.

In fact, if what the kid says is false, then this is the textbook definition of libel.

If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.

Did you know that giving false legal advice is a felony?

I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.

Again, nonsense.

If the feds get a wiretap warrant, and they hear you, Vinny and Guido (I'm sick of the terrorist metaphors; let's go back to the old trusty Italian Mob) plotting to knock over a bank, that's a conspiracy. The federal government is under no obligation to wait until you go bust out the guns; once there's intent, and once it can be established that what was being discussed wasn't humor or speculation, then it's real enough to be actionable (in practical terms, this involves agreeing to act at a specific time, date and on a specific location or target.)

Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts.

Here's a better thought: stop searching a community-written site for detail-oriented things like legal advice. There is no shortage of legitimate, correct and well-thought-out material on sites like law.cornell.edu, and there is no shortage of examples - particularly in law, but also elsewhere - of Wikipedia being essentially full of crap. By and on the whole, it's a fine, high accuracy reference, but it simply does not have the level of quality control to be used as a legal reference.

FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal.

Uh. The actual yelling of fire isn't what's illegal, it's the attempt to cause panic. Exactly what are you arguing with here?

I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.

Yeah, welcome to 1904. The issue of intent as regards the nature of protection of free speech has been well settled in this country for more than a hundred years. Read a law book; I am not a lawyer, but I believe the appropriate precedent is the supreme court case Aikens v. State of Wisconsin (c194-195 1904.) Just because you can come up with a possible mistake doesn't mean the court hasn't long since handled it. Moreover, the hair you're attempting to split isn't at all germane in context.

Clarance Darrow you are not.

Moderators, remember the golden rule of moderation: do not mark something as insightful if you yourself cannot verify something as correct. Meta-moderators, unleash the hounds.

In fact, on such case was decided right here in Des Moines, Iowa, my home town.

The Case was "TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=393&invol=503

Let me quote a little of the decision:

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Looks to me as if the school board in this case should apologize immediately. Maybe they can avoid the law suit I see on the horizon.

For those of you too young to remember, or too lazy to read the case notes: A couple of High School students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school suspended them. They sued. They took it to the Supreme Court which said it WAS a Free Speech Issue. The school lost, the kids won.

Maybe the school board needs a refresher course in American History?

Actually the Supreme Court of the United States has said that students do not shed their first amendment rights at the schoolyard gate. The case was Tinker -v- Des Moines and was related to students being suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. I not sure the current court would find for Tinker though.

You might want to go sit in on a Constitutional Law class, where it will be explained, in minute detail, why you're wrong when you think you're right. The short answer is that the words of the Constitution don't always mean what they appear to mean. The long answer is that this sort of behavior by the school district has long been held to be unconstitutional, going back at least to Tinker v. Des Moines School District:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=393&invol=503

1. That 17 USC 602(a)(2) by its own language is limited to the import prohibition in subsection (a); the prohibition in subsection (b) remains in force.
2. That copies and phonorecords are defined in 17 USC 101 as being material objects, which means that no physical object in Russia can be moved to the US via the Internet, making section 602 a red herring.
3. That the courts have stated that unauthorized downloading of copyrighted works is an infringement of the reproduction right of the copyright holder. See e.g. Napster and Intellectual Reserve.
4. That the courts will generally assign liability for the reproduction infringement to the downloader, barring unusual circumstances, like downloads that were in fact caused by a hacker, and not the user of the computer. See e.g. Netcom.
5. That the standard of proof used in a civil copyright case (e.g. one brought by the RIAA) is the preponderance of the evidence standard, which results in the defendant being liable if thinks that there was as little as a 51% chance that he actually did it, even if they entertain reasonable doubts (e.g. the presence of an open WAP, that there are other people able to use the computer).
6. That 17 USC 1008 is inapplicable, because it does not cover downloading. See e.g. Napster and Diamond. Also see the important definitions in sections 1001 and 101 and what the law would require if 1008 were applicable to computers, per sections 1002 and 1003.
7. That just because RIAA has not sued someone yet does not mean that they cannot or will not. See e.g. the suits against Napster (which started in 1999) and the suits against users (which started in 2003). Tactical concerns, such as how to use the limited budget for legal action in the most effective way, or which

There are actually many, many cases in which searches, seizures and arrests can occur without a warrant. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but it's definitely not 100% true that all warrantless searches are unreasonable. Note, I personally belief that the current administration's spying program is without a doubt illegal, even if not unconstitutional.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/03.html#2
Findlaw article on valid searches and seizures without a warrant

Section 222. Privacy of customer information

(a) In general
Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/47/ chapters/5/subchapters/ii/parts/i/sections/section _222.html

IMHO the existance of such a legal statement in US law creates a "reasonable expectation of privacy", and therefore the situation is not the same as it was when Smith v Maryland was ruled on. Time marches on, and technological progress has amplified the privacy impact of such monitoring. Its time to re-evaluate this ruling.

By the way you asked: "By the way, ...exactly which freedoms that our Constitution guarantees do you think are being threatened?"

Specifically the 4th amendment of the bill of rights to the constitution which states:

" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/

Ubiquitous spying is an absolute violation of our ability "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." Does that answer your question specifically and clearly about which freedoms are being violated by the war on terror in general and by listening in our phone calls without a warrant or any supervision what so ever, data mining our calling records without any supervision, and collecting information on our internet usage? What part of "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

That's not what they said. The Second Circuit said that it was illegal for Corley to link to sites he knew contained DeCSS. They were balancing First Amendment rights against the obvious restraint on speech that the DMCA required in its "shall not offer to the public" language. Their reasoning was that the DMCA, specifically 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), "served substantial governmental interests and was unrelated to the suppression of free expression." Read their entire opinion here, especially the discussion section, III(B)(2). In other words, if you want to link to bomb-making instructions, Corley doesn't apply. You might be in trouble for other reasons (I don't know, I'd have to do research), but not because of the DeCSS case.

What does this mean for Google? Well, if they 'know' that they're linking to something that a law prevents them from linking to (note that such a law is, a priori, a restraint on speech, and can be challenged on First Amendment grounds), then Corley says they might be in trouble.

According to this ruling phone records aren't protected by the fourth amendment.

Here's someplace to start:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

The official term is "signing statement." Basically, the president attaches this statement to a bill, explaining how the law applies differently, or does not apply at all, to whomever he decides.

Instead of using veto power, the executive branch is usurping the roles of both the legislative and judicial branches through the extensive use of these signing statements. This, when the Congress is majority Republican, and the Supreme Court vastly conservative. It always makes me think - what are they doing that's so bad that they don't even think their comrades would let them get away with it, that they have to hide behind signing statements?

According to the Supreme Court (Smith v Maryland, 1979), law enforcement agencies don't need warrants to obtain phone call records. It has something to do with how, when you dial a number, you openly transmit it to your phone company, you know they (and any other carrier that takes part in handling the call) keep a record of what you've dialed and you know they can provide that info back to you on your billing statement. Therefore you don't have an expectation to privacy when you dial. So no, the FBI probably didn't bother with warrants if they obtained these records as part of a criminal investigation.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=442&invol=735

U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND,
442 U.S. 735 (1979)
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home.
Held: The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

There is no right to anonymity.

There is no right to anonymity.

Smith vs Maryland, 1979:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=442&invol=735

NSA program is legal....

Maybe not. The article quotes Smith vs. Maryland:

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

Now, what the NSA allegedly did is rather more comprehensive, but being able to say "Ah, this phone number we found on this captured terrorist laptop was in contact with phones A, B, and C. Are any of those numbers interesting?" has its merits. There's all sorts of scenarios where it's useful to know who a person of interest has been in contact with.

Summary for the impatient: you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to the phone numbers you dial, and therefore the government doesn't need a warrant to get records of them. I strongly suspect that a court would refuse to issue a warrant before the government at least asked for the records, unless the government was claiming that time was an issue. (In which case they probably would've gotten a warrant since, in my non-lawyer opinion, one would clearly have been approved and it covers their butts.)

U.S. Supreme Court
  SMITH v. MARYLAND,
442 U.S. 735 (1979)
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home.
  Held: The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

His DNA is like his fingerprints: if he left it in public, the government can just collect or copy it. Otherwise,

Fourth Amendment
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

BTW, you can also look at the ruling from the Microsoft case and see what Microsoft was slapped with. I already read it, but I may have missed something. If you happen to find something in there about banning Microsoft from using its advantage as a monopoly from entering other markets, please let me know. Final Judgement I really do look forward to you educating me further on this matter.

If you lay off more than a certain number of people at one time, different rules are in effect.

There's a federal law called WARN, and California has a stricter version.

p.s. WARN would be a great Wikipedia article, if someone wants to make one :)

I don't know if you can call it "stupid" when it's just a blatant and easily checked falsehood, but come on.

I guess you didn't check it....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=442&invol=735

It is legal, requires no warrant.

It's not against the law
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=442&invol=735

Plus, it's been going on since Clinton. And it's been reported before. Oh wait...Bush is in the Whitehouse. What was ok is now not ok.

What I'm saying is just because you make your arguement in a somewhat aggressive fashion, it doesn't mean your argument is automatically flawed.

Also, here is a link to an article discussing a Supreme Court desision pretty much on point where Justice Scalia calls it extortion.

Class Actions Fairness Act - passed last year. Ignorance must be bliss.

http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/do cs/clssactns/cafa05.pdf

Except by that logic, telephone taps would have historically been fair game starting with day 1 that the first phone company.

But SCOTUS case law has interpreted the Consitution so that calls are covered by the Fourth Ammendment. For example Berger V New York

So its not like this sort of question hasn't come up before. It has, and SCOTUS has ruled on it, and they ruled that our telephone calls are our own personal effects in light of the 4th ammendment, even if a third party is involved with making those calls.

So from what the papers, tv, radio, the courts and the 4th Amendment say, this is legal. Doesn't change the fact that it's wrong, though.

Rights enshrined in the Constitution do not include the privacy of your phone records. (I'm talking about records of the numbers to/from which calls were made, not the content of the calls.) If you don't believe me, see what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say in Smith v. Maryland.

It was undoubtedly a massive slot-up, but there's debate about whether the killings were the fault of the sniper or the ATF itself.

But he did violate the agency's rules of engagement during the stand-off - well, probably. One of the really interesting things about the whole case is that the agents who arrived after the initial action, in which two deputies were killed, were lied to....

He points to his initial briefing, which depicted Randy Weaver as a Rambo-like figure, commanding an unknown number of heavily armed white separatists who had fired indiscriminately at the deputy marshals the previous day, killing Deputy Marshal Degan.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

SMITH v. MARYLAND

Why don't the democrats propose a constitutional right to privacy?

We already have one ... it's called the 4th Amendment. The problem is, that the constitution is routinely ignored by federal and state laws; your only recourse is to challenge it at the Appeals or Supreme Court level and get a ruling on it.

The 1st Amendment is mostly ok (aside from some election related restrictions), the 2nd is in bad shape (so much for "shall not be infringed") and the 4th? (as this page fetch zings across Howard County, MD). Need I go on?

Everyone in government should read it and take a test!

As the title says, I honestly doubt this is legal in the US. The mere existance of a DVD doesn't constitute probable cause.

I don't recall signing any contract with FedEx that says they can search my goods, but even if I did the Constitution trumps that. I haven't got a problem with them opening it for technical reasons (repacking a mangled package, perhaps, which I'd accept gladly), but opening them for the purposes of determing if you've broken some law probably won't pass 4th Amendment muster.

As a positive example, while I'm not a fan of the drug war, a trained drug dog identifying a package as containing an illegal drug would probably be probable cause, because whatever small quantity of legal cocaine in the country (for research), if any, is unlikely to be sent through FedEx. But the mere existance of a DVD is nowhere near probable cause by any reasonable standard; I can't imagine that anything but the vast majority of optical media going through Fedex is perfectly legal.

However, my guess is the MPAA knows this, and this is a publicity stunt only.

(Finally, I'm not a dog, but I wouldn't be surprised they're not smelling DVDs so much as the packaging they usually come in, which has that New Plastic smell so strongly a human might be able to do this. If so, this is almost funny, because they'll never come up with the illegal DVDs that way. It'd depend on the training, and we don't have enough data to be sure either way.)

I'm no expert in such things, but it sounds like they had a pretty decent case. Apple Computer had signed a contract, and although the judge agreed with them that it wasn't violated, they certainly appear to be close to violating it.

Now explain how Apple (Mac) has violated the terms of their agreement with iTMS. Anyone??

Justice Mann got it right.

This is a travesty - not for the gain or loss of two billionaire corporations, but for the simple concept of fair play that has been ignored.

Apple Corps gave Apple Computers the right to do exactly what they are doing with iTMS. And now Apple Corps wants some of the iTMS action.