Slashdot Mirror

Or to put it another way, "[Goldman v. U.S.'s] limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."

People are going to shooting ranges, renting a gun & buying some ammo then blowing their own heads off (suicide).

Half the gun deaths in the US are suicides - the only way to cut into those numbers is to severely curtail the second amendment... Wait, did I say curtail, I meant to say abridge...

the government requires that employers allow employees to vote with no financial penalty

The truth surprises even Americans: the federal government does not require that employers let you off work to vote. Neither do a lot of states. That's what early voting is for.

FTFY there was never an armistice in Korea, just a cease fire.

An armistice (such as the Korean War Armistice Agreement) is essentially a cease-fire intended as permanent, usually because it foresees the negotiation of a final peace treaty or settlement during the resulting cessation of hostilities. So you didn't fix anything, just made it less precise.

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=303&invol=444

When talking with a prosecutor, you should never say absolutely nothing. If you remain silent in the face of an accusation, your silence can be entered into evidence against you under the rules governing adoptive admission. If someone asks you, "So why did you kill him?" and you remain silent, your silence can be considered by a court to be an admission that you killed the person in question.

Not every instance of silence is admissible as an adoptive admission -- but the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are complicated and varied and unless you're a criminal defense lawyer you probably have no way of telling when silence is a good policy and when it will get you in trouble.

So, instead of being silent, you instead say, "If you give me your card, I'll have my lawyer get in touch with you to answer your questions." You take the card, you give it to your lawyer, and you follow his or her advice.

A good overview of the law regarding adoptive admissions and your potential risk when facing prosecutors: How To Avoid Going To Jail Under 18 USC 1001 For Lying To Investigators.

The Library of Congress is under the Legislative Branch, yes. But is the Librarian?

The Librarian of Congress is sometimes seen as an "Executive branch official" since the President makes the appointment. On the other hand, the President has no authority to remove the Librarian from office. I don't think there's an official procedure for doing so, short of an act of Congress.

So, who's your boss? The one who hired you, or the one who can fire you? It seems that, in the case of the Librarian of Congress, this issue hasn't been resolved quite yet. I doubt Obama will push the issue.

Interestingly, there have been a few calls over time to formally move the Library to the Executive branch, but that so far hasn't happened.

(Interesting relevant reading:
http://library.syr.edu/about/people/thorin_suzanne/Librarians%20of%20Congress.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1461407.html)

From the first link (which is sometimes strongly in favor of fair-use, interestingly):

When the 44th President of the United States assumes office in January 2009, Billington, the 13th Librarian of Congress, will be but four months away from his 80th birthday. If he is still serving, Billington will be the oldest person to hold that office since it was created in 1802. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that due to retirement, politics or both, interested communities may want to think about leadership requirements for the next Librarian of Congress.

In our time, the technology environment has evolved rapidly, and libraries around the world have been among the leading public institutions to transform themselves to meet new demands. The Library of Congress is no exception. Its future leaders will continue to grapple with the demands of collecting, preserving, and making accessible precious analog and digital materials, some of which may be available nowhere else in the world.

Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.

Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):

Pioneer HiÃ"Bred (ÃoePioneerÃ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. à In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer HiÃ"Bredî brand seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. à In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the ÃoePioneer HiÃ"Bred Technology Agreement,à which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. à See J.A. 673. à Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. à Bowman planted Roundup Readyî seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. à Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.

In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or Ãoesecond-crop.à à Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Readyî seed. à That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. à He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. à In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. à Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. à He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. à Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.

Returning to the parent:

I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?

I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto appears to only be pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.

Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it.

Yes, he did. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):

Pioneer HiÃ"Bred (ÃoePioneerÃ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. à In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer HiÃ"Bredî brand seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. à In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the ÃoePioneer HiÃ"Bred Technology Agreement,à which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. à See J.A. 673. à Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Readyî technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. à Bowman planted Roundup Readyî seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. à Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.

In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or Ãoesecond-crop.à à Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Readyî seed. à That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. à He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. à In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. à Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. à He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. à Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.

Returning to the parent:

I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?

I'll be sure to remind everyone that you lack credibility, and that Monsanto has only been pursuing people who intentionally violate its patents.

That's not the full facts, either -- here's some of what you missed:

1) McDonald's management & quality control testified that the company was aware that their coffee was heated ~20F over that of other restaurants (to near boiling), that over 700 people had already been injured, that the company never had taken steps to change the temperature or warn customers and that it had no intention whatsoever of doing so in the future. (I can't find the right website, but one explains, as my textbook in college did, that McDonald's had been ordered to reduce the temperature in past cases but hadn't done so.)

2) The 79-year-old woman wasn't merely burned: she suffered 3rd degree burns (which at 185F takes only 2-3 seconds) on her groin, thighs, and butt, had to be hospitalized for 7 days, confined to her home for 3 weeks while a relative traveled to care for her, then a further hospital stay for skin grafts; in this time, she dropped from 113 to 83 pounds, and it was uncertain whether she'd survive.

3) Her family initially approached McDonald's to cover her out-of-pocket medical expenses plus $2k to cover the caregiving relative's lost wages. McDonald's offered only $800; when it refused to increase that amount, their lawyer sued in court for $100k, largely to send a message that its behavior was unacceptable -- but they were awarded far more. As of 1997, it still inexplicably left the temperature at near-boiling, even though that little old woman wasn't the last one hurt by far.

Consider, people... Most of us expect that if we splash a hot drink on our skin, it will hurt for a while, not that it will cause permanent tissue damage requiring skin grafts and hospitalization. If that wasn't the case, nobody would buy hot beverages on the way to work/elsewhere in the morning or allow them around little kids.

In the case currently heading for the Supreme Court the farmer in question never planted GM seed purchased under contract. He unwittingly acquired GM seeds for use as a second planting by buying leftovers from local silos.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. If you were representing the farmer in question, you would be disbarrred, since the farmer has admitted to planting GM seed, intentionally replanting GM seed, and "unwittingly" treating his crop with glycophosphate, which would kill any non-GM soybean. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):

Pioneer Hiâ"Bred (âoePioneerâ) is one of Monsanto's licensed seed producers. â In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer Hiâ"Bred® brand seeds containing the Roundup Ready® technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. â In making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the âoePioneer Hiâ"Bred Technology Agreement,â which contains language and restrictions identical to the Technology Agreements discussed above. â See J.A. 673. â Bowman purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the Roundup Ready® technology each year, beginning as early as 1999. â Bowman planted Roundup Ready® seeds as his first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999 through 2007. â Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his first-crop during any of those years.

In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a late-season planting, or âoesecond-crop.â â Because Bowman considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer's Roundup Ready® seed. â That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. â He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. â In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. â Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional second-crops in later years. â He also supplemented his second-crop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. â Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto's representatives.

Well-meaning farmer? Hardly. He knowlingly adopted his replanting practices and has (so far) lost.

So now a theoretically declared war . .

It is actual, not theoretical.

against a poorly defined group of individuals

Rather like the war against the Barbary pirates, another group of Islamists. Not a problem, really.

is the same as a congressional deceleration of war against a sovereign nation?

Legally, yes.

In a genuine time of war exceptions to due process are made.

That isn't true. They are covered by different rules, the law of war versus criminal law. Rather like the rules of football don't apply when playing basketball.

The US is at war. It hasn't lost its way. You are misinformed and confused.

Anwar al Awlaki was not "considered to be a terrorist", he was a terrorist, a high ranking one at that. He was quite open about recruiting Muslims to kill Americas and was tied to multiple attacks and attempted attacks. His son hoped to follow his father's path.

Anwar al Awlaki's son hoped 'to attain martyrdom as my father attained it'

You are quite right to be alarmed about the potential loss of civil liberties in the United States. But let me ask you this - if the lives of the 175 children you speak of are so precious, will you not weep for the tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed by Al Qaeda planting bombs in markets and along roads? Wouldn't it be better for that to stop?

Of course, they don't plan to stop until they take over the Middle East, and then the world, even if it takes a thousand years. What would you do about that? This is about their ambition to establish Islam's rule over the world, not against real or imagined wrongs done to them by the US and the West, other than not already bowing down and becoming Muslims already. They even want to recapture Spain, both Al Qaeda, and Hamas, and no doubt others.

HAMAS Targets Spain
Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its "reconquest"

If you are still concerned about due process, let me offer you this. What way do you have to individually arrest, investigate, charge, try by a jury of peers, convict, and sentence these men before shooting them? Legally they are in the same position as al Awlaki.

The country has limits, you simply don't understand them and how they apply.

Remind me again when Congress declared war on Al-Qaeda?

As you wish:

Authorization for Use of Military Force - September 18, 2001 - Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

The Supreme Court of the United States long ago settled the point of law that an authorization for use of military force is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

Here is a simple suggestion.

MATH IS NOT FUCKING PATENTABLE YOU IDIOTS!

DIAMOND v. DIEHR

(c) When a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies the formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies 101's requirements. Pp. 191-193.

Burglary requires the building to be a dwelling-house, i.e. and habitation. People need to live there.

That's the old common law definition, but it depends on the state.

from: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-definition.html :
Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender...

In New York, for example, it's first or second degree burglary if the building entered is a dwelling, third-degree burglary if it's not. http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/burglary/

Copying is not theft. Copying is not stealing. It is NOT the same thing.

Back in 1985 a man named Dowling was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property for selling infringing copies of Elvis records. U.S. Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html struck this down because copyright infringement is not theft. You have to deprive your victim of the item in order to steal it from them. Making copies doesn't deprive anyone of what is being copied, therefore its not theft.

It is, however, just as illegal.

Copying is not theft. Copying is not stealing. It is NOT the same thing.

Back in 1985 a man named Dowling was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property for selling infringing copies of Elvis records. U.S. Supreme Court in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html struck this down because copyright infringement is not theft. You have to deprive your victim of the item in order to steal it from them. Making copies doesn't deprive anyone of what is being copied, therefore its not theft.

DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

...The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.

10 U.S.C. 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Although novel interpretations are always quaint, certain definitions are always helpful, e.g. how pretty much all males in New York are members of the militia: (from N.Y. MIL. LAW 2 : NY Code - Section 2: Militia of the state; division and composition)

2. The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male
    residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who
    are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on
    the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are or who have
    declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
    subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created
    by the laws of the United States.

This goes hand in hand with the acknowledgement of the people's right to bear arms in N.Y. CVR. LAW 4 : NY Code - Section 4: Right to keep and bear arms:

A well regulated militia being
    necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
    keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

My reading of that compound sentence is that the first part is a statement of fact, and the second a reminder of the people's right.
I think I'm in pretty good company reaching that conclusion, e.g.:

1. Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights:

   XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

2. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution:

   Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

3. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution:

   The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Although novel interpretations are always quaint, certain definitions are always helpful, e.g. how pretty much all males in New York are members of the militia: (from N.Y. MIL. LAW 2 : NY Code - Section 2: Militia of the state; division and composition)

2. The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male
    residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who
    are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on
    the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are or who have
    declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,
    subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created
    by the laws of the United States.

This goes hand in hand with the acknowledgement of the people's right to bear arms in N.Y. CVR. LAW 4 : NY Code - Section 4: Right to keep and bear arms:

A well regulated militia being
    necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
    keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

My reading of that compound sentence is that the first part is a statement of fact, and the second a reminder of the people's right.
I think I'm in pretty good company reaching that conclusion, e.g.:

1. Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights:

   XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

2. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution:

   Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

3. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution:

   The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.

I'm afraid the lack of knowledge is pretty much entirely yours. al-Awlaki received all of the due process he was due under the Law of War which was the basis for the attack that killed him, not criminal law. Mark that - killed him, not murdered him. He was no more murdered than these men shot down en mass by the US Federal government without warrant, arrest, trial, conviction, or warning - and appropriately so. Al-Awlaki put himself in the same category as the men in that video. Al-Awlaki left the United States, entered Al Qaida controlled territory, and joined up with them in body to complete what he had already been accomplishing in word and deed. He made his intent known. He was connected to multiple terrorist attacks. He certainly appears to have earned his Hellfire, in this life and the next. And yes, the United States is at war with Al Qaida as authorized under the terms of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress which is legally equivalent to a declaration of war - a point of well settled law.

Or how about non-compete clauses in general?

IANAL, but last I heard it varies by state. There's a good discussion of it here, but the article is 4 years old.

Intuit was sued by the DOJ before for this, and along with Apple, Google, Intel and Pixar, reached a settlement with DOJ and agreed in 2010 to stop doing this. Of course, TFA says the collusion in question took place from 2006 to 2009, so I'm thinking they've already covered this. Unless they kept their collusion with eBay a secret at the time, so it's not covered by the settlement, and now DOJ is going to kick them in the pants for not coming clean about all of their illegal activities and partners. My guess is that now DOJ is going to be on a fishing expedition to find out what other collusion Intuit was hiding.

As per article 4 section 3 of the United States Constitution, the disposition of the territory of the United States of America is under the perview of Congress. Convince them of your case enough to make a law of it, and I may sign it. Convince two thirds of them, and it doesn't matter what I think.

So if you think you have a good case, go talk to my collegues in Congress. Its the big white building up on the hill over there. I'll be here running the country while you are gone. Good luck!

Yours, Barry.

I don't really see any mention of land/fields in that description at all. What part of "persons, houses, papers and effects" leads you to think that it's talking about land?

Your suggestion that privately-owned land "is now public" is a bit ridiculous. This isn't about opening up your property to the public, it's about protecting open fields from searches without a warrant. You still own the land and you can still prosecute people that trespass on it (qualified immunity notwithstanding).

Please keep in mind that this judge isn't the one ruling that fields are exempt from 4th Amendment protection. This was settled nearly a hundred years ago, but was the legal standard long before that:

HESTER v. U S, 265 U.S. 57 (1924)

The only shadow of a ground for bringing up the case is drawn from the hypothesis that the examination of the vessels took place upon Hester's father's land. As to that, it is enough to say that, apart from the justification, the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,' is not extended to the open fields. The distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law. 4 Bl. Comm. 223, 225, 226.

The judge here is just applying that precedent to this case, and if you accept the precedent, it seems entirely appropriate and reasonable that it be applied this way here. If you don't like the outcome, don't piss on the judge for being reasonable. Talk to your legislature and get them to change the law.

"It also includes what they can see from the street through an open door. It also includes a closed window without blinds. And today, with cameras that can see through walls, it includes everything in your home through a $300 thermal camera.

By the way, that's also been held up in court multiple times."
    Not any more, the supreme court ruled otherwise 11+ years ago:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-8508

Not in Texas.

The relevant law is here: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/3/33/B/33.031

The law seems pretty clear. Unless the OSCE is recuiting locals to be observers, their observers will not be eligible.

TEX EL. CODE ANN. 33.031 : Texas Statutes - Section 33.031: GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/EL/3/33/B/33.031
(a) To be eligible to serve as a watcher, a person must be a qualified voter:

(1) of the county in which the person is to serve, in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority or in a primary election;

(2) of the part of the county in which the election is held, in an election ordered by the governor or a county authority that does not cover the entire county of the person's residence; and

(3) of the political subdivision, in an election ordered by an authority of a political subdivision other than a county.

Actually, no, she wasn't under oath at the time. She ran afoul of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. And while you're right they didn't actually convict her for insider trading, the reason she went to jail, ultimately, was because they believed she was engaging in insider trading.

Anyway, my point stands. The Bush administration was much harder on white collar criminals than the Obama administration.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Actually, that's not strictly true. Depending upon the lease agreement you signed and whatever clauses the rental agency or owner put in there, you could potentially be kicked out for being gay or having gay sex and only a handful of states include sexual orientation in their fair housing statutes.

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/fair-housing-laws-renters-protection-from-sexual-orientation.html

The point is, though, just like in your comparison, a lot of how legal this is depends on what was originally signed. Without having access to that signed agreement, everything else is speculation at best.

Since when has classified material ever been included under free speech?

Since forever. The idea that the state can declare information "classified" and threaten you if you speak it, is a clear violation of free speech.

As Justices Douglas and Black noted in New York Time Co. v. United States, "Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions there should be 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' debate."

Racism, hate, right-wing rhetoric, Islamophobia, all these have been banned at one time or another, with the approval of the courts and to the applause of the American public.

And eventually the courts and the people come around and shamefacedly reverse their mistakes. It's a pattern that goes back to the Alien and Sedition Acts passed only a few years after the Bill of Rights. (I also note the right-wing victim mythology in your choice of examples: bans on socialist and anti-war speech have landed orders of magnitude more people in jail over our history than bans on right-wing rhetoric.)

Heck, just last week the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon called Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones and told him to shut up. Here's another one: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." Spoken by the US State Department.

Generals and diplomats can *ask* someone to shut up, the same as any other citizens can; that's an exercise of their own free speech. It's when they threaten someone with arrest that free speech is endangered.

You forgot "IANAL"... which you obviously aren't, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Notably, Congress made no provision in the Act for awards of punitive damages. "The language is clear, unambiguous, and exclusive: these are the alternatives available to a copyright plaintiff, and punitive damages are not provided by either of them." ... The Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals long ago stated explicitly that "[p]unitive damages are not available in statutory copyright actions."

http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/are-punitive-damages-available-under-the-copyright-act.html

Although I don't disagree in general that politicians don't really care too much what people want, that's a far too cynical attitude to think they like people who do what they're told. A much simpler explanation for their behaviour is that they are bought/paid-for since the easiest way to get re-elected is to spend lots of money (advertising for elections and bringing back pork for the local folks, etc). If they thought it would be easier to get re-elected by just figuring out what most of the people wanted and doing that, they would probably take that route.

Unfortunatly, figuring out what most people who vote want is hard and the only folks that tell them what to do are people that don't care what most of the people want and push their own agenda (e.g., lobbyists and national special interest groups) and carrot/stick them with lots of money. Also, even if a politician did what "most" of the people wanted, many of those people just don't vote, or if they do, they don't generally vote their own interests, they generally vote how other people tell them to vote (which may or may not corrolate with their own interests). There are only a very few "undecideds" that actually vote and can be actually swayed in significant numbers by figuring out what they want and doing that. Sadly, it's far easier to "energize the base" or convince people that will vote for you because other people (special interest groups that have spent lots of money) already told them how to vote and actually get them to vote.

As for the primaries, it's really a state-to-state issue. In Connecticut, they used to have a closed primary law, but when the Republicans wanted to allow independents to vote in their primary election, they challenged the law and SCOTUS overturned the Connecticut law which allowed the republicans to have a semi-open primary. In California, we now have a "top-two" system. Instead of having each party pick a candidate in a closed or semi-open primary, the top two vote getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, run-off in the general election (except for the presidential election which is semi-closed). It totally depends on which state you are in what the situation is. In AL, AK, GA, ID, IL, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NC, ND, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WI, there are only open primaries, so your milage may vary... Both parties try to game the laws to their advantage...

The story makes it sound like Google only uses contractors for this job because they know nobody could hold it down for more than a year. But it sounds more like Google is misusing contractors the way I've seen happen at many high-tech companies. Bad managers don't have it together well enough to come up with a proper plan for expanding their departments, so whenever they have a new project that needs heads they don't have, they hire some contractors. These are always hired under a time limit, to avoid a repeat of the Vizcaino v Microsoft lawsuit.

This ties in with one of my pet peeve with Google: they only seem to hire really brilliant people with great academic credentials who are never expected to bother themselves with scutwork. On the rare occasions when they realize that the scutwork can't be avoided (like manual crap filtering) they hire temps. Thus scutwork either doesn't get done or is done by people who aren't really a part of the employee community, and don't coordinate well with the real employees. That's why so many of their commercial products die on the vine, why so many of their products stay in beta mode for years, and why they have such abysmal documentation and tech support.

They did two things right: they came up with the best search engine ever, and they figured out how to make it generate huge tons of money. This allows the rest of the company to be run wastefully and ineffectively. The shareholders don't care for this, but the voting stock is controlled by a small cadre of insiders.

Disagree. You do not have a right to fly or be at an airport. Just like driving, flying is a privilege. IMO this is settled case law. Its an administrative search, and I prefer my planes bomb free. Don't like it, don;t fly.

This is completely false , and I'm tired of people parroting it, as if we should be on our knees, grateful that the TSA allows us passage through their holy halls.

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

Pentagon Papers

Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. —Justice Black

NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=713

You mean how like how in the US the government can take away your business and give the property to some mega-corp with deep government ties via eminent domain?

How often does this really happen, though?

One notable example from my neck of the woods are the businesses shunted out of the way so that Richfield could offer Best Buy a choice spot for their new corporate headquarters using eminent domain and tax-increment financing.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1073064.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/realestate/05domain.html

A smaller business and residences were basically kicked out to make space for a big fish, all in the name of larger tax revenue. This wasn't even "deep government ties", this was an external business the city was trying to court into moving in.

Between 2004 and 2007 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms considered a length of shoestring to be a machine gun. The notion is asinine on its face, and yet for 3 years they stuck by their ridiculous decision. Federal agencies are piss-poor authorities on these matters. They will always willfully bend the meaning of words to further their goals, without regard to the specific wording of the law.

The actual definition of theft is in 18 US Code 31. Note the distinct lack of reference to copyrighted works. Infringement of copyright is under 17 USC 5

No matter how much you wish it was the case, copyright infringement simply is not theft. Words mean things, particularly in the case of legal terminology, and theft does not change its meaning simply because you wish to use a more pejorative and emotionally charged label for copyright infringement.

Between 2004 and 2007 the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms considered a length of shoestring to be a machine gun. The notion is asinine on its face, and yet for 3 years they stuck by their ridiculous decision. Federal agencies are piss-poor authorities on these matters. They will always willfully bend the meaning of words to further their goals, without regard to the specific wording of the law.

The actual definition of theft is in 18 US Code 31. Note the distinct lack of reference to copyrighted works. Infringement of copyright is under 17 USC 5

No matter how much you wish it was the case, copyright infringement simply is not theft. Words mean things, particularly in the case of legal terminology, and theft does not change its meaning simply because you wish to use a more pejorative and emotionally charged label for copyright infringement.

You sound late to the party...

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1501187.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=iowa+comes+vs+microsoft&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=WdXUT-S4HqKe2AWhrPWXCQ&start=10&sa=N

Until it gets appealed and, based on decisions by said Supreme Court, gets released

Which decisions would those be?

I'm with Jeng on this one. I'm not sure your definition of "search" applies here. See this article for a better description. Note that it specifically addresses monitoring from the air

Time and time again, the courts have ruled that if it's visible from a public (air)space, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, including from the air.

So while I'd rather not have the situation in TFA, I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is.

How about you read this article before explaining the Supremacy Clause. Pay close attention to the section on Supreme Court decisions.

Here is the text of the clause;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So yes, if there is a federal law that conflicts with a State Law or Constitution then the Federal law reigns supreme. It does not say the State has to enforce the Federal laws but that the Federal Laws stiill apply.

For example, federal drug laws do not override state drug laws within a state's borders because the constitution gives virtually no jurisdiction to the federal government over what happens within a state's boundaries

Actually the Constitution does give federal law a lot of jurisdiction in States. Take a look at this article>/a>. Note that federal agents can still enforce federal drug laws against marijuana in California. Here is the Supreme Court Case that uphold the federal law even when it conflicts with State law.

Big business, like big labor, hates state sovereignty. It makes the regulatory environment "messy."

Messy does not even begin to describe the issues if every state was allowed to make laws effecting national companies. Interstate commerce is one of the areas regulated by the federal government. Take a look at this case where the Supreme Court struck down a State law even though there was no overriding Federal law. Here is a quote from the decision "This is one of those cases -- few in number -- where local safety measures that are nondiscriminatory place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.".

The whole point is that the Interstate Trade Clause can be used to strike down State laws that unconstitutionally burden companies that operate in multiple States.

*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now

Yes, all aimed at Al Qaeda and its affiliates that are making war against the United States, and legal under the law of war. The US Congress passed the laws behind them, as well as the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Al Qaeda is no longer being handled as a purely law enforcement problem. Bin Laden, as head of Al Qaeda, declared war on the US and launched attacks. The US is responding in kind. Not hard to understand.

You should probably see a doctor. You don't sound well. Of course you'll do less well if you take the fringe crank Greenwald seriously.

18 U.S.C. 922(g). Nuff said.

IAAL who's worked for a Federal judge. These are slam-dunks for the US Attys.

Seriously, if you don't know basic code (the law-type, not the geek type) on this topic, sit down and STFU. This sort of "advice" can ruin someone's life.

I fail to understand how the first-sale doctrine does not apply just because the first sale was outside the US. I would understand completely if ICE was coming after him for not paying duties or tariffs, but what does copyright have to do with anything here? He didn't make copies. He simply resold books the publisher was already paid for.

The First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to copyrighted good manufactured outside the U.S. The relevant case law is Pearson v. Liu, decided in the district court of the Southern District of New York. The case was appealed to the 2nd circuit court of appeals which affirmed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case, letting the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.

This ruling would only provide precedent in the jurisdiction that it was made in, and in the jurisdiction of the appellate court that affirmed it. That being New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, no national precedent was set.

I fail to understand how the first-sale doctrine does not apply just because the first sale was outside the US. I would understand completely if ICE was coming after him for not paying duties or tariffs, but what does copyright have to do with anything here? He didn't make copies. He simply resold books the publisher was already paid for.

The First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to copyrighted good manufactured outside the U.S. The relevant case law is Pearson v. Liu, decided in the district court of the Southern District of New York. The case was appealed to the 2nd circuit court of appeals which affirmed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied to hear the case, letting the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to stand.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I really hope this idea doesn't get upheld. From a legal standpoint, when the law was written, it wasn't taking into consideration programming languages. So the law is vague on that point. The question is whether the judge will consider programming languages to be copyrightable.

I cannot find any reference to a case where this idea has been ruled on, but this person suggests it might have happened. If Java does turn out to be copyrightable, I would guess that the grammar would be the defining construct.