What if your cell phone company monitored your phone conversations, and bleeped out words they didn't like? Naw, that could never happen...
In all seriousness, even though the link I posted to is not the same as the scenario you pointed out, it does show that something similar was flirted with. The only difference being that the law that forbids phone companies from interfering with voice transmissions does not apply to text messages, so Verizon was well within their legal rights, according to legal experts. To their credit, Verizon did reverse their decision later on, but only after a big stink of it was made.
My point is, every time you think of a "what next?" situation, there will most likely be prior art.
You also presume someone would care about the difference, rather than considering the police just as dangerous (if not more) than most actual criminals.
People who shoot at cops because they find them dangerous deserve to be in jail. That's called being a paranoid sociopath. Believe it or not, you don't get to shoot people just because they make you nervous, even if you have flimsy logic to prop it up. And please, spare me the "but they're in my house;" that only holds water when there's the reasonable presumption of danger, and it turns out that saying "I think cops are dangerous" isn't actually reasonable presumption of danger under the law. I don't think the poster was implying that someone should be allowed to shoot at the police just because they look dangerous. Is it legal to shoot at the police if they DO NOT properly identify themselves after breaking your door down with weapons drawn and you have no way of knowing who they are? In most states, it is perfectly legal to defend your home under such circumstances. The law in most cases does swing in favor of the homeowner but they better be damned sure that they thought it was a burglar. This is why the police are supposed to make every attempt to identify themselves.
So if they yell police, have identifiable uniforms on, and even give you a chance to drop your weapon and try to talk you, then no, you are guilty for murder if you pull that trigger anyway.
The myth that pervades America that you're allowed to shoot people you find in your house is distressing. If there's a mentally retarded man in your living room and you shoot him because you don't know him, you're not defending your home, you're a fucking murderer.
Grow up. You are right, you are not allowed to shoot at someone just because they're in your home. If that person is not threatening to harm you, and they are not wanted in your home, then you call the police.
However, there is a big difference between a mentally retarded man standing in my living room, being quite harmless to myself and everyone else in the room, versus 8-12 highly armed men in ski masks breaking in with their guns drawn during a pre-dawn raid while I'm presumably in bed. When a bunch of people with guns kick your door down, you have only a few seconds to grab your gun and defend yourself from what could potentially be a burglary. Even if the police scream "POLICE", that noise will probably just startle you out of sleep and you wouldn't even understand what they're saying in time.
This isn't a computer simulation - all it takes is for one nervous police officer or one extremely scared homeowner to pull the trigger and to make the situation really ugly. Unfortunately, very few people possess calm enough nerves to assess the situation, realize that it is the police that broke the door down, and to immediately put the gun down without making any threatening gestures.
Or just use another online video service - far easier than circumventing this stuff. And that is precisely what Google should be worried about. If the "IP-holders" had their way, the only videos that would populate Youtube would be home videos of people acting insanely stupid. The population of viewers would drop significantly over time. Not to say that EVERYONE only goes to Youtube for viewing copyrighted material, but I can imagine people using other services to find their favorite band's music video or clips from one of their favorite movies if everything were to be filtered out.
Perhaps I'm not correctly grasping the concept here, but to me, less viewers means less ad hits. Less ad hits means less revenue stream for Youtube / Google. Yet, Google HAS to oblige by copyright holders when requested to, so they have absolutely no choice in this matter.
Wait 'til Ted Stevens finds out that the internet fits in a shipping container! Great! Makes things a lot easier in case he wants to ship the Internet over a certain bridge...:)
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Don't mod the parent "off topic". It's possible that God is posting AC. Check the bottom of of the thread to see if the last post is AC as well.
Interestingly enough, the internal Slashdot ID for AC is 666.
I can confirm this. I did about 100 in less than 15 minutes. For quite a few of them, I either entered garbage or nothing at all as the word on the left and still got through successfully.
To apply this logic to a PC, if you install Doom on your machine, the warranty is voided.
Read your Windows license. There is absolutely no warranty or guarantee associated with Windows. If you install software on your PC and "brick" (cinder block?) it, Microsoft is under no duty whatsoever to repair or replace it.
And since when did Microsoft start manufacturing PCs? Nobody is talking about Windows. The Windows license covers the Windows Operating System, NOT the computer. The poster was referring to the warranty on the computer. As far as I know, if your Dell or Sony PC (for example) dies on you and you haven't gone out of your way to use it in any way in which it was not intended for, then the warranty would cover repairing it.
The OP should have said "To apply this logic to a PC, if you install Doom on your machine, the warranty with Dell is voided.
Millions of sites come into being and go out of being all the time. What does this statement have to do with anything? It seems like submitter has a lack of understanding how basic Google and the web work, but the story has made it to Slashdot. If you had bothered reading the article, you would have seen:
The.cn sites don't appear to be hosted ANYWHERE. They are simply redirected domain names. How they got ranked in Google in such a short period of time for fairly competitive keywords is a mystery. Google's index even shows legitimate content for the.cn sites.
It appears that the faked sites are redirecting the Googlebot to a location where content can be indexed, while at the same time recognizing normal users and redirecting them to a site that includes the malware mentioned earlier. This is an obvious violation of Google's guidelines, but the spammers have found ways to circumvent the rule and hide it from the Googlebot.
Yes, millions of sites do come into being all the time. Had Google indexed a site, and had said-site disappeared before the index was updated, you would simply either hit a landing page (if that domain was purchased but not set-up) or you would get an error message
The submitter was referring to instances when a fake redirector is being set-up and tricking the googlebot by sending it to websites with content and keywords while sending normal users to malware-infested sites. This is a completely different situation than "Millions of sites come into being and go out of being all the time." In this case, those sites are still there and are appearing pretty high up in the index, while redirecting unsuspecting users to other websites. They exist in the physical sense, but that's about it.
I think the Slashdot IQ level is dropping because this is a Digg story. Or because the readers simply don't bother to read the articles they comment on any more.
The first time this happens, I predict federal funding of stem cell research to be approved by congress within 24 hours. Naw, it'll face stiff resistance from the White House.
So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.
The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.
*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3): (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments
That would be fine if they updated the definition of Foreign Powers. The executive branch has the legitimate power and duty to pursue war-like activities against foreign enemy terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda. However the definition in the law you provided excludes such organizations. That is the problem. I see your point and you are correct there. And while the definition of Foreign Powers covers terrorist organizations, it does not apply to FISA:
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
Al Qaeda would fall under #4. Interestingly, Hezbollah would be all three! I was actually responding to your example of Japan and Pearl Harbor, as the government of Japan would have fallen under #1. If the Government tried to spy on Al Qaeda, they would need a FISA warrant, I presume. Now why they would need a FISA warrant for a terrorist organization and not for a foreign entity such as a government is beyond me.
I agree that if we switched Japan with Al Quada, in your example, then things would be completely different.
200 hours to get a FISA warrant? No, the FISA system is pretty well documented. If you come to the judge with the right level of evidence, it takes a matter of a pen stroke.
They might be claiming it takes 200 hours to get that level of evidence but that is very misleading. It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant. Absolutely. And if it really is taking the government over 200 hours to get a FISA warrant, then something within the process is bottlenecking the entire operation and needs to be corrected. Instead, the alleged 200 hours is being used as an excuse to ignore the whole process.
Perhaps they are using all of the hours involved in the case up to and including getting the warrant as part of their calculations, which would be grossly misleading. I'm just speculating here, but those hours spent doing research would have to happen regardless of whether they are aiming for a warrant or not. Getting the actual warrant should be presenting evidence to a judge, allowing the judge time to decide, and then getting a signature. If that takes more than 72 hours then I would love to see some non-confidential evidence documenting this.
No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war. You're taking the statement out of context. The OP was speaking in the context of the US Government AND the US Populace, not foreign ones. Here was the paragraph with that information:
It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal. Emphasis mine. It is generally accepted for the government to spy on foreign governments; the United States does it all the time and other countries do it to the U.S. as well. Furthermore, your example is flawed as the Japanese would have never discussed Pearl Harbor over AT&T lines, unless communications were being made to and from the U.S. at some point. Even then, the electronic surveillance statute allows the President to authorize surveillance without a warrant for up to one year only if it is for foreign intelligence information. So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.
The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.
*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3): (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments
but what kind of infrastructure does it take to monitor 12.5 million people? Even with cameras and RFID chips, I can't imagine how many people it would take to operate a system like that. A far more sophisticated system is already in place. Have you ever used a credit card?
No no no I'm not implying that credit cards are a part of a larger government conspiracy, but, your credit card allows creditors the intimate knowledge of your shopping habits, where you were during certain times, and quite possibly, what your intentions are. I'm quite sure the system is currently rigged to raise red flags when certain conditions are met.
"The Terrorist Threat of Paying Your Credit Card Balance" gives a good example as to what happens when you pay off more than a certain percentage of your credit card. According to the blog, the Department of Homeland Security is notified at that point and the funds are frozen.
Ditto when you try to purchase a large quantity of fertilizer. Good luck trying to buy a one-way airplane ticket using cash. The extra scrutiny you'll receive at the airport will be beyond comprehension.
I don't think Americans would stand for it. Or at least I hope we wouldn't, but then again NSA and Homeland Security have been breaching this topic for months and haven't received that many obstacles... As mentioned above, Americans have already accepted this as a way of life. Some will say, ironically, that it's a cost of freedom. Those same people will shrug and say "If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to be afraid of." They don't help the situation by shouting people down with threats of the big bad Islam or Communism creeping next door. Others, however, will become equally irate when the government tries to use this available infrastructure to spy and track people.
The government is stuck in a situation where they cannot please anyone. If, say, an individual buys ammonium-nitrate grade fertilizer in mass quantities, and later on that person blows up a building, people will be screaming about why the government did nothing to stop that person when the red flags went up. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Americans, especially, will have to eventually realize that the most ironclad means of defense will never be full proof. Every system is dependent on its weakest link; usually those that are tasked with operating it. All it takes is for a few security analysts with the FBI to ignore connecting the dots, a few TSA screeners to overlook suspicious materials, and so on. Even if every last American was being tracked every second of the day, there will still be means of circumventing the system.
A distinction should be made between a website that can't function without client-side scripting, and websites that use it to support various functions but can work without it.
For instance, the multi-level menus on a website should not be the only means of browsing its pages. In fact, if the user were to turn off all of their scripting for their browser, the website should function minimally. Even with Gmail, you could change the site options to "basic HTML", which is found on the bottom of the page.
How about banking websites where you try to pay your bill and want to input the date? Most sites currently have a calendar pop-up for you to display a slick interface. But one should still be able to manually enter in a date that conforms to how the date is stored. (Or use server-side validation & conversion.) Again, inputting a date should not depend on a client-side calendar function since quite a few users use browsers that do not have any client-side scripting functionality.
I agree with your point that a lot of the sites we commonly use have features that depend on client-side scripting, but the website itself should still function if you choose to turn off the functionality on the browser level, and that is what the parent was talking about if I understood their point correctly.
Were you also against any investigation into the Valerie Plame leak? I see your point and I'm not trying to be rude, but this is called comparing apples to oranges. Was exposing the identity of Valerie Plame done for the greater good of the population? While the act of a crime is important, I also look for the motive. Did this individual leak the information for personal gain and profit? Did he give the information to Russian or Egyptian spies for a large sum of money? No. By contrast, why did the administration have to go out of their way to ruin the career of a CIA agent to defend themselves against Joseph C. Wilson?
So leaking the name of an alleged covert* CIA agent was perfectly fine, but exposing an act that had serious constitutional problems warrants a full raid? Make no mistake, I do support an investigation to see what classified material was passed off and the full extent of the harm done, if any. That is to be expected. I also expect this person to lose their job and to be prosecuted. Laws should not be bent or ignored for certain people - but I fully expect him to be exonerated as well with regards to his motives.
To me, this individual is a true civil servant. He put his career on the line to do what he felt was the right thing. He didn't feel good about coming into work knowing that he was supporting something that is considered constitutionally murky, at best, and outright illegal and unconstitutional at worse. The leaker of Valerie Plame's identity cannot make such claims, unfortunately. Now had this individual leaked classified information out of spite or hatred for Bush, then I wouldn't support him - that would have been malicious and reckless. If he truly did this because the act of breaking a sacred trust between citizen and government made his stomach turn to knots, then more power to him.
Furthermore, in the name of consistency, I would fully expect the Bush administration to commute any sentencing of this individual, as they did the same for I. Scooter Libby for perjury.
*I say alleged because even though the CIA claims that she was covert, others disagree based on her public appearances.
fine, next time i go outside and smell someone smoking, i'll punch them in the face. yes, smoking is obnoxious, but does that give me the right to punch them in the face?
according to you it does Um, no, I think you completely missed the point and proved how badly you missed by using a ridiculous analogy. Punching someone in the face for smoking outside DOES NOT equal subduing a man after refusing to follow police orders, resisting arrest, and lunging towards police officers after being ordered to lie on the ground. This was a very poor analogy and I would recommend reading more about the Rodney King case before using it as an example.
Furthermore, the poster did not say that it was okay for Rodney King to be beaten with metal batons like he was. The point that they were making is that people like you fixate on the glory of the video, but completely ignore the circumstances around the video, as you proved earlier in the post by comparing punching someone in the face for smoking vs. being pummeled after resisting arrest and threatening police.
Those that did fixate on the video went on to riot causing over one billion dollars in damage, 10,000 people arrested, 50-60 people dead, and around 2,000 people injured. It is interesting how you talk about justice and not revenge, yet the aftermath of the video was all about revenge and not justice.
furthermore, rodney king was punished by those who are supposed to be enforcing the law. you know, bring him to jail and to court. rather than also serving as trial, judge, and executioner. that's ok to you? the judgment of a beat cop is superior to a court of law? This is very true. Unfortunately, to take him to jail and to court would require an arrest, which he was resisting. Don't get me wrong, I HATE brutal police tactics and do believe that the police need to take every measure possible to limit any force used. I most certainly did not believe that the force used on Rodney King was justified. Two of the officers on the scene who had participated in beating King were surprised to learn that other officers had participated. They had "tunneled" in on Rodney King and never realized the situation around them. This means that they lacked training.
But what about the video? The video only captured only the beating. But it had not captured: 1. Rodney King refusing to pull over after a high-speed police chase 2. Remaining in the car after being ordered to come out 3. Finally coming out, smiling and waving at the overhead police helicopter 4. Making a lewd gesture at police when being asked to show his hands 5. Refusal to lay on the ground when being ordered to do so 6. Repelling a full police swarm tactic 7. And finally, getting up after being tased twice and charging a police officer.
This still does not justify 31-56 metal batons to the head and knee crunches to the shoulder, causing King's head to hit the pavement. The police could have easily avoided this mess had they only used enough force to subdue King and used what other jurisdictions were using; a net, Velcro blanket to wrap and secure around the suspect, or a leg grabber. Of course, Rodney King could have avoided this mess too by initially complying with the police and coming out the vehicle and laying on the ground when being told to do so.
Hell, I'll help you out here and give you two better examples: The groom who was shot by NYC Police over 50 times or Amadou Diallo whom was unarmed and shot 41 times by NYC Police. Those same officers that shot Diallo were later acquitted of all charges.
Keep in mind, I'm not replying to your original post about photographs and video tapes being a tool against the government, which I felt was very well written and would have modded you up for had I had the points to do so. I'm replying to your reply to the parent and why using Rodney King is such a poor example.
Well it's not like this was an internal Microsoft e-mail from the VP telling its employees not to work at Google. However, regardless of whom the e-mail was from, if you have to resort to saying "Don't work for XYZ because they suck..." instead of saying "Work for us, we're great! Here are the reasons why..." then there are issues that need to be worked out within the company.
Personally, I'd rather have people pick my company to work for because it's a great company and not because the competition is labeled as being worse.
Hostile 2 - "I paid money to intentionally see this one scene where the person was killed in a really horrific way while enjoying a big tub of popcorn and soda" Manhunt 2 - "I killed this one pixelated person in a simulated environment in this really horrific way" There, fixed that for you.:) Paying to be a spectator to fake violence makes that difference considerably smaller. Whether you're watching a gruesome movie or playing a gruesome video game, people should keep in mind that it is fake and that they should never mimic what they see in a movie or do in a video game in real life.
Actually I have zero problems with your conclusion - that games should be rated realistically. And if this game was made for adult players, then they'll have no trouble proving that they're over 18 to purchase this.
Even if the final release is more polished and completely bug-free, it still won't be as powerful or feature-loaded as Opera or Firefox. I'm not sure if feature-loaded == great product every single time. Browser development should keep the bloat factor in mind. Unfortunately, you do tend to give up quite a bit of that light-weight factor when you include support for scripting, CSS, flash, java, etc. That's how Firefox 1.0 was intended originally - a lightweight browser that was standards-compliant, open source, and certainly not a memory hog. If you wanted a bloated application, they gave you that option by letting you add on extensions. Slowly, with each release, more and more bloat was added on and the memory footprint now hits over 120,000 K on some user's computers.
But it was not supposed to be bloated out of the box. And that's the point!
Slashdot Mirror
In all seriousness, even though the link I posted to is not the same as the scenario you pointed out, it does show that something similar was flirted with. The only difference being that the law that forbids phone companies from interfering with voice transmissions does not apply to text messages, so Verizon was well within their legal rights, according to legal experts. To their credit, Verizon did reverse their decision later on, but only after a big stink of it was made.
My point is, every time you think of a "what next?" situation, there will most likely be prior art.
So if they yell police, have identifiable uniforms on, and even give you a chance to drop your weapon and try to talk you, then no, you are guilty for murder if you pull that trigger anyway. The myth that pervades America that you're allowed to shoot people you find in your house is distressing. If there's a mentally retarded man in your living room and you shoot him because you don't know him, you're not defending your home, you're a fucking murderer.
Grow up. You are right, you are not allowed to shoot at someone just because they're in your home. If that person is not threatening to harm you, and they are not wanted in your home, then you call the police.
However, there is a big difference between a mentally retarded man standing in my living room, being quite harmless to myself and everyone else in the room, versus 8-12 highly armed men in ski masks breaking in with their guns drawn during a pre-dawn raid while I'm presumably in bed. When a bunch of people with guns kick your door down, you have only a few seconds to grab your gun and defend yourself from what could potentially be a burglary. Even if the police scream "POLICE", that noise will probably just startle you out of sleep and you wouldn't even understand what they're saying in time.
This isn't a computer simulation - all it takes is for one nervous police officer or one extremely scared homeowner to pull the trigger and to make the situation really ugly. Unfortunately, very few people possess calm enough nerves to assess the situation, realize that it is the police that broke the door down, and to immediately put the gun down without making any threatening gestures.
Perhaps I'm not correctly grasping the concept here, but to me, less viewers means less ad hits. Less ad hits means less revenue stream for Youtube / Google. Yet, Google HAS to oblige by copyright holders when requested to, so they have absolutely no choice in this matter.
I'm sorry, but white trash nerds have been doing this for a long time. Splendid, now we can't even take a laptop inside the port-a-potty.
Interestingly enough, the internal Slashdot ID for AC is 666.
I can confirm this. I did about 100 in less than 15 minutes. For quite a few of them, I either entered garbage or nothing at all as the word on the left and still got through successfully.
Good point. I suppose I misinterpreted the parent's response to the article itself and not the summary, which they were commenting on. Whoops. :\
And since when did Microsoft start manufacturing PCs? Nobody is talking about Windows. The Windows license covers the Windows Operating System, NOT the computer. The poster was referring to the warranty on the computer. As far as I know, if your Dell or Sony PC (for example) dies on you and you haven't gone out of your way to use it in any way in which it was not intended for, then the warranty would cover repairing it.
The OP should have said "To apply this logic to a PC, if you install Doom on your machine, the warranty with Dell is voided.
- The
.cn sites don't appear to be hosted ANYWHERE. They are simply redirected domain names. How they got ranked in Google in such a short period of time for fairly competitive keywords is a mystery. Google's index even shows legitimate content for the .cn sites. - It appears that the faked sites are redirecting the Googlebot to a location where content can be indexed, while at the same time recognizing normal users and redirecting them to a site that includes the malware mentioned earlier. This is an obvious violation of Google's guidelines, but the spammers have found ways to circumvent the rule and hide it from the Googlebot.
Yes, millions of sites do come into being all the time. Had Google indexed a site, and had said-site disappeared before the index was updated, you would simply either hit a landing page (if that domain was purchased but not set-up) or you would get an error messageThe submitter was referring to instances when a fake redirector is being set-up and tricking the googlebot by sending it to websites with content and keywords while sending normal users to malware-infested sites. This is a completely different situation than "Millions of sites come into being and go out of being all the time." In this case, those sites are still there and are appearing pretty high up in the index, while redirecting unsuspecting users to other websites. They exist in the physical sense, but that's about it. I think the Slashdot IQ level is dropping because this is a Digg story. Or because the readers simply don't bother to read the articles they comment on any more.
I hear Gmail will drop its beta designation when they bundle it with Duke Nukem Forever.
I wouldn't advise it. Stick to pretzels. I wouldn't advise it. Stick to water.
That would be fine if they updated the definition of Foreign Powers. The executive branch has the legitimate power and duty to pursue war-like activities against foreign enemy terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda. However the definition in the law you provided excludes such organizations. That is the problem. I see your point and you are correct there. And while the definition of Foreign Powers covers terrorist organizations, it does not apply to FISA:
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
Al Qaeda would fall under #4. Interestingly, Hezbollah would be all three! I was actually responding to your example of Japan and Pearl Harbor, as the government of Japan would have fallen under #1. If the Government tried to spy on Al Qaeda, they would need a FISA warrant, I presume. Now why they would need a FISA warrant for a terrorist organization and not for a foreign entity such as a government is beyond me.
I agree that if we switched Japan with Al Quada, in your example, then things would be completely different.
They might be claiming it takes 200 hours to get that level of evidence but that is very misleading. It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant. Absolutely. And if it really is taking the government over 200 hours to get a FISA warrant, then something within the process is bottlenecking the entire operation and needs to be corrected. Instead, the alleged 200 hours is being used as an excuse to ignore the whole process.
Perhaps they are using all of the hours involved in the case up to and including getting the warrant as part of their calculations, which would be grossly misleading. I'm just speculating here, but those hours spent doing research would have to happen regardless of whether they are aiming for a warrant or not. Getting the actual warrant should be presenting evidence to a judge, allowing the judge time to decide, and then getting a signature. If that takes more than 72 hours then I would love to see some non-confidential evidence documenting this.
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war. You're taking the statement out of context. The OP was speaking in the context of the US Government AND the US Populace, not foreign ones. Here was the paragraph with that information: It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal. Emphasis mine. It is generally accepted for the government to spy on foreign governments; the United States does it all the time and other countries do it to the U.S. as well. Furthermore, your example is flawed as the Japanese would have never discussed Pearl Harbor over AT&T lines, unless communications were being made to and from the U.S. at some point. Even then, the electronic surveillance statute allows the President to authorize surveillance without a warrant for up to one year only if it is for foreign intelligence information. So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Without A Court Order
The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.
*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3):
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments
US CODE: Title 50, 1801. Definitions
"news for nerds", right?
yes, this is news, but not slashdot news With "news for nerds" such as:
Why is Microsoft Patching XP?
High-Quality HD Content Can't Easily Be Played by Vista
Baiji River Dolphin May or May Not Be Extinct (WTF?? Schrödinger's Dolphin?)
We could really use a break.
No no no I'm not implying that credit cards are a part of a larger government conspiracy, but, your credit card allows creditors the intimate knowledge of your shopping habits, where you were during certain times, and quite possibly, what your intentions are. I'm quite sure the system is currently rigged to raise red flags when certain conditions are met.
"The Terrorist Threat of Paying Your Credit Card Balance" gives a good example as to what happens when you pay off more than a certain percentage of your credit card. According to the blog, the Department of Homeland Security is notified at that point and the funds are frozen.
Ditto when you try to purchase a large quantity of fertilizer. Good luck trying to buy a one-way airplane ticket using cash. The extra scrutiny you'll receive at the airport will be beyond comprehension. I don't think Americans would stand for it. Or at least I hope we wouldn't, but then again NSA and Homeland Security have been breaching this topic for months and haven't received that many obstacles... As mentioned above, Americans have already accepted this as a way of life. Some will say, ironically, that it's a cost of freedom. Those same people will shrug and say "If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to be afraid of." They don't help the situation by shouting people down with threats of the big bad Islam or Communism creeping next door. Others, however, will become equally irate when the government tries to use this available infrastructure to spy and track people.
The government is stuck in a situation where they cannot please anyone. If, say, an individual buys ammonium-nitrate grade fertilizer in mass quantities, and later on that person blows up a building, people will be screaming about why the government did nothing to stop that person when the red flags went up. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Americans, especially, will have to eventually realize that the most ironclad means of defense will never be full proof. Every system is dependent on its weakest link; usually those that are tasked with operating it. All it takes is for a few security analysts with the FBI to ignore connecting the dots, a few TSA screeners to overlook suspicious materials, and so on. Even if every last American was being tracked every second of the day, there will still be means of circumventing the system.
A distinction should be made between a website that can't function without client-side scripting, and websites that use it to support various functions but can work without it.
For instance, the multi-level menus on a website should not be the only means of browsing its pages. In fact, if the user were to turn off all of their scripting for their browser, the website should function minimally. Even with Gmail, you could change the site options to "basic HTML", which is found on the bottom of the page.
How about banking websites where you try to pay your bill and want to input the date? Most sites currently have a calendar pop-up for you to display a slick interface. But one should still be able to manually enter in a date that conforms to how the date is stored. (Or use server-side validation & conversion.) Again, inputting a date should not depend on a client-side calendar function since quite a few users use browsers that do not have any client-side scripting functionality.
I agree with your point that a lot of the sites we commonly use have features that depend on client-side scripting, but the website itself should still function if you choose to turn off the functionality on the browser level, and that is what the parent was talking about if I understood their point correctly.
So leaking the name of an alleged covert* CIA agent was perfectly fine, but exposing an act that had serious constitutional problems warrants a full raid? Make no mistake, I do support an investigation to see what classified material was passed off and the full extent of the harm done, if any. That is to be expected. I also expect this person to lose their job and to be prosecuted. Laws should not be bent or ignored for certain people - but I fully expect him to be exonerated as well with regards to his motives.
To me, this individual is a true civil servant. He put his career on the line to do what he felt was the right thing. He didn't feel good about coming into work knowing that he was supporting something that is considered constitutionally murky, at best, and outright illegal and unconstitutional at worse. The leaker of Valerie Plame's identity cannot make such claims, unfortunately. Now had this individual leaked classified information out of spite or hatred for Bush, then I wouldn't support him - that would have been malicious and reckless. If he truly did this because the act of breaking a sacred trust between citizen and government made his stomach turn to knots, then more power to him.
Furthermore, in the name of consistency, I would fully expect the Bush administration to commute any sentencing of this individual, as they did the same for I. Scooter Libby for perjury.
*I say alleged because even though the CIA claims that she was covert, others disagree based on her public appearances.
WHAT? An article about teen sex habits and no "I need pictures as evidence" jokes?
:)
You guys are really slipping up!
according to you it does Um, no, I think you completely missed the point and proved how badly you missed by using a ridiculous analogy. Punching someone in the face for smoking outside DOES NOT equal subduing a man after refusing to follow police orders, resisting arrest, and lunging towards police officers after being ordered to lie on the ground. This was a very poor analogy and I would recommend reading more about the Rodney King case before using it as an example.
Furthermore, the poster did not say that it was okay for Rodney King to be beaten with metal batons like he was. The point that they were making is that people like you fixate on the glory of the video, but completely ignore the circumstances around the video, as you proved earlier in the post by comparing punching someone in the face for smoking vs. being pummeled after resisting arrest and threatening police.
Those that did fixate on the video went on to riot causing over one billion dollars in damage, 10,000 people arrested, 50-60 people dead, and around 2,000 people injured. It is interesting how you talk about justice and not revenge, yet the aftermath of the video was all about revenge and not justice. furthermore, rodney king was punished by those who are supposed to be enforcing the law. you know, bring him to jail and to court. rather than also serving as trial, judge, and executioner. that's ok to you? the judgment of a beat cop is superior to a court of law? This is very true. Unfortunately, to take him to jail and to court would require an arrest, which he was resisting. Don't get me wrong, I HATE brutal police tactics and do believe that the police need to take every measure possible to limit any force used. I most certainly did not believe that the force used on Rodney King was justified. Two of the officers on the scene who had participated in beating King were surprised to learn that other officers had participated. They had "tunneled" in on Rodney King and never realized the situation around them. This means that they lacked training.
But what about the video? The video only captured only the beating. But it had not captured:
1. Rodney King refusing to pull over after a high-speed police chase
2. Remaining in the car after being ordered to come out
3. Finally coming out, smiling and waving at the overhead police helicopter
4. Making a lewd gesture at police when being asked to show his hands
5. Refusal to lay on the ground when being ordered to do so
6. Repelling a full police swarm tactic
7. And finally, getting up after being tased twice and charging a police officer.
This still does not justify 31-56 metal batons to the head and knee crunches to the shoulder, causing King's head to hit the pavement. The police could have easily avoided this mess had they only used enough force to subdue King and used what other jurisdictions were using; a net, Velcro blanket to wrap and secure around the suspect, or a leg grabber. Of course, Rodney King could have avoided this mess too by initially complying with the police and coming out the vehicle and laying on the ground when being told to do so.
Hell, I'll help you out here and give you two better examples: The groom who was shot by NYC Police over 50 times or Amadou Diallo whom was unarmed and shot 41 times by NYC Police. Those same officers that shot Diallo were later acquitted of all charges.
Keep in mind, I'm not replying to your original post about photographs and video tapes being a tool against the government, which I felt was very well written and would have modded you up for had I had the points to do so. I'm replying to your reply to the parent and why using Rodney King is such a poor example.
Well it's not like this was an internal Microsoft e-mail from the VP telling its employees not to work at Google. However, regardless of whom the e-mail was from, if you have to resort to saying "Don't work for XYZ because they suck..." instead of saying "Work for us, we're great! Here are the reasons why..." then there are issues that need to be worked out within the company.
Personally, I'd rather have people pick my company to work for because it's a great company and not because the competition is labeled as being worse.
Manhunt 2 - "I killed this one pixelated person in a simulated environment in this really horrific way" There, fixed that for you.
Actually I have zero problems with your conclusion - that games should be rated realistically. And if this game was made for adult players, then they'll have no trouble proving that they're over 18 to purchase this.
But it was not supposed to be bloated out of the box. And that's the point!