Slashdot Mirror

Well, there was an MIT study that showed that random search was more secure than profiling.
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/random_security.html

Also helpful is allowing frequent travelers who go through extra checks to have a special ID to go through speedily. This used to be a commercial service. Like HOV lanes, it speeds up traffic for everyone. And it makes sense that the travelers who travel the most would pay to have extra background checks to travel faster.
http://www.flyclear.com/

The TSA blacklist seems to be a very bad idea, it has lots of errors, and it's way too easy to use it as a harassment tool against people or political groups that any sort of government agency or official doesn't like.
http://vigilant.tv/article/3071/epic-publishes-tsa-blacklist-memos

In 2002, the Australian High Court in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56 .html
http://vigilant.tv/article/2544
said that an Australian defamed on a website hosted overseas could sue, and that Australian courts did have jurisdiction.

In this landmark case testing the limits of legal jurisdiction in the Internet age, Australia's highest court clearly said that the harm was done to the Australian person defamed, despite and regardless that the material was hosted on a foreign server.

So, as Australians, we can't then turn around and say that just because it's hosted on servers in Australia, that the harm done is irrelevant to the Americans IP owners

This is a logical analysis, that doesn't take into account the very dubious merits of the Sony Bono Act. (IMHO)
Regardless of wether we personally like a law, the courts will attempt to maintain coherence of legal principle.

In this case, reducing it to mathematics ;

IF (hosted overseas) AND (harm done in Australia) = within Australian jurisdiction
then the converse must be true...

IF (hosted in Australia ) AND (harm done overseas) = within overseas jurisdiction

If the GWTW party sues and this goes to court, I would expect them to argue the jurisdictional question on the basis of Australian law, and not the merits of Sony Bono.

This way they can bring the case in Australia, seek Australian remedies, and neatly sidestep the international jurisdictional questions.

Bugger, hoisted by our own petard !

The right to privacy would be a double-edged sword. I can see corporations claiming right to privacy on business data and the like. I don't think that corporations should be viewed as "citizens" under the law anyway, but that's me.

I still, however, maintain that a constitutionally guaranteed right to individual privacy (encompassing medical information, all activities in or around a home or residence, purchases and other financial information, and library rentals) would do more good, especially under our current neo-Draconian administration, with it's flagrant disregard for the individual.

Sorry, that almost turned into a political rant. *goes to get more coffee*

Think about it: one of these lawsuits come out every year. Whether it's a band being sued, a movie, or a video game, these lawsuits NEVER win.

So if the lawsuits never win why are they filed? Because it's usually easier and cheaper for the game manufacture, movie studio or band to just pay out a million to settle the case, and that's why they file, in the hopes the defendant will just settle and they'll become instant millionaires.

I think that's crap, and the lawyers and courts should be held responsible for their negligence, otherwise we're just going to hear more of these frivolous lawsuits.

(If you think that doesn't happen, look at the past.)

Or here, or here, or here, or even here!

Has anybody read 1984, the novel by George Orwell? There was this ficticious character Goldstein, invented by the government. Reminds me a bit of Osama bin Ladin.
We just need a bad guy, someone we can blame when something goes wrong. And if we want to get rid of someone, we just say: "He was a terrorist, or, worse, a friend of Osama" and everybody agrees that must be imprisioned forever, no proof of guilt necessary. Someone who is friend of personified evil has no rights at all.
It's a war we have to fight. And if we have to torture people to get the truth out of them, who cares.
In 1984, the names were just great, like, "Ministery of Love" for the institution where people were tortured.
Just like Bush's "alliance of peace and freedom", a bunch of nations that obviously only want war (oh, yes, they claim to have proof, that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, but, unfortunately, these proofs are so top-secret that we have to trust them. Germany trusted Hitler, so what can go wrong?)

Prisoners of war should have no rights, in the end, they fought against the US, which is bad. Don't believe this 14-year-old boy from Afghanistan who says the Taliban forced him to fight. Oh, never mind, he has no possibility to talk to a lawyer anyway.
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR511862002?O penDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA

How long has poor US government to ship suspicious people to other countries, because it's *still* illegal in America? Come on, legalize torturing, remember how much more these criminal terrorists would tell if the CIA could do whatever they want! Everything would be so much safer!
http://vigilant.tv/article/1104

You can see how civilized a country is when you look in how it treats its enemies.
http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/afghani stan/campxray.htm

http://www.freejohnwalker.net/


I don't remember who said it, but I like this quote:
"Some people fight so hard for freedom until there's nothing left of it".

** America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln **

What the heck does Bush think he's doing? Iraq is NOT a threat to anyone but his own people now.
Yes, he is a madman and a criminal and should not be leader of a state. Maybe he wouldn't be in charge anymore if USA hadn't supported him when he attacked Iran, because without their help Iraq might have lost this war. Or if the US hadn't given Anthrax to him (he killed thousands of kurdish people with it, but never mind, he remained "our man" of the US in the gulf region).

But Saddam Hussein is NOT Al Qaida. In fact, they hate each other. Of course, this may change if the recognize they have a common enemy.

Bush must realize that he cannot fight terrorism with war. The sons of the soldiers he kills now are the suicide bombers of tomorrow. And all they need is a knife and a civil plane...

Wake up, America! You cannot fight against the rest of the world! You don't want to? So think about your actions, 1.5 billion Muslims may consider your actions a declaration of war.

I'm not auto-american, I like the American people, that's why I'm very worried about their current foreign politics.

Bush is creating a 1984-like state, with a powerful government and military that doesn't have to obey the law. Bush speaks about the alliance of "freedom and peace", but the world only sees how desperately USA wants war. And what's left of freedom when prisoners of war have no rights to see a court? When they are refused basic human rights as granted by the convention of Geneva?
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR511862002?O penDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA

When the US government has suspicious people tortured in other countries, because it's *still* illegal in America?
http://vigilant.tv/article/1104

Or suspects are locked away forever, without the right to go to court?
You can see how civilized a country is when you look in how it treats its enemies.
http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/afghani stan/campxray.htm

http://www.freejohnwalker.net/

There was a time when America tried to show they're different from uncivilized countries, that human rights mean something to them. This time seems to be over and the rest of the world sees it.

I don't remember who said it, but I like this quote:
"Some people fight so hard for freedom until there's nothing left of it".