Slashdot Mirror
Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
The EFF is trumpeting a victory in a case in which it and the ACLU filed an amicus brief. "The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search warrant. ... The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a search warrant based on probable cause. ...the court noted: 'When it comes to privacy... the whole may be more revealing than its parts.'"
And they'll just tail you night and day, just as if they had a GPS on your car, and they won't need a warrant.
How is this about my online rights, exactly?
What happens if you find such a device on your car? Sure, you can call the police because there's a suspicious item on your car (which may be dangerous!! what if it exploded?) but do you think they would say something like "oh no, that's ours!" -- or could they tell you to leave it there?
What happens when you run a packet dump and notice a government spyware program? whee! ...
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I was hoping i could play spot the gps tracker with my friends, or also my other favorite, Who wants to faraday the bottom of their car!?
Go EFF!
Just wait until more electric cars are on the road requiring some type of toll or other form of tracking so that people can be sent "use taxes/road taxes" since folks aren't fueling up with liquid fuels that are normally taxed for this purpose. Then if they want to know where you've been, it's just a sopeana away. Or more than likely, the laws will be written to where all law enforcement has to do is file a request of information.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Lets see how this goes on appeal.
This is the kind of issue that winds up before the supreme court. It is simple, and obvious, but somebody is going to argue it to their last breath.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
You've noticed that Bush is out of office now, right? The new guy hasn't exactly shut down attempts to spy on us. He also supports Bush's warrantless wiretapping policy, one of Bush's most constitutionally questionable decisions.
Revive the Constitution.
So who, exactly, wanted to assert this right ? Names, please, not agencies.
Huh? Where are the Democrats fighting for privacy? This isn't aisle issue, it's an establishment issue. They all support warrantless wiretapping and every other form of privacy intrusion.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Don't use logic on these people. It'll fail every time.
The bottom line is that for as "liberal" as Obama is coming off it makes me wonder how fucked we really are. the Tea Party has too much NeoCon blood in it to bring the GOP back around. The love affair continues on with the current idiot in the Whitehouse... Civil rights abuses are going to be winked at for generations if something isn't done in the next 2 or 3 election cycles.
We're really fucked.
I think the point is that, during the Bush years, democrats were loading bemoaning Bush's wiretapping plans and whatnot, with the implicit idea that they wouldn't have done the same in his place. Now that it's happening, they're revealed as a bunch of hypocrits.
Not that this surprises me in the slightest mind you.
Then ride a bicycle.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
They're still bamboozled and think that "change" meant change as in "different".
They still think that democrats are different than republicans in some way.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
IANAL, but I keep an eye on this stuff. In many jurisdictions you can't get a search warrant in order to put a GPS on a car, because a search warrant typically requires "probable cause" to think that a specific, specified crime has been committed, and that evidence of that crime is probable to be found in a search. The warrant then specifically must list what the police are searching for, and where they are allowed to search. There are few cases where the GPS is likely to turn up proof of a specific crime.
The problem with GPS tracking is that it's typically used more for intellegence/surveilance type stuff. You do this before you get a warrant, in order to get enough probable cause to do a search.
In many jurisdictions police use GPS at their own discrection because they see it as equivalent to tailing, but also because they can't get a warrant. Most police are actually pretty good about getting warrants before doing stuff when they can; there's no reason not to, and it makes a case stronger.
And a similar point could be made of right-wingers. As long as it was a right-wing administration they were just fine with warrantless wiretapping. Now? They're outraged!
What it really exposes is that partisans are hypocrites regardless of party or ideology.
I think your complaint is driven by paranoia.
First off, we're giving massive tax rebates for buying one of those, and for good reason. They eliminate almost all of the bad things that gasoline combustion causes. Which obviates the need for gasoline taxes, which will still apply to those who drive gasoline vehicles. We'll raise the taxes on them and force them into electric vehicles.
Second, it's much more efficient when the time comes simply to slap a bigger tax on registering a vehicle.
Third, it isn't illegal for the government to collect information about you. It's illegal for law enforcement to pry into information about you when it doesn't have probable cause that you are committing a crime. No matter who has the information or how it was collected.
Because YOUR CELL PHONE can be tracked !!!!!
Yours In Astrakhan,
K. Trout
>>>You've noticed that Bush is out of office now, right?
Yeah I know. In fact the idea to track us via GPS or our cellphones didn't come from Bush. It came from Obama who is just as bad.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Bush right wing? He's not as left as Obama but he's pretty close. You're just confused by the useless (R) next to his name on TV.
it's just a sopeana away.
Look, it's subpoena...or if you insist on using the Americanized form which is so ugly that most Americans don't even use it, subpena.
Sopeana sounds like a Mexican pastry.
Yeah Bush is a right-winger. The idea that bush is 'to the left' or a 'liberal' is an invention of other right wingers as a way to excuse what they supported for 8 years.
Look at the policies Bush supported and tell me with a straight face that any of it was liberal, or left wing. Good luck.
Don't confuse what Obama is doing with what Bush did.
Bush committed a crime by suborning those illegal wiretaps.
Obama is trying to avoid having to prosecute Bush and his administration for that crime, and to avoid having the government sued over what Bush did.
But when it comes right down to it, and he can't avoid it, that's what will happen. And it won't be Obama's fault.
Enjoy your healthcare.
Gas taxes have nothing to do with "the bad things" about gasoline. Gas taxes are what is used to maintain the roads. A large part of the states Transportation budget comes from the revenue collected through gas taxes.
I'm with you 100%
If Bush has a D after his name, yet did everything exactly the same, they would be calling him FDR.
You've noticed that Bush is out of office now, right? The new guy hasn't exactly shut down attempts to spy on us. He also supports Bush's warrantless wiretapping policy, one of Bush's most constitutionally questionable decisions.
WHOOSH
I'm right wing and I was outraged at most of Bushes stuff.
I spoke up plenty.
Who the fuck are you to be talking shit? You don't know the difference between neo-conservatism and conservatism.
THL phish sticks
Freedom of speech and expression ... unless what you have to say is politically incorrect
Freedom of religion ... unless it is within walking distance of 'ground zero'.
Freedom from want ... unless you want your job to stay in this hemisphere.
Freedom from fear ... unless you are afraid of surveillance by those who are swarn to protect your freedom.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
I don't think you understand what the gas tax is used for. It is there to help pay for the maintenance of the roads and highway system, electric cars do not obviate the need for road maintenance. Hijacking it to push a public policy agenda is a mistake I'm not going to get into here (too far off topic). Increasing the registration tax to cover the maintenance needs places a greater portion of the burden on those who don't drive very far compared to the current method, the gas tax is not perfect for this either but those who use the roads more do pay more on average.
As far as the government holding information about you, remember that knowledge can just as easily be used to your detriment as it can to your benefit. As history shows us, trusting the government to always do the right thing doesn't tend to work out so well.
This is why when they asked me this in the survey I said, 'mileage tax' (based on odometer readings every year or so). I can see how taxing based on using certain roads would be an advantage, but is way to open to this kind of abuse.
You had me up until your last argument contradicted itself, otherwise you have very valid points.
Let's say that the government is collecting data on you. They know you bought a huge amount of diesel fuel, say you have some land and had a stump you were going to burn out. A few days later you purchase a large amout of fertilizer for revamping your garden or yard. You don't think some branch of law enforcement would knock on your door?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
An intelligent decision coming from our "Justice" system, I'm shocked. Heres hoping that some higher/appeals court doesn't screw it up. Really, I'm having trouble fathoming how anyone though this was legal by any stretch of the imagination. Trespassing, Stalking, illegal wiretapping (a stretch I know, but if the police can stretch that law to cover up their illegal acts, citizens can use it to protect themselves from overreaching government) are just a few charges I can name off the top of my head. And for the idiots who might say "You're in a public place, you have no right to privacy" I say this, What do you think would happen to a person who started tagging POLICE cars with these devices? That should give you an Idea as to how illegal this is.
+5 Funny AC for making a sopapilla pun.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Think about it. Right now people are taxed @ ~$.20 - $.30 cents a gallon in fuel taxes that in most states is already figured into the list price of the gas at pump. And gasoline taxes don't go to pay for cleaning up the environment. They go to building/maintaining roads (or at least that what the politicos say...whether it does or not is another debate)
Very few people think about the fact that the gallon of gas is really $2.30 plus $.25 in tax. No, they just see $2.55, pump and go. The cost of the tax is hidden to most peoples eyes. So they pay $3 - $5 every time they fill up their tank in taxes x number of times per month without even thinking about it. Probably amounts to $700 - $1000 per driver per year depending on the type of car and number of miles driven.
Well if suddenly you're asking those people to fork over $1000 at one time when they go to register the car, you're going to really piss people off when they see it in one lump sum. Voters won't go for it because suddenly they see it as another big chunk of tax. Yes, they were paying about the same before, but at $5 a pop, they never paid any attention to it before. But when you have to write a check for 4 figures, suddenly people notice.
Hence, if you replace that fuel tax with a "road use tax" via tolls or GPS tracking of how much you drove and split those bills up into a monthly tab at $30 - $50 per month, then people once again start to consider a monthly bill just like their utilities, cell phone, etc. and less as a "tax". Plus this method also gives the government the ability to place a tracking device on your car. The republican voting base likes it because it can be used to track "evil people" (Terrorist/Gangs/Drug Dealers/Child Molesters/Commies/whomeverisevilatthemomet). The Democratic base likes it because it can be used to tax people, especially people driving a lot of miles. Because those electric cars are going to be powered predominately by coal for the next 20 - 25 years.
I volunteered in college for a couple state reps/senators and a US congressmen. And we were having this very same discussion only replace electric cars with natural gas powered cars back then. They did pass a "a natural gas powered car costs you $600 per year to register." Even that was enough of a turn off to keep all but the proponents of such technology from converting their vehicle to propane/LNG.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Why not just tax the odometer mileage when you do the registration?
Left and right are relative positions. There is no objective centre. Rather, pretty much everybody considers themselves central, moderate, and judges everybody else relative to that. From where the AC is sitting, Bush might well have been left-wing. We all pretty much know where Bush was politically, so the posting actually tells us about the AC's position.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
This isn't hard to do with existing technology, GPS not required. Just require drivers to purchase those transmitters and put up readers along the road. Like a toll, it will tell you who drove by what.
In Maine, it was called TransPass for a while now EasyPass which works all the way down to Florida, with some pockets of resistance here and there.
Yes, as alternative fuel cars proliferate, the gas tax won't work. I predict that the government will increasingly tax truckers first, for various reasons. Then the excise tax on alt fuel cars will skyrocket, and eventually you will report your odometer reading and calculate a tax based on that. If you underreport the odometer, you will pay for it when you sell the vehicle. If you scrap the vehicle, you will pay then, or when you buy a replacement. Makes sense, as gas tax is essentially a tax on mileage, though I pay more for my Explorer than you do for your Prius, and I'm not sure the 'damage' I do to the roads is proportionally worse than what you do. Truckers have always paid higher fuel taxes on that premise alone.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Simple registration tax cost based on odometer mileage solves this problem.
Increasing gasoline taxes to reflect its externalities is as close to a free market solution as we can realistically get.
The Obama administration is continuing the practices. Stop apologizing for them. It is not necessary.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Registration can easily be taxed monthly with some months using estimates and other months requiring an odometer reading which is verified come inspection time. Simple enough and no $1000 lump sum fees.
And Obama's policy on wiretaps and surveillance is left-wing? There's not a nickel's worth difference between them. this is not Left v Right, Republicans v Democrats, it is Us v Them.
You're losing this argument.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%, does that sound like W or any recent president?
It's funny. Lately I've heard more and more conservatives make the claim that they were pissed off with Bush, and outraged at what he did, back when he was president. Yet I still retain a memory, and I lived through the Bush administration. Where were you guys when it mattered?
You might be in that 1% group of conservatives that were outraged, but as a majority, right wingers went along with everything Bush did. Bush had screwed up enough by 2004 that he deserved to be voted out, and yet there was no big counter movement in conservative circles against him. I don't remember any tea-party railing against his economically devastating policies.
You should also settle down about people "talking shit" (as if my comment was directed right at you), as you follow it up with a lazy insult pointed directly at me.
Just like members of the right wing of the Republican party has suddenly become fiscal conservatives....
It has nothing to do with being fiscal conservatives, it has to do with where all the borrowed money is being laundered - er, I mean spent.
They are both far right, corporatist is what they are. It is a fringe rightist movement that seeks to blend the corporation and the state into one device ruled for the profit of the wealthy.
Yes. Remember, 'neocon' is a term invented by a leftist, and as a perjorative. No one I consider a Conservative uses that term in any other fashion, and certainly not about themselves. The Left and the uncommitted use it.
You can try and deny it, but the truth is obvious for anyone who cares to look into it. It is a common political tactic to try and define your opposition in either the least-favorable light, or into an untenable position. All sides use it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Obama is proving to be another center-right Democrat. It amuses me hearing Republicans call him a socialist, when his policies look more like what Reagan enacted. His "evil socialist" healthcare plan is basically the Republican health care plan from 1994, that they introduced to counter Clinton's plan.
I'm not sure how I'm losing an argument. I never claimed Obama was a liberal, or left wing... What I did state was that Bush was a right-winger, which he is.
I don't disagree with that assessment. I slammed Bush, so ppl immediately assume I'm a Democratic fanboy. The Republicans and Democrats are both corporatist parties. In other words, fascist. By that I take the meaning that Mussolini gave for fascism: The merging of state and corporate power.
Right now we have no viable alternative. The Teabaggers aren't it. Most of those people are just Republican activists trying to push us even further to the right.
You know what's really asinine about that kind of idea? You could just use the fucking odometer to measure usage and it'd work just fine!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
New Defcon contest: odometer hacks. Plug into the little interface jack under your dash, and viola! Abatement!
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Oh, it's an aisle issue. It's just that the people just haven't elected anyone to stand in their aisle.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I really wish people would start to understand that there's more than one dimension to politics. Who the fuck cares about imaginary "left vs. right" differences; the real concern is that both parties are skewed way too far towards authoritarianism!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Then you will have the latest .torrent being the schematics and workarounds for rolling the clock back on the latest Prius or whatever car is de jour at the time.
Reading the clock on a car is so unreliable that the MOT (roadworthiness test in the UK) certificate has the mileage on it, the V5 (log book or "pink slip") has a section where you can fill in the mileage at sale/transfer of ownership on it.
Trusting tax collection to a device owned and operated, maintained and presented by the person paying tax is just another recipe for tax evasion.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Yeah if anything Obama is doing nothing but continuing the Bush years
Right now we have no viable alternative. The Teabaggers aren't it. Most of those people are just Republican activists trying to push us even further to the right.
Sadly, I have to agree. My local tea party has remained loyal to the original concept of the modern tea parties, which is just to protest government intrusion in general, but many of the larger ones have become extensions of the neocons. Basically, if they create a formal organization or elect a leadership, they're in opposition to the spirit of tea parties. Without any formal leadership, the opportunity for corruption is practically nil; with leadership, practically guaranteed.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
The Republican plan was wrong then, and the Democratic plan is wrong now.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that covering up for someone who did something illegal and failing to reverse the illegal policy is less evil than creating the illegal policy in the first place? I'm not so sure I agree with you there*.
* I'm not saying Obama's policies are more evil than Bush's, but IMHO, continuing an illegal policy simply because you didn't create it is no less evil -- or at best, is only slightly less evil -- than putting such a policy in place.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Ask yourself about all those things 'democrats' have passed lately. When (not if there will be at some future point) there is a different set of people running the show do you trust them?
What can be a 'good power' today can become a corrupt one tomorrow. Do you seriously trust all groups to deal with power in an evenhanded way? This is why you should side with whatever group is against adding more power and scope to the government.
Also 'Enjoy your healthcare' What the extra 800 a month I am going to be paying ontop of my 500 a month insurance premiums? Then on top of the other 13% that I give to the gov already for SS/FICA. Or the fact that I am now required by law to pay a new tax? Yeah I am really going to enjoy giving more money to doctors who drive around in m3 BMW's. For that is what we are arguing about here paying those already rich dudes MORE money. All that and I end up with about the same level of service I have now (oh gooooodie). Mandatory insurance requirements were what got us into this mess in the first place. You somehow think more requirements is going to get us out? Also any bets on how long before that money is 'raided' to pay for some other program then the original one is underfunded? I give it 10 years (and it will be, as many programs are woefully underfunded). Take your check then look at the tax numbers on there and add it up. Then multiply it by half of the number of people in your city. You will then get a scope of they amount of money the government is playing with and saying 'they dont have enough'. Yeah that much... about every other week. Then think about this they spent it so fast they cant even cover what they got getting that amount in.
You should fight tooth and nail to remove powers from the gov not pile them on because you like the current crop of politicos. What happens when the group you dont like is in power? Bitch and moan?
Did Bush overstep his powers? Probably. Then Obama has his back and you support him on this? He *PROMISED* 'change' but instead went on to do more of the same in even more grandiose style. That *WILL* come back to haunt him. People thought they were electing a moderate who would fix things. Instead it was another partisan politico with a slick campaign and is now spending their great grand childs retirement fund. A day of reckoning is coming for the US government when its money is not worth the paper its printed on.
Honestly, what you are seeing coming out of the white house is not leadership right now but damage control. Notice how many things coming out of there are what 'the previous guys did' but not what they are doing? You will see that all the way up until elections in November. They realize how they were elected by 'not being Bush'. That will only go so far. They are trying to catch that lightning bolt again. But people are starting to think 'hey were is that change thought things were supposed to get better'... The house and the senate are up for grabs and Obama knows it. He has been a bully up until now instead of someone bringing change. He will need to learn as Bush and Clinton before him you need to work with us.
How is that different from now?
Odometer hacking would let you increase the value of a car far more than it would let you avoid taxes.
It would also still be a crime.
Odometer tampering would be far more valuable for the purpose of selling a used car. Yet, it seems it rarely occurs.
So the feds need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on a person's car but why bother with the trouble if they could just get your location info from your cell phone company without needing a warrant?
I wonder if it is illegal for a private citizen to plant a GPS tracker on my car. If so, are there specific laws prohibiting tracking devices, or does it fall under some broader statute like trespassing or vandalism or the like.
No, it is simply a shortening of neoconservative. A political philosophy some might not agree with but certainly not solely a pejorative.
You seem to try to use left/leftist in a similar manner without really understanding what you are saying.
I would suggest you remove the log in your eye before attempting to address the speck in they eye of others.
I disagree.
I was conservative until 2004, although I started having misgivings about the Republican party back when Bush Sr. was in office, and changed my official party affiliation from "Republican" to "undeclared". Now that I've established my political preferences (i.e., I'm anything but leftist), let me say that I seriously dislike the modern neocon Republican party.
I always understood the Republicans to be in favor of limited Federal government, small budget, strong state's rights, etc. The modern Republican party is anything but. The last eight years of Republican government have been nothing but a mad power-grab that disillusioned enough people to put Obama and a Democratic Congress in power. Now that they've been in place for two years, what do we have? More of the same (surprise, surprise).
As far as I can tell, the only big difference between the two parties is who pays the campaign finances. With the Republicans, it's the big corporations. With the Democrats, it's the unions. As far as policies, it's pretty much just a matter of "family values" (like abortion and gay rights), gun control and social programs. Republicans tend towards fascism (they seem to want to control what people can and can't do), but are strongly in favor of gun rights, and want to spend less money on social programs. Democrats tend to be more liberal (no pun intended) on what individuals can and can't do, would love to see the U.S. disarmed and want to spend more money on social programs. Ultimately, however, it's pretty much like AVP -- no matter who wins, we (the people) lose.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
All? Dennis Kucinich would beg to differ.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
You talk like the average glenn beck sperm swallowing douchebag. Without further evidence, I can only conclude you are also a liar. "Spoke up plenty". Hah. Slashdot records every comment ever posted, go dig out some of this "spoke up". Until then, you are a liar.
No, they are not.
They are restricting their request to the public portion of internet communications. The routing information, not the payload data. The envelope, not the content.
They may or may not get that. It's reasonable to request it. You can encrypt everything else if you want it to be private, but you yourself have to disclose the addressing information to the machinery, and the machinery is considered public. There is no doctor-patient privilege between you and your ISP.
If you don't like the law, just say it. Don't pretend it's one party's fault just because you don't like that party.
He's not continuing the policy, and he's certainly not covering anything up.
He's defending the nation in a legal matter. As the Chief Executive and the person who appoints the Attorney General, that's his job. Unfortunately, it's a hateful legal matter left behind by a criminal administration. I'd prefer that his first order in office were to prosecute every one of them.
I don't know why he didn't, but as he's a reasonable person and his enemies are not, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Sounds like a great way to ensure that everyone makes sure their car gets "stolen" or "destroyed" rather than selling or junking it. Or make odometer hacking more common...
You watche too much Fox News.
Troll around in here for awhile, then come back and try to tell me it's the same-old, same-old:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
So in your mind, words without prefixes are just they same word WITH prefixes, just shortened?
The conservatism and neoconservatism are not the same. Liberalism and paleoliberalism are not the same thing.
Bush was not a conservative.
THL phish sticks
Electric cars don't require that. Many states already require periodic license fees and some form of periodic inspection for vehicles licensed for use on public roads. All you have to do to charge use taxes on electric (or, for that many, any other) vehicles when such a framework exists is include odometer checks in those inspections and charge (some amount) * (mileage since last inspection) as part of the registration fee.
Prevalence of electric cars may be used as an excuse for toll roads and, expedience in toll collection may be used to justify electronic monitoring devices, but there is a difference between making something necessary and providing an excuse or justification.
Cryassing about Bush on slashdot isn't exactly a sign of courage.
Telling all your fellow Utahn's that most of Bush's Patriot act was the antithesis of Liberty and Limited Governance...which i did repeatedly...is a little bit better.
Constantly having to tell my friends they totally miss the core of the Net Neutrality issue (because Limbaugh has them all fucked up on it)....oh jeez.
Being the only person in my workplaces who: argues things like AGW is at least possible; encourages recycling and xeriscaping; and doesn't have 8 kids? All this and I still believe in limited government and the right of property? I'd really like to choke the ever-living shit out of you.
THL phish sticks
You have nothing to worry about.
So your defense of the current administration's invasive, abusive spying is... that Obama wants to protect criminals?
Really? Your justification an illegal action is that it's to prevent someone else to from being tried for doing the same thing?
Wow.
And as for you smart-ass comment about health care: yes, I shall. I will enjoy my private health care: first-dollar coverage with no co-pay and no lifetime maximum, provided by my employer at no cost to me. A good thing too, since getting insurance on my own -- even *with* the new "Obamacare" stipulations (let's not pretend it's a full overhaul) -- would cost several hundred dollars per month for incomplete coverage... that is, of course, assuming that I could find an insurer willing to take me on at a feasible rate, given my existing health history. Not to worry though, because at least we've got the public option that Obama promised!
The real litigious bastards...
You need reading lessons, I said no such thing. I merely stated it was not a pejorative and that neocon was a shortening of neoconservative.
No he was not, he is/was a corporatist just like our current president. W was also a neoconservative like his daddy.
Did George W Bush commit a crime?
He has not been charged, tried or convicted for illegal wiretaps, so it can't be said that he "committed a crime". The only president since 1975 to stand trial was Bill Clinton.
You still need to go to some kind of pump to fill up with Natural Gas, right? So do the same thing at those pumps that you do now. Or were the people trying to popularizing these thinking you'd only fill up at your home Natural Gas connection, and nowhere else.
Once they've been given power, no pol nor cop is ever going to want to give it back. For purposes of covering their asses, if nothing else. "What if we gave that power back, and then something happened? We'd be blamed." And most of the public is too cowed to demand it, because "it's for our safety". (So there aren't many complaints even about security theatre like scanners that make and retain nude images of travelers, or rules that won't let them take nail files onto planes.) That's why it's so very very important not to let them have that power in the first place.
It was the Bush administration's goal to vastly increase their control over the public, and they did. The Dems let them do it because the Dems were, by and large, too spineless to oppose it. I don't think Obama would have sought those powers, but don't look for him to be so superhuman as to throw them away now that he's got them.
No, Obama's policies are not Reagan like.
From Wiki
Domestic policies
Federalism, and passed policies to encourage development of private business, routinely criticizing and defunding the public sector. He greatly accelerated the nation's War on Drugs. His policies put forth the largest tax cut in American history
Foreign policies
The United States also offered financial and logistics support to the right wing insurgencies in central Europe and took an increasingly hard line against socialist and communist governments in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. The U.S. provided overt and covert aid to democratic guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "rollback" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The only similarities there are Federalism.
@blair There is so much wrong with your post, That I can't even begin to detail it. Suffice it to say, that you, Sir, are a fucking idiot.
So... your definition of "commit a crime" is, you have to be caught and tried? Not convicted (Clinton wasn't convicted, see below), but just put on trial?
So if some creep shows up at your house and sinks a knife into your wife, ending her life, then disappears into the night... never to be put on trial... he hasn't committed a crime?
I dunno, I've really got some problems with that. What is said knife-wielding miscreant's status, then, in your view? I would have said "wanted criminal" prior to your post, but am waiting for enlightenment. :)
Do you understand that presidential impeachment is a two-stage process? First, the house indicts the individual, then the senate convicts, or not.
In Clinton's case, the house indicted him; the senate did not convict him.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He's not continuing the policy, and he's certainly not covering anything up.
Shortly before taking office but after being elected president, he voted to provide telco immunity, despite promising to vote *against* that bill. That's continuing the policy. Furthermore, after being elected, he refused to release documentation about the warrantless wire tapping. That's covering up.
He's defending the nation in a legal matter. As the Chief Executive and the person who appoints the Attorney General, that's his job.
Ummm, no. As Chief Executive, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution. By continuing the policy, covering it up, and failing to prosecute those who abused their authority in enacting the policy, he is most definitely *NOT* doing his job.
Unfortunately, it's a hateful legal matter left behind by a criminal administration.
If it was truly a criminal administration -- and mind you, I agree it was -- then he is bound by oath to do exactly that. If he fails to prosecute the previous administration, then he is implicitly giving his approval to those crimes.
I'd prefer that his first order in office were to prosecute every one of them.
Well, we are in agreement here :)
...as he's a reasonable person...
I think you are using your conclusion to prove your assumptions here. I've seen nothing to suggest that Obama is a reasonable person. From my perspective, he is every bit as corrupt and partisan as his predecessor. The only difference I see between Bush and Obama is to whom he is beholden (and a little bit of variance in social policies). That hardly makes Obama and his cronies more "reasonable" than Bush and his cronies were
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Don't confuse what Obama is doing with what Bush did.
Bush committed a crime by suborning those illegal wiretaps.
And Obama is continuing the illegal wiretaps. "Bush did it first" is not a defense.
Obama is trying to avoid having to prosecute Bush and his administration for that crime, and to avoid having the government sued over what Bush did.
By digging the hole deeper? That may or may not be his intent. Either way it's no less contemptible.
But when it comes right down to it, and he can't avoid it, that's what will happen.
You're living in a dream world. Nobody is going to be prosecuted for the crimes of the Bush administration.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And so does Ron Paul, but they are only two.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
"Gas taxes have nothing to do with "the bad things" about gasoline."
I didn't say they did, though actually, they do, because those taxes are also used to implement pollution controls and monitor compliance, etc.
But what I said was, we're giving tax rebates to buyers of electric vehicles because the vehicles eliminate most of the bad stuff about gasoline: the polluting fumes, the foreign dependency, the dangerous production system, the onerous distribution system, the chemical dangers, etc. Electricity isn't exactly zero-carbon-footprint or perfectly safe, but it's a whack better than the flammable poison we have to buy from people we currently call our enemies and then pump into the air half-burned.
Index the registration tax to odometer reading and vehicle gross weight.
Case closed.
Stop being paranoid.
No, it didn't. It wasn't about what the government could do with the info, it was about what it could legally do with the info.
And I don't mind law enforcement knocking on the door of people who atypically amass explosive components. Those are the people they should be asking questions. And the more times it's unnecessary the better.
I would mind a lot if they knocked-IN my door for that. But to do that they need a warrant. Which moots all of these arguments, since with a warrant they can tap your phones, bug your car, install cameras in your bathroom, etc., etc. And to get a warrant they need a little more than a couple of receipts; they need to show probable cause, and just possessing those things isn't probable cause.
Here's a clue for you:
If the 30-cent tax went away, the price wouldn't drop by 30 cents.
There's a reason gasoline is one of the most heavily taxed commodities yet the oil companies are the most profitable in history.
And there are tax stickers all over the pump. Everyone sees them all the time. The number who bleat about them is way more than "very few".
You might want to move. If you do not like living with the religious crazies Utah is not for you.
Trusting tax collection to a device owned and operated, maintained and presented by the person paying tax is just another recipe for tax evasion.
Our entire tax collection system is "voluntary" in the sense that the taxpayer is the one responsible for accurately reporting their data.
For corporate-paid income, there's another system for reporting it, but that's for the benefit of the corporation, who are legally allowed to deduct employee salaries. Banks do the same, for the same reason. The IRS doesn't have a means of extracting information about your cashflows unless it's something the entity collecting it has to do to report their own taxes.
And it's only one number on your form. So the revenoors rely on your integrity for about 99% of the information it has on you.
Adding this won't change that much.
Just when did I piss on your shoes?
And can I do it again some time?
If Obama's such a great fuck, why did he sign the Patriot Renewal Act? He should have vetoed it and proven he was better.
Except of course Obama is as big of a tyrant as that bitch Bush was.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
It's funny. Lately I've heard more and more conservatives make the claim that they were pissed off with Bush, and outraged at what he did, back when he was president. Yet I still retain a memory, and I lived through the Bush administration. Where were you guys when it mattered?
Conservatives (note, conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing, especially not the Republican leadership) disagreed with GWB on different issues than those on the left did. Conservatives opposed amnesty for illegal aliens despite the attempts to push it by Bush/McCain/Graham and were frustrated by his lack of effort to secure the borders and ports, fought back on the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nomination and caused him to withdraw it, opposed Medicare D (lefties opposed it because they wanted the credit for passing it, conservatives opposed it because they don't support the expansion of the federal government), strongly opposed TARP and all of the bailouts, opposed No Child Left Behind (written by Ted Kennedy btw) because of federal power expansion over local school boards, opposed the handling of Iraq after the military victory even though many supported the initial goal, opposed the creation of the DHS and the federalization of the TSA, etc. Do I need to go through and get links, or can you google those if you dispute them?
You might be in that 1% group of conservatives that were outraged, but as a majority, right wingers went along with everything Bush did. Bush had screwed up enough by 2004 that he deserved to be voted out, and yet there was no big counter movement in conservative circles against him.
There was a TON of disagreement on the right with Bush, the left just refused to see it because they were too busy screaming and shouting about other things to notice. And yeah, in 2004, conservatives supported Bush. Sitting Presidents tend to be renominated by their party and, what were conservatives going to do, vote for the complete opposite of what they believe by voting for Kerry? They held their nose and voted for the least worst option of the two. Had the Democrats fielded someone the conservatives could stomach, it's possible that they could have won in a landslide. Instead, they picked a guy nobody was particularly excited about.
I don't remember any tea-party railing against his economically devastating policies.
The spending? Conservatives complained. TARP and the bailouts, conservatives complained. Expansion of the CRA, conservatives complained.
However, if you're calling tax cuts "devastating," conservatives and you have a different view of economics, whereby they don't believe economics isn't a zero-sum game, that the Laffer Curve shows that cutting tax rates may produce higher revenues through GDP growth if there is too much tax (and they did, Bush and the Congress just spent faster than revenues grew), etc. You might as well be debating emacs/vi or gpl/bsd because Keynesians, Chicagoans (economics) and Austrians (economics) are never going to see eye to eye.
Stop Koolaid Politics
Gas taxes are what is used to maintain the roads. A large part of the states Transportation budget comes from the revenue collected through gas taxes.
If we go with hydrogen fuels, then obviously a tax on fuel will still be possible, and would be much easier than GPS for everyone. If we go with electric cars, then increased license and registration, increased sales tax on cars, and increased other taxes would still be an easier path to covering those expenses than GPS. If for some reason we are absolutely sold on sticking with "You pay for exactly how much you drive," I'd expect some type of correspondence with your odometer, not telling them your position at all times.
Installing a GPS in everyone's car is the most complicated and expensive way of measuring how much one has used the roads and would face significant public opposition. Politicians usually take the path of least resistance. I think it's unlikely GPS will be trotted out as a widespread policy.
what's your problem with duct tape? Seriously, for something that's generally quite effective, it gets a bad rap.
If the guy doesn't have qualms calling you, a U.S. citizen, a terrorist and placing you on a CIA hit list, and then try to deny your father the right to hire an attorney on your behalf, somehow I doubt he's going to think twice about tapping your phone without a warrant.
This happened in New Zealand. The target found the GPS and tried to sell it on an online auction site. The cops pulled the auction. Story at The Register
The other risk of police installing trackers is sometimes the targets don't know they are police and get very angry. A policeman was killed in NZ after being shot with an airgun while installing a tracking device. The crims thought he was trying to steal the car! NZ Herald story
I went with the Democrat, because you mentioned them specifically. There's also Barbara Lee of California. I 'm not saying the Democrats are doing well on this issue, I just take issue with the word All. There are differences among congresspeople and they should be acknowledged when present.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Oh yeah, Obamacare was definitely the path of least resistance.
You make the false assumption that Republicans are right wing, when in fact they are left of center themselves.. They only LOOK right wing in comparison to the Democrats. Which is why both have no problem with trampling all over your few remaining rights.
Anyway, doesn't the proliferation of GPS (and OnStar-like service) equipped vehicles negate the need for whichever alphabet soup government agency to plant a separate device? Years ago the Feds could and did secretly enable cellphone mics to listen in on mobsters, do you really think they cant get a car to tattle on its owner?
1. Secretly subsidize "safety devices" for automobiles that are really small powerful computers.
2. Cause said car to "require" service at a GM (government motors) dealer.
3.??
4. Arrest owner based on data collected.
5. No Profit, go directly to jail.
One would think that they would go with the system which is becoming more prevalent in australian cities (for toll roads) where cars are tracked by camera and numberplates are looked up.
Actually, I'm going refute your claim. Kucinich and Lee both voted for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which excepts the SEC from FOIA requests.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Not really, just have them take a portion of the taxes they get from the electrical company and use it for the roads instead.
Nothing needs to be raised at all.
You buy an electrical car == You use more electricity == Your electrical bill goes up == You pay more in taxes on your electical bill.
Now the part they will have to pinpoint is what percentage of the taxes they generate from the electricity will be used for the roads.
umm, neither of them are left-wing parties, they are Right-Wing and extreme far Right Wing.
What we the US government actually needs is a left wing party, or even better, the removal of party affiliation within governments entirely.
Since the court will allow such a device installed on your vehicle in 99% of all cases anyway, this doesn't really change anything...
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Protecting one governmental organization from FOIA requests isn't related to privacy questions, the topic at hand. They have both voted against things like the patriot act and FISA expansions.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
The last time I knew that I was bugged was years ago, at a US Treasury office. The device was built into a wall AC socket multiplier. There was simply no reason for the device to have appeared at that particular location. There was no desk nearby. There was no need for more power plugs.
I pulled it out of the wall and immediately knew it was a bug because it was too heavy. I took off the backplate and, sure enough, there were enough electronics in there to walk the dog.
I then walked into the office of my boss 3 levels up (the secretary was a bit upset that I didn't knock; I just barged in), tossed it on her desk, and said "The next time we're going to be bugged, you might tell the Inspectors to use something a little less obvious." (Those of you in the know can roughly figure out the age of this story from the use of the title "Inspector." They've been "Special Agents" for a very long time, now.)
The look on her face was priceless.
The thing about it, though, is that they couldn't touch me. If they disciplined me, they'd have to admit they were bugging employees.
So if you find a bug, just find something creative to do with it. Sell it to a web site that will turn it into hits. Put it in a motor freight package to Albania. Something fun.
Okay, there is a difference between transparency and privacy, I'll give you that. Now how about the Affordable Care Act? It requires all medical records to be kept in a centralized database run by the Federal Government. Does that equate to privacy failure? I realize not a direct attack on privacy, but the Government is awful about protecting records. I'm one of the veterans who received a letter from the Veterans Administration telling me that my medical records were insecure, then made secure again, without ever providing me with a solid explanation as to what happened and what steps were taken to prevent the same thing from happening again.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
I'm not saying they are perfect, just that there are Democrats fighting for privacy. Bills like the Affordable Care Act aren't about a single issue like your health records, but hit a bunch of different points. Sometimes one priority wins out over another it doesn't mean that privacy is unimportant.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
I would argue that it does mean privacy is unimportant. They could easily have left that out of the bill. Whatever their goal is can be accomplished without requiring every medical decision made by a doctor to be uploaded to a central server.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Neither of the two I've mentioned wrote the bill in question, so they didn't get to leave that part out. They came around to it on the balance of the whole package.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Government != Nation.
Administration != Nation.