Slashdot Mirror

The Department of Justice in the USA has recently decided that the second ammendment does in fact secure an individual's right to bear arms.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

It's amazing that the most clearly written of all the ammendments causes so much confusion.

Where do I begin?...

The Department of Justice sponsored 1994 survey "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", this survey estimated that 1.5 million defensive gun uses occured per year by law abiding citizens.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Fatal gun accidents declined by nearly 60% from 1975 to 1995, while the number of guns per capita increased by nearly 40%. Fatal gun accidents involving children ages 0-14 fell from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. According to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, estimated deaths due to fatal gun accidents were approximately 600, this covered ages 0-75+. Suffocation by ingested objects caused approximately 3,400 deaths, drowning 3,900, poisoning by solids and liquids 11,700.

According to the book (Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, 2001) by Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminologist, using the figures from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

"These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to tother self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances. More dangerous situations apparently prompt victims to adopt more dangerous self-protection measures. Two pieces of information available in the NCVS support this view. First, victims who used guns were substantially more likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection measures to face offenders armed with guns -- 32.7 percent of victims who attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8 percent of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple offenders -- 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun and 34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used self-protection measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent with the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to victims are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to the speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims merely because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more likely." pages 291-292

"The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns." page 296

"Most gun accidents occur in the home, many (perhaps most) of them involving guns kept for defense. However, very few accidents occur in connection with actual defensive uses of guns. Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault. Gun accidents, then, involve a rare and atypical subset of the population, as both shooters and victims. They rarely involve children, and most commonly involve adolescents and young adults." page 321

Statistics again show that so called "assault weatpons" are rarely used in crime. The reasons are varied, but one of the obvious is that they are too obvious. The are not easily hidden. And criminals invariably want to hide.

Quoting: "Nationally, "assault weapons" were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state "assault weapons" ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%" from Gary Kleck, "Targeting Guns", 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994

See Gunfacts 4.0 for much more.

However, concealing weapons is also of great value to the citizen for self-defense, particulary women, those of small stature, handicapped, and older people.

And it is also that reason that 'smart guns' are a bad idea. In a serious self-defense issue, *anyone* in danger must be able to use the weapon and it must be reliable. There are numerous case histories when the spouse, or a child sucessfully prevented the murder of other family members with an available gun.

All that is moot however. Because of the Bill of Rights, there are no grounds for limiting guns, period. See WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Sixteen electronic computerized sensors embedded in the gun's grip distinguished known from unknown users. "We've only just begun and we're pleased to say that we're getting 90 percent reliability when scanning users," said Sebastian.

Modern pistols have failure rates measured in the single digits per 10,000 rounds (when using factory ammunition), and these are often easily cleared by simply racking the slide (tap-rack-bang). Pistols, especially defensive pistols ABSOUTELY POSITIVELY have to work every time. One nine is not good enough. Two nines is not acceptable. Three nines will get you killed or injured. Four nines? Weellll... Five to six nines is a lot better.

I'll trust this when the Secret Service agents guarding the President andthe FBI use it on all their firearms. Primary and secondary.

I'm a Unix Admin. I trust computers not on f!ing bit, and I especially trust systems designed by politically connected developers even less.

BTW, what part of "" causes confusion?

Remember, kids, it's all about being tough on crime. If, for some inexplicable reason, crime continues to exist--you're simply not being tough enough. Throw more people in prison; make the sentences longer to keep 'em there. To hell with reform; make sentences punitive and harsh for the sake of scaring people straight. It'll work eventually, right?

1 out of 37 Americans have served time in prison. Our incarceration rates continue to skyrocket. How much more will it take for people to throw their hands in the air and say "Enough!"?

How do you know what "most" FOIA requests return? No one tracks that sort of information. All you "know" is that crackpots online use the FOIA to further their conspiracies and you've spent so much time reading them that you project that onto everyone because you have no other real experience with it.

The FOIA grants any information requested to the requester, given that such information exists and isn't vital to national security

No, no it does not. That's just one of a long list of exceptions.

Requesting the FBI file on yourself is clearly a right, but requesting the file on someone else? Not a right, IMO.

Well, good, because you're right. It's not a right. Personnel, medical and similar files that would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" are exempt from FOIA requests.

Trying to finagle documents regarding the Kennedy assassination? Not a right, IMO.

Why the hell not? For what possible reason should the official government proceedings regarding a very newsworthy event that happened over 40 years ago be hidden? Information relating to law enforcement proceedings are protected, when they have reason to be, but there's no conceivable reason for that.

Personally, I'd rather see the roads fixed and utilities made more efficient than see a bunch of fat, sweaty geeks get their jollies by harrassing the government.

Considering you need to pay for document research time and duplication for FOIA requests, no one except crackpots thinks it's a good way to "harrass" anyone.

You can find the full text of the relevant Act here. I suggest you at least skim it.

Official opinion on what the Second Ammendment to the US Constitution means, from the Office of Legal Counsel for the Attorney General of the the United States.

www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Well, by reading TFA, one finds out that his reasoning is:

I wrote TinyP2P to illustrate the difficulty of regulating peer-to-peer applications. Peer-to-peer apps can be very simple, and any moderately skilled programmer can write one, so attempts to ban their creation would be fruitless.

Crack is produced by dissolving powdered cocaine in a mixture of water and ammonia or sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). The mixture is boiled until a solid substance forms. The solid is removed from the liquid, dried, and then broken into the chunks (rocks) that are sold as crack cocaine.

Ingredients:
1-2 grams coke
4 tablespoons baking soda
Some bottled water
Take a cookie sheet and sprinkle a light covering of coke on the bottom. No more than 1 - 1/2 tablespoons. Now, take 1 tablespoons or so of Baking Soda, and sprinkle it on top. Add 2 teaspoons of water evenly. Cook at 300 deg. for 15 min. Sprinkle Pot if you want to really do it up on top. Add rest of coke evenly, and 2 more tablespoons of baking soda evenly. Bake at 300 for 25-30 min. Let sit OVERNIGHT. Put in freezer 15- 20 minutes, or until hard. Crack off small peices and enjoy!

Just FYI for people that may respond to point #3:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

So you were selling it many moons ago chief? Because it wasn't until the NET Act of 1997 that distribution without profit became an illegal act. Spare us the older/wiser routine and read your DOJ FAQ:

• Until recently, the prosecution was required to prove that copyright infringement was done willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Now the law provides for prosecution in the absence of these monetary considerations. Specifically, the current statute, as codified at 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2), allows for prosecution in cases involving large scale illegal reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully, but without a discernible profit motive. Congress specifically made this change as part of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997

One question for prosecutors will be how to address an individual who, while not illegally offering the software on his or her site, establishes a direct link to a "warez site" that is offering illegal software. While a target who illegally offers copyrighted software on a "warez site" is engaging in infringement, criminality is less clear if the copyrighted software is on another site to which the target simply links.

In these instances, the facts surrounding the activity will be critical. For example, is the target's "warez site" effectively encouraging the infringement? Is there independent evidence, in addition to or aside from the "warez site," which suggests intent to infringe? Is there evidence of some illicit relationship between the target or the target's "warez site" and the site containing the copyrighted work to be downloaded? Further, what if the target links not to the beginning of the secondary site, but further or deeper into the site, directly to the downloadable software? This is known as "deep linking," when the link bypasses initial portions of a Web site and takes the user to a specific place within the targeted Web site. Prosecutors should consider the relative culpability of an individual who links a user directly to a copyrighted work and one who links the user to a site that offers the illegal software, possibly in addition to other legal information or services.

The simple fact that a site like LokiTorrents exists does not mean that they're necessarily infringing any copyrights, much less doing so criminally.

Here's a link to a DOJ document that specifically lays out the conditions for being considered a felony criminal offense in the second paragraph.

I'm not sure how precisely the technical aspects of "Torrents" (or Grokster) work, but it's not like a judge couldn't re-examine the situation and come up with a different ruling from what the ruling in Grokster came up with. Last I heard, 2600 lost their case for providing links to source code that could help you facilitate copyright infringement. If only because Grokster might have had some other legitimate uses, where as, Loki might not have such mitigating circumstances. At some point, I believe Loki will (and should) have to prove that it does provide a useful service that isn't blatant copyright infringement. If they can show that I think they have a right to exist. However, if they can't, I sure think that's tantamount to letting a landlord knowningly let a crime family use his facilities as a hang out. No crimes might be committed there, but it sure seems in the interest of the public to stop such places from existing.

Kirby

That's right, it is medically known to not damage people

As of June 2002, 1 in 142 US residents are in jail. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate in state prison is $22,650 .

FYI, about half of the people in federal prisons, and around 20% of those in state prisons, (or 27%, by the DEA's numbers, though there they say the federal rate is about 5%, but this contradicts the Federal Bureau of Prisons figure of 54%) are in on nothing more than mere drug offenses, correct?

IMO, we ought to legalize all drugs, tax the hell out of those which seriously impair one's ability to operate machinery (e.g. cars, guns, etc.) so as to pay for the consequences which may result from legalization. Regulate the sale of the harder drugs (coke, heroin, etc.) by requiring a doctor's prescription -- a prescription as a recreational drug, much like Viagra... But softer drugs ought to be available over-the-counter for adults.

Legalizing marijuana alone would end the arrests of about 750k Americans/year and save the U.S. $7b in enforcing this prohibition, plus another $2b in housing weed-charged inmates.

Eliminate drug offenses, and your rate would go to around 1 in 284 (about 0.35%) Americans... Plus, by freeing all those people, we'd have more people here working productively and therefore able to share the cost of incarcerating the *real* criminals -- the murderers, rapists, fraudsters, etc., so the average annual cost of incarcerating prisoners would drop...

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/April/04_crm_263. htm

Send thank you notes to:

The ongoing investigations were assisted by various intellectual property trade associations, including the Business Software Alliance, the Entertainment Software Association, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.

For example: This priority -- I can't even believe that a group of serious adults gets up in the morning with the idea that they're working to end the vast and dangerous conspiracy known as the "bong industry".

I can accept that they'd go after commercial counterfeiters and pirates of intellectual property, but given the extent of fraud and other naughtyness associated with spam (ie, selling prescription drugs), why hasn't the FBI gone after that before college kids trading bad movies they'll never watch and probably won't even have five years from now (hard disk crashes, changes in life priorities, etc), let alone wouldn't have bought or paid to see anyway (and despite the fact that the movies have probably broken even or made a profit *anyway*).

I'm sure if they actually *did* investigate spam via stings, they'd find massive tax evasion, fraud, violations of more substantive drug laws, and a bunch of otherwise legitimate corporations collecting a tidy profit by selling services needed to run a spam operation. Which is probably why they won't make the effort -- whenever big business gets involved, somehow the law doesn't seem to apply.

Oh well, at least we'll know that "college kids" and "bong makers" can be safely removed from the Bad Guy checklist.

and it would also violate the Privacy Act of 1974.

Note: I picked a link the grandparent might like, which concludes
"The Microsoft Corporation does not qualify as a monopoly, given the term's economic definition, however it can be ascertained that the company has engaged in anticompetitive, unfair strategies outlawed by antitrust legislation in the United States."
This is contrary to the finding of the court, which says, for example,
"33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

I am writing this just after posting the parent; I am curious to see if someone flames me (i.e. does not read the article) or points out the comment "The Microsoft Corporation does not qualify as a monopoly" above. (Who cares what the court says, anyway.)

I am not trying to flame you but - you are a complete idiot when it comes to economics or a troll. I have seen other somewhat intelligent posts from you, but this one actually puts the rest into context. You must be too young to remember the issues that MS has faced already.

Microsoft IS a monopoly. If you don't beleive me, look at the USDOJ findings of fact (specifically Section III, article 33) US vs. Microsoft of maybe this one, or for a slightly slanted, but nonetheless relevant take. I could add other links, but I will stop there for now. It doesn't matter if they have "active and serious competitors" (which would be Apple on a completely different platform, and Linux on x86), they have a large percentage of the marketplace which puts them into a monopoly position, ergo, they have to play by certain rules which are afforded to those in that position.

I have stated this before, Microsoft, regrdless of the fact there may be other Media Players - is using it's position in the marketplace, using it's existing monopoly to leverage it's weight into the new "Media Player" market. That market not only entails the software on the Windows box - and subsequently keeps other operating systems out of the game by tying their media player, drm and codecs to their WIndows operating system. It now also allows them to leverage the umbiquity into other spinoff markets such as hardware media players (dvd players, etc), and distribution of digital media (theatres, etc).

Once they use this position of dominance to weasel their way into these other emerging markets, which is an obvious "next step" which thay have already started, they do nothing other than solidify their Windows buisness. It's using one's dominant position in the market to break into other markets which is what the EU is trying to stop and I commend them for that.

The US tried to do it in regards to the internet browser and did, then the decision was struck down by a certain newly elected government at the time. I am glad that politics aren't getting in the way this time and someone is putting their foot down.

I don't know anything about Finnish law, but it's a criminal matter if Finnish law says it is.

In the US, you are exposing yourself to civil *and* criminal penalties depending on the infringement.

Look, mommy, I can Google! Here's a page at the US DOJ about it.

To learn what makes copyright violation a criminal offense, read this: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/CFAleghis t.htm

Narcotics are not appropriate for many kinds of pain: musculoskeletal pain, neuropathic pain, inflammatory pain, etc. Ibuprofen, COX-2 inhibitors and Tylenol are better for inflammation, arthritis, etc. Giving people narcotics for these problems is inappropriate and can cause severe side-effects in addition to constipation (which can be severe): urinary retention and mental status changes(especially in the elderly).

Addiction is not something to take lightly, and is a growing problem -- 8.4% of kids 12-17 have taken pain killers for nonmedical purposes in their lifetime. Just wait until your kid finds that presciption for percocet in the medicine cabinet and starts experimenting with it...

The only limitation on the Second Amendment espoused by the DOJ is to restrict it from those who aren't responsible enough to keep and bear arms. (i.e. the mentally ill, etc.)

This has been reported over a year ago. See the DOJ Press release...
DOJ Link for Salcedo here.

Also see the Security Focus article here.

There are plenty of articles about the case. The DOJ and FBI have most of it as public information for the search engine savy. The key is, there is a lot of potential damage to end consumers and the company with crimes like this. Considering it was his second offense and he hadn't even gotten off probation for the first, 9 years seems reasonable to me.

I have been following this case online for a while. They were involved with the 2600 scene, attented "Hacker" conventions, and were already known for things that some might view on a grey line (IE telephone companies - See Telcodata.us). The thing is that occasionally there are bad apples that learn from others and commit crimes. Showing a 9 year prison sentence might help keep some of the apples from rotting.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ohs/Press/12-18-03.htm

The total cost to Acxiom of Baas's intrusion and theft of data is more than $5.8 million. Baas faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 or twice the amount of gain or loss, and three years of supervised release.

Considering Dan actually did steal the data and only can get a maximum of 5 years, this seems excessive for intent.

Violent crime in the US has been declining for more than a decade. It took a mighty downward trend during the administration of that oh-so-reviled Mr. Clinton.

Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with the assload of money that administration directed toward hiring new police officers? The timing cannot be mre coincidence: at the very time the Clinton administration's new measures were going into effect in 94/95 (Billions directed toward hiring thousands more police officers, a castrated assault weapons ban), violent crime numbers began taking a severe nosedive.

Was this due to the ban on guns? I doubt it given that "assault weapons" accounted for a tiny percentage of incidents in the first place.

Since shrub has been in office he has let the assault weapons ban lapse (whoopee) but has also been cutting all that money for police. And the years since "Mr tough on crime" took office represent the first time in years that violent crime numbers have NOT shown a consistent reduction, but are actually near levelling and showing an upward trend... all despite the presence of an attorney general who has also been one of the most outspoken in calling for even further reductions in our constitutional liberties. The assault weapons ban only recently lapsed, but the upswing in crime numbers began almost immediately after the administration (and policy) changes.

So rather than simply ask "what's wrong with the UK" I would also ask "what's wrong with the US?" Because the symptoms are the same, and it appears the UK is simply working toward becoming the next new US territory...

I found a US government web site on "How to Report Internet-Related Crime". Unfortunately, the site is not as informative as I had hoped. For the most part, you are advised to contact the FBI.

Also, Here is the US Department of Justice's web page on computer crime.

I found a US government web site on "How to Report Internet-Related Crime". Unfortunately, the site is not as informative as I had hoped. For the most part, you are advised to contact the FBI.

Also, Here is the US Department of Justice's web page on computer crime.

Earthlink, in its opposition, claimed that the 9th Circuit ruling was consistent with the FCC, DOJ, FBI, and DEA's contention that broadband is subject to CALEA as a "telecommunications service" under that act. (Earthlink Brief at 10).

In its response, the government pointed out that a finding that broadband providers are subject to CALEA but not to the Communications Act is entirely consistent because of the broader definition of "telecommunications service" under CALEA. (Reply at 9).

I do not believe that the FCC has conclusively established that broadband is subject to CALEA. It filed its notice of rulemaking in August 2004. There may still be time for public comment if anyone out there wants to get in their 2c on this issue.

It would be nice if they'd find a way to repair or replace the Hubble Space Telescope, though.

Funny you should mention that. NPR's "Morning Edition" program reported this morning that NASA hired a company called The Aerospace Corporation to conduct a confidential study to determine the best way to deal with Hubble, including two completed instruments that were originally supposed to fly to Hubble aboard the Space Shuttle.

The conclusion? Well, the report itself is confidential and won't ever see the light of day. The executive summary, however, has been obtained through a FOIA request. In short, they don't think a robotic servicing mission could be completed before Hubble dies. They recommend flying a new bare-bones replacement for Hubble with the two new instruments onboard. In their opinion, it'll be cheaper and it's more likely to work.

Of course, there are those who dispute the study's findings. They say that there already exists a robot of sufficient dexterity for performing the mission. It was designed to fly on the ISS and last ten years. A Hubble service mission would last at most a few months.

I never read anything about corruption regarding ShotSpotter, nor did I find any mentions in news archives.

The article I found just mentions that there was significant debate in Redwood City before buying the system from Trilon for $85K. "Opponents, however, claim it is a boondoggle and that the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on hiring more police officers." (SFChronicle, 3/18/97, "Redwood City Endorses Gunshot Locator System")

The National Institute of Justice funded a study of the ShotSpotter system in Redwood City and Dallas.

The December 1999 report can be found on the NIJ website:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179274.pdf

The report compared Alliant's SECURES system in Dallas to Trilon's ShotSpotter system in Redwood City.

It sounds like they had a lot of fun with this test in RWC:

Of the 31 field trial events, 8 tested the MP5 assault rifle, 13 tested the .38 caliber pistol rounds, and 10 tested the 12 gauge shotgun. The technology annunciated shotgun tests at the highest rate (90 percent), followed by pistol tests (77 percent), and the MP5 assault rifle (63 percent). Overall, the ShotSpotter technology annunciated nearly 80 percent of the test shots (true positives) and failed to annunciate random gunfire events about 20 percent of the time (false negatives).

Dallas chose not to allow the firing of blank rounds on random street corners:

The [Redwood City] police department approved the firing of test blanks under controlled conditions to measure the performance of the technology in June 1997. Similar permissions were not granted during the field test of the SECURES system in Dallas.

If you're wondering why Redwood City would be picked, keep in mind that neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country after a string of drug murders in 1992. (The homicide rate is lower now.)

The NIJ report page is pretty entertaining reading:

• Duress Systems in Corrections Facilities
• Voice Translators for Law Enforcement
• DNA in "Minor" Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety
• Drug Detection in Prison Mailrooms
• Test Results for Software Write Block Tools: RCMP HDL V0.7 (really boring)

I never read anything about corruption regarding ShotSpotter, nor did I find any mentions in news archives.

The article I found just mentions that there was significant debate in Redwood City before buying the system from Trilon for $85K. "Opponents, however, claim it is a boondoggle and that the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on hiring more police officers." (SFChronicle, 3/18/97, "Redwood City Endorses Gunshot Locator System")

The National Institute of Justice funded a study of the ShotSpotter system in Redwood City and Dallas.

The December 1999 report can be found on the NIJ website:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179274.pdf

The report compared Alliant's SECURES system in Dallas to Trilon's ShotSpotter system in Redwood City.

It sounds like they had a lot of fun with this test in RWC:

Of the 31 field trial events, 8 tested the MP5 assault rifle, 13 tested the .38 caliber pistol rounds, and 10 tested the 12 gauge shotgun. The technology annunciated shotgun tests at the highest rate (90 percent), followed by pistol tests (77 percent), and the MP5 assault rifle (63 percent). Overall, the ShotSpotter technology annunciated nearly 80 percent of the test shots (true positives) and failed to annunciate random gunfire events about 20 percent of the time (false negatives).

Dallas chose not to allow the firing of blank rounds on random street corners:

The [Redwood City] police department approved the firing of test blanks under controlled conditions to measure the performance of the technology in June 1997. Similar permissions were not granted during the field test of the SECURES system in Dallas.

If you're wondering why Redwood City would be picked, keep in mind that neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country after a string of drug murders in 1992. (The homicide rate is lower now.)

The NIJ report page is pretty entertaining reading:

• Duress Systems in Corrections Facilities
• Voice Translators for Law Enforcement
• DNA in "Minor" Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety
• Drug Detection in Prison Mailrooms
• Test Results for Software Write Block Tools: RCMP HDL V0.7 (really boring)

I never read anything about corruption regarding ShotSpotter, nor did I find any mentions in news archives.

The article I found just mentions that there was significant debate in Redwood City before buying the system from Trilon for $85K. "Opponents, however, claim it is a boondoggle and that the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on hiring more police officers." (SFChronicle, 3/18/97, "Redwood City Endorses Gunshot Locator System")

The National Institute of Justice funded a study of the ShotSpotter system in Redwood City and Dallas.

The December 1999 report can be found on the NIJ website:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179274.pdf

The report compared Alliant's SECURES system in Dallas to Trilon's ShotSpotter system in Redwood City.

It sounds like they had a lot of fun with this test in RWC:

Of the 31 field trial events, 8 tested the MP5 assault rifle, 13 tested the .38 caliber pistol rounds, and 10 tested the 12 gauge shotgun. The technology annunciated shotgun tests at the highest rate (90 percent), followed by pistol tests (77 percent), and the MP5 assault rifle (63 percent). Overall, the ShotSpotter technology annunciated nearly 80 percent of the test shots (true positives) and failed to annunciate random gunfire events about 20 percent of the time (false negatives).

Dallas chose not to allow the firing of blank rounds on random street corners:

The [Redwood City] police department approved the firing of test blanks under controlled conditions to measure the performance of the technology in June 1997. Similar permissions were not granted during the field test of the SECURES system in Dallas.

If you're wondering why Redwood City would be picked, keep in mind that neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country after a string of drug murders in 1992. (The homicide rate is lower now.)

The NIJ report page is pretty entertaining reading:

• Duress Systems in Corrections Facilities
• Voice Translators for Law Enforcement
• DNA in "Minor" Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety
• Drug Detection in Prison Mailrooms
• Test Results for Software Write Block Tools: RCMP HDL V0.7 (really boring)

I never read anything about corruption regarding ShotSpotter, nor did I find any mentions in news archives.

The article I found just mentions that there was significant debate in Redwood City before buying the system from Trilon for $85K. "Opponents, however, claim it is a boondoggle and that the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on hiring more police officers." (SFChronicle, 3/18/97, "Redwood City Endorses Gunshot Locator System")

The National Institute of Justice funded a study of the ShotSpotter system in Redwood City and Dallas.

The December 1999 report can be found on the NIJ website:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179274.pdf

The report compared Alliant's SECURES system in Dallas to Trilon's ShotSpotter system in Redwood City.

It sounds like they had a lot of fun with this test in RWC:

Of the 31 field trial events, 8 tested the MP5 assault rifle, 13 tested the .38 caliber pistol rounds, and 10 tested the 12 gauge shotgun. The technology annunciated shotgun tests at the highest rate (90 percent), followed by pistol tests (77 percent), and the MP5 assault rifle (63 percent). Overall, the ShotSpotter technology annunciated nearly 80 percent of the test shots (true positives) and failed to annunciate random gunfire events about 20 percent of the time (false negatives).

Dallas chose not to allow the firing of blank rounds on random street corners:

The [Redwood City] police department approved the firing of test blanks under controlled conditions to measure the performance of the technology in June 1997. Similar permissions were not granted during the field test of the SECURES system in Dallas.

If you're wondering why Redwood City would be picked, keep in mind that neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country after a string of drug murders in 1992. (The homicide rate is lower now.)

The NIJ report page is pretty entertaining reading:

• Duress Systems in Corrections Facilities
• Voice Translators for Law Enforcement
• DNA in "Minor" Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety
• Drug Detection in Prison Mailrooms
• Test Results for Software Write Block Tools: RCMP HDL V0.7 (really boring)

I never read anything about corruption regarding ShotSpotter, nor did I find any mentions in news archives.

The article I found just mentions that there was significant debate in Redwood City before buying the system from Trilon for $85K. "Opponents, however, claim it is a boondoggle and that the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on hiring more police officers." (SFChronicle, 3/18/97, "Redwood City Endorses Gunshot Locator System")

The National Institute of Justice funded a study of the ShotSpotter system in Redwood City and Dallas.

The December 1999 report can be found on the NIJ website:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179274.pdf

The report compared Alliant's SECURES system in Dallas to Trilon's ShotSpotter system in Redwood City.

It sounds like they had a lot of fun with this test in RWC:

Of the 31 field trial events, 8 tested the MP5 assault rifle, 13 tested the .38 caliber pistol rounds, and 10 tested the 12 gauge shotgun. The technology annunciated shotgun tests at the highest rate (90 percent), followed by pistol tests (77 percent), and the MP5 assault rifle (63 percent). Overall, the ShotSpotter technology annunciated nearly 80 percent of the test shots (true positives) and failed to annunciate random gunfire events about 20 percent of the time (false negatives).

Dallas chose not to allow the firing of blank rounds on random street corners:

The [Redwood City] police department approved the firing of test blanks under controlled conditions to measure the performance of the technology in June 1997. Similar permissions were not granted during the field test of the SECURES system in Dallas.

If you're wondering why Redwood City would be picked, keep in mind that neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country after a string of drug murders in 1992. (The homicide rate is lower now.)

The NIJ report page is pretty entertaining reading:

• Duress Systems in Corrections Facilities
• Voice Translators for Law Enforcement
• DNA in "Minor" Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety
• Drug Detection in Prison Mailrooms
• Test Results for Software Write Block Tools: RCMP HDL V0.7 (really boring)

I never read anything about corruption regarding ShotSpotter, nor did I find any mentions in news archives.

The article I found just mentions that there was significant debate in Redwood City before buying the system from Trilon for $85K. "Opponents, however, claim it is a boondoggle and that the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on hiring more police officers." (SFChronicle, 3/18/97, "Redwood City Endorses Gunshot Locator System")

The National Institute of Justice funded a study of the ShotSpotter system in Redwood City and Dallas.

The December 1999 report can be found on the NIJ website:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/179274.pdf

The report compared Alliant's SECURES system in Dallas to Trilon's ShotSpotter system in Redwood City.

It sounds like they had a lot of fun with this test in RWC:

Of the 31 field trial events, 8 tested the MP5 assault rifle, 13 tested the .38 caliber pistol rounds, and 10 tested the 12 gauge shotgun. The technology annunciated shotgun tests at the highest rate (90 percent), followed by pistol tests (77 percent), and the MP5 assault rifle (63 percent). Overall, the ShotSpotter technology annunciated nearly 80 percent of the test shots (true positives) and failed to annunciate random gunfire events about 20 percent of the time (false negatives).

Dallas chose not to allow the firing of blank rounds on random street corners:

The [Redwood City] police department approved the firing of test blanks under controlled conditions to measure the performance of the technology in June 1997. Similar permissions were not granted during the field test of the SECURES system in Dallas.

If you're wondering why Redwood City would be picked, keep in mind that neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in the country after a string of drug murders in 1992. (The homicide rate is lower now.)

The NIJ report page is pretty entertaining reading:

• Duress Systems in Corrections Facilities
• Voice Translators for Law Enforcement
• DNA in "Minor" Crimes Yields Major Benefits in Public Safety
• Drug Detection in Prison Mailrooms
• Test Results for Software Write Block Tools: RCMP HDL V0.7 (really boring)

http://www.usdoj.gov

It's actually much closer to 50 gigs, in order to upload 20 copies of Doom 3, thus exceeding $1000 of total retail value.

the vast majority of sharers

That's a completely different song than the one you were singing earlier.

You made absolute statements that were false, in an attempt to strengthen your argument.

I called you for it.

My assertion is that the number of criminals is exceedingly small

Actually, your earlier assertion was that there were no criminals. In fact, you made that assertion many times in this conversation.

But getting back to what you just said, "the number of criminals is exceedingly small"... But you acknowledge that for every criminal, there are 100 people who id has a legitimate civil action against? That those 100 people have substantively harmed id, in such a way that if id were merely able to collect the evidence, a jury of their peers would find beyond a reasonable doubt that they had caused harm which warrants financial restitution, and possibly even punitive damages under tort law for egregious conduct in the form of a willful disregard for the rights of others?

That, if the FBI was succesful in tracking down just that 1 criminal, they would undoubtedly uncover records of the actions of several of the 100 people who id has civil cause against?

So, we're talking about potentially 99 cases of criminal wrongdoing, and 9,901 cases of something that is arguably egregious conduct under our legal definitions - all happening in a SINGLE INSTANT ("10,000 *simultaneous* downloads"), for one piece of software... and you think companies are greedy and lazy when they point out that they're being fucked, and asking hey, maybe the FBI could help us out?

Help us track down the criminals, and give us what information you can find on the civil copyright violators?

Well, you're probably right; the FBI is probably not the right branch of the government for them to turn to. There should probably be a new group inside the Department of Justice. Possibly something like a Cybercrime section of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

So, you were right. I misspoke when I invoked the name of the FBI earlier in the conversation. They should only investigate the 99 people who in a single instant violated federal criminal law.

Somebody else should go after the other 9,901 dickheads.

"...treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention ... "

Right, and he could also forward his daily mail to the DOJ, so there aren't any more losses of that pesky incriminating evidence...

Criminal Offenses Criminal Infringement of a Copyright (Penalties)

You can do hard time (up to three years for a first offense) even if you are not into this for the money.

Theft of trade secrets is also a federal crime. Here is a useful link that demolishes many Slashdot myths: Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section: Federal Code Related to Cybercrime

The justic department isn't responsibile for investigating such crimes. That task belongs to the FBI. Which is parth of.... wait for it, the Justice Department
Not that I'm trying to take anything away from your inciteful rebuttal.

"This is a classic case of a highly concentrated industry becoming even more concentrated."

Gee, the good ol days, when the DOJ gave a damn.

"Democrats successfully painting Republicans as racist is the greatest propaganda coup in history since EVERY real civil rights gain Blacks have ever made and continue to make has been because of Republicans."

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act weren't passed by Democrats?

I guess you've never heard of the No Electronic Theft Act?

Basically, the conditions are 1) for gain (including trading for other stuff) or 2) distribute more than $1000 worth of stuff within 180 days --> jail time + fine

Heard of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act?

The rate of violent crime in the USA in 2002 was about 2500 per 100,000 people. (Source: USA Today)

The rate of serious violent crime in the USA in 2002 was about 500 per 100,000 (Source: FBI). Note that this only includes murder and manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault ("a reckless attack with intent to injure seriously (as with a deadly weapon)"), and so does not include all of the "minor assaults" that made up the majority of the Canadian violent crime rate.

In fact, those "simple assaults" happen at the rate of 1550 per 100,000 (Source: USDOJ), demonstrating why the comparable US violent crime rate is indeed the 2500 per 100,000 reported by USAToday, and not the artificially low number you used.

As the site you pulled your numbers from stated:

Different nations use different criteria to define "murder" and "serious assault," therefore ability to use this data to compare between nations is limited...

Using more comparable numbers seems to give very different results than you had suggested: Canada's violent crime rate is 40% of America's.

I thought FOI applied only to getting data from Federal agencies. Why would states be compelled to fulfill FOIA requests?

I wouldn't know personally, though the DOJ has published a study of the use of force by police and recommendations for regulations in police departments across America (there doesn't appear to be a specific codicil on administering more than fifty blows to an individual with batons).

Fatal intimate partner violence, 1976-2000

The number of men murdered by intimates dropped 68% between 1976 and 2000, the year of the most recently available data.

In 1976, an intimate murdered 1,357 men; in 2000, 440.

The number of women killed by an intimate was stable for two decades but declined after 1993. Between 1976 and 2000 the number of women murdered by intimates fell 22% from 1,600 to 1,247.

In recent years, generally, about 33% of female murder victims but 4% of the males were killed by an intimate.