Slashdot Mirror

We bought our LEAF from a Nissan dealership in in NJ (after much hassle finding a Nissan dealer that had a car to test drive / made an effort to sell the LEAF) and paid $0 in Sales Tax.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-electric-vehicle-incentives-state-chart.aspx#nj

Medical insurers have to have a physical presence or subsidiary in the state where they want to sell.

Citation really, really needed. I haven't found a single site that makes this claim. Some of the places I looked (from Google search 'medical insurance across state lines'):
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...
        http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...
        http://www.newamerica.net/pres...
        http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

My cut-in-past left off the last bullet from the NCSL report:

For information about state laws related to pharmacist conscience clauses, including states that allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, please click here.

If you took the time to actually research the topic then...

ot that I care, but RU-whatever the fuck it's called is in fact, an abortifacient.

From the National Conference of State Legislatures (emphasis mine):

Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy when taken up to five days following sexual intercourse. There are two EC pills approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that are a concentrated dose of progestin, a hormone found in many birth control pills, which inhibits or delays ovulation and will not work if a woman is already pregnant. Emergency contraception is not intended to be used as a regular form of birth control, and emergency contraception methods should not be confused with the abortion pill, RU-486 (mifepristone). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics estimates approximately 10 percent of women in the United States have used emergency contraception. Emergency contraception pills are estimated to be 75 to 90 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

So there are NO restrictions on contraception except for who pays for it.

Except the same website contradicts your assertion:

The following states have taken legislative action related to accessing emergency contraception: Twenty-one states—Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia have statutes related to accessing emergency contraception.

Sixteen of these states—Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation requiring hospitals or health care facilities to provide information about and/or initiate emergency contraception therapy to women who have been sexually assaulted. Ohio has a law that directs the state’s public health council to establish procedures for gathering evidence for victims of sexual offenses. The council created the Ohio Protocol for Sexual Assault Forensic and Medical Exams, which requires medical personnel to discuss and offer options for emergency contraception with survivors of sexual assault.

Pennsylvania has established the requirement that health care facilities provide information about emergency contraception and administer it onsite upon the victim's request through administrative code.

Nine states—Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington—allow pharmacists to initiate emergency contraception drug therapy if they are working in collaboration with a physician, and/or after they have completed a training program in emergency contraception.

Of course in your and Nancy Pelosi's world, my refusing to pay for YOUR rubbers somehow intrudes on your right to fuck anyone at anytime.

Really? You are so concerned about who's paying for "rubbers" that you totally went off topic which is access to emergency contraception. Just in case you didn't know, condom use lowers the need for emergency contraception significantly.

A possible unintended consequence of this approach could be that future peda-wannabees could claim they believed they were talking to a virtual victim and not a real one, even if the potential victim is real.Basically, a game to see if they could pick out the virtual being. They would, of course, want to verify they are really talking to a virtual victim, thus the reason for a visit. Who could prove it wasn't just a game?

Not a good tack to take. If they were willing to voluntarily take the risk that they were speaking to a child, they'd qualify for "reckless" mens rea. Many sex crimes do not require "intentional" or "knowing" behavior; some, like possession, are even strict liability, with no mens rea requirement at all.

If you're curious, you can check your state laws on the matter. Anyone engaging in this sort of behavior may evade the "knowingly" requirements of statutes like 18 USC 1470 & 2422, but cannot evade 18 USC 2251(a) or 18 USC 2252 whose mens rea requirements do not attach to knowing the age (or existence) of the child.

You can find a pretty comprehensive list of federal statutes governing this issue here. Personally, I hope pedos use those kinds of arguments, because they can't use them without admitting to all the other relevant elements of those charges. Attempt is still a crime, even if a child isn't real.

Reading /. I've come to appreciate the way personal privacy is treated in the EU.

State Laws Related to Internet Privacy (United States)
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/state-laws-related-to-internet-privacy.aspx

Not really any rights at all, well Nebraska you can nail a flamer :)
Only 17 states require their Government Web Sites to tell the truth in a ToS or privacy Policy.

US is in a sorry state where Internet Privacy is concerned and I didn't know how bad till this article and post.

Hell I read where Australia was sending personal information to be processed in the U.S because our (U.S.'s)
Internet Privacy laws or lack of.

We reduced the BAC limit to 0.05 in the 90's and this is why Australia has 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people (8 per 100,000 vehicles) and the US has 12.7 deaths per 100,000 people (15 per 100,000 vehicles). Because it sure as shit isn't because Australian's can drive.

Actually, the USA is at 10.4 as of 2011, and 1.1 per 100 million vmt, which works out to 6.8 per billion km.
Your death toll of 5.71 per 100k (2011 data), and 5.8 per billion km.

Results: You're still safer than we are even by distance driven, but we drive a HECK of a lot more per person. In addition, given that the proposal is, high end, expected to save ~8% of alcohol related deaths, which is in turn only 1/3rd of total deaths - that's about a 3% cut in death rate. That would drop us from 10.4 to 10.1 per 100k, and from 6.8 to 6.6 per billion km. Better, but still far short of your own.

For that matter, let's assume we ELIMINATE all alcohol related fatalities. That's 1/3rd of our deaths gone. That would get us down to about 6.9 per 100k people, still above your figure, and 4.5 per billion km, finally below your own. You're 15% safer per km driven, btw.

Conclusion: We have problems, and it's not all attributable to alcohol. Reducing the BAC allowed would help a little, perhaps. But it's edging into territory where treating driving as a privilege, and not a right, and getting marginal people out of the driver's seat would be beneficial. For that matter, getting tougher with driver's ed would help.

The answer to this is simple.

1. Offering a blood test doesn't alter the odds they will attempt to contest it in court.
2. Increasing 'fines and suspensions' doesn't cut it. Already you have the problem where we end up tossing convicts in jail because they can't pay their fines, and suspensions often don't do a thing here because the main result is they simply drive on a suspended/revoked license. Or get a waiver for 'work purposes'. Or they lose their job, making it even more unlikely that they'll be able to pay your increased fines.
3. Same problem as #2. They often simply don't have the money, and we already have your 'loser pays' system, more so than MOST countries. You think the lawyer to contest your DUI is free? Paid for by the defendant. Remember plea bargains? The USA is king of those. 90% of people end up pleading out for reduced sentences. But, raise the fines - oops, they're MORE likely to fight, because, well, they're bankrupt anyway if they plead! If you arrange such a generous plea bargain, then the legal hawks sit there and say you're suppressing justice because you're making it cheaper to simply plead guilty.

In recent years, Australian courts have ordered the installation of Alcohol (Ignition) Interlock Devices into cars driven by people with multiple high range DUI convictions. Personally I'd rather these people have their licenses torn up for life and their cars auctioned off, but that's just me.

That's fine. In my state you get one for the first DUI, no matter the range. Were you aware that many US States have required them for decades, even for the first? From what I'm seeing, in all the states I've checked you're getting it period for the 2nd, no 'high range' required.

I'm not saying that we don't have problems. What I'm saying is that reducing the BAC level isn't going to help much, which I backed up with some math and 3 citations. We need to do more to stop the HIGH BAC drivers - when they're driving at .24 and up, triple the current legal limit, making it so they're 5X the legal limit isn't going to change much.

Heck, given that the human psyche is often more affected by the certainty of punishment over the severity of it, a hand slap and $50 fine would probably be sufficient to stop 99% of drunk dri

One problem I see is the US doesn't have any border controls between states. So if some states are strict on scrap metal sales while others don't give a fuck what is stopping the theives simply driving to a state that doesn't give a fuck and selling it there?

Well... time and gas money for one thing. For gangs operating out of major metro areas far from state lines, it kinda makes copper theft uneconomical at current price points. (It also makes other crimes [relatively] more attractive, too. An interesting question to ask would be... what crimes will increase as a result of the legislation?) You won't stop everyone, but legislation like this will be considered successful if it substantially reduces such losses.

Also, with something like this, the net inevitably gets tighter as more and more states pass similar laws [and notice that article is 4 years old].

By law, US companies don't have to say a word about hacker attacks, regardless of how much it might've cost their bottom line

That claim is only true in a narrow and impractical sense. Several US states have mandatory data-breach reporting laws. A company doing business in those states, generally meaning buying or selling to/from persons or companies in those states, must comply with those laws. Generally they require notifying customers whose personal data is at risk. I have received two such letters myself since my state's law went into effect.

IANAL but really I don't think it takes a lawyer to be aware of these laws. Anyone who is informed about computer security should at least know of their existence, as should any IT manager employed in those states.

I know of 3 separate cases where people have made a report to the police that something was stolen, but it turned out they faked it for the insurance money.
Guess my anecdote wins.
Here's a link to a biased website that supports my view.
This document estimates 10% of stolen car reports are insurance fraud, which shows how 10% of theft reports could potentially be solved on the spot by the officer assuming the "victim" is committing fraud. Which of course if they're not (or if they're quick enough to lie about it, which most criminals aren't), the answer would be "no" and a proper investigation takes place, rendering your tin-foil-conspiracy anti-authority argument moot.

No, in *radio* communications there is *NO* legal difference in receiving and decoding the signal.

The airwaves are public. You are fully allowed to received any signal that you can reach from your property or public property. Until the DMCA was enacted, you were legally able to unscramble to decode that signal to your heart's content.

Please understand this. At NO TIME was anyone EVER convicted of "pirating" satellite television for simply unscrambling a signal. THIS WAS LEGAL.

People were arrested for selling, manufacturing, distributing or importing prohibited equipment that did this. They were arrested for publishing information on how to do this (though I don't know if anyone was every convicted on this -- free speech and all). There were cases of running bulletin boards that discussed how to do this.

BUT NO ONE WAS EVER CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF RECEIVING OR UNSCRAMBLING A SIGNAL.

Until the DMCA (1998), this was essentially fully a legal right. There was nothing to charge people with.

Note: Pirating cable television is different. You had to physically attach to the cable. That is a crucial difference.

Ditto in intercepting old analog cellular communications. People were only ever charged with RECORDING the signals, not just intercepting them. The law instead went after the Radio Shack (and other) receivers, making it illegal to import, distribute or manufacture them -- but NOT illegal to OWN or USE them. Old sets were grandfathered in and fully legal to own and use. [47 CFR Part 15.37(f) -- implemented in 1994]

The communication content you are talking about in those packets are all based on public standards and commonly available tools.

You seem fixated on the need for equipment and knowledge, and that has nothing to do with it.

The law addresses only content protected by a method of ACCESS CONTROL, which simple protocols such as SMTP or POP3 are not.

Skype is encrypted communications and has an access control. Under the DMCA it is thus illegal to circumvent.

SSL-encrypted communications fall under the same law.

As far as I can determine, the State laws all revolve around DISCLOSING information gathered by eavesdropping -- not the act of eavesdropping itself.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/electronic-surveillance-laws.aspx

In short, I can listen to any damn thing I want. I can decode it all day long. I just can tell anyone. However, there is no law against me acting on the information I overhear as long as I don't disclose the information itself. (Insider Trading and the like notwithstanding.)

Please point me to an actual law -- preferably Federal, as I haven't chased down all 50 States -- that says the contrary.

And FYI, I was a telecom engineer for over a decade and spent the last 2-3 years supporting CALEA projects. I had several in depth conversations with lawyers specializing in this field as well as agents of several law enforcement agencies, both Federal and State/Local when seeking guidance on how EXACTLY to implement software wiretap solutions.

I am very interested in this subject.

Great! Now you just need 49 more fiancees to prove GP wrong!

In all seriousness, a list of requirements by state are online here. Although many states do require ID, I didn't find any that required a driver's license.

In addition the Federal Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires that filters be installed. Also, state law may require filters as well depending on your state. See this for starters.

Please tell me how it is big government intrusion to enforce water rights, when someone diverts a river.

"Water rights" generally does not extend to all water of any kind regardless of source, unless you live in a country with a totalitarian government (or a state with one, like Colorado). Collecting rain water is not diverting a river, any more than placing fill dirt in a temporary puddle is polluting navigable water. You should make some effort to educate yourself on the topic, before Agenda 21 is fully implemented and the only property right you have left is the right to pay taxes.

I cannot buy Healthcare Insurance from California if I live in the New York unless my employer is based in California and it's provided to me by my employer. The Health Insurance companies are(were?) "protected" from national insurance operations beyond state boundaries... Interestingly, automotive insurance can be sold across state lines yet that is regulated by the States.

Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Large employers who self-insure are exempt from these state regulations. Thus there is a patchwork of 50 different sets of state regulations, and the cost for an insurer licensed in one state to enter another state market is often high.

(Source)

That's the absolute truth. The ROI is really astounding - some even say $8 for every $1 spent.

Beats paying lots more money to lock up people down the line and to hire more law enforcement.

Is FB going to ban the supervisor (if s/he has an account on FB) for breach of the terms of service? That could be an effective deterrent.

Being banned from Facebook is an honor. If they want an effective deterrent then what they want to do is have the woman find out if the school took passwords from any other employees, then verify that these were used. At that point you have an unauthorized computer access for which there are serious laws with serious jail time. Throw the book at whichever members of the school conspired to make those illegal computer accesses.

If you or I accessed a girlfriend's account you would get into serious trouble. If Facebook doesn't make sure the same happens here, they are failing in their duty to use all reasonable means available to protect the integrity of their user's accounts.

N.B. Under section 4 point 8 of Facebook's terms of service, other members of staff are not allowed to hand over their passwords, so the access remains unauthorized even if they agreed to it.

4 Registration and Account Security

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:

• [.. intermediate points elided..]
• 8. You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

It's vague. It depends on how that OR and and AND are grouped.

Here is more, from the state level:

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/child-pornography-reporting-requirements-isps-and.aspx

Here is some stuff about ISPs:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/132/IV/13032

I guess my point was that you have to be careful, you might be in trouble for not reporting, if that fact is discovered.

In fact, permanent absentee voting is policy in Arizona, California, Colorado, DC, Hawaii, New Jersey, Montana and Utah. Delaware permits permanent absentee voting for service members (and the disabled, etc.).

I found this excellent page detailing absentee and early voting laws in all states.

Sadly, it is possible to get a waiver to allow a child to attend school even without having a vaccine. Source (and list): http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

Punish it for what it is: an attempted coup. Maybe this shouldn't count as "real voter fraud," but in general, democratic societies ought to punish organized voter fraud as a form of "attempting to overthrow the government." If the federal government were to hang a few people for attempting to systematically defraud the electorate, I think you'd see a lot fewer people willing to engage in the practice.

Here are a few:

How the GOP Rules America: Voter Suppression and Political Apartheid
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/yellow/36325/how-the-gop-rules-america-voter-suppression-and-political-apartheid

Patterns of Touch Screen Voting Machine Fraud Identified and Documented in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and Elsewhere in 2004
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

Republican voter suppression: Maria’s Story
http://horsesass.org/?p=39248

New Requirements Under HB 2067 (Voter Suppression Law)
http://www.sunfloweract.org/hb2067new
(in short, birth certificate based voter ID tends to disenfranchise elderly voters who were born at a time when birth certificates were not routinely issued -- even Ronald Reagan's bitch certificate was created many years after the fact)

Map of voter ID requirements:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16602

He is clearly miles and miles in over his head. My advice: STOP. NOW. Don't touch anything and don't say anything. Go read books on ethical hacking and wiretapping / unauthorized access law. He's likely already in violation of several laws, possibly several federal laws. And now he's admitted to them publicly on the internet. -__-

He's already violated several conditions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act: conspiracy to access a computer without permission, accessing a computer without permission, including financial records
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act State laws on Computer Hacking and Unauthorized Access

I suppose I'm getting ahead of myself by assuming he is in the United States. Regardless though, I ask:
To go to jail, or not to go to jail?

Less liability? If you worked for me, and you acted as you describe, I'd fire you. It would be a very short conversation, and it would go like this. BOSS: You called the FBI? Before you called me or HR or legal?

Sweet. So then Legal would come down and have a very short conversation with you, and it would go like this: LEGAL: You fired him? Before talking to HR or legal? In a way that is clearly retribution for performing a legally mandated duty to report a crime? etc. etc.

Now for me, I trust my current management enough to immediately notify them as a courtesy, then notify law enforcement. (Well, in my case, I have a Federal Inspector General's office just down the hall; same difference). But one way or another, it's going to get reported, and quickly, regardless of my management's response.

Take a gander at this page: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13460

If you read the language of most of those laws, YOU the person finding it are legally liable for reporting, and usually "immediately". Not your boss, YOU. Not when you get around to having a couple of meetings about it, "immediately". It isn't worth screwing with those sorts of laws -- the worst your boss can do is fire you; the judicial system can do far, far worse. (And you can probably clean up pretty well on a wrongful termination claim if they do fire you, so that isn't so bad anyhow.)

I remember when Evelle J. Younger was running against Brown in the late 70s. It was the first election I could vote in, anyway he had a funny commercial of Jerry Brown caricature and an old washing machine. The ad had the repeating lines of "Indecisive, Wishy-Washy" about how Brown had flip flopped on issues and was basically a hypocrite. Of course all politicians are hypocrites but it still was one of the funniest political ads I can remember.

I think the Malathion he drank has affected his brain because NFW would I allow a cop to rummage through my phone. Hopefully the marketplace will answer with some intrusion/wipe detection apps.

We do have a right to privacy and must defend it always. I understand the need to protect the public from criminal activity but there should be a barrier to prohibit privacy barriers from being circumvented as well. I guess this falls into the category of going through the glove box in your car when you get pulled over or going through your trunk so I presume there has to be probable cause established for this but undoubtedly the courts will have to decide this. In 1928, In Olmstead v. United States Justice Brandeis in dissent

"Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. "

This was about the first case brought before the court about wire tapping and after this case, it set off a rash of other rulings that brought the idea that technology could be used to intrude on privacy. Although the evidence in the case were transcripts, the information in the transcripts were used to arrest other people who were importing and distributing liquor. Eventually laws were put into place that meant that wiretaps had to be authorized by a judge and evidence of probable cause produced.

We always have to protect our privacy just like we protect anything else we value otherwise there will be someone in our government trying to take it away.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494

It may not be murder, but shooting a computer can still get you jail time.

Again, this list is a work in progress. We have and will continue to edit it. As for censorship, please understand that filtering is something Ohio schools are required to do. For example Ohio law requires some sort of filter on all Internet traffic in a school, see: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13491

first result on Google for "salvia laws by state"

YW. HTH. HAND.

Here's a list! http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494 (References to law in each state) The wallet file would be considered property, I think.

http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx

Not all states even require a presented ID. In no state is a driver's licence required to vote. You may want to note that the very first State on the list at the above site, Alabama, does not specifically allow a driver's licence as one of its alternates. Most, if not all, states that have ID requirements issue Voter Registration Cards, and for those states, these are THE primary ID. (I really can't claim all issue cards because, for example, the current Arizona law on this has not yet taken effect, so one state, at least, has no policy or alternatives in place, although they will). Some states always go to a provisional ballot if the person lacks ID, and some states primary method is a signed affidavit and comparison of the signature to one on record. This comparison is by human eye (either the Registrar or attendant Judge of Polls, as required by state law), but now sometimes the signature it is being compared to is not in a physical book in the hands of the poll worker, but is transmitted electronically from a more centralised location. Most states will work with some forms of alternate ID such as a driver's licence, passport, state or county issued ID or sometimes other documents, AND follow this with signature comparison.

Notice that issuing a net ID and still allowing using the net without any ID at all is exactly analogous to what some states on the lists above do for voting. I guess you'd better start writing the election commissions of all those states and telling them too to "Go back to bed."

http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/

The Social Security Administration will not give a person a new card or other information upon them merely presenting a driver's licence. In the simplest case, an adult born in the US, who has already had a card and merely wants a replacement, they will require proof of citizenship as well as some form of proof of identity, and must see either a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalisation or Certificate of Citizenship for the first. All other cases, such as initial issue of a social security card, are more complex. Requests for specific information and actually applying for retirement are, if anything, more constrained than the simple application for a replacement card, until you actually have one.

OK, I think I've proved that you were spreading misinformation exactly 100% counter to the actual, well known facts. I won't advise you to go back to bed, rather stay with the debate and learn something before you post again.

This is not enforced as hard as you seem to think:

http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=9963126

Also, formal amendments are coming up:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-560

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16176

You know, That might be insightful if it was factually correct.

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx

Even CA calls it Homicide if malicious forethought. It would be an exercise for the reader to see if the laws are ever enforced.

In my jurisdiction, Missouri a few laws apply. Here's one.

Mo.Rev.Stat. 569.099.

1. A person commits the crime of tampering with computer users if he knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization:

(1) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network; or

(2) Denies or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services, which, in whole or in part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, or on behalf of, or in conjunction with another.

2. The offense of tampering with computer users is a class A misdemeanor unless the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the value of which is five hundred dollars or more, in which case tampering with computer users is a class D felony.

Other statutes that apply include: 537.525, 569.095, 569.097.

Here's a link to the law for your jurisdiction: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnology/ComputerHackingandUnauthorizedAccessLaws/tabid/13494/Default.aspx

Diabetes (along with many serious conditions) is buggery expensive to treat. In the real world, many sufferer's options are realistically:

• Live in a country which provides at least basic healthcare without you having to sacrifice your first born (or at least regulates insurance companies such that they can't say "Oh, you've got something expensive? Sucks to be you, then.").
• Be rich.
• Die.

Most civilised countries decided that the final option on that list wasn't a particularly desirable one some years ago.

Or... You could live in a country with programs to help people or you could live in one of the 46 states that require insurance companies to cover diabetes , existing condition or not.

Why do we need this debt-accelerating new federal bureaucratic boondoggle again?

But the main problem is, your argument is nothing more than "TooMuchToDo" says so. If you got too much to do, slow down a bit and take the time to enlighten us, not just preach.

Actually, my argument is based on what is written into US Federal Law. Now, you may be able to make some sort of vague argument that "life", or rather consciousness begins at some point before birth. And I'd agree with you. But until you can scientifically observe the moment consciousness and self-awareness begin/occur in an embryo, I believe for most purposes (abortion, medical research, law) birth is going to be considered when you become a person. This of course doesn't take into the states where they have coded in law that a fetus is a person. http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx

Someone posted to facebook a week or two back. I don't want to marry my cousins. They're all carriers of red-green color blindness.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Not that it truly matters. There are roughly 27 states in which you can marry your FIRST cousin. To many, this seems "sick" because of the social implications it presents (100 years ago, you'd be fortunate to see some first cousins once or twice in your lifetime. Now it is common to see most of them several times a year, along with any other common relatives). However, you are genetically diverse enough from your first cousin that there are no genetic problems, other than sharing undesirable, recessive, genetic diseases.

That's the point, access was only authorized for a specific purpose (authorized and granted accesses do not need to necessarily agree). Installing the rootkit (or maliciously altering the configuration to provide some alternate back door) is beyond that purpose and therefore is illegal.

For a real world analogy, if you have a plumber into your house to work on a clogged sink, and while he's there, he unlocks a window to facilitate access at a later date, that is illegal. Allowing someone into your house for one purpose does not give the carte blanche to do whatever they like while they're in there, and does not confer any future access rights.

...something we can actually verify: has somebody every been prosecuted...

Oh brother, successful prosecution is not required for something to have been illegal. Otherwise it'd be impossible to pass any new laws. It's also not impossible to know law without being a lawyer (in fact, citizens are expected to, however infeasible that may be in real practice).

If you'd like something you can actually verify, here are the specific articles which refer to relevant computer crimes in each of the states in the US (still don't know where you're located, maybe these aren't your jurisdiction, but I'm in the US, and these are ours). This is according to the National Conference of State Legislatures; there are other federal statues as well, but I figured this is a better example by way of demonstrating that these subjects are things which have received substantial consideration and which have extremely wide precedent.

Notably, you'll see the following text on this page (emphasis mine):

"Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant. You can't be bound to terms of a contract which are illegal. If your provider cracked your root password and logged into your server, they have committed the crime of illegal trespassing upon a computer system whether it's in the contract or not.

Wrong.

Sorry, but you're the one that is wrong. Your analogy sucks and is wrong. Here's an equivalent analogy, if you contract with someone, that they can have any $5 bill you leave on your dinner table inside your house, it is still illegal for them to break into your house to get it.
You cannot write a contract that permits illegal activity. knowingly writing a contract to allow criminal activity is prima facie proof of criminal conspiracy to commit said crime.
That said, he could have a contract that allows them to have access to his computer, in which case his refusal to give them access is in violation of the terms of the contract, and they may be able to disconnect him for that. They however are not allowed to commit misdemeanors and/or felonies, aka rooting a server, to get access to what is allowed them via the contract. Now if his contract says they are allowed to root his server, I'd be very surprised, but it still wouldn't hold up in a court. Really onerous terms in a contract are not enforceable, or legal. If the service provider is really doing this, I can assure you it is illegal for them to do so. If the contract says they can, then the employees doing it are at risk of prison as are the lawyers/persons who wrote the contract, and the management who are allowing it to happen.
I'd like to know what evidence the poster has that his server has been rooted. Furthermore, if his server is so easily rooted, I'd request that he stop using the internet, and remove all his machines at once. We don't need any more people contributing to the botnets. If you can't maintain your systems so they can't be rooted at the drop of a hat, then you have no business having servers on the internet.

My advice to this guy is:
1) learn how to properly maintain your system,
2) switch to a new hoster,
3) provided he has suitable proof of their unauthorized access, find the applicable law and prosecute.

Depending on where the center is located, and exactly what you agreed to in your terms of service, they may have violated anti-hacking laws.

I'm guessing that you probably won't find a district attorney who's willing to prosecute them on your behalf. But if you're outside the U.S., or if you can find a civil penalty that might be applicable to their act, you have real means of getting their attention.

Well, yes, but my point is, that philosophical point is completely idiotic in this context.

Free speech may, or may not, include the right to put information in front of people who don't want it, and hence spamming may, or may not, be free speech. I lean towards 'Not' side of that, that people have the right to not be harassed, but whatever, it's moot.

Regardless of where you are on that opinion, free speech does not include the right to take other people and force them to speak for you to other people because everyone is slamming the door in your fucking face when you show up.

Which is, you know, what spammers are actually doing, with the botnets of hijacked machines. Let's stop worry about 'spam', and 'spammers'. Hell, let's just agree that doesn't even exist at all, and forbidding spam is an unconscionable restriction of freedom of speech, and everyone can crap all over everyone's computer all they want if they have an open SMTP port.

And then let's go lock up those people we used to call 'spammers' for hundreds of thousands of unauthorized access to a computer. (Which they then stupidly used to send an entirely legal 'spam' email, which resulted in us knowing they had hijacked that computer.)

Usually that's between one to six months in jail. For one access. So assuming we give them the lowest fine, that's about 10,000 years in jail. That sounds reasonable. Maybe only 7,000 with good behavior.

Forget 'spam'. 'Spam' is not something we need to track down and prosecute. Spam laws have idiotic penalties like fines and rules about opting in or out and marketers who try to clutter the definitions. We can deal with the non-hijacking spammers by simply blocking them from the internet, or blocking the people who give them access.

And the hijacking spammers we can lock up for the entire rest of their life without bothering with a single reference to 'spam' at all.

I know of no state that allows first cousin marriages where it is possible for there to be off-spring. Please cite for any state you think does.

Sure thing.

First cousin marriages are legal with no restrictions at all in:

Alabama - Alaska - California - Colorado - Connecticut - District of Columbia - Florida - Georgia - Hawaii - Maryland - Massachusetts - New Jersey - New Mexico - New York - Rhode Island - South Carolina - Tennessee - Virginia - Vermont

And with some restrictions (like no double-cousins, age restrictions, sterility, etc) in:

Arizona - Illinois - Indiana - Maine - North Carolina - Utah - Wisconsin

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266

Meanwhile goverments are clamping down on medical malpractice lawsuits. See for example this page.

It has been argued that piracy can cause innocent people to lose their jobs. But which is worse: losing your job at a record company or being the victim of a botched surgery?

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org]

Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.

Hold on. These laws save infants from death and mental retardation. These DNA tests are useless for police or identification purposes. The same information will go into their medical records (or their death certificate) anyway. I think they're a good policy.

If an infant has one of those diseases, and it isn't treated, the infant will die, and if it isn't treated quickly, the infant will wind up with mental retardation and other serious damage.

These tests don't identify the same DNA sequences that are used in criminal databases, and they can't be used to identify people. If an infant does have one of those diseases, that fact eventually goes into their medical record when the parents bring their (dying) child to the pediatrician or emergency room.

It's politically expedient to give parental exceptions to the laws, because anti-testing and anti-vaccination lobbys have enough political power to be obstructive, and only a few children die as a result. But why would a new parent want to risk having their child die of a preventable disease?

What's wrong with the tests?

I posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge here (not enough slashdotters with kids):

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm [ncsl.org]

Who needs footprints? The states already have the DNA of almost every kid born in the last decade.

-Isaac

What happened to only getting DNA evidence from felons? This seems insane, there's no reason at all that someone ACCUSED of a misdemeanor crime should have to submit (and, most likely, pay for!) DNA samples unless it was important to the court case. If this goes through, I can only wonder what they'll be asking for next. Getting DNA from children to put into a database, like they've done with fingerprints in some places?

Every US state plus DC mandates collection of newborn's DNA to screen for genetic diseases. The exact list varies from state to state, but it always includes phenylketoneuria, galactosemia, and hypothyroidism. Some states permit parents to refuse consent on religious grounds, and two more allow objecting on any grounds. Most states specifically exempt collection of these samples from any consent requirements.

See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/screeningprivacy.htm which is unfortunately from 2002.

So, yes, the state has the DNA of virtually every person born in the US in the last decade (albeit not necessarily in a form usable by law enforcement agencies, say.)

-Isaac

Not true. 40 of the 50 states specifically protect breastfeeding in public or private settings.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

This is the third time that I've pointed this out in this thread. People really need to check out www.google.com, it's this cool place that makes it handy to look up commonly used facts...

Sure... Except that your right to refuse service to anyone is actually restricted by other's rights not to be discriminated against for various reasons, race, religion, sexual orientation, or in 40 states... women who are breastfeeding.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

Wrong.
40 of the 50 states provide laws that protect the woman's right to breastfeed in any public place.

Use google before making such easily checked claims.

Thanks for playing!

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

Depends on the state. Some states have strict notification laws - California & Indiana for example - many don't. You can look up your state here. For companies that cover the whole country, they typically comply with the strictest law to which they are subject, so you often get the benefit of the strictest law. Some states often require more than just notice, they may require you get several free credit reports, a free credit freeze, or some other remedial measure. Some states require immediate notification when a breach is discovered, but most permit or require a delay for law enforcement - theoretically so that law enforcement can catch the baddies before the baddies know they're being pursued. According to InformationWeek, "hard numbers about data breaches are hard to come by . . . [a]ccording to survey of about 300 attendees at this year's RSA Conference, more than 89% of security incidents went unreported in 2007." So who knows how much of it we're actually hearing about. I suppose this website will partially help with under notification.

The internet appears to have issues with laws.

As seemingly does the rest of society.

My point is that just because there's a law, doesn't mean it's followed or enforced. My solution is to just release enough security threats (redirects in this case) that people are simply forced to switch. In basic terms, money is the only reason why people change. Take the American government, for my obligatory Obama plug. /zing!