Your generality is a piece of junk - you don't mean corporations, you mean business corporations, and you don't mean business corporations, you mean non-press corporations, and you don't mean non-press corporations, you mean non-media corporations, because everything that applies to the press applies to every other form of media except paid advertisement for political speech. You've defined it to exclude the things you don't like while respecting the organizations you do. Why should I respect that?
You should not respect that because anybody with half a brain should know that's not what I meant.
Do you REALLY need me to make that clearer for you? Hint: it won't look good on your scoreboard.
"Those are some very fine hairs you're trying to split."
How is it "splitting hairs"?
Other than some obvious exceptions such as the press, where is the "fine point" between, say, the non-profit Consumer's Union and General Electric? Between the ACLU and Microsoft?
If that's splitting hairs, then they must be hairs the diameter of a football field.
"So I suppose that you'd support a ban on political reporting by media corporations, then? That's a for-profit business that somehow always gets a pass on these laws. What makes the New York Times editorial page valid, but a political campaign by a non-media business illegitimate?"
Give me a break. There is centuries-old legal precedent (going back to and in part even predating Common Law) saying that "The Press" is an exception.
"You forgot one class of people in your message. You forgot shareholders. That class are the only people who's interests are represented in the furthering of the common goal you mentioned."
I wrote "the CEO or the board". Presumably the Board of Directors has the shareholders' best interests in mind.
But keep in mind all the while that those are only the owners of the corporation. They aren't "the corporation". They are not the people who make it up, and work for it, and through whose efforts the actual profit is made.
"So, you're claiming that commercial corporations are involuntarily formed?"
I believe I explained my meaning adequately, if someone were to read my whole comment. I doubt the majority of readers will have any trouble understanding.
It pains me to agree with you but agree with you I must.:) In general, prosecutors in the U.S. have had too much discretionary power. We had problems in my own community with a prosecutor that unquestionably abused his position.
But at the same time, I must also say that a lot of the problem is the laws themselves. Politicians do not want to be perceived as "soft" on crime, so the penalties for transgressions get every tougher, and more and more formerly-frowned-upon behaviors become actually illegal.
This process MUST stop at some point, and be reversed back to the point of sanity. Right now, our legal system is broken.
"Ah, so you're in favor of muzzling the speech rights of political parties and nonprofit watchdogs?"
No. For the moment let's leave aside Citizens United, which was grossly flawed, and which overturned centuries of precedent in order to reach an absurdly bad conclusion.
Citizens' Unions and political organizations are different from "normal" business corporations, in that they are voluntarily formed for the purpose of furthering a common goal of the members. Often (but not necessarily) a political goal. Therefore, it is valid to say that the organization or corporation represents the interest of all the people involved.
Now take a more "normal" business corporation: not all the people are there for the same reason. Some are CEOs. Some are janitors. Many of them are there for nothing but employment in their particular niche. This is DIFFERENT than the former example, because political money is being spent out of the profits of the corporation (not donations), and the money is spent in a way that only the board or CEO approves. There is nothing in this picture that suggests that the political money the corporation spends even remotely represents "the people" who make up the majority of the corporation. On the contrary, it is easy to see that a CEO might spend the money on lobbying to keep wages low, for example. There is nothing "representative" or "voluntary" about it, on the part of MOST of the people who make up the corporation.
See the difference? SCOTUS erred -- that's putting it extremely mildly -- by not, at the very least, distinguishing between incorporated citizens' organizations, and business corporations. Yet the purposes and consequences are far different.
Yes, of course. But they are the exception, not the rule. They require special circumstances (if, of course, the legal system is operating properly).
Some states, like Indiana, have laws that specifically say it is LEGAL to resist an unlawful search or detention. The Indiana police really went apeshit when that law was passed. To read their rabid rants on the webpages, you'd get the impression that every grandmother and small child was inherently a cop-killer, and the only thing that prevented them were resisting-arrest charges.
"what evidence is there to suggest that there is actual probable cause and evidence given to the judge of the secret courts? thats right, there is NONE. for all we know, they are just stamping a yes on every request without any evidence whatsoever. you cant have checks and balances on a system that resides outside the bounds of visibility."
No, that's not true. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not defending the practice. But we need to understand how it actually works.
*IF* an American citizen is TRIED for a crime, it still takes place in the public courts. And it has happened on a number of occasions. When that happens, if the government has "secret" evidence, it is supplied to the trial judge (who may be under orders of secrecy regarding it, but the judge still does get to see the evidence).
So a "regular" judge DOES still get to see any evidence the government has. And if it has none, the judge is compelled by law to find not guilty.
But that's still wrong, in my view. Secrecy simply does not belong in our court system.
I meant a literal rubber stamp. Sometimes court clerks have been known to, on order from a judge, use a REAL rubber stamp of the judge's signature on paperwork.
There was a case here a long time ago (actually more than one case IIRC), in which warrants were served that were literally rubber stamped. Turned out the police had made a deal to stamp signatures on illegal warrants. The state Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be signed in the judge's "own hand". In other words... no rubber stamp allowed.
No, even the FISA court issues signed warrants and court orders. It's just that the subjects of the searches are also issued a gag order, which prevents them from talking about it.
An unsigned warrant, or no warrant, will still get people shot.
"Warrantless searches" by the NSA, etc. are not home-invasion-type searches.
In the case of a "secret" search by the government, the government still has to present the presiding judge with its warrant(s), probable cause, and evidence. It's just that it does so in secret.
So don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying these things are legal or justified. But even as unconstitutional as they've gotten, they still do have rules and procedures. No "fictitious" judges or courts allowed.
"Corporations are voluntary associations of people who do not give up their rights associating that way."
HOWEVER, neither does that association transfer constitutional rights to the corporation. Those rights belong to the INDIVIDUALS that make up the corporation, not to the corporation, which is a "fictitious legal entity".
"The due process involved in getting a valid warrant has been stripped of most of its teeth.. Cops can now get warrants over the phone in a matter of minutes. "
I don't know where you live, but that sure as hell is NOT the case here. A warrant has to be typed up, and literally signed by a judge, in his/her own handwriting. No rubber stamp allowed. If cops around here try to enter a home without a SIGNED warrant, they are likely to get shot dead.
"Is there a difference between what you can legally be compelled to do and your duty?"
Yes, definitely.
In the same way that "treason" is betrayal of your people and your country, as opposed to failure to obey your government. This is the fundamental failure made by the German people which allowed the Nazis to come to and maintain power.
You have a duty to be honorable and ethical. You have an obligation to do what is legal. They are not the same things.
I'm trying to make you think, but you don't seem to take very well to it.
I'm doing plenty of thinking. But from what I understand of your blathering, you probably would not much like what I'm thinking. But I admit that I don't understand much of your blathering, because you say you want to elucidate, but then refuse to do so other than to just repeat yourself. No "elucidation" to be found.
You really haven't given me much to think about, other than how rude some people are on Slashdot. Even if you're just playing semantic games about "being responsible", you still haven't written anything here that is interesting or original.
I already knew that from your previous responses
From what I have been able to gather, you still don't know anything from my responses.
and told you to stop responding.
You didn't. You told me to "not bother". Not quite the same thing.
It seems you can't listen either.
See, if you're going to play childish semantic games, which is the only thing you really appear to be doing, it behooves you to get your own semantics approximately right, or you lose. As it happens, I can listen just fine. In fact I'm listening to some nice music at this moment.
Now they did see official-use-only documents that they took, and presumably they could attempt to justify this as being evidence of other illegal activity (stealing documents).
Certainly NOT. No matter how the documents were marked, if it wasn't something covered by the warrant, then they would have to AT LEAST have had probable cause to believe the documents were stolen FIRST, before it would be legal to seize them. Law enforcement simply DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to seize documents in order to later try to find evidence of something illegal. That's called a "fishing expedition" and it is illegal as hell.
"No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."
Thank you. You saved me the trouble of typing that all out and explaining it. The key word here is "particularly".
However, I don't think you went far enough here:
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.
Probably no examination at all necessary. If it doesn't reach out and scream at you "I AM EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL GUNS", it almost certainly was not covered in the warrant and would therefore be in illegal seizure.
"Oh stop whining and do some thinking for yourself. If responsibility doesn't end with your vote then where does it end? Does it?"
What are you arguing? ARE you trying to argue? What is your point? All you've done is unjustifiably insult people and repeat yourself.
Unless you actually have something meaningful to say (and so far I have seen no evidence that you do), there is no point in continuing to take the time to reply to you.
"9,999 out of 10,000 people will never see anything from the scrubbing. When / if you've purchased things online, have you noticed we're geoip matching against the CC address?"
Well, I guess I am that 1 out of 10,000. Because yes, I have noticed, because I was refused on that basis (incorrectly, by the way). And guess what? I no longer do business with that company.
In fact, I have considered writing about it, when I have some spare time.
"Speaking as a frequent Tor user myself, I'd seriously doubt it if Tor users comprised a "huge percentage" of legitimate purchases to any retailer."
I was replying to GP. I was not referring specifically to TOR.
"Back to the question though- I suppose one way of dealing with the fraud problem would be to only allow non-chargeback-able transactions from Tor users- BitCoin for example"
Fraud is a risk you take when you do retail business. I understand that, and I sympathize. BUT... if you make doing business with you inconvenient, you lose business. That's just the way it works. I didn't invent the free market system.
"If you're asking that something be shipped to Toronto and you want to charge someone living in Florida, that's -3 points. If you enter the CVV2 from the back of the card, that's +3 points and they balance out.
If you've had prior transactions at least 90 days ago that weren't disputed, that's +2 points. Using an OPEN proxy -4. Business CC"
Making doing business with you inconvenient for me: -10.
Slashdot Mirror
Your generality is a piece of junk - you don't mean corporations, you mean business corporations, and you don't mean business corporations, you mean non-press corporations, and you don't mean non-press corporations, you mean non-media corporations, because everything that applies to the press applies to every other form of media except paid advertisement for political speech. You've defined it to exclude the things you don't like while respecting the organizations you do. Why should I respect that?
You should not respect that because anybody with half a brain should know that's not what I meant.
Do you REALLY need me to make that clearer for you? Hint: it won't look good on your scoreboard.
"Only as long as it doesn't get in the way of lining their own pockets."
That's pretty much the point I was getting at.
"Those are some very fine hairs you're trying to split."
How is it "splitting hairs"?
Other than some obvious exceptions such as the press, where is the "fine point" between, say, the non-profit Consumer's Union and General Electric? Between the ACLU and Microsoft?
If that's splitting hairs, then they must be hairs the diameter of a football field.
Do you understand what a "generality" is, or not?
Hint: in a way, it's the opposite of a nitpick.
"So I suppose that you'd support a ban on political reporting by media corporations, then? That's a for-profit business that somehow always gets a pass on these laws. What makes the New York Times editorial page valid, but a political campaign by a non-media business illegitimate?"
Give me a break. There is centuries-old legal precedent (going back to and in part even predating Common Law) saying that "The Press" is an exception.
I was speaking of generalities here.
"You forgot one class of people in your message. You forgot shareholders. That class are the only people who's interests are represented in the furthering of the common goal you mentioned."
I wrote "the CEO or the board". Presumably the Board of Directors has the shareholders' best interests in mind.
But keep in mind all the while that those are only the owners of the corporation. They aren't "the corporation". They are not the people who make it up, and work for it, and through whose efforts the actual profit is made.
"So, you're claiming that commercial corporations are involuntarily formed?"
I believe I explained my meaning adequately, if someone were to read my whole comment. I doubt the majority of readers will have any trouble understanding.
It pains me to agree with you but agree with you I must. :) In general, prosecutors in the U.S. have had too much discretionary power. We had problems in my own community with a prosecutor that unquestionably abused his position.
But at the same time, I must also say that a lot of the problem is the laws themselves. Politicians do not want to be perceived as "soft" on crime, so the penalties for transgressions get every tougher, and more and more formerly-frowned-upon behaviors become actually illegal.
This process MUST stop at some point, and be reversed back to the point of sanity. Right now, our legal system is broken.
"Ah, so you're in favor of muzzling the speech rights of political parties and nonprofit watchdogs?"
No. For the moment let's leave aside Citizens United, which was grossly flawed, and which overturned centuries of precedent in order to reach an absurdly bad conclusion.
Citizens' Unions and political organizations are different from "normal" business corporations, in that they are voluntarily formed for the purpose of furthering a common goal of the members. Often (but not necessarily) a political goal. Therefore, it is valid to say that the organization or corporation represents the interest of all the people involved.
Now take a more "normal" business corporation: not all the people are there for the same reason. Some are CEOs. Some are janitors. Many of them are there for nothing but employment in their particular niche. This is DIFFERENT than the former example, because political money is being spent out of the profits of the corporation (not donations), and the money is spent in a way that only the board or CEO approves. There is nothing in this picture that suggests that the political money the corporation spends even remotely represents "the people" who make up the majority of the corporation. On the contrary, it is easy to see that a CEO might spend the money on lobbying to keep wages low, for example. There is nothing "representative" or "voluntary" about it, on the part of MOST of the people who make up the corporation.
See the difference? SCOTUS erred -- that's putting it extremely mildly -- by not, at the very least, distinguishing between incorporated citizens' organizations, and business corporations. Yet the purposes and consequences are far different.
"Ever heard of a No-knock warrant?"
Yes, of course. But they are the exception, not the rule. They require special circumstances (if, of course, the legal system is operating properly).
Some states, like Indiana, have laws that specifically say it is LEGAL to resist an unlawful search or detention. The Indiana police really went apeshit when that law was passed. To read their rabid rants on the webpages, you'd get the impression that every grandmother and small child was inherently a cop-killer, and the only thing that prevented them were resisting-arrest charges.
"what evidence is there to suggest that there is actual probable cause and evidence given to the judge of the secret courts? thats right, there is NONE. for all we know, they are just stamping a yes on every request without any evidence whatsoever. you cant have checks and balances on a system that resides outside the bounds of visibility."
No, that's not true. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not defending the practice. But we need to understand how it actually works.
*IF* an American citizen is TRIED for a crime, it still takes place in the public courts. And it has happened on a number of occasions. When that happens, if the government has "secret" evidence, it is supplied to the trial judge (who may be under orders of secrecy regarding it, but the judge still does get to see the evidence).
So a "regular" judge DOES still get to see any evidence the government has. And if it has none, the judge is compelled by law to find not guilty.
But that's still wrong, in my view. Secrecy simply does not belong in our court system.
I meant a literal rubber stamp. Sometimes court clerks have been known to, on order from a judge, use a REAL rubber stamp of the judge's signature on paperwork.
There was a case here a long time ago (actually more than one case IIRC), in which warrants were served that were literally rubber stamped. Turned out the police had made a deal to stamp signatures on illegal warrants. The state Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be signed in the judge's "own hand". In other words... no rubber stamp allowed.
No, even the FISA court issues signed warrants and court orders. It's just that the subjects of the searches are also issued a gag order, which prevents them from talking about it.
An unsigned warrant, or no warrant, will still get people shot.
"Warrantless searches" by the NSA, etc. are not home-invasion-type searches.
In the case of a "secret" search by the government, the government still has to present the presiding judge with its warrant(s), probable cause, and evidence. It's just that it does so in secret.
So don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying these things are legal or justified. But even as unconstitutional as they've gotten, they still do have rules and procedures. No "fictitious" judges or courts allowed.
"Corporations are voluntary associations of people who do not give up their rights associating that way."
HOWEVER, neither does that association transfer constitutional rights to the corporation. Those rights belong to the INDIVIDUALS that make up the corporation, not to the corporation, which is a "fictitious legal entity".
Hence, a corporation can't vote, for example.
"Is there a difference between what you can legally be compelled to do and your duty?"
In fact, not only are they not the same things, it is not unusual (especially in recent years) for them to be in conflict.
"The due process involved in getting a valid warrant has been stripped of most of its teeth.. Cops can now get warrants over the phone in a matter of minutes. "
I don't know where you live, but that sure as hell is NOT the case here. A warrant has to be typed up, and literally signed by a judge, in his/her own handwriting. No rubber stamp allowed. If cops around here try to enter a home without a SIGNED warrant, they are likely to get shot dead.
"Is there a difference between what you can legally be compelled to do and your duty?"
Yes, definitely.
In the same way that "treason" is betrayal of your people and your country, as opposed to failure to obey your government. This is the fundamental failure made by the German people which allowed the Nazis to come to and maintain power.
You have a duty to be honorable and ethical. You have an obligation to do what is legal. They are not the same things.
I'm trying to make you think, but you don't seem to take very well to it.
I'm doing plenty of thinking. But from what I understand of your blathering, you probably would not much like what I'm thinking. But I admit that I don't understand much of your blathering, because you say you want to elucidate, but then refuse to do so other than to just repeat yourself. No "elucidation" to be found.
You really haven't given me much to think about, other than how rude some people are on Slashdot. Even if you're just playing semantic games about "being responsible", you still haven't written anything here that is interesting or original.
I already knew that from your previous responses
From what I have been able to gather, you still don't know anything from my responses.
and told you to stop responding.
You didn't. You told me to "not bother". Not quite the same thing.
It seems you can't listen either.
See, if you're going to play childish semantic games, which is the only thing you really appear to be doing, it behooves you to get your own semantics approximately right, or you lose. As it happens, I can listen just fine. In fact I'm listening to some nice music at this moment.
Now they did see official-use-only documents that they took, and presumably they could attempt to justify this as being evidence of other illegal activity (stealing documents).
Certainly NOT. No matter how the documents were marked, if it wasn't something covered by the warrant, then they would have to AT LEAST have had probable cause to believe the documents were stolen FIRST, before it would be legal to seize them. Law enforcement simply DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to seize documents in order to later try to find evidence of something illegal. That's called a "fishing expedition" and it is illegal as hell.
"No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."
Thank you. You saved me the trouble of typing that all out and explaining it. The key word here is "particularly".
However, I don't think you went far enough here:
Bullshit. A prima facie examination of a document is all that would be required.
Probably no examination at all necessary. If it doesn't reach out and scream at you "I AM EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL GUNS", it almost certainly was not covered in the warrant and would therefore be in illegal seizure.
"Oh stop whining and do some thinking for yourself. If responsibility doesn't end with your vote then where does it end? Does it?"
What are you arguing? ARE you trying to argue? What is your point? All you've done is unjustifiably insult people and repeat yourself.
Unless you actually have something meaningful to say (and so far I have seen no evidence that you do), there is no point in continuing to take the time to reply to you.
"9,999 out of 10,000 people will never see anything from the scrubbing. When / if you've purchased things online, have you noticed we're geoip matching against the CC address?"
Well, I guess I am that 1 out of 10,000. Because yes, I have noticed, because I was refused on that basis (incorrectly, by the way). And guess what? I no longer do business with that company.
In fact, I have considered writing about it, when I have some spare time.
"Speaking as a frequent Tor user myself, I'd seriously doubt it if Tor users comprised a "huge percentage" of legitimate purchases to any retailer."
I was replying to GP. I was not referring specifically to TOR.
"Back to the question though- I suppose one way of dealing with the fraud problem would be to only allow non-chargeback-able transactions from Tor users- BitCoin for example"
Fraud is a risk you take when you do retail business. I understand that, and I sympathize. BUT... if you make doing business with you inconvenient, you lose business. That's just the way it works. I didn't invent the free market system.
"If you're asking that something be shipped to Toronto and you want to charge someone living in Florida, that's -3 points. If you enter the CVV2 from the back of the card, that's +3 points and they balance out.
If you've had prior transactions at least 90 days ago that weren't disputed, that's +2 points. Using an OPEN proxy -4. Business CC"
Making doing business with you inconvenient for me: -10.
I'll buy from the other guy.
"Blame the criminals."
Not just no, but HELL NO. I blame the retailers (and credit card industry) for failing to find a convenient and yet secure way to make my payment.
If you make it inconvenient for me, I won't buy. It's that simple. So get on it.