Not to mention that since Linux has no direct analogue to a "Domain Controller", searching for a substitute for Active Directory on Linux is kind of like searching for BBQ ribs at the local ice cream parlor.
If you grew up in an MS world and you just can't get over it, by all means try to find an Active Directory replacement. If not, brush off your Linux skills and learn how to do it right.
Yeah, I am assuming it is illegal. However, there is the legal precedent of "the greater good" (or "the lesser evil", if you prefer). That is to say, it is often permissible to break the law if not doing so would cause greater harm. A classic example that is often given is exceeding the speed limit to get a person who is in imminent danger of dying to the hospital.
In my view, breaking the law to take down a domestic surveillance drone (which pretty much any reasonable person knows to be unconstitutional) is very, very much on the side of the greater good.
" Constant technology use includes being surrounded by TV, ads designed to grab your attention, cell phones with direct connections to constantly changing media feeds (you don't want to miss anything), laptops, tablets, eBook readers, hand held games, warning systems, etc..."
I have read about study after study purporting that these devices change our brains and maybe even personalities, I haven't seen one -- not a single one -- demonstrating that those "changes" are still present when the technology is not. Nor have I seen any evidence -- even a little -- that these claimed "changes", even if retained, are harmful. The people claiming these things are strong on implication, but pretty short on evidence.
I spent some years over there, mostly in the Philadelphia area, and that entire section of East Coast had pretty regular power outages (sections of it, that is... not the whole thing at any one time, of course).
Compare that to here in the (relatively speaking) West, where electrical outages in any one place happen maybe about once every 5 years, and outages that last more than an hour or so might happen roughly once every 20 years or so.
I am aware that there are storm issues, etc. I'm not trying to say it's anybody's fault. But at the same time, it's true. Compared to much of the United States, the East Coast has some major power issues.
I would say that Apollo 11 and 13 were pretty adequately "manned". Anybody who tried to tell me those guys weren't real men would have to prove their own stuff to me.
"Anything that comes out of the UN is going to be bad for the rest of us."
It's time we pulled the plug on the UN. Stop subsidizing its operation, stop paying dues, stop giving accommodation to the visiting representatives, and rent out the building.
We have no need of them anymore. In fact, they need us a hell of a lot more than we need them, yet as often as not they have been acting against our interests.
Take all the U.S. money away, and bid them good day. Then turn the building into a bunch of rented offices.
First, building an electricity-hungry data center in NYC, with its notorious electricity problems and in the path of coastal storms... well... let's just say it's not the brightest star in the cosmos of ideas.
In fact, it kind of reminds me of... what was it? Oh, yeah. A major Southern coastal city that was built... mostly below sea level! Yeah! That's the ticket!
Oh... and flashbang grenades, and teargas (CS and CN) grenades... also devices invented for the military. And civilian police have employed acoustic devices that can act variously as loudspeakers or, in crowd-control mode, generate concentrated sound waves that can cause headache, generalized pain, and nausea.
This is actually an old technology, but the the newer long-range form of it was developed for the military, and has already been used by local police forces (in loudspeaker mode only, so far) at protests in various parts of the U.S. While it wasn't used as a weapon against civilians, the police were demonstrating their willingness and readiness to do so.
Civilians in the United States are uniquely allowed by their Constitution to possess military-grade weapons (don't argue with me about that one; it would lead to a flood of citations and you would lose). Therefore it is legal for us to use similar weapons in self-defense. And we are also empowered to defeat those weapons if they are used against peaceful civilians.
Sometimes, a LAWS or RPG is just exactly what the doctor ordered. If such is not available, messier methods must be employed.
"No where in that ammendent are there 'ers' or 'ifs' or 'buts', it's all quite clear."
Yes, it is quite clear:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It says "houses". It doesn't say farm fields, or any valley or mountain that happens to be on your property.
That's why the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean your home, and the immediate area surrounding your home (especially if fenced... the fence creates a "curtilage"). It doesn't have to be a solid or opaque fence. Chain link or even barbed wire or an electric fence will do. Or even a ditch. It just has to be a dividing line.
In most cities, the area around the home is small enough that the entire property is usually included in the "curtilage". This has led many people to believe that anything on their property is automatically protected. Not so. Only the "curtilage" surrounding your actual residence.
I don't agree with that interpretation. Personally, I think the entirety of a property should fall under the general terms "houses" or "effects" (which is another name for "property"). But I don't sit on today's Supreme Court.
Depends somewhat on the camera, and the altitude. If it's a large telephoto lens with image stability features, and you are taking pictures in order to see what's in my back yard, yes it would be illegal even if you were flying relatively high. Both here and in the next state over.
Repeat: any "surveillance" by any means other than the naked eye and ear is illegal without a warrant. And "surveillance" constitutes any vantage other than a nearby road or public place (like a sidewalk) where a normal passerby might -- well -- pass by.
That means climbing a tree to take pictures over my fence is illegal without a warrant. That means standing on a ladder to see over my fence is illegal (yes, it really is). That means flying over my house in order to see what's on my property is illegal.
And so is standing on the sidewalk with a pair of binoculars, staring through my window, even if the curtains are open. Again: yes, really.
My point being that those are not parts of the Act... they are areas where the Act does not apply. So in fact the President literally has nothing to do with it. His authority comes from a completely different body of law.
However, even given all that, the Posse Comitatus Act and similar laws are all rather questionable on Constitutional grounds. I don't really care whether or how often the U.S. Supreme Court may have upheld them.
"... the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress."
My point was: much like arresting people for recording their actions with a cell phone, police USED TO get away with this a lot. Not so much anymore, because when they get busted for it, they get busted big time. They tend to lose in court (and also in the public eye) and get fired from the police force at the very least.
In other words: if you live in a city, and have a yard with a fairly modest front lawn, let's say, and a fenced back yard, then typically the whole of the property would be "curtilage" protected by the 4th Amendment.
But if you live on a 1000-acre farm, very likely the "protected curtilage" would be only a small area around the actual house. You can help define this "protected curtilage" area yoursef, by building a fence around the residential area you want protected. Maybe you wan the barn to be within the protected curtilage, for example. So you build a fence at an 80 yard radius around the house and the barn. Very likely, a court would rule that to be "curtilage". But the wheat fields or whatever? No.
"My interpretation of this is that they think they can set up video cameras on public property to record activity on your personal property. Still not a great thing to have happen but not as bad as them installing something on your property without you knowing. Can anyone find where they explain further if the devices themselves were installed on the defendant's property?"
I don't know exactly where the devices are placed. But past court rulings have defined the "protected curtilage" to be only a relatively small area -- particularly but not necessarily a fenced area -- around the actual residence.
I don't agree with that definition... but that is the one most modern courts go by.
"An overhead drone can't see anything that isn't in plain view."
"Plain view" in this case isn't YOUR intuitive interpretation of plain view. It has legal definitions. Here, according to state law, "plain view" of your property is from on the ground, in any nearby street or public access way (sidewalk).
Even "surveilling" someone's property from a nearby hillside with a pair of binoculars is illegal.
"The Plain View Doctrine (or is it "Plane View"?) probably applies here unfortunately."
Perhaps on a Federal level. But state law here still makes it illegal to "surveil" someone's property from any vantage other than "a plain view from the street" or sidewalk. Meaning that even casual use of cameras in drones, over residential property, is illegal. Yes, even for law enforcement or military.
Even under order of the President, it is still illegal to use military against the civilian populace.
Posse Comitatus Act was intended to limit military use, not enable it. The military can only be used domestically for means explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, or by Congressional legislation. The President has literally nothing to do with it, other than allowing or vetoing said Congressional legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that since Linux has no direct analogue to a "Domain Controller", searching for a substitute for Active Directory on Linux is kind of like searching for BBQ ribs at the local ice cream parlor.
If you grew up in an MS world and you just can't get over it, by all means try to find an Active Directory replacement. If not, brush off your Linux skills and learn how to do it right.
Yeah, I am assuming it is illegal. However, there is the legal precedent of "the greater good" (or "the lesser evil", if you prefer). That is to say, it is often permissible to break the law if not doing so would cause greater harm. A classic example that is often given is exceeding the speed limit to get a person who is in imminent danger of dying to the hospital.
In my view, breaking the law to take down a domestic surveillance drone (which pretty much any reasonable person knows to be unconstitutional) is very, very much on the side of the greater good.
" Constant technology use includes being surrounded by TV, ads designed to grab your attention, cell phones with direct connections to constantly changing media feeds (you don't want to miss anything), laptops, tablets, eBook readers, hand held games, warning systems, etc..."
I have read about study after study purporting that these devices change our brains and maybe even personalities, I haven't seen one -- not a single one -- demonstrating that those "changes" are still present when the technology is not. Nor have I seen any evidence -- even a little -- that these claimed "changes", even if retained, are harmful. The people claiming these things are strong on implication, but pretty short on evidence.
I spent some years over there, mostly in the Philadelphia area, and that entire section of East Coast had pretty regular power outages (sections of it, that is... not the whole thing at any one time, of course).
Compare that to here in the (relatively speaking) West, where electrical outages in any one place happen maybe about once every 5 years, and outages that last more than an hour or so might happen roughly once every 20 years or so.
I am aware that there are storm issues, etc. I'm not trying to say it's anybody's fault. But at the same time, it's true. Compared to much of the United States, the East Coast has some major power issues.
I would say that Apollo 11 and 13 were pretty adequately "manned". Anybody who tried to tell me those guys weren't real men would have to prove their own stuff to me.
"Anything that comes out of the UN is going to be bad for the rest of us."
It's time we pulled the plug on the UN. Stop subsidizing its operation, stop paying dues, stop giving accommodation to the visiting representatives, and rent out the building.
We have no need of them anymore. In fact, they need us a hell of a lot more than we need them, yet as often as not they have been acting against our interests.
Take all the U.S. money away, and bid them good day. Then turn the building into a bunch of rented offices.
Uh... Gulf States? Experience?
First, building an electricity-hungry data center in NYC, with its notorious electricity problems and in the path of coastal storms... well... let's just say it's not the brightest star in the cosmos of ideas.
In fact, it kind of reminds me of... what was it? Oh, yeah. A major Southern coastal city that was built... mostly below sea level! Yeah! That's the ticket!
As clearly shown in MIB III, Lockout, and The Avengers, the REAL problem with space pens is that they allow escape far too easily.
"The whole idea of using a term as broad as 'effects' was to make the clause dick proof but obviously it is failing in that regard."
That's a good way to put it.
Oh... and flashbang grenades, and teargas (CS and CN) grenades... also devices invented for the military. And civilian police have employed acoustic devices that can act variously as loudspeakers or, in crowd-control mode, generate concentrated sound waves that can cause headache, generalized pain, and nausea.
This is actually an old technology, but the the newer long-range form of it was developed for the military, and has already been used by local police forces (in loudspeaker mode only, so far) at protests in various parts of the U.S. While it wasn't used as a weapon against civilians, the police were demonstrating their willingness and readiness to do so.
Civilians in the United States are uniquely allowed by their Constitution to possess military-grade weapons (don't argue with me about that one; it would lead to a flood of citations and you would lose). Therefore it is legal for us to use similar weapons in self-defense. And we are also empowered to defeat those weapons if they are used against peaceful civilians.
Sometimes, a LAWS or RPG is just exactly what the doctor ordered. If such is not available, messier methods must be employed.
"No where in that ammendent are there 'ers' or 'ifs' or 'buts', it's all quite clear."
Yes, it is quite clear:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It says "houses". It doesn't say farm fields, or any valley or mountain that happens to be on your property.
That's why the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean your home, and the immediate area surrounding your home (especially if fenced... the fence creates a "curtilage"). It doesn't have to be a solid or opaque fence. Chain link or even barbed wire or an electric fence will do. Or even a ditch. It just has to be a dividing line.
In most cities, the area around the home is small enough that the entire property is usually included in the "curtilage". This has led many people to believe that anything on their property is automatically protected. Not so. Only the "curtilage" surrounding your actual residence.
I don't agree with that interpretation. Personally, I think the entirety of a property should fall under the general terms "houses" or "effects" (which is another name for "property"). But I don't sit on today's Supreme Court.
I wonder. Is it illegal to take out something that's illegal, by illegal means?
Probably. Even better reason to not get caught.
Depends somewhat on the camera, and the altitude. If it's a large telephoto lens with image stability features, and you are taking pictures in order to see what's in my back yard, yes it would be illegal even if you were flying relatively high. Both here and in the next state over.
Repeat: any "surveillance" by any means other than the naked eye and ear is illegal without a warrant. And "surveillance" constitutes any vantage other than a nearby road or public place (like a sidewalk) where a normal passerby might -- well -- pass by.
That means climbing a tree to take pictures over my fence is illegal without a warrant. That means standing on a ladder to see over my fence is illegal (yes, it really is). That means flying over my house in order to see what's on my property is illegal.
And so is standing on the sidewalk with a pair of binoculars, staring through my window, even if the curtains are open. Again: yes, really.
My point being that those are not parts of the Act... they are areas where the Act does not apply. So in fact the President literally has nothing to do with it. His authority comes from a completely different body of law.
However, even given all that, the Posse Comitatus Act and similar laws are all rather questionable on Constitutional grounds. I don't really care whether or how often the U.S. Supreme Court may have upheld them.
"The wikipedia article I referenced, under "Exclusions and limitations" lists two situations speicifically where it is legal for the President"
Well, THIS Wikipedia article says:
"... the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress."
I certainly agree that even while engaging in perfectly legal civil disobedience, it is wisest to not get caught.
I say "legal" because surveillance drones are illegal in my state, and I believe in the neighboring states as well.
"How do you think that came about, hmm?"
My point was: much like arresting people for recording their actions with a cell phone, police USED TO get away with this a lot. Not so much anymore, because when they get busted for it, they get busted big time. They tend to lose in court (and also in the public eye) and get fired from the police force at the very least.
In other words: if you live in a city, and have a yard with a fairly modest front lawn, let's say, and a fenced back yard, then typically the whole of the property would be "curtilage" protected by the 4th Amendment.
But if you live on a 1000-acre farm, very likely the "protected curtilage" would be only a small area around the actual house. You can help define this "protected curtilage" area yoursef, by building a fence around the residential area you want protected. Maybe you wan the barn to be within the protected curtilage, for example. So you build a fence at an 80 yard radius around the house and the barn. Very likely, a court would rule that to be "curtilage". But the wheat fields or whatever? No.
"My interpretation of this is that they think they can set up video cameras on public property to record activity on your personal property. Still not a great thing to have happen but not as bad as them installing something on your property without you knowing. Can anyone find where they explain further if the devices themselves were installed on the defendant's property?"
I don't know exactly where the devices are placed. But past court rulings have defined the "protected curtilage" to be only a relatively small area -- particularly but not necessarily a fenced area -- around the actual residence.
I don't agree with that definition... but that is the one most modern courts go by.
"An overhead drone can't see anything that isn't in plain view."
"Plain view" in this case isn't YOUR intuitive interpretation of plain view. It has legal definitions. Here, according to state law, "plain view" of your property is from on the ground, in any nearby street or public access way (sidewalk).
Even "surveilling" someone's property from a nearby hillside with a pair of binoculars is illegal.
"The Plain View Doctrine (or is it "Plane View"?) probably applies here unfortunately."
Perhaps on a Federal level. But state law here still makes it illegal to "surveil" someone's property from any vantage other than "a plain view from the street" or sidewalk. Meaning that even casual use of cameras in drones, over residential property, is illegal. Yes, even for law enforcement or military.
Even under order of the President, it is still illegal to use military against the civilian populace.
Posse Comitatus Act was intended to limit military use, not enable it. The military can only be used domestically for means explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, or by Congressional legislation. The President has literally nothing to do with it, other than allowing or vetoing said Congressional legislation.
Not so fast!
Until the "drug war", they didn't much carry automatic weapons, either, at least since the '20s. Now they do.
The increasing militarization of local police forces is not something to be ignored.
Orson Wells. Well-known (no pun intended) for his "drone".
Time for people to hone their skills with model (or "amateur") rocket engines and IR trackers.
Srsly. It is easily within casual hobbyist technology to bring these things down.