California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Warrants For Drone Surveillance

schwit1 sends word that California governor Jerry Brown has vetoed legislation that would have required warrants for surveillance using unmanned drones. In his veto message (PDF), Brown said, "This bill prohibits law enforcement from using a drone without obtaining a search warrant, except in limited circumstances. There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate. The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."

The article notes that 10 other states already require a warrant for routine surveillance with a drone (Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin). Further, Brown's claims about the bill's exceptions are overstated — according to Slate, "California's drone bill is not draconian. It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

Comments

something to remember next time you vote

[Cardoor]

ask yourself:

which candidate will sell us out and cave to the surveillance state?

answer: both. the fix is in.

happy voting! now move along.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[ls671]

Nah, he probably just got black mailed or threatened in some other ways...

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[rmdingler]

It is not that surprising, given that the executive branch has determined it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[DragonTHC]

no doubt they showed him some incriminating drone footage of himself.

Though think about it, if you're in public, you're already being recorded. They should need a warrant to drone over your back yard though.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't get is why people consider this "getting sold out." Didn't about 99-100% of voters support these people in the last few dozen elections? Aren't we about to unanimously re-elect these parties in about a month? This is Democracy in action: we are saying we want what's happening.

If you're speaking with one voice ("fuck me, fuck me hard!!") in the voting booth and another voice in public ("hey, stop fucking me"), then maybe you are the problem.

If you vote Democrat, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.

If you vote Republican, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.

Those two parties have already stated this part of their platforms. It's only when you vote American that you're opposing their policies and saying you would prefer constitutionally limited powers, due process, and civil rights. If that's what you want, then vote for someone else, or run if no one else is running.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't get is why people consider this "getting sold out." Didn't about 99-100% of voters support these people in the last few dozen elections? Aren't we about to unanimously re-elect these parties in about a month? This is Democracy in action: we are saying we want what's happening.

If you're speaking with one voice ("fuck me, fuck me hard!!") in the voting booth and another voice in public ("hey, stop fucking me"), then maybe you are the problem.

If you vote Democrat, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.

If you vote Republican, you are saying that you support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process.

Those two parties have already stated this part of their platforms. It's only when you vote American that you're opposing their policies and saying you would prefer constitutionally limited powers, due process, and civil rights. If that's what you want, then vote for someone else, or run if no one else is running.

And yet when we try and make these points to voters, they insist that a 3rd party is somehow "stealing" votes, so they go back to the tried and true, and vote the party line.

I sure as fuck Hope that Obama woke people up when a politician says they are bringing Change.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill was intended to protect the people of Compton from 24/7 surveillance. He can veto it, because they're all black.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[asylumx]

What do you expect the executive branch to do, if not to execute?

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[xevioso]

You know, it is possible for two candidates to share the same ideas on some issues and radically different issues on others. Obama and any Republican opponent support the use of American force on foreign soil whenever they think it necessary. That's true. But they would differ vastly on issues of gay rights, gun control, immigration, health care, taxes, abortion rights, and a whole host of other issues.

The inability of people who hate both Democrats and Republicans to see actual differences between them boggles my mind, because the vast majority of Americans can and most of them are pretty dumb. Even the most moronic Republican knows that Obama supports serious health care reform, for example, while virtually all Republicans have, up until recently, virulently opposed it. Are you people just imbeciles? Are you just plain stupid? Even a fifth grader knows that some people may believe the same things but they also believe different things, but that doesn't mean they believe the exact same things, nor that they are indistinguishable from each other, as you buffoons seem to believe. Jesus Christ.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[gamemank]

I've seen people try to refute this straw man a lot lately. I don't think anyone is saying there is literally no difference between the two parties. What I mean when I say something like "the Democrats and Republicans are the same" is that they are either the same on issues I consider important (like the GP's "support the government's right to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason without due process") or not sufficiently different on issues I consider important (climate change, taxes). Of course they differ significantly or insignificantly or just-for-show on some other issues, but that does not negate the fact that they are the same when it comes to the issue under discussion. You may be choosing one of these two parties because you want to vote, for example, for or against abortion, but that does mean that you are also voting for indefinite war and other awful policies with either choice. It also implies that the differentiating issue is more important to you than the non-differentiating ones.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[king neckbeard]

The argument is more that the differences between the parties in practice seems to be little more than the minimum to create the illusion of choice/control. On a number of issues, it seems like it was opposed by one party just to appear to spite the other, but both parties will back policies that defy their stated philosophies. That's kind of what you would expect if the differences were there just for show. It seems to be along the lines of pro wrestling being fake, in that parts are left up in the air for realism, but nobody actually fights rough.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice ad hominem rant. Really makes you look sophisticated and mature and totally not desperate or defensive at all.

The problem is that the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are inconsequential. Even when comparing the extremes of both parties, they're both still narrowly confined to the authoritarian right. Take another look at your list of issues where they differ: none of them actually matter. Of course, the issues themselves are serious and important, but the controversies are largely fabricated and polarized into talking points to raise campaign funds without anything actually being done until external trends force a concession. For all their rhetoric, when compared to any other third party in the US, the Democrats and Republicans are functionally interchangeable career politicians.

The easiest way I have found to introduce people to this concept is politicalcompass.org. It only takes 5-10 minutes to run through their test, and you may be surprised at the results (please do actually read the explanation page they provide). Then read through their page about the 2012 US Presidential election. Seriously, this is worth your time.

The next step would be to learn about the benefits of systems such as instant-runoff voting, and how both the Democrats and the Republicans actively conspire to exclude third party candidates out of debates and off of ballots.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[rmdingler]

Parent is only positing that, despite the fact there's not a Bitcoin's difference in the choice you make on many matters, there are important distinctions to be made within the realm of issues we can still weigh in on as responsible voters.

For what it's worth, I'd rather watch the empire crumble from comfort of my reasonably private home, with some well-deserved healthcare.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[TsuruchiBrian]

I would say that by voting for democrats or republicans, you are implicitly supporting a system that allows your vote to legitimize things you don't believe in.

If you vote for Obama, because he supports gay rights more than Mitt Romney, it doesn't mean you support killing people with drones, but it does support the 2 party system that uses your vote for gay rights into a vote for war.

Gobernator

[Flavianoep]

I guess they would be better off with the "Sperminator".

Re:Gobernator

[Jawnn]

I guess they would be better off with the "Sperminator".

Because this single issue is the only thing that matters, right? No, wait. Abortion is the only thing that matters. No, I mean gay marriage is the only thing that matters.
Single-issue voters deserve all the bad things that happen to them because of their narrow-minded, short-sighted choices.

Re:Gobernator

[ls671]

"Sperminator"

Any reference on that? I hear steroids reduce your libido.

Re:Gobernator

[Flavianoep]

Sources:

Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Marital_separation

Arnold Schwarznegger's chequered history with women

It looks like he have not needed much of steroids, as he started bodybuilding at an early age.

Re:Gobernator

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Single-issue voters deserve all the bad things that happen to them because of their narrow-minded, short-sighted choices.

If you have any electoral system where

(a) voters get one chance every few years to vote,

(b) the choice of candidates is small, and

(c) there is no effective power of recall or override allowing the electorate to express binding opinions between elections

then everyone is reduced to little more than a single-issue voter.

If you're lucky, you have a candidate available whose policies match your preferences on a range of issues, but that is not guaranteed. If there's no-one you broadly agree with then in reality some issue that matters to you is probably going to determine who gets your vote. Worse, the successful candidate has no way to know why they got your vote, and will typically treat it as a mandate for all of their policies whether you agree with them all or not.

In any case, such elections are only ever decided on a handful of major issues, meaning candidates can have essentially any policy they want on the millions of smaller issues that still affect many people's daily lives.

Re:Gobernator

[ls671]

Are you sure that you aren't confusing him with Chuck Norris?

Re:Gobernator

[Flavianoep]

Too big muscles slow your moves. Compare Bruce Lee with Schwarzenegger. The latter is pure muscle, while Lee is... kung fu. Was Bruce alive, you would less likely survive a punch from him than a punch from Arnold.

This is the wrong attitude

[langelgjm]

The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.

Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[king neckbeard]

Was about to express similar sentiment. If it's only doing what the law already requires and nothing more, then it's not really a new law, it's a piece of paper to sign and look like you are doing something to protect privacy without actually doing anything.

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[TWX]

Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

He is the head of the executive branch of government of his state, which means that ultimately he's in charge of the State's Attorneys General office, and since officers in California are deputized at a state level too (for arrests as criminals change jurisdictions) he has a stake there too.

The Executive branch's job is to represent the operations of the State. The Legislative branch's job is to represent the citizenry/populace. I hate to break it to you, but this is actually working in the way it's meant to. If the Legislature wants this law to pass then they need to come up with a supermajority to override the veto.

Or, let the situation reach a prosecution, and then appeal the grounds of evidence from the drones and wait for it to go through the State courts, possibly ending up in Federal courts.

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[langelgjm]

Can you point to a modern governor's race in which the governor does not run on a platform chock-full of legislative initiatives?

Some people say the same thing about the President - that it's Congress' job to pass laws, so the President shouldn't be proposing legislation. Technically true, but that is not how our government actually works in practice.

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[king neckbeard]

No, the governor's job is not to suck dick for the police.

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[TWX]

That's because in order to execute the laws, they have to exist in the first place. The governor needs the laws to reflect his ideology so that he may carry them out and further his ideology.

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes. "It could impinge on the state's power to oppress the people. Big Brother is watching you."

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[radarskiy]

A law making something explicit that was previously implicit eliminates the window where someone can say "Judge hasn't said we're in the wrong, so we're gonna keep doing it".

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[shutdown -p now]

The Executive branch's job is to represent the operations of the State.

Yes - in the interests of the populace.

The notion that only legislative branch represents the citizenry is bullshit. They are all supposed to represent us, just in different aspects (largely to prevent them from colluding).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Idiot

[Curunir_wolf]

"The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."

Lamest excuse ever. If it didn't "go beyond" what is required by the US and state Constitutions, there would be no need for the law!

Tyrant.

Re:Idiot

[Vitriol Angst]

Well shouldn't the burden be; "does not infringe constitutional rights" and not "might take away our fun of snooping on everyone"?

Re:Idiot

[Vitriol Angst]

And the other giant elephant poop in the room that burns me up; A drone is a NEW WAY to allow surveillance on people. The attitude seems to be that "they have a RIGHT to find out everything the can" without actually letting anyone know what the burning need is. Technology is accelerating, but people don't seem to be at a greater threat of organizing, growing unions and becoming educated and empowered citizens in a Democracy.

Heck, you've got Wall Street brokers talking on PBS, and sleezy monopoly frankenfood peddlers endowing NPR, and since the Reagan era, there are no more civics classes -- so people don't know what a Congress person does anymore. Where is the threat?

Oh, you mean them bad guys you divert a Trillion dollars to chasing down rather than spend it on education or jobs -- so people here get angry and you have to spend another trillion spying on them so they don't make a mess of your perfect country that has no opportunity except for prison guards and drone operators? Yeah, well, I don't think the BAD GUY in the us are going to be doing stuff out in the open. They won't use their credit cards to buy bad guy equipment -- they'll steal it. They won't use their names to plot of facebook.

Honestly, it's all about keeping citizens from organizing and having some capability to disrupt them should they start acting like French and treat this country as if it belonged to the People, rather than stock holders.

Oh yes, we were

[drinkypoo]

Because he couldn't do anything. That was glorious. Moonbeam is still loved, so he can still do things, or get away with not doing things that we really want because he doesn't have to give a fuck about his approval rating. The idiots will approve of him (if on no other basis, as the lesser of evils) regardless.

Note, I am about as liberal as they come. But I voted for Arnold, and I'd do it again. The only part of it I'm sorry about is that it cost the people money. We'd have wound up with Moonbeam again regardless.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[drinkypoo]

It's interesting that the politicians that *I* would describe as "liberal Democrats" are now the authoritarians.

The Democratic party is centrist and pro-big-business, especially in California. California is one of the least friendly states to small business. Not only is the state a bastard (and I'm not talking about environmental regulations here, I am generally in favor of those except when they are used to do stupidity, e.g. preventing a CostCo in Ukiah due to "concerns" about "habitat" when the land in question is a big fucking waste of concrete that harbors nothing but some plucky weeds-in-cracks and which is both an eyesore and an ecological failure) but there's over fifty counties, and they all do business differently. The real leftists have all moved on to other parties.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[rockout]

Oh right. Because the "conservative Republicans" are so against a police state. Spare us your partisan bullshit, please. Both parties are all for as much surveillance as possible, and by laying it at the door of the team you personally hate, you do everyone a disservice and distract from the real issue. For the love of god, please stop it.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[Chris Mattern]

They always have been. Not that "conservative Republicans" are often much better. Politicians generally feel they know how you should live your life better than you do--people who don't have that itch don't feel the need to go into politics.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[Flavianoep]

It's interesting that the politicians that *I* would describe as "liberal Democrats" are now the authoritarians.

It's happening everywhere, unfortunately. In my country there are even Social Democrats who stand for the night-watch state rather than the well-fare state.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[Anonymous Coward]

I never got why "Criticizing Democrats" = "Pro-Republican." Vice versa too.

Re: Oh yes, we were

[bill_mcgonigle]

"You have a choice: here they are." See? You have freedom so stop claiming otherwise!

Would you like a left boot or a right boot on your throat?

Re:Oh yes, we were

[Uberbah]

Note, I am about as liberal as they come. But I voted for Arnold

There are liberals, and then there are liberals.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[MaWeiTao]

It's not really surprising at all considering that this reality is demonstrated in Europe and Asia on a daily basis. Once you accept that the government is responsible for the overarching welfare of society it's natural that they would adopt an authoritarian stance and intervene in corporate and economic affairs, all for the greater good.

That both ends of the political spectrum end up adopting similar approaches is probably inevitable. It may violate the original ideology, but bureaucracy makes it inevitable that both sides adopt the same strategy. It's how they market themselves that varies, but what they want is to secure their power base. That their decisions may or may not benefit the people is a side effect.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[rockout]

oh right, here's the classic backtrack - you slam "liberal Democrats" as "authoritarian", implying that the opposite of "liberal Democrats" wouldn't be so authoritarian, and then once someone calls you out, "oh I never said that, did I? that's all in YOUR head, you need to calm down!" After all, if you were caught taking a stand for the side you prefer, you've now backed yourself into a corner, and that's so inconvenient when you're trying to prove that you're right.

Don't be an infant. Everyone knows exactly what you meant, and if you really didn't mean that, try harder to not post as if you did.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[rockout]

It doesn't, but he wasn't "criticizing Democrats" in a vacuum - he framed it in a way that it was clear he was saying "Democrats are more authoritarian than Republicans." Which is bullshit, because they're both terrible at the moment.

Even worse, the same guy most likely posted this AC comment in a feeble attempt to make it seem like he's got support for his read-between-the-lines partisan dog-whistle message. Coward, indeed.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[drinkypoo]

Conservatives loves to tout how anti-business California is,

Well, I'm a Liberal. California is really anti-small-business, if I left that out then I sincerely apologize. If they can make big wads of money on you at once then you're in, baby.

but they never explain why California's economy PER-CAPITA is larger than 33 other states.

Hollywood. Cause: It was actually near some of the least desirable land in the USA, which studios could snap up for nothing. Silicon Valley. Cause: Education, climate. An actual win. Food production. Cause: Environmental sensitivity was discovered before California was completely shit upon, also coastal climate.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[OakDragon]

Confession time - I did indeed do this. The "WhiteHart" sock puppet was a childish experiment to see if a raging liberal (as opposed to a hardcore right-winger) would garner more karma. Of course I am not a raging liberal, so the experiment went nowhere (as you can see from WhiteHart's comment history).

This may or may not violate Slashdot's account policies. I'm not sure, I cannot find anything about multiple accounts in the FAQ. If it becomes an issue and my regular account were to be terminated, I really have no defense to give.

As I said, the WhiteHart "fake" account never really got off the ground, and I'm surprised to have found myself logged in. According to the FAQ, I cannot delete WhiteHart; I will just have to try to forget about him. Please believe me when I say I've learned a few things in the 8 years since I set up the sock-puppet, and it is something I detest today if I see it elsewhere. Mostly I really do stick to posting my comments under my actual name where practical.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[rockout]

Please believe me when I say you're a total douchebag, and even when you're admitting your sock-puppetry you still can't bring yourself to be completely honest.

Your major mental defect politically (if you're really even interested in what your problems are, but I doubt it) is that you look at it like a football game - ie your fake "raging liberal" vs. "hard-core right winger." You care not about the finer points of any issue; everything for you is framed in this black-and-white world, and basically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "raging liberal". It's very sad, and the millions who think like you, on both extremes, do a disservice to the vast majority of people who just wish you would all shut the fuck up and let politicians find some kind of middle ground - or, in cases like this, when both parties are at fault, you draw attention away from that fact and try to frame it as a right-vs-left thing. Either way, you're part of the problem, and you can't see it because of your blind "my side must win at all costs!" psychotic attitude.

Add in a healthy dose of passive-aggressive "oh YOU need to calm down, I'm totally rational!" and you've succeeded in completely deluding yourself about how the rest of the world views you. Trust me, we all know one or two people just like you. In real life, we realize quickly it will do no good to try to change your mind with rational discussion, so we just politely decline to talk politics with you and try to ignore the fact that you're a lunatic by having as little contact with you as is required.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[OakDragon]

Well, you are supposing a lot about me. But I will concede maybe I play into the right-vs-left thing too much. And I do think of it as a sport.

However, "my side" sees politicians working together as the problem. I have no issue with government being paralyzed. I don't want them to work on solutions. The less they do the better.

And I said "calm down" because you were rude. It was condescending, so sorry for that.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[rockout]

I will concede maybe I play into the right-vs-left thing too much. And I do think of it as a sport.

It's amazing that you can't see how this part automatically makes everything else you say instantly into garbage. I'm supposing anything about you - like I said, everyone knows a couple of people like you, and it's your single-mindedness that makes you all the same.

P.S.

[drinkypoo]

I posted this one to point out how little things change. I guess I should have posted at least one more versions lyrics

Here's the bill: public notice key

[Sez Zero]

Link to the text of the bill, since TFA is limited.

Probably the sticking point was:

A public agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, pursuant to this title shall first provide reasonable notice to the public. Reasonable notice shall, at a minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the agency’s intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology and a description of the technology’s capabilities.

There's also some reasonable limitations on data captured by drones (can't be kept long) and a requirement to log who requests drone missions. If only there was some federal body that could come up with some reasonable standard for all states...

Re:Here's the bill: public notice key

[sycodon]

Seems to me that these drones would fit right into language covering law enforcement helicopters. There is no real difference other than expense.

Re:Here's the bill: public notice key

[Ol Olsoc]

How dare you read the bill! This is not allowed on Slashdot.

Yes, that is a pretty weird provision, it reminds me of the old laws regarding the newfangled horseless carriages, where a flagman had to walk ahead of the vehicle, alerting the populace that a internal combustion vehicle approacheth.

But as I say, your dirty tactic is simply not allowed here, where a sizable number of posters will probably end up in a bunker in Idaho, hiding from the guvmint, and stockpiling weapons for the liberalati apocalypse.

Re:Here's the bill: public notice key

[Sarten-X]

The last word is probably the most damning.

There's a very popular school of thought in security that keeping capabilities secret is a means to reduce risk*. Such a vague requirement to disclose capabilities is open to lawsuits arguing that the disclosure must include things like maximum range, speed, radar size, and so forth, effectively providing an instruction manual for criminals looking to evade such a drone, who now know that their escape plan must include driving so fast for so far.

* No, it's not security through obscurity. Security through obscurity is where the security of the system is compromised by knowledge, whereas keeping the capabilities of a secure system secret only increases the expense (and therefore lowers the chance) of an attack against an otherwise-secure system.

Re:Here's the bill: public notice key

[king neckbeard]

It is probably security through obscurity, as these drones probably have to be registered with the FCC and/or FAA, so all that has to happen is that someone IDs a drone, and then all of that info is public knowledge. Also, if they are actively running away trying to get out of coverage, that would probably give the police reason to believe they are fleeing, which gives them more options.

Re:Here's the bill: public notice key

[bigpat]

I think that is an important point. Unmanned drones certainly can give additional capabilities at potentially lower costs. But the privacy consideration should be in what the police are allowed to do without a warrant regardless of whether it is a manned helicopter or an unmanned one or a person up on a hill or a tower that has a good vantage point. Restrictions such as not peering in through windows into a house or using different wavelengths of light to determine heat signatures in a house or using a laser/radar to ease-drop on the conversations of occupants of a house or building without a warrant or a bona fide emergency situation are all appropriate restrictions that should equally apply to all technology rather than single out any one particular technology. This could be a case where the more specific a law protecting privacy is, then the more loop holes for using other technology in the same way are created.

Re:Here's the bill: public notice key

[afidel]

Expense has a massive impact on how and why a technology is used. Phone tapping used to be cost prohibitive because you had to have someone review the results in real time, today between metadata and speech to text you can mine the conversations of literally the entire world for less than 0.0007% of US GDP, and so we have. If aerial surveillance of the populace cost as much as 20 patrol cars with officers then few departments will even bother with an air unit and those that do have one will use them sparingly, if it costs less than the fuel for a patrol car there will be a push to use them, and that will open all kinds of abuse.

News Flash! Jerry Brown is still alive.

[Anonymous Coward]

News Flash! Californians keep electing him.
News Flash! Democracy is the best system for crushing freedom.

Re:California Uber Alles

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Zen Fascists will control you, 100% natural!

How much money does Brown get from police unions?

[Trailer Trash]

I love this part, too:

"It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs. Second, this let's the use the old "inspection" ruse to use the drone as long as they can get some inspector to tag along.

I would recommend you all remember this when it's time to vote. Make stuff like this a big deal. Call them to the carpet at town hall meetings. Etc.

Blackmailing and Smearing opponents

[Squidlips]

is just too good to say no to...

What would be wrong with more requirements?

[EmagGeek]

The constitution is there to limit government. There is nothing wrong with limiting government more than the bare minimum limits defined by the constitution. In fact, I would say there is a good case today for rewriting the constitution using far more strict, unambiguous modern language with far more limitations than it currently has.

Re:What would be wrong with more requirements?

[redlemming]

The constitution is there to limit government. There is nothing wrong with limiting government more than the bare minimum limits defined by the constitution. In fact, I would say there is a good case today for rewriting the constitution using far more strict, unambiguous modern language with far more limitations than it currently has.

A rewrite is not necessary (and would be dangerous, since it would almost certainly be under the control of a legal profession that routinely ignores many ethics issues).

When James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he had the difficult task of condensing a long list of proposed rights into a manageable list. He did this by providing for the assertion unspecified rights "retained by the people" in the 9th Amendment, and "reserved to the people" in the 10th. A document with around one hundred rights, after all, would please nobody but a lawyer (and an unethical one, at that).

Most of the problems we have with government today (and many historical problems) involve violations of fundamental individual rights reasonably asserted as being "retained to the people".

Probably the single biggest right that is routinely violated, affected every major area of law (and many of the other fundamental rights that get violated), is the right to ethical practice of law, a right applicable not just to legal professionals as individuals but to legal professionals as a group or class in society.

Rather than writing more laws, or rewriting the Constitution, we instead need to be going after the legal profession for unethical practice of law, not just as individuals, but as a group (in the sense that many aspects of the current legal system create long term artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, something that benefits many members of the profession, arguably the majority).

Many of the unethical practices embedded in the practice of law only survive because the public is seldom unaware of the huge scope of the ethics problem (and is easily distracted, or deluded into thinking the problems are the result of the "other" party).

Correcting the systemic ethics problems in the US legal system would be a major step towards using the 9th and 10th Amendments as they were intended to be used. It is likely that this would in turn result in a culture change in government and law enforcement that would result in far fewer violations of fundamental rights over the long term. It could also result in a culture change regarding the conduct of business, solving another large set of problems (the right to long term oversight of business is certainly another fundamental right).

Putting this in other words, the principle that the government that "governs least, governs best", is as much as anything a statement regarding legal ethics. It is impossible for a people to control their government if they do not understand and pay attention to legal ethics.

Re:How much money does Brown get from police union

[TheCarp]

The thing is, search and rescue efforts, wildfire inspection, all make sense for this sort of exception; but you are right a blanket "emergency situation" may as well be no requirement at all because anything can be viewed as an emergency and anyone claiming emergency is almost always given the benefit of the doubt for anything short of an outright hoax.

Re:How much money does Brown get from police union

[Ol Olsoc]

I love this part, too:

"It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs.

Reminds me of the old "Everything we do is by definition an emergency, so we "own" your radio systems" argument used by a lot of Whackers when Amateur radio started bing used more in emergency communications. They'd try to defend ordering Pizza as an emergency.

Didn't work then, and declaring everything as an emergency doesn't work now either.

Re:California Uber Alles

[jae471]

Huh? The original is much more appropriate....

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president...

Carter Power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
Your kids will meditate in school!

[Chorus:]
California Uber Alles
California Uber Alles
Uber Alles California
Uber Alles California

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!

[Chorus]

Now it is 1984
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece

Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.

DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown
When you mess with President Brown

Brown is a right winger

[Uberbah]

Like Clinton, he gets a lot of hate from the right despite pushing a right wing agenda:

1. College costs have doubled despite state budget moving back to black

   Killed single payer health care, which passed three times under Arnie
   Opposed a serious increase in the minimum wage
   Opposes marijuana legalization

And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who lives there could come up with more stuff.

Re:Brown is a right winger

[JDAustin]

College Costs - this has more to do with the easy federal loan money that hook young people into debt for decades. As money gets easier to come by for colleges, they raise costs.
CA Single Payer - you mean the plan that would cost more then the states current annual budget to implement?
CA Budget - this has more to do with the coastal are of the state able to shit gold in even a crappy economy. Although, I will give him some credit here (he'd get even more if he would drop support for the useless highspeed rail, as the only on getting rich off that is our esteemed senator Feinstein)

Churn the pot

[Okian Warrior]

ask yourself: which candidate will sell us out and cave to the surveillance state?

answer: both. the fix is in.

happy voting! now move along.

I don't live in California, but I'm voting against anyone currently in office.

Keep churning the pot. Eventually, they'll become pro-public just to stay in office.

Re:Churn the pot

[Cardoor]

nice gesture, but the reason this is inadequate may be summed up with the monkey-water-spray experiment.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_t...

Federalism 101

[westlake]

It is not that surprising, given that the executive branch has determined it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence.

one of the reasons why the geek remains politically impotent is that he can't remember the most basic distinctions between state and federal governments.

what he has is a set of memes that he shoehorns into every argument.

More proof Californians are Serfs, not Citizens

[WillAffleckUW]

In Washington State, our State Constitution guarantees your Right of Privacy, and even the feds can't follow you without a court issued warrant.

Freedom.

It's what's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Even Hong Kong knows that.

Do you want to be Free?

The weather's fine (as in we have water and energy) in Seattle.

Re:More proof Californians are Serfs, not Citizens

[WillAffleckUW]

Sit in Traffic? Um, we bike or walk here. You must be from California.

As to cops, that only applies if you're not white, for the most part.

Vagrants are what we call Californians who forgot to get a job first before moving to Seattle.

As to shop windows - that is Portland anarchists that do that. Not Seattleites. We turtle.

But we do have privacy, legally.

Thanks for the threat

[Okian Warrior]

nice gesture, but the reason this is inadequate may be summed up with the monkey-water-spray experiment.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_t...

Did I mention that it's anonymous? No lists, no donations, no polls, no canvassing. Just resolve to vote against all incumbents when you're in the voting booth.

Thanks for the threat, but I think everyone here realizes that voting in the US is safe.

Join the boot party: anonymous and safe!

Re:Thanks for the threat

[Cardoor]

i have no idea what you're talking about. there was no threat, implied or explicit (threat? really? where did that come from??) you seriously misunderstood the experiment i referenced.

the point of referencing the experiment was that it's a good demonstration of what can happen when a system is fundamentally flawed in such a way that flaws are re-indoctrinated on new entrants. simply changing new entrants will do little or nothing on the course of the system, unless ALL the participants are replaced simultaneously. Your 'boot party' only works if you booted EVERY member of congress at the same time and put new ones in. otherwise, they just learn the rules of the existing structure once in.

this has zero to do with donations, polls, canvassing, or anonymity.

Your problem with constitutional revisions

[bussdriver]

Just like a compromised computer system, once you are infected you can't repair the system reliably unless you know everything possible about the infection. In a government system, once you have been compromised enough you pass the point of no return where the system is unable to repair itself reliably. This is the point we've been at since JFK, probably since FDR.

You can't rewrite or amend or even just pass laws to address smaller issues like corporations===people or bribery of officials; things with 90%+ public support can't even come up for debate let alone pass a vote. Filibusters are the norm and we can't even discuss how literally unconstitutional they are because of lawyer speak that denies common sense (it says specifically in the constitution what voting thresholds are and just because they can make their own rules doesn't mean that those rules can contradict the constitution-- and they can't, but we allowed it. We allow them to ignore a whole lot, a great deal more every decade. 30 years later it becomes enshrined tradition. We all love tradition sooo much it's an argument in itself... despite it being a classic fallacy. )

Starting over again would be a huge problem in choosing WHO writes it. It is rare that the people in position and power would not think selfishly and with too great a bias; which is why the US constitution was quite unusual... The enlightenment period, respect for learning and wisdom, Ben Franklin, idealists, proven revolutionaries (not false heroes,) etc. We don't value wisdom, knowledge, or intelligence at even HALF the levels of that time period - the people with power and influence are the wrong sort of people (from celebrity to leaders.) The few good ones are easily drowned out. The public doesn't read and is easily swayed with propaganda like FOX NEWS -- just think back to the "death panels" and the healthcare mess with all the morons who made huge contributions to the mess of a system we have (and the near anarchy we've had for generations before 2014.) We'd have Foxtards out with their guns fighting over "death panel" like fabrications who'd shoot first rather than actually READ the thing they are up in arms against.

The religious fanatics we have birthed in great numbers are so close to the religious terrorists of other regions of the world that only poverty and desperation keep them from similar methods. (Even still we have a tiny number who'll bomb and assassinate in the name of abortion.)

Government never does that ...

[ilparatzo]

could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.

And I'm sure that the California government has never done ANYTHING that imposes requirements above and beyond the national or state constitution.

Should this be read as, "We already wish you had less privacy then you do now, so we'd rather stick to the minimum"?

Re:No more memes

[rmdingler]

You know how some people start telling a story, and then they pause to say, "Stop me if you've heard this one before?"

In the event I find myself senile, I would like to continue operating as long as possible without that information.

If I still have my wits about me, I would prefer that nine people have to reread my speculation so that one set of virgin ears were reached. It's for the children.

some bubbblee

[ZdzichuFjutek]

A blog (a truncation of the expression web log) is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first). swietlówki led Monitoring Pojazdów sprawozdanie finansowe System ERP przepywy pienine NAVISION consolidation

Re:How much money does Brown get from police union

[Reziac]

So if you want to "inspect" someone, just start a wildfire nearby, and you've got all the excuse you need!

Well, this IS Governor Moonbeam, after all... if he is for or against something, best consider cui bono.