Slashdot Mirror

There's more information at Wyden's press release.

In addition to Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., the original cosponsors are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Jon Tester, D-Mont. I would hope Bernie Sanders would support the bill but I don't personally know how much one can read into him not being an original cosponsor.

The above press release includes a link to a readable (warning, PDF) 1-page summary. The last sentence lists other supporters/commenters of the bill:

For more information, see comments by ACLU, Google, EFF/Access, OTI, CDT, NACDL, the security researchers Bellovin, Blaze, and Landau, and the Agenda Books from the U.S. Courts.

Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime.

Well, they used to, but sadly that often isn't the case anymore:

https://www.nacdl.org/withouti...

It's not so much driver's rights, as it is property owner's rights.

Rights that are apparently so important, they used to be the main criteria in deciding whether or not you were allowed to vote.

Most driver's that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.

What a cute way to re-word "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Aside from the fact that, thanks to a little phenomena known as overcriminalization pretty much every single American over the age of 6 is technically guilty of committing some sort of infraction, the point of it all is that the government does not have a right to search or seize your personal property without a fucking warrant. "Search" up-to-and-includes spying on, a statement which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats

Over 9 million Americans were treated in emergency departments as a result of an unintentional fall in 2011.

So the point you're obviously trying to make here is that driving is four times safer than walking, right?

I never said they were unreasonable, per se.

http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/97jan02.htm

A subpoena may not be issued to collect evidence for a pending case or to help a prosecutor prepare a case for trial.

Neither may a subpoena be issued to collect evidence unrelated to the case.

Such subpoenas would be unreasonable.

Trolling? I asked for you to demonstrate something other than a warrant and you responded with a warrant, albeit one known principally by another legal term.

A subpoena is a warrant to procure testimony, which may not be issued but by a court of law on the standing of sworn testimony describing the person(s) and things (the subject of testimony sought by the court) to be seized.

There would be no other lawful way to seize a person for testimony. It is a warrant.

The FBI's database only uses 15 markers, checking 15 sites in DNA. That's not good enough, and there are false matches. The problem is that they're using DNA technology from about 1990.

23andme, the commercial DNA analysis service, checks 580,000 sites in DNA. 23andme probably has enough data to validate the quality of the FBI's marker selection. That's a good way to check. Identical twins do match, even at the 23andme level of analysis.

So how do you explain your dna at the crime site?

I don't have to explain my DNA being at the crime scene, I have to explain DNA that matched mine being at the lab.

You took a sample of my DNA. You took it to the lab. Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't screw up and contaminate a sample somewhere with my DNA.

Furthermore, spurious DNA matches are not as improbable as cops and prosecutors like to suggest.

DNA is lousy forensic evidence, and should be used only for exoneration.

And the scary thing is that other forensic "science" is even worse.

The Supremes issued a 5-4 ruling back in 2005 that sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, they are advisory only. IANAL either, but here's a link from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/mediasources/20050113b

And just this month a 7-2 ruling in the Minbrough and Gall cases, related to crack cocaine sentencing guidelines, again they are advisory only, not mandatory. Here's a link from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-sentencing16dec16,0,1084405.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I'm wondering if the techniques they are using are "improved" over the old techniques- which, as of 1 September, 2005, has been declared unreliable by the FBI. The whole technique has been declared "flawed."

For years, comparative bullet lead analyses were considered accurate and good proof; I remember reading the neutron activation analyses when I was in college as an undergrad, and thinking it was a fantastic technique. But now it looks like 40 years' worth of convictions are at risk- 2,500 analyses, with 20% of these being introduced as evidence at trial.

Lessons From The Brandon Mayfield Case

More than you think, perhaps.

We can't carry large amounts of cash overseas. It's illegal: if you don't declare it, then when they find it during the strip searches, you're a terrorist or drug dealer and they confiscate it. If you do declare it, you're a terrorist or drug dealer and they confiscate it before the strip search.

Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by as much as you think. It is illegal to take large amounts of cash out of the country without declaring it, and the government (usually local cops) will confiscate any large stashes of cash they find. They claim it's drug money, and charge the money with a crime. You have to prove that the money is innocent to get it back (scroll down to the bottom of that link).

No, I am not making any of that up.

So, you can carry travelers checks, you can carry your Visa, but you're taking a big risk if you carry cash. The really dangerous criminals are the ones in the uniforms.

"The grand jury at the federal level has had a troubled history. Required by the Constitution as a check on judicial and prosecutorial abuse, it has often been used as a tool of abuse against political dissidents. Most grand juries are mere "rubber stamps" for prosecutors, but others become "runaway" grand juries, taking the lead in investigations of official corruption and abuse."

"And unlike a search warrant situation, where the agent has to obtain permission and authority from a judge to seize records or property after demonstrating probable cause to believe an offense has been committed, in the case of a grand jury subpoena the discretion of the prosecutor is virtually unfettered."

MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, DUE TO ABUSE OF GRAND JURY PROCESS

immediate execution for DNA-proven rapists and murderers as a response to prison overcrowding. It's not that I'm against capital punishment but, how much do you trust the lab?