Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: supremecourtus.gov

Stories and comments across the archive that link to supremecourtus.gov.

Comments · 157

  1. Ex Pres Clinton Disbarred from Supreme Court by GMontag · · Score: 0, Offtopic · on Supreme Court To Revisit 1996 Telecom Act This Term

    Clinton Suspended from Arguing Before High Court also "In other action, the court rejected arguments that FBI blunders should give Oklahoma City bombing co-defendant Terry Nichols the chance for a new trial."

    Court Order

  2. Kyllo v. United States? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Informative · on Keyloggers Now Classified Technology
    I have a feeling that the Supreme Court may not look upon this too favorably. In Kyllo v. US, the court ruled that use of a thermal imaging device to detect IR radiation (evidence of indoor marijuana cultivation) leaking from an apartment constituted a search, and thus required a warrant.

    The standard the court promulgated is as follows: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presump-tively unreasonable without a warrant.

    The slip opinion (99-8508) is available in pdf format

    Although the government did have a warrent to search thus supects home in this case, they did not have permission to wiretap. Since the bug could concievably be used to wiretap, the government has the responsibility to provide evidence that the device did not go beyond the scope of the existing warrant.

    Kyllo suggests that, since the device's capabilities are secret, such a device is presumptively not in public use, and requires the most expansive of warrents for legal use. Since the feds did not have a wiretap warrent, and such a device could be used for such activity, the placement of the device is illegal. (IANAL)

  3. Fscking Sonny Bono... by yerricde · · Score: 1 · on Linux Turns 10

    The tune is copyrighted. The copyrighted *lyrics* are:

    Now, I'll have to sic AOL on Slashdot. AOL owns the copyright on Happy Birthday and will own it forever thanks to the Sonny Bono Act[?], which sets a dangerous precedent that every 20 years, Congress will pass a law extending copyright terms. And even the Supremes have a price.

  4. Slip Opinions are available by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2 · on Supreme Court Sides With Freelancers On Net Copyright

    The Supreme Court's slip opinions in New York Times v Tasini are available in pdf format

  5. Re: Gore, Bush, it does really matter by frankie · · Score: 2 · on Politics: Harry, The Disastrous & The Unpalatable
    it doesn't matter what either one promises, it'll be the congress that decides what is done

    On most economic issues, yes, they'll end up in roughly the same place. But there are also things a President can affect unilaterally:

    • Abortion Rights -- the President appoints new Supreme Court Justices. He also appoints the FDA, which has the authority to allow or withdraw RU-486.
    • the environment -- the President appoints the the EPA, Interior, etc. They control mileage and emission standards for vehicles. They choose between spotted owls and logging companies. etc.
    • Microsoft -- the President appoints the Attorney General and DOJ prosecutors. They decide whether or not to keep Bill Gates in court for the rest of his life. The President also appoints the federal judges who hear these cases.

    If you care about these issues, then there is a difference between them.

  6. Re:nice demonstration of downside by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 2 · on Linux Encryption HOWTO
    You got caught with evidence of criminal activity in plain sight, and I'd be glad. Unreasonable search and seizure laws are designed to protect people against government meddling and other abuses
    Speaking of unreasonable searches, the US Supreme Court is now considering Ky llo v. U.S., 99-8508 , which will decide whether police helicopters hovering over your house pointing an infrared sensors at your roof constitutes a search or if they can just do it for the hell of it.

    I'm just mentioning this because it's amazing how many technological innovations become the tools used to invade privacy. I mean, if it's okay for them to point an infrared sensor at your roof, is it okay for them to point a laser interferometer at your window to see if anyone inside is talking about drugs? It's non-invasive, right? They didn't actually enter your premises, right?

    All this ties in so well with the EU/US anti-privacy treaty in the works.

    --

  7. PDF version of actual court decision is at: by millia · · Score: 3 · on Supreme Court Barely Prevents Censorship

    here