Unlike some people, I'm a frequent poster here, and I'm not about to go searching through thousands of old posts to satisfy your whim. If you want to find it, go find it yourself.
I've already told you I don't intent to argue about it right now. Your post could be considered to be trolling.
"... come up with a specific, precisely defined scenario, where the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference."
This misses the boat.
It's not designed to make "a positive difference", unless what you actually mean is "lack of a negative difference". Like torture, political coercion, etc.
"Even if you differentiate and only disable the driver's phone, how do you stop the drivers borrowing a passenger's phone? There isn't a technological solution to this, only legal ones (which already exist)."
Speaking of existing, there is another problem here: the fact that studies have broken any demonstrable cause-effect relationship between (voice) cell phone use and automobile accidents.
There is a correlation, to be sure. But actual studies done to show a causative effect have come up short. But it's even more solid than that, because real-world data show the same thing: where no-cell-phone laws have been passed, there has been no significant reduction in automobile accidents. And in those areas that subsequently repealed those laws, again there was no significant difference in accident rates.
The actual cause is likely an outside factor. For example: it is very possible that people who tend to drive distractedly also have a tendency to use cell phones for their source of distraction. But when they don't have cell phones, they are simply distracted by other things.
I bring this up because it has been shown that laws against (voice) cell phone use while driving do a significant amount of bad (can't make calls while on the highway, and so on, which has very significant health and safety implications), while not, in exchange, doing any tangible good.
I should also note that other studies have found absolutely no difference in "distracted driving" between so-called "hands-free" use and holding the phone up to your ear.
"What they are referencing here is not a national internet sales tax."
The person I was replying to *DID* reference a national internet sales tax. So what's your point?
"And Congress may regulate trade between the states."
No shit, Sherlock. Look, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about this. As I stated earlier, I've explained at great length here, more than once, exactly why it's unconstitutional, and I don't feel like doing it again right now.
"I was about to say the same thing... I've traveled many times since 9/11, and have lost precisely nothing to the TSA."
Wish I could say the same. I have not flown very often in recent years, but the last time I did, a rare and expensive (and perfectly legal) laser was missing from my luggage when I picked it up at my destination. I have little doubt it was stolen by the TSA baggage inspectors. Even if they (wrongly) thought it was illegal, they are required to inform you when they confiscate something. So it wasn't that... it was simply stolen.
"So in other words, Amazon has managed to lobby legislators into having a national internet sales tax which it can fairly easily implement (since it designed it and is a large company after all) in order to screw over both the average Joe AND make the playing field less competitive (the US tax code is far from simple...) "
It's worse than that, since a "national internet sales tax" is unconstitutional, despite what the Supreme Court previously said about the possibility.
I have laid out the reasons why several times, at length, here on Slashdot. I really don't feel like doing it again today.
First, about reference points. I mentioned books and history but there is another factor: you don't have to know how things were a long time ago to see what direction things are going today. In order to do that, you only need a memory of a few short years. You can see where you were, and where things are headed, and have every right to not like it. Hell, the amount of freedom we have lost in just the last 10+ years is staggering... it compares unfavorably to encroachments made over whole centuries before.
Second, about humility. I have had experience of this myself even here on Slashdot, and even though I am not as young as some of the people under discussion here.
In recent years, I have often been accused of arrogance, egotism, or lack of humility simply for making a scientific argument with which some other party disagreed. But they didn't have any real logical arguments to make, so they accuse me of "lacking humility" because I had the "arrogance" to buck the mainstream view.
In that context, it's nothing more than a kind of ad-hominem attack which deserves no respect (or humility, for that matter). It is nothing but sour grapes from those who themselves cannot emotionally accept being wrong. This in turn suggests that it is actually they who lack humility. Psychologists call this behavior "projection".
I'm not accusing you of such. I'm simply saying that this kind of error has seemed to be pretty common lately. Being right is not "arrogant", it's simply having a grasp of the facts. And bucking the mainstream is not "lack of humility" if the "authority" figure in that instance deserves to be viewed with skepticism.
"If you specify everything in advance, you can only start developing _after_ everything is specified."
I did not say or even imply specifying everything in advance. I only mentioned a scope of work. That has nothing at all to do with waterfall-style management. A scope of work is just a general description of what the eventual goal is, not of how to accomplish it.
But if your scope of work says "Build a website with features X, Y, and Z", then the customer at some point says "We just realized that our business objective will also require feature Q, and Y has to be changed to do Y version 2", then that's outside your scope of work and you charge more.
You make some good points but I don't agree with all of them.
For one thing, several studies have shown young people today are more politically-aware, on average, than any past generation that was similarly studied.
As for reference points, all they have to do is pick up a history book or look at the laws. They might not have experienced those days, but that's what books are for: communicating information and ideas that you did not experience yourself.
And I agree about social skills, but not necessarily about humility. An awful lot of accusations in recent years about "lack of humility" has in actuality been due to that same lack of respect for authority mentioned earlier. Being subservient to authority is not "humility". The two are unrelated.
"By the way, in case somebody doesn't understand what the 'fifth' is..."
Right on one point. Wrong on two others:
"But to testify against yourself you have to be a suspect, you have to be the one on trial, that's why Lois Lerner, the IRS director "taking the fifth" makes no sense, she wasn't on trial."
It makes perfect sense. It doesn't just apply to trials, it applies to everything Government does. And under current law, Congress can require you to tell the truth in testimony before them, under penalty of perjury. But that law does not trump the 5th Amendment. Thus Lerner leaned on the 5th Amendment, so that she doesn't have to lie or face perjury charges. (I make no judgement about whether she is guilty of what she is alleged to have done. I'm simply saying that the 5th Amendment has legitimate standing in her situation.)
"OTOH in this case I am NOT convinced that the fifth amendment is relevant in cases of encrypted data!"
It most DEFINITELY is. This is the principle -- and legal reasoning -- that prevents torture and government coercion today.
I am just being pedantic here, the fifth is not necessarily a protection against being forced to give up data that already exists that you do not have to create or produce at the moment of giving it up.
Yes, it is.
A "product of the mind" (in the Supreme Court's words), such as a password, can "incriminate" you (show that you are a criminal), if the government doesn't already know that you committed that specific crime. If they do know that already, then you are already incriminated, and you cannot incriminate yourself for that crime.
But if they do not know that, then revealing things via a password or other information stored in your head can result in incriminating yourself.
Therefore (and this legal precedent has a long and respected history): if the government does not already know that something illegal exists within encrypted data, the government cannot compel you to reveal the key to that data. Doing so constitutes a real and present danger that you will incriminate yourself.
That's why.
Note that this says nothing about whether the authorities can crack the encryption if they are able. There is no 4th or 5th Amendment issue in doing that, as long as they have probable cause. But probable cause is simply not enough justification to force violation of the 5th Amendment by revealing a password (or known location, or other "product of the mind").
In this specific case, having broken the encryption on one drive and found illegal material is not good enough. The government has to know "with reasonable particularity" (Supreme Court's words again) that illegal material already exists in the thing to be searched. Already knowing that he is a criminal is not good enough. They have to KNOW, in advance, that there is proof of criminality in those other hard drives first. Because what is in there might incriminate him for even worse crimes.
"The problem with Agile is that it gives too much freedom to the customer to change their mind late in the project and make the developers do it all over again."
It does nothing of the sort. The methodology doesn't affect the scope of work, which (for fixed projects) should be specified in advance.
If you're asked to do something that is outside the agreed-upon scope, you re-negotiate the delivery time and the payment. End of story. Your coding methodology has literally nothing to do with it. If someone has pulled that on you, then somebody didn't firm up the original agreement like they should have. It's often a failure of management.
"The most authority phobic generation in history? Really? Anyone forget the 60's?"
Besides, it isn't "authority phobia" at all. People keep using that word incorrectly. In this case, it's not phobia, it's disrespect and disdain.
And while the 60s might have bred some of the most adamant protesters, it is not hard to argue that young people have more reason to be disdainful of authority than ever before. Authority has screwed them at every turn.
Authority has ruined their economy. (Yes, they did.)
Authority has gotten them involved in more wars than ever before, without ever having the guts to call them wars.
Authority has been stealing their freedoms. In the last decade or two, it hasn't even been a little bit, or sneakily. They've been ripping it right out from under people.
I could go on. America is far more messed up than it was in the Vietnam era. It had its problems then, no doubt. It has more problems now, and even less excuse for them.
"I don't understand... I went to the FishcherTechnik website. All I see there are toys for kids, racing tracks, and a few small-scale models of assembly-line robots? Looks like the entire website is geared for selling to kids as it even categorizes the items based on age, not to mention the kiddie-colours. Then again, perhaps I thought hobby robotics would be a little more serious than what I'm seeing there."
Apologies. I linked to the "fishertechnik" website, which only sells a small subset of the Fischer Technik products, and for that matter isn't even a very well-done website.
"And thus we see the right wing eating its own. Jane Q. Public is one of Slashdot's most reliably conservative posters--but one post that deviates from orthodoxy, and out come the McCarthyite claws."
Hahahahahahahaha.
For one thing, I'm not "conservative", at all. You just think I am because I don't like Democrats. Not the same thing. Really. For your information, I don't like Republicans either. You're a real hoot.
And "McCarthyite claws???? Simply because I asked a question? Hahahahahaha. This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
Do you read bumps on peoples' heads for your next act?
I meant to add: people said GPS couldn't be jammed, too, because of its sophisticated coding. N. Korea proved that wrong by simply using a very strong signal that was "kind of" like a GPS signal. All the GPS for a wide area around the border went completely out of service.
Slashdot Mirror
"You should mail yourself stuff."
That would be a pretty good idea in some cases. That time, though, I was just going out of town for a couple of days.
"How do you figure it's unconstitutional?"
Repeat:
"I have laid out the reasons why several times, at length, here on Slashdot. I really don't feel like doing it again today."
"Feel free to link to your own previous post."
Unlike some people, I'm a frequent poster here, and I'm not about to go searching through thousands of old posts to satisfy your whim. If you want to find it, go find it yourself.
I've already told you I don't intent to argue about it right now. Your post could be considered to be trolling.
"... come up with a specific, precisely defined scenario, where the Fifth Amendment makes a positive difference."
This misses the boat.
It's not designed to make "a positive difference", unless what you actually mean is "lack of a negative difference". Like torture, political coercion, etc.
"I think that's already been done..."
It needs to be an app, not an OS.
"Even if you differentiate and only disable the driver's phone, how do you stop the drivers borrowing a passenger's phone? There isn't a technological solution to this, only legal ones (which already exist)."
Speaking of existing, there is another problem here: the fact that studies have broken any demonstrable cause-effect relationship between (voice) cell phone use and automobile accidents.
There is a correlation, to be sure. But actual studies done to show a causative effect have come up short. But it's even more solid than that, because real-world data show the same thing: where no-cell-phone laws have been passed, there has been no significant reduction in automobile accidents. And in those areas that subsequently repealed those laws, again there was no significant difference in accident rates.
The actual cause is likely an outside factor. For example: it is very possible that people who tend to drive distractedly also have a tendency to use cell phones for their source of distraction. But when they don't have cell phones, they are simply distracted by other things.
I bring this up because it has been shown that laws against (voice) cell phone use while driving do a significant amount of bad (can't make calls while on the highway, and so on, which has very significant health and safety implications), while not, in exchange, doing any tangible good.
I should also note that other studies have found absolutely no difference in "distracted driving" between so-called "hands-free" use and holding the phone up to your ear.
"Could also have been the airline baggage handlers."
It could have been, but it's less likely, because baggage handlers do not have permission to go through your bags.
Of course it happens. I know that. But I have a very strong suspicion it was TSA.
"What they are referencing here is not a national internet sales tax."
The person I was replying to *DID* reference a national internet sales tax. So what's your point?
"And Congress may regulate trade between the states."
No shit, Sherlock. Look, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about this. As I stated earlier, I've explained at great length here, more than once, exactly why it's unconstitutional, and I don't feel like doing it again right now.
" And where did the contract specifically state Y version 1"
If it doesn't, then you did it wrong. That's my whole point.
It's illegal anyway. There is no way in Hell -- or anywhere else -- that this is constitutional.
"I was about to say the same thing... I've traveled many times since 9/11, and have lost precisely nothing to the TSA."
Wish I could say the same. I have not flown very often in recent years, but the last time I did, a rare and expensive (and perfectly legal) laser was missing from my luggage when I picked it up at my destination. I have little doubt it was stolen by the TSA baggage inspectors. Even if they (wrongly) thought it was illegal, they are required to inform you when they confiscate something. So it wasn't that... it was simply stolen.
"So in other words, Amazon has managed to lobby legislators into having a national internet sales tax which it can fairly easily implement (since it designed it and is a large company after all) in order to screw over both the average Joe AND make the playing field less competitive (the US tax code is far from simple...) "
It's worse than that, since a "national internet sales tax" is unconstitutional, despite what the Supreme Court previously said about the possibility.
I have laid out the reasons why several times, at length, here on Slashdot. I really don't feel like doing it again today.
I would like to add a bit to my earlier comment.
First, about reference points. I mentioned books and history but there is another factor: you don't have to know how things were a long time ago to see what direction things are going today. In order to do that, you only need a memory of a few short years. You can see where you were, and where things are headed, and have every right to not like it. Hell, the amount of freedom we have lost in just the last 10+ years is staggering... it compares unfavorably to encroachments made over whole centuries before.
Second, about humility. I have had experience of this myself even here on Slashdot, and even though I am not as young as some of the people under discussion here.
In recent years, I have often been accused of arrogance, egotism, or lack of humility simply for making a scientific argument with which some other party disagreed. But they didn't have any real logical arguments to make, so they accuse me of "lacking humility" because I had the "arrogance" to buck the mainstream view.
In that context, it's nothing more than a kind of ad-hominem attack which deserves no respect (or humility, for that matter). It is nothing but sour grapes from those who themselves cannot emotionally accept being wrong. This in turn suggests that it is actually they who lack humility. Psychologists call this behavior "projection".
I'm not accusing you of such. I'm simply saying that this kind of error has seemed to be pretty common lately. Being right is not "arrogant", it's simply having a grasp of the facts. And bucking the mainstream is not "lack of humility" if the "authority" figure in that instance deserves to be viewed with skepticism.
"If you specify everything in advance, you can only start developing _after_ everything is specified."
I did not say or even imply specifying everything in advance. I only mentioned a scope of work. That has nothing at all to do with waterfall-style management. A scope of work is just a general description of what the eventual goal is, not of how to accomplish it.
But if your scope of work says "Build a website with features X, Y, and Z", then the customer at some point says "We just realized that our business objective will also require feature Q, and Y has to be changed to do Y version 2", then that's outside your scope of work and you charge more.
"I agree about disrespect and disdain but..."
You make some good points but I don't agree with all of them.
For one thing, several studies have shown young people today are more politically-aware, on average, than any past generation that was similarly studied.
As for reference points, all they have to do is pick up a history book or look at the laws. They might not have experienced those days, but that's what books are for: communicating information and ideas that you did not experience yourself.
And I agree about social skills, but not necessarily about humility. An awful lot of accusations in recent years about "lack of humility" has in actuality been due to that same lack of respect for authority mentioned earlier. Being subservient to authority is not "humility". The two are unrelated.
"By the way, in case somebody doesn't understand what the 'fifth' is..."
Right on one point. Wrong on two others:
"But to testify against yourself you have to be a suspect, you have to be the one on trial, that's why Lois Lerner, the IRS director "taking the fifth" makes no sense, she wasn't on trial."
It makes perfect sense. It doesn't just apply to trials, it applies to everything Government does. And under current law, Congress can require you to tell the truth in testimony before them, under penalty of perjury. But that law does not trump the 5th Amendment. Thus Lerner leaned on the 5th Amendment, so that she doesn't have to lie or face perjury charges. (I make no judgement about whether she is guilty of what she is alleged to have done. I'm simply saying that the 5th Amendment has legitimate standing in her situation.)
"OTOH in this case I am NOT convinced that the fifth amendment is relevant in cases of encrypted data!"
It most DEFINITELY is. This is the principle -- and legal reasoning -- that prevents torture and government coercion today.
I am just being pedantic here, the fifth is not necessarily a protection against being forced to give up data that already exists that you do not have to create or produce at the moment of giving it up.
Yes, it is.
A "product of the mind" (in the Supreme Court's words), such as a password, can "incriminate" you (show that you are a criminal), if the government doesn't already know that you committed that specific crime. If they do know that already, then you are already incriminated, and you cannot incriminate yourself for that crime.
But if they do not know that, then revealing things via a password or other information stored in your head can result in incriminating yourself.
Therefore (and this legal precedent has a long and respected history): if the government does not already know that something illegal exists within encrypted data, the government cannot compel you to reveal the key to that data. Doing so constitutes a real and present danger that you will incriminate yourself.
That's why.
Note that this says nothing about whether the authorities can crack the encryption if they are able. There is no 4th or 5th Amendment issue in doing that, as long as they have probable cause. But probable cause is simply not enough justification to force violation of the 5th Amendment by revealing a password (or known location, or other "product of the mind").
In this specific case, having broken the encryption on one drive and found illegal material is not good enough. The government has to know "with reasonable particularity" (Supreme Court's words again) that illegal material already exists in the thing to be searched. Already knowing that he is a criminal is not good enough. They have to KNOW, in advance, that there is proof of criminality in those other hard drives first. Because what is in there might incriminate him for even worse crimes.
I am pretty sure OP means "mid-00s".
The "mid-2000s" won't happen for about 500 years.
"The problem with Agile is that it gives too much freedom to the customer to change their mind late in the project and make the developers do it all over again."
It does nothing of the sort. The methodology doesn't affect the scope of work, which (for fixed projects) should be specified in advance.
If you're asked to do something that is outside the agreed-upon scope, you re-negotiate the delivery time and the payment. End of story. Your coding methodology has literally nothing to do with it. If someone has pulled that on you, then somebody didn't firm up the original agreement like they should have. It's often a failure of management.
"The most authority phobic generation in history? Really? Anyone forget the 60's?"
Besides, it isn't "authority phobia" at all. People keep using that word incorrectly. In this case, it's not phobia, it's disrespect and disdain.
And while the 60s might have bred some of the most adamant protesters, it is not hard to argue that young people have more reason to be disdainful of authority than ever before. Authority has screwed them at every turn.
Authority has ruined their economy. (Yes, they did.)
Authority has gotten them involved in more wars than ever before, without ever having the guts to call them wars.
Authority has been stealing their freedoms. In the last decade or two, it hasn't even been a little bit, or sneakily. They've been ripping it right out from under people.
I could go on. America is far more messed up than it was in the Vietnam era. It had its problems then, no doubt. It has more problems now, and even less excuse for them.
I don't disagree entirely. But it was just the wrong website. See the one I linked to above. It has a better selection.
"I don't understand... I went to the FishcherTechnik website. All I see there are toys for kids, racing tracks, and a few small-scale models of assembly-line robots? Looks like the entire website is geared for selling to kids as it even categorizes the items based on age, not to mention the kiddie-colours. Then again, perhaps I thought hobby robotics would be a little more serious than what I'm seeing there."
Apologies. I linked to the "fishertechnik" website, which only sells a small subset of the Fischer Technik products, and for that matter isn't even a very well-done website.
Try this one.
Whoosh.
Pardon me, but I should make this clear: my other reply was not meant in a nasty way. It could easily be mistaken for such.
I just think it's funny that you think I'm "conservative".
I will admit, though, that it's easier to mistake me for a conservative than it is to mistake me for a Democrat.
"And thus we see the right wing eating its own. Jane Q. Public is one of Slashdot's most reliably conservative posters--but one post that deviates from orthodoxy, and out come the McCarthyite claws."
Hahahahahahahaha.
For one thing, I'm not "conservative", at all. You just think I am because I don't like Democrats. Not the same thing. Really. For your information, I don't like Republicans either. You're a real hoot.
And "McCarthyite claws???? Simply because I asked a question? Hahahahahaha. This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
Do you read bumps on peoples' heads for your next act?
Guffaw. Snort.
I meant to add: people said GPS couldn't be jammed, too, because of its sophisticated coding. N. Korea proved that wrong by simply using a very strong signal that was "kind of" like a GPS signal. All the GPS for a wide area around the border went completely out of service.