Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned

Posted by samzenpus on from the let-me-see-what-you-got-there dept.

schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

105 of 670 comments (clear)

  1. I am shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.

    1. Re:I am shocked! by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, just because there is one are on which two administrations agree and you don't, does it mean that there are no meaningful differences between G.W.Bush and Obama at all?

    2. Re:I am shocked! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are certainly meaningful differences, but at the end of the day the top prosecutors in the United States still want those X-Ray glasses so they can watch the citizens for criminal conduct.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:I am shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i am pretty sure we are all potential criminals, no such thing as a citizen anymore

    4. Re:I am shocked! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hate to say it but I was hopeful too. Maybe not enough to vote for him, but I knew my candidate wasn't going to win anyway... still voted for him though.

      Obama is a historical icon, however. He was the first non-white president of the United States of America. And while some might say he is starting out "well enough" I can't say that he is. He has definitely reversed himself on many of his promises and intentions without so much as any sort of explanation on the matter. What he is doing will likely result in a big change in government in the next major election cycle and he may not even be the next Democratic presidential candidate if the Democrats hope to remain significant. I doubt people will be so quick to forget the reasons they moved away from the Republicans the last go around and so I think third parties will really make an emergence in the NEXT election cycle.

    5. Re:I am shocked! by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How's that Hopey Changey thing going for ya?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:I am shocked! by daath93 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correction, there are no terrorists, only criminals. This is why we are prosecuting a known terrorist who admitted to masterminding the 9/11 attacks, we dragged him out of another country as an enemy combatant, held him for 8 years out of country, and are trying him with the same rights as an American citizen in a very public media circus that is our criminal court system, instead of under a military tribunal.

    7. Re:I am shocked! by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That depends on what you call "meaningful". Barack Obama has done precisely squat to reverse Bush's mistakes. He put a different script on the teleprompter, but he still claims that he can violate the right of habeus corpus, commit acts of war against a US ally, send troops into harm's way without a declaration of war, imprison innocent people on the pretext of the unconstitutional "war on drugs"... You get the idea.

      I'll never be disappointed by him, though. It was clear to me long before he was elected that he's basically Mitt Romney with a better speechwriter.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:I am shocked! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      If they're not POWs, then why would they be tried in a military tribunal?

      Like it or not there's multiple precedents for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:I am shocked! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They may not get all that much credit. If GDP improves but the unemployment rate is still high, angry eyes will still be upon them. Recent government forecasts of reasonably strong increases in GDP next year have also said that unemployment rates would probably remain flat, and that has caused a great deal of consternation. People are willing to have a little less recovery if it means a little better employment, as it's hard to be happy with where the country will be in two or three years when it's not certain where your meals will come from next week.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:I am shocked! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is pretty much the opposite of what the founders of the country had in mind. They wanted the people to have the x-ray glasses. You know Jefferson's saying about who fears whom and how the difference is that between liberty and tyranny...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:I am shocked! by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it really matter WHO a slave's master is?

      There are obvious ways in which Bush and Obama differ. But I think the difference is only substantial if you think the reason you're being stripped of your rights is more important than the fact that you are being stripped of your rights.

      In the ways that matter, Obama is no change for the better.

    12. Re:I am shocked! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so optimistic. I lost faith in people and especially their interest in politics long ago. An increasing number of people see voting as their "duty", much like some sort of other chore that must be done, so they simply let others decide for them. Or they simply vote the same way they always voted because it was good then and has to be good now.

      Most can't even imagine a third party, let alone vote for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:I am shocked! by daath93 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Shamelessly stolen from The Council on Foreign Relations

      “Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

      The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

      Authority to Detain

      The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

      Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

      Detainee Rights

      All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

      The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.

    14. Re:I am shocked! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They also warned us against foreign entanglements but we stopped listening to that particular piece of advice a long time ago. Now we have a standing army and military-industrial complex that sucks up a large portion of our GDP while giving a large percentage of the world ample reason to hate us.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    15. Re:I am shocked! by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      there are no criminals only potential terrorists.

      first time through I read that wrong

      there are no criminals only potential tourists.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    16. Re:I am shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Barack Obama has done precisely squat to reverse Bush's mistakes.

      In fact, he has done something to reverse the mistakes of him who sucked the dvil's cock. And swallowed.

      In the Reno DoJ, the principle was, "In the case of a FOIA request, absent a national security issue, disgorge the information."

      Following the orders of Bush, the lickspittle Ashcroft (he who couldn't win a political race against a dead man) turned that policy on his head and changed it to, "In the case of a FOIA request, absent a court order, withhold the information."

      On his first day in office, Obama reversed the policy back to the Clinton interpretation. Almost that far, but not quite.

      Bush and his cronies spat directly into the face of the American citizen in nearly all their re-interpretations of Constitutional rights. It may take a while, but I believe Obama will eventually restore a lot of it to its intended effect, instead of using the document as nothing beyond asswipe.

    17. Re:I am shocked! by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nice strawman. There is a lot of things Obama is getting wrong. Mostly he's not doing enough to reverse a lot of stupid shit that Bush put in place. I just get sick of ignorant people calling the man a socialist, when it's obvious they don't even know what the word means. Half of these dolts use the terms socialism and communism as if they meant the same thing.

      I never called you un-American, I just gave you an example of the countries that actually have a flat tax. In the market place of countries, you have options.

      As for my 'day of reckoning', is that the day that all of you libertarian hacks are going to abandon all supposed principles and vote for a bunch of Republicans yet again? Or maybe you'll support some 3rd party candidates like Doug Hoffman. Good luck.

    18. Re:I am shocked! by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      The President is the President, but there's a huge number of people pressuring congress to do things that aren't wise. The same idiots that thought that these policies were a good idea in the general populace are still there. And they're still fighting tooth and nail against any effort to make the country a better place, even against their own self interest. Sure that doesn't make it OK, but it's overly simplistic to assume that the people that were putting pressure on candidates to keep up these unwise policies have suddenly gone into hiding.

    19. Re:I am shocked! by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is anything the founding fathers said sacred anymore? We were also warned about maintaining public credit and the dangers of political parties, but obviously we ignored those warnings too.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    20. Re:I am shocked! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is anything the founding fathers said sacred anymore?

      Should it be? Why not debate issues themselves instead of wasting time reinterpreting what some guys though about the issue a couple of hundred years ago in situations that were very different to those we live in today?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    21. Re:I am shocked! by twiddlingbits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because good common sense about Government and it's role doesn't change with the times. You have to realize that they wrote with a sense of history that had seen a lot of nations rise and fall for many of the reasons they rail against. We seem to have forgotten those lessons of history all of a sudden.

    22. Re:I am shocked! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was much easier, relatively speaking, for the United States to conceive of avoiding foreign entanglements at the end of the 18th century than it was to become even by the time of the Civil War. By WWI, the US's economic interests were so broad that the notion of avoiding entanglements became practically meaningless (the US entered WWI because of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, which was a direct threat to US interests). By WWII, the notion that the US could hold itself above the ever-growing fray become utterly untenable. Does anybody for a moment believe that the US national interest would have been served by a fascist alliance of powers that covered much of the Old World? How long would the US as it stood have survived such a thing? Then came the Soviets, which were a direct threat in every possible way to the United States.

      To be honest, I'm not even really all that sure that Washington's warning meant all that much in the 18th century. I understand where he was coming from, to be sure, and I think everyone sort of had this vision of the United States as a peaceful trading power, a sort of politically liberalized version of Great Britain. But it was simply an untenable notion in a world rapidly shrinking and with empires falling and being formed and the old order collapsing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:I am shocked! by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RIghts to choose health care option under attack. RIght to keep our hard earned money under attack for increased federal debt. Private Enterprise under attack from TARP and limits on pay.

      Uh. You might as well claim a "right to being rich" under attack. I mean, there's no universal accepted notion of economic rights, and the very nature of these rights is that if you gain any of these so called "rights", somebody else has to pay for it.

      Take your health care example. Right to choose health care option, or right to health care? I think only in the USA would anybody think the former is a God given right, while the latter is an evil communist idea.

      Note that I'm obviously not an American, and I don't have a stake how the health care in your country is implemented. But I think I speak for many people when I say I'm really perplexed on how some of you guys approach the idea of state run health care.

      I always had the feeling that the argument against the health care reform is like... "the poor people should just die if they get sick" or something like that.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    24. Re:I am shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.

      Careful with that - next you'll be asking for all those thousands of US mercernaries in Afghanistan (who outnumber actually US troops) to wear military uniforms too and prevent civilian casualties. IT would be funny if it didn't make me cry. Or maybe some of those mercernaries in Iraq too, but then, that's apparently not Obama's war, that's no one's war any more ,so let's all pretend it isn't there any more, eh?.
      Blackwater USA, go go go , ra ra ra

      Sorry, P, you're not at fault, but the hypocrisy of the US nitpicking who or who does not merit POW treatment falls on deaf ears after X years of Guantanamo and who knows how many other secret rendition and torture bases across the world.

      http://counterpunch.org/roberts11232009.html is for you all, as you watch your precious "democracy" get its head flushed down the toilet for the final time as it gags on the shit your charming Attorneys General dumped whilst shredding your Constitution for the essentially meaningless trash that they've made it. USA - RIP. Good luck building your new republics, people, it's going to be a rough road, but I think you'll mostly all pull through.

    25. Re:I am shocked! by Jeeeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay you sound like a tape recorder for Fox news. So rather than sensational headlines how about some substantial criticism? Let's look at your points

      -- Gun legislation: I'm not so familiar with this. So how about telling us what legislation has been passed under Obama attacking gun rights? If there has been, can you provide an article giving us the details so we can make a rational judgment about it?

      -- Right to choose your Healthcare: I actually part agree with you here. Forcing people to get healthcare is somewhat questionable.

      -- "Right to keep your hard earned income": Firstly, do you have the right to keep the entirety of your income? I'm pretty sure the government is allowed to tax. That's part of living in a society. Now what I assume you're saying is that debt increases are going to raise your taxes and that you disagree with that. Now as far as increased federal debt goes, it's worth noting that by far the worst culprits when it comes to increasing it have been Bush and Reagan.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png - Note the huge increase under Reagn and Bush I, the decrease under Clinton and the rapid increase under Bush II. Although if you look at it as a fraction of GDP, it's apparent that Bush II was far better than his farther and Reagan. All were far worse than Clinton. Now, there's forecast increase under Obama but then given the economic conditions under which he came to power that isn't so surprising.

      -- TARP: TARP was introduced during the Bush administration. Not sure how you can put the entire blame for that on Obama. I also must disagree that allowing companies to beg for government support is the equivalent of trampling on private enterprise rights. Although the economic wisdom of such a program is questionable.

      -- As for the rights of _Alleged_ Terrorists, what exactly is your problem with giving them a fair trial to determine if they're actually guilty or not? It seems utterly hypocritical to say that giving people the right to a trial is somehow a trampling of your rights.

      "Hell, I'd take Bill Clinton back before I'd let him have another term."
      You say that as if Clinton was terrible. Looking at his record though he oversaw a period of economic boom and debt reduction. Bush II inherited a nation with a newly regained confidence, reduced debt and no major wars. Look what he left Obama.

    26. Re:I am shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like it or not there's multiple precedents for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war.

      The first link is about the execution of the conspirators in the Abraham Lincoln assassination.
      The second link is about German saboteurs from WWII who were executed as spies.

      1. What the fuck does that have to do with enemy combatants?
      2. Those were the first two times military tribunals had ever been convened and they were controversial then.
      Yes, 144 years ago, it was controversial to try non-POWs by the military.

      The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.

      When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.

      This was written in 1949
      Read the last paragraph.

      If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
      International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
      How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?

    27. Re:I am shocked! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Second you prove the case because it says the geneva convention does not recognize terrorist organizations from being protected by ANY RIGHTS.

      Wow. You apparently believe the world will end in 2012 because the Mayan calendar ends there too.
      Never mind that the reason the calendar doesn't say anything about 2013 is the same reason the modern 2009 calendar doesn't say anything about 2010.

      In other words - the geneva convention does NOT say 'terrorist have no rights' it just says they don't get POW rights, which means they get the default set of rights which is that of civilians.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    28. Re:I am shocked! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it's such good advice then why does it matter who said it?

      The desire to have no standing army (and even opposition to a full time police force) contributed largely to support of the 2nd amendment, this is no longer relevant. I'm not saying i'm for/against gun control just that the 2nd amendment was written in completely different circumstances. Concepts such as, social security, workers rights, a standing army, a full time police force, universal education, an agency to control use of highways, etc, were all unneeded back in the 18th century but clearly need government involvement in the 21st.

      To cling to the founding fathers as gods is to ignore 200 years of rational debate, history is the past and applies no more to the present as examples from other countries.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    29. Re:I am shocked! by mpe · · Score: 2, Informative

      How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?

      Also any information obtained by torture is evidence only of what the people carrying out the torture wanted to hear. In terms of what that person may or may not have done it's utterly meaningless. If spouting fiction is required to stop the torture then the person being tortured *will* spout whatever fiction those doing the torture will accept.

    30. Re:I am shocked! by Hubbell · · Score: 3, Informative

      The desire for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government which was overstepping it's bounds was THE reason for support of the 2nd amendment, everything else was just fluff. They had just finished fighting a war for their independence from just such a government and knew that the people NEEDED that ability to keep checks on their government when the time came again for such an event.

    31. Re:I am shocked! by EllisDees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it a lot less? We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're only giving real trials to a handful of the people at Guantanamo, the rest are either getting military tribunals or will rot forever with no charges being brought. We're still getting our phones and email tapped without a warrant. What bad idea of Bush's has Obama actually changed so far?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    32. Re:I am shocked! by j-beda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How hard is it for you to understand that spies are fucking spies and we're not going to sit by and have them use our own laws to fuck us in the ass?

      I think a strong argument can be made that by not using our own laws, legal traditions, and the like, we are doing much more self-damage than could ever have been accomplished by those external malevolent forces. I have seen no evidence that this type of behavior has increased our security in any way at all.

      We seem to be fucking ourselves quite fine without any help from others.

    33. Re:I am shocked! by Cruciform · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "laws of war".

      The only reason war is acceptable is because we've put rules and laws in place that make the wholesale slaughter of "them" justifiable because it was done "humanely".
      Leaders want these rules because it allows them to expend citizens at no cost to themselves.
      Disregard the rules completely, and you have a war that no one wants.

      Shouldn't that be the point?

    34. Re:I am shocked! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.

      They are enemy combatants. Even if they were POWs they would still be considered enemy combatants. We didn't give the POWs we captured in WW2 access to our civilian justice system. We held them until the end of hostilities. The reason that the people in Gitmo didn't get POW status is because they refuse to follow the accepted laws of war. This really isn't that complicated to understand.

      If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).

      International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.

      No, they aren't civilians. You lose your status as a civilian when you pick up a rifle and start shooting at our people. You might want to read about what happened to the German troops during the Battle of the Bulge that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms. By violating the laws of war they forfeited their right to POW status and were subject to summary execution upon capture. Perhaps we should have just done that to these Al Quada types and made the whole point of holding them moot. I would happily volunteer to put a bullet in KSM's head. I suspect many other Americans would do the same.

      How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?

      Who was talking about torture? I'm talking about holding them. I find torture to be abhorrent but that doesn't mean we can't hold them until the end of hostilities and try them for whatever violations of the laws of war that they may have committed.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. So he's a politician by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and as such is just like pretty much all of the others. The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:So he's a politician by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't vote FOR politicians in this country; we vote AGAINST "the other guy", and are left to deal with the results.

      Could anyone here have honestly voted for McCain with Palin on the ticket as well?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:So he's a politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.

    3. Re:So he's a politician by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Says the anonymous coward.

      Fitting I suppose.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:So he's a politician by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

      Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.

      Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.

      Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.

      The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.

      Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.

      But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.

    5. Re:So he's a politician by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I voted McCain. Palin's a bit of a goofball and McCain's ... even more so, but at least he's been in the legislature. But Obama is a thug. Sure, he's done a few decent things, and a few partisan things which you'll either love or hate, but I can't respect an administration that thinks that they're "speaking truth to power" when they diss their political opponents in the media (Fox). Sorry, you are the power, and you're speaking power, even if Fox is a bunch of doofuses. Honestly, what is this, the Ministry of Truth? Then there's the GM bondholders who got screwed in favor of the auto unions because of the administration's strongarming -- you know, a lot of other people had retirement funds with GM bonds too.

      I don't care about the policies half so much as about the Chicago-style politics. Don't tell me this was the "change" America was looking for.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    6. Re:So he's a politician by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

      Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.

      Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.

      Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.

      The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.

      Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.

      But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.

      Hmmm, using that logic we could also clear Bush of many of the accusations layed on him.Thus, it must be false logic.

    7. Re:So he's a politician by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I voted for McCain because of Palin.

      What about it?

    8. Re:So he's a politician by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What's a thug? Somebody who uses violence and intimidation to get his way. (In the case of politics, it's not necessarily physical violence.) Things like flag@whitehouse.gov and the "Fox news are partisan hacks!!" and the "Rush Limbaugh is a partisan hack!!" and such diversions from the white house press office. If administration bullying doesn't count for some reason, look back to April and Obama's remarks to Rep. DeFazio (a Democrat who voted against the stimulus): "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

      Now hurry up and mod me Troll again, you partisan hacks.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    9. Re:So he's a politician by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could anyone here have honestly voted for McCain with Palin on the ticket as well?

      I did. While I'm sure this locks in my nomination for the Slashdotter special needs award, it remains that McCain and Palin, while they talk scary, were more consistent and trustworthy than the Democrat team. Obama had already backtracked on promises ("positions" he calls them) particularly FISA and was throwing out promises that simply didn't make sense (we'll reduce health care costs by increasing costs through adding universal health care), hung around associates that made the Republican team look like a paragon of sanity, and had some Big Plans that would involve gutting the US economy for some sort of nebulous socialist gain.

      Well, all I can say is that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have not disappointed me. We may be in the "death spiral" of US history, but at least we're protected from the perils of incandescent light bulbs.

    10. Re:So he's a politician by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Fox news are partisan hacks!!" and the "Rush Limbaugh is a partisan hack!!"

      Well when he's right, he's right.

      "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

      All politicians keep score.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:So he's a politician by DigMarx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's an alternative: emigrate. That's what I did. Haven't looked back. To hell with the false dichotomy that is US politics. To hell with platitude-quoting sub-intellectual pundits and the morons who follow them. Here's one rat who realized the ship was sinking.

    12. Re:So he's a politician by ktappe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmm, using that logic we could also clear Bush of many of the accusations layed on him.Thus, it must be false logic.

      If you don't see a difference between Obama's team objecting to disallowing a mouse scroll and Bush going before the world claiming there were absolutely WMD's in Iraq, then there is no hope of anyone ever talking any shred of logic to or with you.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    13. Re:So he's a politician by rlp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see. Violence and intimidation. Minus the violence...

      Tell that to Kenneth Gladney who got beat up by Obama's SEIU pals.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    14. Re:So he's a politician by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I voted for Obama because of Palin. I figure that with the stresses of Presidency, there would have been an 85% chance of McCain having to be hospitalized while in office for an extended period of time, and a not insignificant chance of him dying from a heart attack, stroke, or other catastrophe. With Obama, the worst case is a small chance of getting shot by a white supremacist or something. So weighing a small chance of Biden as President versus an 85% chance of Palin as President, I made the only choice that didn't feel like Russian roulette.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:So he's a politician by iceborer · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's why I voted for Cthulhu. Why vote for the lesser evil?

    16. Re:So he's a politician by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative

      The focus on Rush Limbaugh is absurd. I know why the Democrats are doing it -- it's great for fund-raising and riling up the base -- but it completely misses the point. If you listen to the White House political hacks you'd think that Rush Limbaugh speaks for the entire Republican Party.

      Does he now? Rush Limbaugh and his ilk couldn't even keep John McCain from winning the South Carolina primary. If they don't have the power to prevent a candidate that they despise from winning in the reddest of the red states then you'll forgive me for rolling my eyes when the Democrats attempt to link every single Republican to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:So he's a politician by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here, Obama is pretty much giving the finger to his supporters who expected him to respect civil liberties.)

      Nobody with half a brain should have expected that Obama would respect civil liberties. This is the guy whose own platform called for the ban of so-called "assault weapons". It was on his campaign webpage and it was on the White House's webpage until they took it down. I don't see how you can claim to support civil liberties while simultaneously seeking to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of every law abiding American citizen.

      Guns aren't your thing? Well, there's always his chickenshit reversal on FISA to consider.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:So he's a politician by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how about respecting the established bankruptcy code rather than the Executive Branch picking winners and losers? If the bankruptcy code had been followed the union contracts would have been voided and the secured creditors (i.e: bondholders) would have come before them when it came time to split up the remaining assets.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:So he's a politician by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's a thug? Somebody who uses violence and intimidation to get his way. (In the case of politics, it's not necessarily physical violence.) Things like flag@whitehouse.gov and the "Fox news are partisan hacks!!" and the "Rush Limbaugh is a partisan hack!!" and such diversions from the white house press office. If administration bullying doesn't count for some reason, look back to April and Obama's remarks to Rep. DeFazio (a Democrat who voted against the stimulus): "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."

      Now hurry up and mod me Troll again, you partisan hacks.

      The right wing has fought dirty in this manner for decades now. Finally a democratic administration manages to fumble the same boxing gloves onto their hands and you proclaim it heresy, as if it's something new and savage.

      The right was the one which chose to go below the belt. The democrats tried to play it "honorably" for decades and continued to lose big. I still don't think they're doing nearly as good a job as republicans at playing dirty with political traps, fallacy, selective truth, and outright fabrication, but even standing up and saying "just wait one second!" is a start.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  3. Pay closer attention. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pay attention closer next time. Obama wasn't saying "change", he was saying "chains."

    1. Re:Pay closer attention. by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More to the point, his slogan was "Change you can believe in," not "Change you're going to like."

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  4. Fr0st Pist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.

    Screw investing in gold - invest in lead and brass....

    1. Re:Fr0st Pist by youngone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that's quite right. I think that the US political parties' goal is actually to help American corporate interests. After all thats where most of their campaign money comes from isn't it? I don't think the citizens are really thought about much by those in charge.

  5. You sound like you're surprised by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:You sound like you're surprised by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:You sound like you're surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're not much of a two party system when lobbyists buy up both sides of the aisle. More of a one-party system that swings between the radical and not so radical wings.

    3. Re:You sound like you're surprised by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.

      It's because I had something bad to say about The Anointed One.

      See? Got modded down again.

      Perhaps because talking about John Ashcroft is a wee bit off topic?

      Also, the last post was a troll, pure and simple. No one, that I know of at least, thinks Obama is "anointed" or any such crap, and most everyone I know is pretty far left. Actually, the further left you are, the more disappointed with Obama you probably are. Most people probably only voted for Obama because they were sick of the right, and deathly afraid of McCain/Palin, and not because he is some special super-politician who can save us from all our ills.

      In regards to your first post, it perhaps shouldn't be modded as a troll, but perhaps as "woohoo cliche hip cynicism!" Your vote as an individual counts as much as anyone else's, no, it will never actually count beyond your actual worth though. Now if you organized like minded people, and worked to convince others that your opinion was worthy, then that WOULD count more. But just whinging that your vote doesn't count because a majority of voters don't share your opinion and voted otherwise, thats just silly. The problem with America is that everyone's vote counts, and a vast majority of American's are uninformed idiots, or rabidly idealistic and naive. And worse, everyone "knows better" than everyone else, and would like to impose their views on the rest of us "for their own good".

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    4. Re:You sound like you're surprised by aplusjimages · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what upsets me more is that people defend politicians. When did this become okay? It sickens me when people talk politics and then it turns into a "your guy did this" "well he did it because". Fuck that. Never defend a politician. It's gross. And should be against the law. If the guy I voted for won, I would rag on his ass every day and I would call out all the dumb shit he did and totally ignore the good shit he did because it's his job. Let's get politicians scared of citizens.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    5. Re:You sound like you're surprised by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the guy I voted for won, I would rag on his ass every day and I would call out all the dumb shit he did and totally ignore the good shit he did because it's his job. Let's get politicians scared of citizens.

      If you had your way I imagine no one in their right mind would then go into politics. Under your solution - treat someone like dirt whether or not they do a good job - there is no longer an incentive to do a good job. Though it's hard to imagine, I think things would get much much worse. Only the scum of the earth would do the job and they'd find every possible way to benefit from the "ungrateful citizens". Even moreso than now.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  6. Okay, that's enough. by adpe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I liked him when he ran for president. Then he failed closing gitmo, didn't manage to push healthcare through, and I kinda attribted that to "circumstances", like FOX "News". But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this. I'm utterly disappointed.

    1. Re:Okay, that's enough. by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When Obama was running for president, I looked at (but did not agree with most of) what he was saying he was going to do, and I thought, "Yeah, right. That's what he says now, and I believe he probably wants to do most of what he says he will do, and some of it is largely BS to satisfy the wingnuts at moveon.org, but after he's elected, a lot of his suporters - especially the ones in the wingnut gallery - are going to find themselves rather disappointed."

      Setting aside the BS factor of stuff he probably never intended to do, or reasonably believed he would be unable to do, there's a lot that he did intend to do that hasn't happened. Mostly, that's a good thing. He'll probably get his way on healthcare reform, but unfortunately, the health care reform we're going to get is going to be at least as screwed up as what we have now. Probably worse, and certainly more expensive. Start with the fact that the biggest problem in health care is the need for tort reform. It doesn't do that. It does contain (if it doesn't get squished in committee) the idea that people will be compelled to buy health insurance whether they want it or not, and could be jailed if they don't.

      And then there are things like the topic of TFA. Jailing people for not buying health insurance and trying to keep over-broad search powers goes against one area where - because I'm a conservative - I did agree with Obama: more open and transparent government. I didn't believe he'd follow through on that. To some extent he has, to his credit, but not nearly enough. Government needs to be transparent, open, strictly limited in its powers, and _small_.

      There's a reason why the 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The authors knew perfectly well that not only is government not the answer, but that it tends to be the problem and that the problem will always try to make itself grow larger and to accumulate more power.

      I think we'll find, after four years, that Obama has done what most other predidents - especially recent ones - have done: failed to do much of the good he intended to do, failed to do much of the good that he didn't plan but could have done opportunistically, and failed to avoid doing much of the harm that he should have avoided doing. The measure of success of a president today is largely whether he harmed the country less than his predecessor harmed it.

      We're screwed.

      P.S. Why shouldn't you discuss those things in detail? Do you think he's somehow beneath you because you disagree with each other? That's one of the reasons the country is so screwed up today - people on all sides refusing to even talk with people on other sides because they believe that no one else could possibly be right, or even have valid opinions, or even be entitled to a voice in the debate. So many people - whether left, right, or whatever, want absolutely no dissent from their ideas to be tolerated.

      I'll say something that may be unusual for a conservative: I didn't vote for Obama, wouldn't if he were running today, and oppose his positions on a lot of issues. However, now that he's president, for the good of the nation, I want him to be the best president he can be, and do a good job. Compare that to the left-threaded wingnuts who so wanted Bush to fail at everything he attempted that they didn't care if it harmed the entire nation, just so long as it harmed Bush, or the right-threaded wingnuts who are exactly the same about Obama. Sadly, my perception is that most people on both sides tend to be of the (left|right)-threaded wingnut variety rather than of the loyal-opposition-who-can-reasonably-respectfully-disagree variety.

    2. Re:Okay, that's enough. by adpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well yes, I did bother to read why. It's just completely wrong. Every other country competing with China has signed it, only the US thinks it would put them in some kind of disadvantage. In fact, if the US set some CO2 goals, the entire international pressure would be on china, forcing them to act. But still, this is more or less a matter of opinions. I can see why people think a CO2 reduction promise would be a huge mistake, but I don't agree.

      The healtcare bill that is now underway (well, somewhat at least) isn't even *close* to what was promised. It's a watered-down bill, just good enough that republicans can say they stopped the worst and Obama can say he passed a bill.

      The rest of the issues I mention you seem to agree with me. I know it's partisanship that's stopping the gitmo closing, but still, he didn't deliver, even with all kinds of majorities in all kinds of houses. Not a word about landmines from you, you agree on thr PATRIOT Act and the computer privacy thing. And you still accuse me of complaining all the time and being ignorant. You might want to check what you're getting so worked up about. We agree on most things, have minor differences on healthcare and some different opinions on CO2, that's really not that bad.

    3. Re:Okay, that's enough. by richieb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sigh! Obama is the President, not a freaking Emperor. The President's power is limited - as it should be. Somehow U.S. citizens don't understand how their government works. Laws and money are handled by Congress. The President can propose things (including budgets) but Congress is free to ignore him.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    4. Re:Okay, that's enough. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would have been interesting to post that exact same comment here two years ago, substituting only the word "Obama" for the word "Bush".

      The difference is how checks and balances work. It should be easy for the president to make something not happen. Clinton did that with the budget. He made the government shut down because Congress wouldn't give him a budget he liked. He made the government not happen. And there was nothing Congress could do, other than whine about how it was Clinton's fault they couldn't add numbers on a piece of paper. (that's an example and in no way support or condemnation of the act, but a clear example of the President making something not happen)

      Go to Obama. He can write legislation and submit it. The Office of the President does that all the time. But someone in Congress has to take it and run with it, or it's toilet paper. Obama can't "do" much, but he can stop things from happening. He's stopping some things slowly. He's not stopping others now. The few things he can do, like treaties, are a legitimate point. But he can't pass health care. He can propose, he can sign, but he's out of it for everything in the middle.

      Then, to Bush in the middle. He could have not invaded Iraq based on lies. He could have told the Executive to not revoke civil rights. He could have reigned in government power or stopped many things people complain about. He didn't. He helped them to happen.

      The difference in that statement now and before is that Bush could have stopped things people wanted stopped, and didn't. Obama can't make some things happen he promised, and he's not getting Congress to live up to his promises. Whether he is trying or not is what should be the issue. If he's putting up a light fight for a show, the he should be condemned. If he's doing all he can and Congress is fighting him (and that would be his own party, as they have the majority), then it's a Democratic Party issue where they got a president elected and abandoned him.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  7. translation loud and clear by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.

    What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".

    That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows. From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy. I accept mistakes. The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons. That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.

    It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.

  8. 2 Party by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some would argue that since we get the same basic results from either party, we really have a one party system and its all smoke and mirrors between the 2.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. Asinine example by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government said the decision was already chilling at least one rape case in Washington State.

    "Federal agents received information from their counterparts in San Diego that two individuals had filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and traded the images via the internet," the government wrote. "The agents did not obtain a warrant to search the suspects' computers, however, because of concerns that any evidence discovered about other potential victims could not be disclosed by the filter team. The agents therefore referred the case to state authorities."

    So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Asinine example by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nonsense. There's a pretty distinct difference between stumbling across evidence while serving a warrant and going beyond the scope of a warrant to see if there's any other crimes you can uncover.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    2. Re:Asinine example by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There needs to be some method of having a firewall where you can have an independent group of investigators go through the siezed evidence and produce a report. Then a judge screens that report before it is handed to the primary team prosecuting the crime. The two groups otherwise don't communicate.

      Then if they get a warrant for more info from the original source they can go back and ask for more data. There would be no "fruit of the poisoned tree" or anything like that since nobody on the team requesting the warrant was able to see the original evidence.

      Kind of like the approach used to reverse engineer an interface without fear of some kind of trade secrets claim - the group taking apart the product doesn't have any interaction with the group building an interface to it, aside from a few well-written sets of specifications that are carefully preserved in case there is a lawsuit to show that they are above board.

      Companies do this sort of thing when suing each other all the time. Company A wants to look at company B's files to show they're doing something wrong. Since they're competitors they just agree on a 3rd party who looks at everything and reports on whether the claim has merit. They're otherwise sworn to secrecy.

  10. Eh by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched. If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards. Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.

    This is very relevant. What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything? Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house. If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with. Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"

    Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax. If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database! Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.

    And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win". The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a % of population. Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave. (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)

  11. from TFA by dnwq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The circuit’s ruling came in a case that dates to 2004, when federal prosecutors probing a Northern California steroid ring obtained warrants to seize the results of urine samples of 10 pro baseball players at a Long Beach, California drug-testing facility. The players had been tested as part of a voluntary drug-deterrence program implemented by Major League Baseball.

    Federal agents serving the search warrant on the Comprehensive Drug Testing lab wound up making a copy of a directory containing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with results of every player that was tested in the program. Then, back in the office, they scrolled freely through the spreadsheet, ultimately noting the names of all 104 players who tested positive.

    The government argued that the information was lawfully found in “plain sight,” just like marijuana being discovered on a dining room table during a court-authorized weapons search of a home. But the court noted that the agents actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet to peek at all the players test results, when they could easily have selected, copied and pasted only the rows listing the players named in the search warrant.

    This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?

  12. The obsession with more government power by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the current government want so far:

    • Increased government regulation of health care.
    • Increased government regulation of internet traffic.
    • Increased government regulation of aired political opinion through the Fairness Doctrine.
    • Wiretaps without warrants, a Bush policy.
    • Increased search-and-seizure powers.

    The current government is so power-crazy that it's become suicidal in its attempts to speed through legislation over half the country opposes, regardless of how it's going to affect the 2010 elections. You'd think they'd take their foot off the pedal and slow down a bit to address the #1 issue voters have right now, unemployment.

    1. Re:The obsession with more government power by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go research the New Deal and how many people the gov't employed in the 30's to ease the depression,

      None of which actually worked. The economy didn't really recover until the US entered WW2, pulling millions of men out of the job market and putting them in uniform. The post-war boom owed more to the fact that the rest of the world laid in ruins while the US infrastructure and economy was virtually untouched.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:The obsession with more government power by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Didn't really help a lot 'til WW2. So essentially we'd need another war... Oh wait, no doesn't work. We already have two and still nothing gets better.

      Damn, the old tricks don't work anymore. Guess their solution is to start a few more wars. I mean, it was good in earlier days and, well, given inflation, you probably just need MORE.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:The obsession with more government power by ukyoCE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is network neutrality supposed to be scary?

      Media-ownership caps so that a small handful of corporations aren't controlling broadcast news?

      Kind of like how if we had limited the size of big banks (and their insurers), we might have been able to let capitalism run its course instead of Bush and Obama having to bail them out for being "too big"?

      Public broadcasting is scary? Do PBS, NPR, and the BBC make you quake in your boots? Seriously?

      Minority ownership sounds like racism, maybe thats the one you think is scary?

  13. Funny... by Schnoogs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...if Bush had done this people would be reacting differently. Hope and Change is a joke.

  14. transparency as advertised by hort_wort · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hasn't he been saying that he's into transparency this whole time? What? Did you guys think it was a one way street? We're lucky there aren't webcams in all our bathrooms.

  15. Hope/Change? by jwiegley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.

    Well, you all voted for change...

    Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.

    When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    1. Re:Hope/Change? by Atario · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

      Why the backpedal? If government is inherently bad, then it can't be needed at all.

      Unless, that is, somewhere deep down, you do realize that statement is ludicrous. If we can use government to maintain civilization, then we can use it to improve daily life, prevent injustice, and all the other stuff that would make things better.

      In short, when your computer is infected with malware, the solution is not to just stop using computers, it's to clean the computer up.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    2. Re:Hope/Change? by TheEyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I am heartily sick of hearing that lazy mantra of the Baby Boomer generation. "When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt." Back in the '60s this was followed by, "All you need is love, man." By the 80s it became "Just trust the corporations. Deregulate everything, and the free market will take care of us." By 2000 it was, "All you need is God."

      What the Boomers keep failing to understand is that government is not, and never has been, "The Man," some strange group controlled by an alien entity. Government is nothing more or less than the sum of its parts, namely the people who work to create and maintain it. In this country we happen to be blessed with a Democratic Republic, which means that group of people is everyone in the country. Everyone gets to participate, by running for office, by volunteering for a campaign or a cause, by discussing the issues with friends and family and coworkers, by voting.

      The problem isn't that government is run by someone else, it's that the Boomers, our parents and grandparents, sold their participation, and continue selling their participation, for the dollars and promises of corporations. These corporations have turned around and used those votes to build a government that responds to their needs. This has the unfortunate result of giving us a government that doesn't respond to our needs, which only makes sense because we're not the ones with the votes anymore.

      We CAN fix this, but we're not going to do it by staying in our parents' indolent fantasy land, and pretending that we can keep selling our votes every year and government will just go away if we ignore it enough. We have to stop selling our participation every election, and get out there and make the changes that we need. And we have to do it quickly: the EU and Japan and the BRIC nations aren't suffering from the same government-phobia that we are, and are poised to toss us into the dustbin of history.

  16. Revolutions change things... by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... but only for a while until the money-changers sneak back into the temple. That's why you have to have them periodically, like defragging and virus-scanning your hard drive. We seem to have fallen behind on the schedule... we haven't had a decent game-changing revolution in a while, have we? Now we have a bunch of people muttering "let them eat cake" again. Does anyone still know how to make guillotines? We'll need quite a few this time.

    1. Re:Revolutions change things... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, let's look at two of the biggest revolutions in the (more or less) recent history, the French one from 1789 and the Russian one from 1917. In both cases you see that you need two things for such a feat to work: People who are willing to fight and if necessary die for their conviction, actually not just "some" people but a sizable portion of the population. And second, you need the support of the army, or at the very least you need them to hold still and ignore orders to shoot you.

      I doubt we'll get to see either of those two happen any time soon.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. We need more discipline in public office by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission. For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power. I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning. That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under. They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer. This is how the U.S. Revolution began!

    The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists. And yes, I said it. Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.

  18. Re:Snide comments expected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a steaming pile of AC crap that is.

    In my experience, it is much more likely that posts of a left wing perspective will be modded down.

    Back before the Iraq war, when I was repeatedly
    warning that the US govt was lying about WMD, I was modded down so much I had to create a new UID.

    The feeling watching a war based on lies unfold was incredibly frustrating.

  19. Shocking: another legal issue beyond Slashdot by KiahZero · · Score: 2, Informative

    Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.

    I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:

    http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml

    --
    I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  20. Misleading Story by angelbunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.

    It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?

    I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.

    1. Re:Misleading Story by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General.

      She works for him. The actions of underlings reflect on the president just as they do for any previous president.

    2. Re:Misleading Story by unix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?

      Help me out here.

      How is a public official (appointed, elected or otherwise) is "just doing her job" by coming out and publicly asking the courts to rule against the Constitution of the United States that the said public official took an oath to support?

      Let me see - article VI, clause 3:

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      In fact, the Constitution provides that if you violate that oath you have to be removed from office and can never be elected or serve any public office ever again (unless you can get 2/3 congress' support).

      So, we have media and politicians up in arms about some guy who is sharing a couple of hundred songs (which nobody wants to buy or sell anymore) who has to pay $150,000 or some outrageous number per file, plus serve XX number of years in federal prison. But on the other hand we have elected public officials (or those appointed by elected public officials), who have taken the Oath of Affirmation to support the Constitution, taking 30% of all of our income in taxes, wasting our money on needless "projects", accumulating our national debt to where most of them can't even count anymore, "bailing out" their billionaire buddies, and most importantly, spend nearly every day of their elected/appointed life not only failing to support, but publicly renouncing and fighting against the very constitution that got them elected/appointed and that they took the oath to support?

      And we just collectively say - oh, they are "just doing [their] job" and move on to more important stuff, like watching another episode of Kardiashians? +5 Insightful? This is why nothing will ever "change."

  21. Misleading headline by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suppose, just for completeness, somebody ought to point out that the headline says "Obama" wants the ruling overturned, whereas the actual text states, correctly, that it is Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, who wants the ruling overturned. While it is true that Kagan was appointed by Obama, nevertheless I expect that Obama himself probably has never actually given an opinion on the subject.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Misleading headline by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By not contradicting his appointee's position, he's supporting it.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    2. Re:Misleading headline by reilwin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By not contradicting his appointee's position, he's supporting it.

      That depends on whether he's even aware of what's happening. He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.

    3. Re:Misleading headline by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.

      Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Misleading headline by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it isn't like Bush personally performed warrantless searches on drug dealers under the Patriot Act. However, he can still be held accountable for the actions of his administration. The president sets the tone for the administration, and if he really wanted to send a message that stuff like this was not acceptable he could do so.

      The president can't be in all places in all times. However, he governs the largest budget on the entire planet, which means he can hire people to be in places for him. This subordinate was one of those people, and the people he chooses reflect on him...

    5. Re:Misleading headline by Robert+Bowles · · Score: 2, Funny

      And both of you have a speech fimpediment.

      There. Fixed that for you.

      --
      /* MAGIC THEATRE
      ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
      MADMEN ONLY */
    6. Re:Misleading headline by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's an poor excuse. Policy decisions orginate in the Oval Office from the President and his inner council such as Chief of Staff. Then the various departments are charged to execute the policy in the areas they are responsible for. Obama may not know the details of the methods but he does know that his policies are being followed. If he doesn't know what is going on in his Government in context of his policies then he's even dumber than the "dumb" GWB everyone made fun of for years. If this had been GWB you would have been ready to impeach him, but the "Great One" gets excuses made for the same actions.

  22. Re:Stimulus Plans (Re:Hope/Change?) by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm, we pretty much are at 20% unemployment:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009

    17.5%. And getting closer every day. The stimulus spending is stealing future wealth to produce fake wealth today. It's stealing real savings today (which creates real wealth and investment) to produce fake wealth tomorrow.

  23. In fact here's the whole quote, in context. by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Informative

    "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

    Read the whole thing for yourself, or watch the footage. It was all about the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Nothing he said there was even remotely in support of socialism.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html

  24. Re:Stimulus Plans (Re:Hope/Change?) by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am absolutely certain you don't understand quantum mechanics. This leads me to believe you also don't understand economics.

  25. That does it. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Funny

    im dropping my support for obama.

    --
    Read radical news here