Slashdot Mirror
Judge Backs Amazon, Raps Feds Over Book Records
netbuzz alerts us to a ruling in federal court that has just been made public. US Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker told the Feds to lay off Amazon in denying prosecutors' requests for records of who bought what books at the online retailer. The judge wrote, "The [subpoena's] chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America." Prosecutors had demanded 24,000 transaction records from Amazon, all in service of convicting a city official on charges of fraud and tax evasion. In the end they found customer information on the official's PC, where they should have looked in the first place.
Try getting his book!
Judge Backs Amazon, Raps Feds
When I read that, I added an extra "e" in there, but I guess that's just wishful thinking.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Personally, I'd be very concerned if people were buying books like these. I would certainly defend the government's right to weed out such subversives.
The withdrawal came after a judge ruled the customers have a First Amendment right to keep their reading habits from the government.
We're talking about America right? That happened in America? You're kidding me! The same America with warrantless wiretaps and everything! I don't believe you!
Wait... what's that... fascism does not rule in America like some people on the internet say. You've lost me now. Crackpot!!
I got a catholic block.
I taught your mom how to play Super Mario Bros when she was, like, 7 years old. She was better than you might think...she was smart for her age.
"The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission," Crocker wrote. "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else."
So, not everybody in the American legal system is providing a rubber stamp for Federal nosiness. I can't believe the Feds actually thought this was a viable thing -- perhaps they've been swayed by all the success with warrant-less wiretapping and private snooping. I think this may be representative of a desire by the lower courts to put the breaks on rampant violations of American civil rights. At least, one can hope.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
This sounds factually similar to the Robert Bork video rental disclosure issue. See here.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Another case of the powers at be sitting in a room full of mirrors and muttering "Woops".
I'd say this judge does not have a Bush bestowed nickname like ol' Kenny Boy!
Goatse.ca!
This wasn't a situation where, say, a child is in imminent danger and they need the information now.
It's simply a case of the cops' unwillingness to do some good old-fashioned police work. Good for you, Judge Crocker.
I thought this was something about a guy named Judge playing backup for a band called Amazon, all while someone named Feds rapped over some books on tape. Or something.
We can combat this new technique by right-click-open-in-new-tab all links and making sure the page title is OK. Even if they change it, they cannot always make it relevant very quickly.
And:"If the government had been more diligent in looking for workarounds instead of baring its teeth when Amazon balked, it's probable that this entire First Amendment showdown could have been avoided," he wrote
Damn straight it is un-American! I just wish the agents and presecutors involved would get reprimanded! Or better yet, fired for incompetence.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Luckily, they didn't find my Amazon orders.
Feloniously Yours
Oh, man, I want this guy if I'm ever in trouble with the law.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Seriously. We all should be liking Amazon about now (at least for a little bit). They stood up to the Feds even when they really didn't have to beyond the inconvenience.
We can get back to hating them for the single click patent after Christ^H^H^H^H the holidays.
(Interesting note: captcha was 'dogma')
...as if "a child is in imminent danger" is sufficient cause to abrogate the First Amendment.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
You just needed to google the keywords. like this
I think I just like that Judge.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If "they" give us victories like this to make us more likely to think things are not so bad or getting better while they continue to rape our rights over things they actually give a rat's ass about.
Have you guys thought about this at all?
If Amazon had evidence that linked the guy to fraud, why shouldn't they be asked for it? You guys really want Amazon to be the place where anyone can hide any evidence of any crime?
Discovery of evidence in a court proceeding is not a privacy issue. Since when is privacy a factor in what courts do?
Maybe OJ Simpson should have been able to keep his shoe size private? And why did the court really need to know his relationship to the victims anyway? Let alone where he was at the time of the murders?! Like that was any of the court's business! Pretty soon they'll be asking those questions of all suspected murderers. We better stop it now before you can't get away with murder or fraud any more. I'm outraged.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
The "effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America"
Um, that's not frosting stuck on the keyboards of America, your honor...
All rape is a horrible thing, and it's offensive that prison rape is still a topic that people find acceptable to joke about.
Now they'll never know about my purchase of "WMDs for Dummies" and "Terrorism for Beginners".
I am a non-us citizen, sometimes shopping at amazon.com (cause it cheaper then most of the other amazons). I might be wrong, but I see no LEGAL or MORAL justification that U.S. government should be able to look into my reading habits.
Now I know, the world is corrupt, and very few things can be legally justified let alone morally. However I'd like to say that find this appalling and disgusting. If the government is so eager to know everything about me, I'd be happy send my stool sample to the white house, every day if need be.
The best way to fight this government need to spy on its citizens would probably be to overload them with info, informing them of every little thing you do.
'Dear mr Government
I just lost about 10,000 cells typing this mail, I thought you would like to know that and put in that file about me that you've been keeping.'
Because the warrantless wiretaps will not have gone through a Judge and so the Judge will not be able to stop it.
In this case, the feds couldn't avoid asking the Judge (expect this to change soon, to weed out the terrorists) and so the Judge ruled on it.
This, in fact, makes it WORSE because how many wiretaps would have been legitimately denied by someone who knows the LAW if they'd been able to get to judge on it in the first place?
because it isn't "hate amazon" that is the "groupthink" you seem to imply but "hate amazon's stupid patenting decisions". In this case, although amazon is still involved, it doesn't involve them patenting anything (I suspect even they would not try to patent "handing over documents to federal investigators"!).
So no need to change groupthink on slashdot.
The groupthink we need to change are
a) the idea there is a groupthink in slashdot
b) the idea that the hate for amazon (or any other corporation) is because OF THE CORPORATION and not because of what the dorporation DID
a) will shut you up so we won't have to have this conversation again.
b) will show that when, say MS does something good (like donate free blank PC's to US schools) we don't mind MS and when the do something bad (like make the donation require a five-year contract for MS Vista/Office/AD/Server/etc) we don't like them. The common thread has nothing to do with the hate (though past actions of the same person is a reason to suspect the best/worst: after all, a habitual liar or psychotic rapist isn't considered "completely safe" when they could be involved again, so why should we treat corps any different?). There are two things involved:
a) the corporation
b) the action
and since the outcome is changed, and the only change is the ACTION, the groupthink must be "I don't like the action I hated the corporation doing when they did it". Not that we don't like the corporation no matter what they did but we just ignore them when we can't complain about them.
Yes, that was long winded but I tried to get a few different ways of saying the same thing in the possibly futile attempt to get you to use your brain for thinking instead of using your prejudices jumping to conclusions.
Oh, t2mb, note that the people apologising for Googles' bad actions are not the same ones as lambasting amazon when they do the same thing. This is why "groupthink" groupthink must die. Take a look at the Google apologists and see if they apologise for amazon/yahoo or whoever doing the same thing, and maybe then you'll find out those who think that pandering to government come what may is the only moral thing to do.
Why don't you watch your [bleep]-ing language?