Slashdot Mirror

It was the people's demands following 9/11 that gave Congress the nerve to pass the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001." And, for anyone who hasn't read the USA PATRIOT ACT, I sincerely recommend that you set aside some time to read through it at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf and then we can all chat again about the Constitution.

Look mods, I'm going to make if very simple for you, since I don't want to see this lie spreading any further.

Here is a link to roman_mir pointing to the specific text that concerns him.

Here is the text, copied directly from his post, emphasis his:

SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.

                In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--

                                (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

                                (2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.

He is concerned that this section was seemingly removed. He claims that it was removed at Obama's insistence and that it allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely.

Here is the link to the full text of what was passed.

Here is the text of the definition that he thought was removed. It wasn't removed, only relocated and modified slightly. Originally the term "individual detained at Guantanamo" was defined in its own section. In the final version of the bill, they moved the definition to a subsection of the section talking about the detainees. You can check the text of the bill inside the link if you don't believe me.

SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

(e) Definitions- In this section:
                (2) The term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--

                        (A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

                        (B) is--

                                (i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or

                                (ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So it is established that roman_mir is incorrect in thinking that this section was removed. It follows that he is also incorrect in thinking that Obama forced Congress to remove the section, since the section hasn't been removed.

Finally, it is worth noting that this is merely a definition of what the term "individual detained at Guantanamo" means, and does not authorize any actual detainment. Such definitions are common in legal writing. So even if roman_mir had been right about the definition being removed, it would not have had the implications he is claiming.

Hopefully this makes it clear to moderators and readers alike that roman_mir is completely off base in his statements. In an ideal world, moderators would check the facts for themselves before handing out informative mods, but since that's not happening here, I'll try to make it all concise enough that even the laziest mod can see the truth of the situation.

The article is flawed because the author listens to conspiracy theory bullshit and fails to do proper research on the NDAA.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Section 1032 page 362. The bit about it not applying to US citizens.

As I understand it, SOPA will only apply to non-US-controlled domains; those which ICE et al can't just seize.
So .com and .net would be safe from SOPA (Verisign is a US company), but others like .org, .se, .uk, .tv would not be so excluded.

You may want to take a second look at the bill. While there are references to things like "prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites", no provision of the bill actually limits enforcement to "foreign" domains, or excludes US-controlled domains.

By the way, both the CALM Act (Public Law 111-311) and the FCC Report and Order refer to ATSC A/85 "Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television".

Really? Not only do the words "police action" not appear in the Afganistan or Iraq resolutions... the meaning of the term "military force" is quite clear. Sorry to see that you think the words "Declaration of War" are required to make such a resolution one.

Really? Not only do the words "police action" not appear in the Afganistan or Iraq resolutions... the meaning of the term "military force" is quite clear. Sorry to see that you think the words "Declaration of War" are required to make such a resolution one.

For those who religiously doesn't RTF anything linked on /., here's the excerpt from the act.

``Sec. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty

        ``(a) Novelty; Prior Art.--A person shall be entitled to a patent
unless--
                        ``(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a
                printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise
                available to the public before the effective filing date of the
                claimed invention; or
                        ``(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued
                under section 151, or in an application for patent published or
                deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or
                application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was
                effectively filed before the effective filing date of the
                claimed invention.

        ``(b) Exceptions.--
                        ``(1) Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective
                filing date of the claimed invention.--A disclosure made 1 year
                or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention
                shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection
                (a)(1) if--
                                        ``(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or
                                joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject
                                matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the
                                inventor or a joint inventor; or
                                        ``(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such
                                disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a
                                joint inventor or another who obtained the subject
                                matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the
                                inventor or a joint inventor.

I.e. "If it was published or used in any form before - patent's no go, unless the one publishing/using was inventor - then he has a year to patent it", which should encourage publishing inventions early.

see page 40:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg64924/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg64924.pdf

A lot of it is carcinogenic, even more in cooked meat.

A lot of plants we eat have poisons to stop stuff from eating them. Chocolate, coffee, onions, garlic, various beans and many others. Even potatoes can be toxic.

Just because stuff is listed under GRAS (generally recognized as safe) doesn't mean they're actually as safe as other foods and drugs that have to pass the tests. They can be listed just because of:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/aprqtr/21cfr170.30.htm

(c)(1) General recognition of safety through experience based on
common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, may be determined without
the quantity or quality of scientific procedures required for approval
of a food additive regulation. General recognition of safety through
experience based on common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, shall
be based solely on food use of the substance prior to January 1, 1958,
and shall ordinarily be based upon generally available data and
information. An ingredient not in common use in food prior to January 1,
1958, may achieve general recognition of safety only through scientific
procedures.

There's usually little profit in finding out that common popular foods are actually not that safe (I mean in actual proper live studies - not in-vitro studies which seem to be able to show almost anything you want ;) ).

As for vegetarian diets, there's plenty of scientific evidence that show that humans do better on diets that contain fish. Just too bad many fish are getting endangered and more toxic (mercury, pcbs etc).

How many private banks are going to be willing to fork over $20,000-200,000 for an education for an 18 year old kid with no credit history, no job, and a low likelihood of gaining employment in their first 5 years that will pay anything close to enough to be able to aford the payments on that loan?
The reason the federal student loan program exists is because it ISN'T profitable to make that loan. Most kids are going to default, and the banks will be left holding the bag.

You might want to brush up on your bankruptcy law ...Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 does now allow for the discharge of student loan debt through bankruptcy.

That's pretty bizarre. I hope the **AAs don't find a way to make a similar license (though their massive extension of copyright is about the same thing for most of those execs - they probably don't care what happens to things after they die).

I think "Not based on past legislative evidence was referring to said massive extension of copyright. Mary Bono asserted that the (deceased) former Mr. Cherilyn Sarkisian wanted copyright to last forever, assuming that wasn't just a sarcastic outburst:

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti’s proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

Web sites are easy to change.

Force them to change something that's been published by the government in hard copy and widely distributed. Google Translate didn't do all that great a job translating the text of the legislation, but I think there's a cap on the amount of money the retraction can cost. However, in an edit war (particularly if you get a large number of people involved so that they can't just reuse something they've already printed) that could cost some serious money and time.

Better yet, find some piece of legislation that mentions a person by name (you know, something similar to this "feel good" bill from the US Senate honoring a girls Little League team) and demand they change it. Would that make the changed text into law? I don't know, but it would be an interesting question for the courts.

First, his killing was authorized by the President months ago. Awlaki's father and a few civil rights groups objected, but why is the general public only reacting to this now that he's been killed?

Second, Congress authorized Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Quaeda on 9/14/01 as S.J. Res 23. Whether or not you support or agree with that action or the current status, it can be argued that this killing would fall under the OEF authorization. Awlaki is currently a high level Al-Quada operative (read: terrorist) and has links to 9/11. The text of SJ Res 23 is available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107

SJ Res 23, Sec 2a
In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So if Pres. Obama "determines" Awlaki "aided" the attacks on 9/11/01, he is authorized to use "all necessary and appropriate force." Now, maybe that works, maybe it doesn't, but he's at least got an argument to defend himself with--this wasn't a simple, out of the blue call to assassinate someone.

What are you talking about? The entire US code is available for download here. The entire CFR (federal regulations) is available for download here.

1) "require" a telephone number for a product or service.
2) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3035ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3035ih.pdf page 3 line 8:

      A person who provides a telephone number as a means of contact evidences consent under this paragraph.

3) profit!

You can't opt out.

Don't blame the kid that bought the Helium, blame the helium repositories that don't price it as the scarce resource that it is.

ie, blame Congress, who passed the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 forcing the stockpile to be sold cheap regardless of any market forces on scarcity.

What congress passed in April was a "FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ10/content-detail.html which is not a full budget, and yet, your point is not invalid because it does fund spending through the end of the year.

We may as well call it a budget for convenience, hell we can call it a purple giraffe if that's what you like. If we agree that I was wrong, and for all intents and purposes it was a budget, can you tell me when the last one was passed before that? My quick research shows that we were funded from 2007-2011 by continuing resolutions, is that correct?

Is 10 seconds of typing on Google really that hard for you to do or would exposure to real data cause such a disruption to your twisted reality that they don't let you have access to it at your 'institution'.

The Afghanistan war was authorized under Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on Sept. 18, 2001. The war began October 7, 2001.

Iraq was authorized under Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on October 16, 2002. The war began March 30, 2003.

Libya was authorized under, opps, sorry I don't have a congressional bill authorizing the President to dedicate troops to that war and no matter what flowery speech you or Obama try to hide behind, when your goal is the ouster of a sitting leader of an independent country through military action, that's generally considered a war. Even if you go by the original excuse of only blowing up Libyan government installations and military bases to defend the rebels, you are still actively attacking the official government while aiding armed revolutionaries; sorry, still a war. Of course if you think launching almost 100 tomahawk cruise missiles at a country you are not 'at war' with is just being neighborly then remind me never to let you anywhere near a weapon of any kind.

As for the UN, you may want to look it up but the UN does not supersede the United States Congress when it comes to committing American forces into an active combat role. The Congress can use the UN as a reason or even an excuse to commit troops but the US Constitution still requires their consent.

Now I personally don't have any issue with taking out Gaddafi, I personally think this should have been the stated goal on day 1, but then again I'm Canadian and our government sent our troops over there following our legal process. Obama, on the other hand decided to completely ignore that the US Constitution separates the powers of the various branches of government for a reason and decided that he didn't need anyone elses approval, despite what all the lawyers at the DOJ and State department said.

I also find it funny that just because you happen to have a tingle up your leg for the current head of the executive branch you have no problem with him unilaterally committing US troops to killing Libyan's just because the UN asked nicely. I may not 'give a rat's ass about another living being on this earth' but I'd rather my government follow the proper chain of command before taking action that results in killing people half way across the world.

Is 10 seconds of typing on Google really that hard for you to do or would exposure to real data cause such a disruption to your twisted reality that they don't let you have access to it at your 'institution'.

The Afghanistan war was authorized under Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force passed on Sept. 18, 2001. The war began October 7, 2001.

Iraq was authorized under Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on October 16, 2002. The war began March 30, 2003.

Libya was authorized under, opps, sorry I don't have a congressional bill authorizing the President to dedicate troops to that war and no matter what flowery speech you or Obama try to hide behind, when your goal is the ouster of a sitting leader of an independent country through military action, that's generally considered a war. Even if you go by the original excuse of only blowing up Libyan government installations and military bases to defend the rebels, you are still actively attacking the official government while aiding armed revolutionaries; sorry, still a war. Of course if you think launching almost 100 tomahawk cruise missiles at a country you are not 'at war' with is just being neighborly then remind me never to let you anywhere near a weapon of any kind.

As for the UN, you may want to look it up but the UN does not supersede the United States Congress when it comes to committing American forces into an active combat role. The Congress can use the UN as a reason or even an excuse to commit troops but the US Constitution still requires their consent.

Now I personally don't have any issue with taking out Gaddafi, I personally think this should have been the stated goal on day 1, but then again I'm Canadian and our government sent our troops over there following our legal process. Obama, on the other hand decided to completely ignore that the US Constitution separates the powers of the various branches of government for a reason and decided that he didn't need anyone elses approval, despite what all the lawyers at the DOJ and State department said.

I also find it funny that just because you happen to have a tingle up your leg for the current head of the executive branch you have no problem with him unilaterally committing US troops to killing Libyan's just because the UN asked nicely. I may not 'give a rat's ass about another living being on this earth' but I'd rather my government follow the proper chain of command before taking action that results in killing people half way across the world.

This was the law from 1971 to 2007.. no mention of plane's or aircraft. Thus none of our currently operating reactors could survive an impact without melting down.

P.S. As the reactors in Fukushima demonstrated, the pilots don't even have to target the reactor building to achieve their objective.

.

[The] Secretary of Transportation may authorize an individual who carries out air transportation security duties– (2) to make arrests without warrant for an offense against the United States committed in the presence of the individual or for a felony under the laws of the United States, if the individual reasonably believes the individual to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony.

When will there be commercial spaceflights?

It is already happening. If you mean when will there be astronauts sitting in a pilot seat of a commercial capsule capable of making it into orbit and staying in orbit for a sustainable period of time, that hasn't yet happened..... but that is also a much larger hurdle to be met.

Don't blame the commercial entities for not getting up there, as there are several who are trying and have made some remarkable progress. SpaceX of course has their Dragon capsule, where manned flights may happen as early as next year, perhaps the year after that. Boeing has their CST-100 capsule, Orbital has their Taurus II capsule, and there are numerous other companies who have other similar vehicles, some of which are intended for human orbital spaceflight. There are also about a dozen other companies working on sub-orbital vehicles as well that I won't bother going into right now.

If you really want a more extensive list, see it on the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

It is not a tiny list, and most of the vehicles on this list have not been developed with taxpayer money. There has been some government money, but the big systems that define NASA are not on this list.

Is it a tall order to make a business case to go into space? Absolutely. The largest culprit in terms of why commercial spaceflight, at least in America and Europe, is at its current dismal state is largely due to the Space Shuttle. Congress and the NASA administrators in the early 1980s ripped the rug out of would-be commercial spaceflight companies by substantially underbidding commercial spaceflight projects and unrealistically claiming price points that the Shuttle was never able to deliver. As a result of these very public disasters in space policy, it has taken literally decades for gun-shy investors to be willing to get back into the game and put the big money necessary with a reasonable shot at being able to recover that money.

It wasn't until the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 that the legal recognition that this activity was even going to be considered an acceptable activity for Americans even happened. Note the date, and note that not only has it been less than a decade, before this became law there literally were no laws that really governed commercial spaceflight. You don't invest into a company where the government can arbitrarily shut you down because the "regulators" don't know what the heck you are doing.

It all takes time, and spouting off ignorant thinking like somebody should have been able to get something going by now is simply forgetting that this is, of course, rocket science too.

It's open for unregulated usage, but there are HAM bands available in there. See, for example, the "hinternet": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinternet . My license actually allows me to set up my G router with 1.5kW of power (up from the 90mW or so stock), though I wouldn't do that because I'd rather not show up on the screens of laptops in a 150 mile radius - aside from the fact that it wouldn't work because they couldn't talk back.

Also, it'd probably be bad for the chips - though Part 15 says it's not my problem ("must accept any harmful interference received'), it would be considered a "dick move".

Interestingly enough, check this out: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TYPE=TEXT&YEAR=current&TITLE=47&PART=15&SECTION=9

Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.

I must say I was unaware of that particular portion of the regulation. Google is using a Part 15 device (their WiFi card)... The question is, is unencrypted data a "private conversation"? I think the answer is a clear "no" but there's more of a case than I'd been giving it credit for...

Found it...


http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-1359.pdf

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/octqtr/47cfr64.1200.htm

print that out read it and have it on you when you get one of these calls.
  it begins
" (a) No person or entity may: (1) Initiate any telephone call (other
than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system
or an artificial or prerecorded voice;
        (i) To any emergency telephone line, including any 911 line and any
emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office,
health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law
enforcement agency;
        (ii) To the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a
hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment;
or
        (iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular
telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio
common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is
charged for the call.."

oh and just for fun it also includes this bit

"(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity
making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party
with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity
on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or
address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone
number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which
charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges."

i think most call centers will dump the call if you even breath 47CFR64.1200 (or invoke federal law)

anyone with even the most remote fucking grasp of physics and flight should be comfortable debunking his claims as a complete lie.

From your comments below, I take it you aren't one of those people. Here goes:

most commercial helicopters stall out at anything greater than 8000ft; most of the ones flying around my city stick to around 600-800 ft ceilings..

Those two statements have little, if anything, to do with each other. Helicopters generally stick to low (sub 1,000 ft) altitudes for a couple of reasons -- namely, there's usually little reason to fly higher since it takes more fuel to climb and the jobs for which they are often used tend to require low altitude flight -- not because they are incapable of flying higher. Also, the ceiling for a helicopter is dependent upon its forward velocity through the air. The faster the helicopter flies -- to a point -- the more lift the rotor blades create, and therefore, the higher it can fly, so be careful not to confuse the hovering ceiling with the service ceiling in cruise flight. They are not the same thing.

The CH-47 Chinook twin rotor helicopter is used by the USAF to rescue climbers on Mount Denali (McKinley) in AK.

Uhhh...no, it's not. The Air National Guard based at Kulis in Anchorage flies Sikorsky Pavehawks (militarized S-70s) and the Army at Ft. Rich flies the Blackhawk -- basically the same airframe as the Pavehawk, but outfitted differently. In Talkeetna, AK (where most climbers fly out of to reach Denali), there is a highly modified helicopter nicknamed the "Denali Lama". IIRC, it's an Aerospatiale -- but it's definitely NOT a CH-47. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone regularly flying a CH-47 in Alaska; at least I don't see them in Anchorage very often.

the highest altitude helicopter currently in existence is the AS350. A pilot named Didier Delsalle of France landed it on the summit of Mount Everest (8,850 meters) in 2005...and the record is entirely speculative/disputed.

...which is 29,035 feet -- three times the altitude this guy claims for his hover bike. While it may be a disputed record, there are plenty of verified accounts of helicopters landing and taking off well above 10,000 feet in mountain rescues (including Air Force Rescue 470, in which my brother-in-law was the PIC and for which, he won the MacKay Trophy).

finally, A blackhawk military helicopter with a 1700 horsepower engine still only goes ~190 kias.

And your point is? A Cessna 206 does 140 knots (the article doesn't say on what engine, but 206s typically have either a Continental O-470 at ~235 h.p. or a Lycoming O-520 at ~300 h.p.), but the amateur-built AR-5 will do 180 kts on 65 h.p. Let's see...the AR-5 has 1/5 the power and roughly 1.5 times the speed. Clearly you can't correlate h.p. to max speed on different airframes. In fact, there's a lot that determines how fast a given amount of power will propel an aircraft, for example, the drag from the rotor disk and how much of that engine power goes into lifting the aircraft. Your 1700 h.p. Blackhawk has a max take-off weight of 23,500 pounds, giving a power to weight ratio of 0.07 hp/pound. Since the designer of the hover bike is shooting to classify this aircraft as an ultralight in the U.S., that means he's limited to an empty weight of 254 pounds.

I have no problems.

...except with the FCC, which limits amateur radio transmissions to a maximum of 1500 watts.

Government agencies are not beholden to the FCC - that's for us peons. They have the NTIA, which does essentially the same thing as the FCC, but for the federales. In the rest of the world, 433MHz is an ISM band. Here in the US we see importers trying to get the FCC to allow those ISM devices into the US - no thanks! They will crush the Amateur 70cm band.

That frequency is smack-dab in the middle of an Amateur Radio band (secondary allocation), and is also used by the feds for 'radiolocation'. See page 491 of this PDF for the allocations. Also look at the footnotes - the interesting one is G8 - "Low power Federal radio control operations are permitted in the band 420–450 MHz."

I'm curious about the actual operation of this device - since the 433 MHz transmitter is low power, There are three choices I can think of:

1) The device transmits blindly and there a network of receivers/repeaters deployed that we the people don't know about.
2) The unit is interrogated individually for a data dump. This implies that an FBI agent has to be relatively close to the car to read the data.
3) The device only listens on 433 MHz for commands to turn on/off logging, and the data dump is done on retrieval of the device.

Ideas?

Boeing designed the 787 without isolation between the network running the in-flight entertainment system (some of which allow PAX to plug in USB storage devices) and the network on which flight systems sit.

Not exactly. They (Boeing and Airbus, the only two major civilian transport aircraft mfgrs left) were spanked by the FAA half a decade ago to very specifically not even think of doing that.

So conceivably a passenger could have hijacked the plane without ever leaving their seat, e.g. with a crafted media file to exploit, say, ID3 parser bugs.

I presume Boeing have been forced to fix this, but I havn't checked...

Well conceivably, a pig could fly given a high enough thrust to weight ratio via a ID3 parser bug.

Check out

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_register&docid=fr02ja08-5

aka "FAA Docket No. NM364 Special Conditions No. 25-356-SC"

More or less the FAA telling Boeing and Airbus they will absolutely not be allowed to fly a transport plane without guaranteeing they are not completely separate.

This was all fought out and resolved like half a decade ago but the meme that passengers can hack into the FCS just simply will not die. 20 years from now we'll still be hearing about how someone heard someone quote someone else as having heard that its done all the time by the mysterious someone or something.

Now magically proclaiming "it shall be done" does not mean it actually will be done. Also an argument based on "theoretically I could be an axe murder, because I do have two strong arms and own an axe" and claiming there may or may not be a law against specifically being an axe murder vs a regular old murderer murderer, does not say anything really useful about the venn diagram of me and axe murderers.

I'd worry a lot more about someone jamming GPS, or sabotaging the production facilities, or shooting at the planes from the ground. Basically, the traditional attacks work so much better, and are so much cheaper...

If you have a clearance though, it means that VIEWING the publicly available wikileaks papers is a security breach and you could:

1) Lose your classification (and therefore job in most cases) 2) End up in Leavenworth.

I call that a fairly chilling effect.

I'd like a reference. If I remember right - this was an interpretation from a single individual emailing others that was not backed up by anything nearing an official channel.

I think it was this e.o. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31418.pdf Something about improperly declassified data may remain classified even in the face of FOIA requests.

Again - some digging would be helpful. The closest I can find is as follows:

(d) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2204(c)(1), the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.5 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order. The requirements in this paragraph also apply to those situations in which information has been declassified in accordance with a specific date or event determined by an original classification authority in accordance with section 1.5 of this order.

And even that doesn't really back up what you're claiming.

It should be noted that 74 CFR 73.8000 incorporates by reference:

"ATSC A/53B: "ATSC Digital Television Standard," dated August 7, 2001, Revision B, with Amendment 1 dated May 23, 2002 and Amendment 2 dated May 19, 2003, IBR approved for 73.682, except for section 5.1.2 of Annex A, and the phrase "see Table 3â(TM)" in section 5.1.1. Table 2 and section 5.1.2 Table 4."

Thus the ATSC revisions after 2003 are not incorporated into the law.

But the most important thing is that $2.5 billion worth of DTV converter boxes (46.2 million boxes) were provided by the US government through its coupon project, and none of these supported 1080p or anything else but MPEG-2 video & AC-3 audio.

I'm American, and I don't like Reagan. I think his legacy has been blown completely out of proportion, and I find the fact that he's worshiped by conservatives to be utterly ridiculous. Reagan increased government spending by more than every president from Washington to Carter COMBINED.

Really? Has the DMCA been amended?

No.

Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.

"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.

There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.

Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.

—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...

DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).

You make a number of assumptions and have a number of misunderstandings.

First, Google has fought this battle. That aside, as you admit, there is no case law that sides on such actions being illegal in a fashion that applies to this.

Second, any company or individual who provides online services can be (and often is) considered a "service provider" - you are confusing an INTERNET service provider with an ONLINE service provider. Google is an OSP but not (or not really) an ISP.

Third, you are assuming guilt of the parties involved in deciding they knew the links went to content that infringed. I am not saying they didnt (or shouldnt have) know(n). I am saying you are deciding you are the judge and jury. But, that's what the courts are for.

Finally, thus, when you put this all together, it is (a) up to a court (not some random judge) to determine which factors make it willful infringement or not, (b) the takedown notice needs to be sent and either responded to (ie: material removed, counter notice, etc) or ignored.

See the point? The DHS has been skipping numerous steps. The sanctions imposed are those that should apply after guilt is determined - which at the least would require a court case to determine that the OSP is KNOWINGLY providing links to illegal content - or at the other end of the spectrum, filing due to lack of a response (or incorrect response) to a takedown notice.

But, apparently none of the above happened.

Please indicate which part of the DMCA or Constitution allows for DHS to ignore procedure. There is no "compelling reason" "in the best interests" (etc) that allows such. The only reason there is, is to cater to big businesses.

Yet, in their infinite idiocy, they fail to go after comp

Really? Has the DMCA been amended?

No.

Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.

"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.

There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.

Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.

—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...

DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).

In 2009 and again in 2011, congress passed laws blocking the transfer of prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster. I don't know what you expected Obama to do, short of declaring himself emperor and ruling by decree.

Actually no, congress didn't outright block the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo. They simply imposed conditions (admittedly excessive ones) that needed to be met before the transfer could be made (unless I missed something). From the bill (section 9011) I know of we have:

(d) The President shall submit to Congress, in classified form, a plan regarding the proposed disposition of any individual covered by subsection (c) who is detained as of June 24, 2009. Such plan shall include, at a minimum, each of the following for each such individual:

        (1) A determination of the risk that the individual might instigate an act of terrorism within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were so transferred.
        (2) A determination of the risk that the individual might advocate, coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated criminal activity, or acts of terrorism, among inmate populations at incarceration facilities within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were transferred to such a facility.
        (3) The costs associated with transferring the individual in question.
        (4) The legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer.
        (5) A plan for mitigation of any risks described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (7).
        (6) A copy of a notification to the Governor of the State to which the individual will be transferred, to the Mayor of the District of Columbia if the individual will be transferred to the District of Columbia, or to any United States territories with a certification by the Attorney General of the United States in classified form at least 14 days prior to such transfer (together with supporting documentation and justification) that the individual poses little or no security risk to the United States.
        (7) An assessment of any risk to the national security of the United States or its citizens, including members of the Armed Services of the United States, that is posed by such transfer and the actions taken to mitigate such risk.

Yes, it's a lot of paper work (there's further notifications required 15 days prior to moving) but none of it is impossible. Also note, at no point does it require further approval of congress. Once the paperwork is submitted the President is good to go. Now admittedly, if he did try this congress would likely try to introduce a new bill blocking it (thus the 45 day notice) but hey, he could veto that one specifically unless overruled by congress in which case it really isn't his fault anymore. But he hasn't. The only thing stopping him at this point is paperwork. No law or specific prohibition from congress is doing it. And that is the disgraceful part of it.

It is worth your time to review "SEC. 7. PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS BY THIRD PARTIES" (p. 71 of http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s23es/pdf/BILLS-112s23es.pdf). Specifically, the bill passed by the Senate permits third-party submission of prior art claims, which should help with the prior art problem. Of course, this cuts both ways in that inventors also will have to be diligent themselves.

The Senate bill is S.23, aka "America Invents", sponsor Patrick Leahy, who's been trying to get patent reform done for years.
Bill status query at thomas.loc.gov (not sure if these are persistent), Computerworld article, National Journal with some brief comments from pro/neutral/con parties, SF Chron article.

Silicon Valley businesses large and small were mostly against it, IBM was for it. Dianne Feinstein attempted an amendment to remove the First-to-File part, but voted for it anyway after that failed. Barbara Boxer voted against.

The US patent system has been first-to-invent for a long time, while Europe has been first-to-file. There's lots of other detail, largely intended to reduce the amount of patent litigation, improve the coordination with non-US patents, potentially improve the problems with patents on things with prior art and obviousness, and affect some tax issues."

more hostile so far?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6506ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6506ih.pdf

It's not necessary that the technology be a military technology -- even dual-use technologies can land you in the slammer if you tell them to a person of the wrong nationality.

A lot of people (not necessarily you, sean.peters) think that dual-use technologies can be disclosed to anyone, and it's only with the military technologies that one must be careful. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most innocuous-sounding technologies -- describing how to make microprocessors "rated for operation at an ambient temperature above 398 K (125C) (3A001.a.2.a)," for example -- are a controlled technology.

In the US, export control is regulated by the Bureau of Industry and Security, a division of the Department of Commerce. The list of controlled technologies is here; see the relevant "Category" at the bottom of the page.

Note that "export" has a specific definition that includes "technology", and one may violate these regulations by merely telling a foreign national of the "wrong" country about a controlled technology, even if both of you are inside the US: Actual transport of a physical object across a national border is not required to violate these regulations.

index page and PDF

While the treatment of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is important, it's USUALLY misdirection, to divert public attention.

How effective is the (replacment) EO 13526 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31418.pdf or http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Was it followed by State and DoD? Have NIST/FISMA security guidelines been properly implemented (even yet)?

Are there actual timing considerations, when-leaked, vs when EO 13526 went into force? (Signed: December 29, 2009)

WHY would there be no "alarms" when a PFC accesses an enormous number of documents?

Someplace between a half-million and 3 million people with full access to these documents BEFORE they got to WikiLeaks?

What about "the State Department's Risk Scoring tool"?

STREUFERT: "...the continuous monitoring has something that is an assessment capacity of the organization to deal with outside risk that is never longer than a month and scanning data in fact could be as fresh as 24 hours old." (but are they looking at the RIGHT THINGS)?

Refs: http://gcn.com/articles/2010/03/03/rsa-futue-of-fisma.aspx
            http://www.govinfosecurity.com/podcasts.php?podcastID=276 [John Streufert, State Department Deputy CIO and CISO]
            http://www.darkreading.com/database-security/167901020/security/news/224200410/ninth-state-department-insider-found-guilty-of-illegal-database-access.html [Ninth State Department Insider Found Guilty Of Illegal Database Access - Mar 25, 2010]

For investigation:
http://www.state.gov/m/pri/rls/plans/146301.htm
> For example, weekly reports to senior management are now routed through Microsoft
> SharePoint websites instead of by paper or individual emails. -- August 30, 2010

In case you think this is "picking on Microsoft" ...
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101205/IT03/12050306/
> Besides limiting access to Net Centric Diplomacy, the State Department has recently
> suspended SIPRNet access to two classified sites, ClassNet and SharePoint, according
> to the White House. In an apparent reference to those actions, State Department
> spokesman P.J. Crowley said last week that access to diplomatic cables has been narrowed
> across the government "for the time being."

If all classified material had a time-table for future release, then classified documents wouldn't contain dirty laundry.

With few exceptions, classified documents do have such a timetable. See Section 3.3, "Automatic Declassification":

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31418.pdf

Classified status should not be given to a file for the sake of saving the government from embarrassment.

From the above-mentioned document:

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail
to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

Newer cars and recent (USA) DOT regulations have a minimum vertical cutoff, alleviating that sudden glare you get. So I believe that problem tends to happen in cars with HID retrofits, and cars with OEM headlamps more than a few years old. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/49cfr571.108.htm

after all, wouldn't it only take 1 shot from a copyrighted movie?

No. It only applies to a site already subject to civil forfeiture (which means a bunch of things have been proven about it already) or that is "primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer—" either copyrighted works "in complete or substantially complete form" "without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law [which includes fair use]" or counterfeit goods, and the activity "when taken together" is "central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name."

So no, 1 shot from a copyrighted movie wouldn't do it.

However, many laypeople interpret "due process" as to allow the defendant the opportunity to provide a defense before the punishment is meted out.

Then many laypeople should like this aspect of the bill requiring the AG to:

‘‘(i) sends a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this subsection to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar, if available; and ‘‘(ii) publishes notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.

Moreover, the equitable relief outlined in the bill (temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction) is subject to a number of rules of civil procedure dedicated to giving the defendant an opportunity to respond.

There are standards well beyond mere belief for granting a preliminary injunction. And for an injunction to be granted, all the facts necessary to support it must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

For those wondering what the bill actually says - may I direct your attention to the following:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h4137enr.txt.pdf

Sec 488.P, 493.29.A|B

Valdosta (DRAFT!!) AUP
http://www.valdosta.edu/it/policies/documents/Acceptable-Use-Policy-2010-07-01-P2P-PCI-PII-DRAFT.pdf

It is quite sad universities feel it is acceptable to treat their own students with such rank disrepect.

Have you actually READ the heathcare bill/law?

If you want to read it you can get it here

Did you read then Solicitor General Kagan's argument that basically said "Yeah, this legislation gives the Feds the power to ban books [emph. added], but that's irrelevant because we would never do such a thing."

Kagan said no such thing.

Yes, actually she did. [...] She is arguing that the law DOES cover books but you don't need to worry about it because the Government has never tried to regulate books and if it did there would be grounds for a legal challenge [emph. added].

*Sigh*. WTF? How can you guys take yourselves seriously when you are so clearly taking many things out of context and (intentionally?) misinterpreting clear sentences?

Kagan's quote: "It is still true that BCRA 203, which is the only statute involved in this case, does not apply to books [emph. added] or anything other than broadcast; 441b does, on its face, apply to other media." So part of the law actually under consideration (BCRA 203) does not apply to books, but another section (441b) does. So what is 441b? The first part of the text of that statute reads:

It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation [...], to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office[...]

The statue goes on to prohibit unions from making such contributions to federal elections (President, VP, Senate, etc.).

Let me make this very clear: This statute in no way gives the government the power to ban books. And Kagan was making no such claim. Rather, by stating that 441b applied to books, Kagan's argument was as follows. If a corporation paid for the publication of a book that was intended for the purposes of electioneering, that corporation has broken the law. The electioneering element is very clear. This does not apply to books in general. The book has to target a specific candidate and be published in the area where it would have an impact on a particular election. Furthermore, 441b only applies if the publication of the book was paid for by a corporation. If a private individual wanted to publish a book attacking a candidate, 441b does not apply. If a political action committee or a non-profit group or any collective group other than a corporation or national bank paid for the publication of such a book, 441b does not apply.

Even if the statute does apply, the book would not be banned. Rather, the corporation would face prosecution under the statute. In addition, publication of the book would be delayed at most, so as not to sway the electorate. Once the election is over and publication of the book holds no power over that particular election, publication would be allowed to proceed. Of course, as Solicitor General Kagan pointed out, even if there were a book that met all the criteria (corporate-funded solely for electioneering), which is very unlikely, courts would most likely allow the immediate publication because there is a strong argument for a legal challenge. So she is stating that if the government tried to pull such a trick, they'd almost certainly lose.

Finally, note that 441b does not apply to general political speech. Corporations can gladly pay to make Fahrenheit 9/11 or publish Ann Coulter's books, or any other such screed, because those works do not fit the criteria of electioneering. While candidates may be singled out, they are never done so individually. Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, took aim at the culture of the federal government after 9/11. Sure, it takes plenty of shots at Bush. But it also talked about the invasion of Iraq, 9/11 itself, the impact on people, how everyone in Congress (except Feingold) voted for the USA PATRIOT Act without reading it, etc. Political? Yes. Electioneering? No.

This is all a far cry from the suggestion that Kagan was claiming the federal government had the power to ban books.