The only reason to secure your communications is to hide information from your enemies. If the police are securing their communication from the populace that means they are doing things that need to be hidden from the population. The police taking actions which need to be hidden from the population is unacceptable in a country governed by rule of law.
Rove worked for the elder Bush as well. His 1978 and 1980 campaigns were primarily Rove's work. Rove was engaged in Texas to shepherd Bush's son and keep him out of trouble after the elder Bush went to Washington as the Vice-President.
That is not true. Karl Rove first worked with George W. Bush on his failed Congressional campaign in 1978, before George H.W. Bush became Vice President. While Karl Rove worked on George H. W. Bush's 1980 Presidential campaign, he was not its chief architect. Additionally, George H.W. Bush did not run for any office in 1978.
I am not sure what Karl Rove has to do with the consideration of Steve Jobs for a posible appointment by President George H.W. Bush. Karl Rove was an advisor to George W. Bush, who had yet to run for governor of Texas when this took place.
But I have always been of the mind that people speeding are paying WAY more attention to the road than the average driver, and in the end probably are not as likely to get in an accident.
However, you miss an important point, if you are speeding and paying attention, you are not nearly as likely to get a speeding ticket as someone who is speeding and not paying attention. While I agree that most of the drivers I know who speed regularly pay more attention than those who do not (on average) and are overall better, safer drivers, this observation does not include the subset who frequently get speeding tickets. Those drivers I have known who frequently get speeding tickets, also, are more frequently in accidents than the other drivers I know. On the other hand, the best driver I know usually drives like a bat out of hell but has gotten few speeding tickets because he is always paying attention and knows how to recognize where cops are likely to set up speed traps. The ability to recognize where cops are likely to set up speed traps and/or spot such speed traps in time to slow down is significantly related to the ability to recognize and spot (and avoid) other road hazards.
Of course, doing that depends on me doing a large enough chunk of my shopping at the store that is collecting the loyalty card data. I think loyalty cards are ridiculous. I have them for four different grocery store chains (plus I also shop at a fifth that doesn't have a loyalty card and is often cheaper than the others even with the cards). So, somebody could get a profile on me by combining all of them, but not from a single one of them. Additionally, there is at least two different addresses on them since I do not update the addresses when I move (I'm not interested in getting junk mail from the grocery store...or any other store). I, also, do not see how you could get any idea about my propensity for alcoholism, since grocery stores are not allowed to sell alcohol in my state.
Sure, for now, as soon as they get sufficient uptake on this service, those who do not "opt-in" will be charged a premium for not doing so. Oh, they will still set it up so that those who "opt-in" will be getting a discount. They will just raise the rates for anyone who does not "opt-in" and call that their new base rates. So, it will work out like this:
Good driver with few or no accidents on your record but not opted-in, $500
Bad driver with many accidents but opted-in, $400
Good driver same as #1 but opted-in, $200
Dollar amounts are chosen to illustrate how they will make it work. It will be cheaper to be a terrible driver and opt-in, than to be a good driver (based on actual claims made against the insurance company) and not opt-in. The other possibility is that by not opting in you will be more likely to be considered "at fault" in an accident.
The military is at war with someone when it matters if their tactical communication are secured. Real-time police communications only need to be secured from the populace if the police are at war with the populace.
Good point. For those of you on here who oppose the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling, how come Citizens United does not have the same rights that the NYT corporation has?
I got my information from the article linked to in the summary and from the AP article which that article linked to. Just because some poster brings in a link to another bill after the fact does not mean that that link has anything to do with the bill mentioned in the summary. If the original poster I responded to had said that the Republicans backed a bill just as bad, I would not have responded, but the poster I initially responded to gave a list of Republican sponsors of a completely different bill from the one in the summary, or in the article the summary linked to (or even the article that that article linked to).
Except that there is no evidence that traditional search is shrinking. This guy asserts that such is the case and submits an explanation as to why without ever backing up his assertion. Several people have replied elsewhere that there is evidence that traditional search is not shrinking.
Or maybe search volume is not actually shrinking. Relevant quote, "I believe that Google's search volume...that business is shrinking." Does he anywhere provide any evidence that what he believes is true? He mentions an anecdote about how he queried friends on social media when he was looking for a restaraunt, that is not evidence. That is opinion. If there is any solid evidence it is not mentioned in either of the articles linked in the summary. One can postulate all the reasons one likes as to why Google's search volume is shrinking, but first one needs to establish that it is, in fact, shrinking.
The difference is that even though generally only one publisher is granted the right to publish a "dead tree" version, publishers do not own the retail outlets. So, if an author signs a deal with Random House, the book is still sold to the general public through Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and any mom & pop bookstore that cares to sell it. If an author signs a book deal with Amazon, the only way for consumers to get the book is from Amazon.
I am not saying that any laws need to be written, or that any action needs to be taken. I am just pointing out that Amazon is actively working to be in control of all aspects of book publishing and distributing and that people should be aware of that and guide their actions accordingly.
That is because the media has managed to get the average person to think that when the First Amendment says "freedom...of the press" it is using "press" as a synonym for "news media". When in actuality when the Framers used the word "press" in the First Amendment, they meant "printing press" and were saying that anybody's right to publish anything they wish shall not be infringed.
The police are not at war with the populace (or at least they are not supposed to be). The police are not at war with anyone (again, or at least they are not supposed to be).
I would like to point out that your use of the term "press" in this post can be misleading (although nothng about your post is inaccurate). People often make the mistake of thinking (a mistake that the media generally encourages) that when the First Amendment says "freedom...of the press" it is referring to the media when in fact it is referring to the freedom of the average citizen to use a printing press to publish their ideas.
The only right that the press has is that it can not be muzzled, it has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to speak.
Just as any other citizen has. The media is given no rights in the Constitution that are not given to every citizen. I want to repeat that the error I am pointing out is not one that is expressed in your post, merely one that is not clearly addressed in your post and one that needs to be explicitly stated in a discussion about a topic like this.
That is all well and good, but it does not excuse the poster I was responding to for stating that the list of sponsors he gave were the sponsors of this bill, since they are not. He was attempting to say that this bill was a Republican bill, not a Democratic bill when, in fact, this bill is the reverse. Your point is all well and good, but there have been several people in this thread who have been using this as an excuse to bash Republicans. As far as I can tell, this was not a response to someone first trying to bash Democrats, which makes it seem that they think this is a Republican problem when it is actually a politician problem, no matter what the party of said politician.
If she had said, when the court first ordered her to decrypt the laptop that she had forgotten the password and the court then found her in contempt, I would have a big problem with that. Once the court ruled that she had to decrypt the hard drive, she should have taken steps to ensure that she would be able to do so if she lost her appeals. There are plenty of precedents requiring similar actions (if the court orders you to produce a "perishable" good, you are required to make best effort to preserve it while you are appealing such an order). There is even precedent related to electronic documents and communication. When a court case is filed, you are required to preserve any electronic communications and documents that might conceivably be related to the case so that you can produce them if the other side's lawyers get a court order for them.
I understand the concern here for government abuse of power, but I, also, see how easy it would be to claim that she forgot the password as a last ditch effort to avoid revealing the contents of the laptop. On the other hand, I , also, see how easy it would be for her to have forgotten the password in the meantime.
This article is about a bill in the Senate being pushed by Harry Reid and the White House. The Senate is controlled by Democrats. Harry Reid is a Democrat. The White House is controlled by a Democrat. The backers of this bill (Democrats) say that the House bill (the House is controlled by republicans) that someone refers to further down doesn't go far enough.
How do you go from an article about a bill written by, and pushed by, Democrats to a rant about Republicans being hypocrites for supporting it, when there is no evidence in the article (or in the one it links to) that Republicans support this bill?
You are missing a couple of points about this case. The woman acknowledged that it was her laptop at the beginning of this whole thing. She even acknowledged knowing the password. A judge ordered her to decrypt the hard drive (legally the equivalent of a judge issuing a search warrant). She appealed that order on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. Higher courts ruled against her.
That does not mean that this could not end up where you say it will, but it is no where near that yet. The way the higher courts ruled, it is likely that if she had denied that the laptop was hers, or if only part of the hard drive was encrypted and she had claimed to not know the password for the encrypted portion, she would have been able to use a Fifth Amendment defense against demands for the password. In those cases producing the password would have been self-incrimination since it would reduce her ability to claim that she did not have knowledge of the files found on the hard drive.
Now the way around this for future cases is key-escrow or requiring everybody to write down their passwords, with the attached huge negative effects.
There is no need for that as the precedent has been established that the court can order you to give the password. By the way, this is not a matter of a ruling that the police can demand your password (which I believe is the case in the UK, please correct me if I am wrong). The plice must get a judge to order you to provide the password (essentially a search warrant). The higher court ruling was that this was the equivalent of ordering you to turn over specific papers that you had already acknowledged that you possessed.
I will say that if I had been her lawyer, I would have recommended that she record the password and give it to him while the process was in appeals. I think it likely that the judge will not take kindly to the defense of "I forgot it". I am pretty sure the judge will say, "Initial rulings went against you. Your failure to record the password so that it could be retrieved if your appeals went against you (which they did). represents an attempt to wiggle out of a legitimate court ruling. This court finds you in contempt."
Higher courts (either all the way to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court declined to hear the case after a lower court ruled) have already ruled on this and decided that this is not covered under the Fifth Amendment. The logic is that she has already admitted that it is her computer and that she was the only person to know the password. The correct argument for a Fifth Amendment defense here would be that she did not know the password because it was not her laptop. Of course the best way to do this would be to not have the entire hard drive encrypted and then claim that even though it is your laptop, you were unaware of the encrypted portion and have no idea how to access it.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason to secure your communications is to hide information from your enemies. If the police are securing their communication from the populace that means they are doing things that need to be hidden from the population. The police taking actions which need to be hidden from the population is unacceptable in a country governed by rule of law.
Rove worked for the elder Bush as well. His 1978 and 1980 campaigns were primarily Rove's work. Rove was engaged in Texas to shepherd Bush's son and keep him out of trouble after the elder Bush went to Washington as the Vice-President.
That is not true. Karl Rove first worked with George W. Bush on his failed Congressional campaign in 1978, before George H.W. Bush became Vice President. While Karl Rove worked on George H. W. Bush's 1980 Presidential campaign, he was not its chief architect. Additionally, George H.W. Bush did not run for any office in 1978.
NO, they weren't. I believe it was Anderson Cooper who coined that term.
I am not sure what Karl Rove has to do with the consideration of Steve Jobs for a posible appointment by President George H.W. Bush. Karl Rove was an advisor to George W. Bush, who had yet to run for governor of Texas when this took place.
But I have always been of the mind that people speeding are paying WAY more attention to the road than the average driver, and in the end probably are not as likely to get in an accident.
However, you miss an important point, if you are speeding and paying attention, you are not nearly as likely to get a speeding ticket as someone who is speeding and not paying attention. While I agree that most of the drivers I know who speed regularly pay more attention than those who do not (on average) and are overall better, safer drivers, this observation does not include the subset who frequently get speeding tickets. Those drivers I have known who frequently get speeding tickets, also, are more frequently in accidents than the other drivers I know. On the other hand, the best driver I know usually drives like a bat out of hell but has gotten few speeding tickets because he is always paying attention and knows how to recognize where cops are likely to set up speed traps. The ability to recognize where cops are likely to set up speed traps and/or spot such speed traps in time to slow down is significantly related to the ability to recognize and spot (and avoid) other road hazards.
Of course, doing that depends on me doing a large enough chunk of my shopping at the store that is collecting the loyalty card data. I think loyalty cards are ridiculous. I have them for four different grocery store chains (plus I also shop at a fifth that doesn't have a loyalty card and is often cheaper than the others even with the cards). So, somebody could get a profile on me by combining all of them, but not from a single one of them. Additionally, there is at least two different addresses on them since I do not update the addresses when I move (I'm not interested in getting junk mail from the grocery store...or any other store). I, also, do not see how you could get any idea about my propensity for alcoholism, since grocery stores are not allowed to sell alcohol in my state.
It appears to be opt-in for an added discount.
Sure, for now, as soon as they get sufficient uptake on this service, those who do not "opt-in" will be charged a premium for not doing so. Oh, they will still set it up so that those who "opt-in" will be getting a discount. They will just raise the rates for anyone who does not "opt-in" and call that their new base rates. So, it will work out like this:
Dollar amounts are chosen to illustrate how they will make it work. It will be cheaper to be a terrible driver and opt-in, than to be a good driver (based on actual claims made against the insurance company) and not opt-in. The other possibility is that by not opting in you will be more likely to be considered "at fault" in an accident.
The military is at war with someone when it matters if their tactical communication are secured. Real-time police communications only need to be secured from the populace if the police are at war with the populace.
What is your point? I have never said that such a House bill does not exist. I have said that that is not the bill being talked about in the article.
Good point. For those of you on here who oppose the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling, how come Citizens United does not have the same rights that the NYT corporation has?
I got my information from the article linked to in the summary and from the AP article which that article linked to. Just because some poster brings in a link to another bill after the fact does not mean that that link has anything to do with the bill mentioned in the summary. If the original poster I responded to had said that the Republicans backed a bill just as bad, I would not have responded, but the poster I initially responded to gave a list of Republican sponsors of a completely different bill from the one in the summary, or in the article the summary linked to (or even the article that that article linked to).
Except that there is no evidence that traditional search is shrinking. This guy asserts that such is the case and submits an explanation as to why without ever backing up his assertion. Several people have replied elsewhere that there is evidence that traditional search is not shrinking.
Or maybe search volume is not actually shrinking. Relevant quote, "I believe that Google's search volume...that business is shrinking." Does he anywhere provide any evidence that what he believes is true? He mentions an anecdote about how he queried friends on social media when he was looking for a restaraunt, that is not evidence. That is opinion. If there is any solid evidence it is not mentioned in either of the articles linked in the summary. One can postulate all the reasons one likes as to why Google's search volume is shrinking, but first one needs to establish that it is, in fact, shrinking.
The difference is that even though generally only one publisher is granted the right to publish a "dead tree" version, publishers do not own the retail outlets. So, if an author signs a deal with Random House, the book is still sold to the general public through Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and any mom & pop bookstore that cares to sell it. If an author signs a book deal with Amazon, the only way for consumers to get the book is from Amazon.
I am not saying that any laws need to be written, or that any action needs to be taken. I am just pointing out that Amazon is actively working to be in control of all aspects of book publishing and distributing and that people should be aware of that and guide their actions accordingly.
That is because the media has managed to get the average person to think that when the First Amendment says "freedom...of the press" it is using "press" as a synonym for "news media". When in actuality when the Framers used the word "press" in the First Amendment, they meant "printing press" and were saying that anybody's right to publish anything they wish shall not be infringed.
The police are not at war with the populace (or at least they are not supposed to be). The police are not at war with anyone (again, or at least they are not supposed to be).
The only right that the press has is that it can not be muzzled, it has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to speak.
Just as any other citizen has. The media is given no rights in the Constitution that are not given to every citizen. I want to repeat that the error I am pointing out is not one that is expressed in your post, merely one that is not clearly addressed in your post and one that needs to be explicitly stated in a discussion about a topic like this.
That is all well and good, but that is not the bill being talked about in the article. Perhaps, you should have read the AP article that the "idiot columnist" linked to. Where it says that the Senate bill goes further than the House bill.
That is all well and good, but it does not excuse the poster I was responding to for stating that the list of sponsors he gave were the sponsors of this bill, since they are not. He was attempting to say that this bill was a Republican bill, not a Democratic bill when, in fact, this bill is the reverse. Your point is all well and good, but there have been several people in this thread who have been using this as an excuse to bash Republicans. As far as I can tell, this was not a response to someone first trying to bash Democrats, which makes it seem that they think this is a Republican problem when it is actually a politician problem, no matter what the party of said politician.
If she had said, when the court first ordered her to decrypt the laptop that she had forgotten the password and the court then found her in contempt, I would have a big problem with that. Once the court ruled that she had to decrypt the hard drive, she should have taken steps to ensure that she would be able to do so if she lost her appeals. There are plenty of precedents requiring similar actions (if the court orders you to produce a "perishable" good, you are required to make best effort to preserve it while you are appealing such an order). There is even precedent related to electronic documents and communication. When a court case is filed, you are required to preserve any electronic communications and documents that might conceivably be related to the case so that you can produce them if the other side's lawyers get a court order for them.
I understand the concern here for government abuse of power, but I, also, see how easy it would be to claim that she forgot the password as a last ditch effort to avoid revealing the contents of the laptop. On the other hand, I , also, see how easy it would be for her to have forgotten the password in the meantime.
This article is about a bill in the Senate being pushed by Harry Reid and the White House. The Senate is controlled by Democrats. Harry Reid is a Democrat. The White House is controlled by a Democrat. The backers of this bill (Democrats) say that the House bill (the House is controlled by republicans) that someone refers to further down doesn't go far enough.
How do you go from an article about a bill written by, and pushed by, Democrats to a rant about Republicans being hypocrites for supporting it, when there is no evidence in the article (or in the one it links to) that Republicans support this bill?
Except that that is not the bill being talked about in this article. The bill being talked about in the article is in the Senate, not the House.
You are missing a couple of points about this case. The woman acknowledged that it was her laptop at the beginning of this whole thing. She even acknowledged knowing the password. A judge ordered her to decrypt the hard drive (legally the equivalent of a judge issuing a search warrant). She appealed that order on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. Higher courts ruled against her.
That does not mean that this could not end up where you say it will, but it is no where near that yet. The way the higher courts ruled, it is likely that if she had denied that the laptop was hers, or if only part of the hard drive was encrypted and she had claimed to not know the password for the encrypted portion, she would have been able to use a Fifth Amendment defense against demands for the password. In those cases producing the password would have been self-incrimination since it would reduce her ability to claim that she did not have knowledge of the files found on the hard drive.
Now the way around this for future cases is key-escrow or requiring everybody to write down their passwords, with the attached huge negative effects.
There is no need for that as the precedent has been established that the court can order you to give the password. By the way, this is not a matter of a ruling that the police can demand your password (which I believe is the case in the UK, please correct me if I am wrong). The plice must get a judge to order you to provide the password (essentially a search warrant). The higher court ruling was that this was the equivalent of ordering you to turn over specific papers that you had already acknowledged that you possessed.
I will say that if I had been her lawyer, I would have recommended that she record the password and give it to him while the process was in appeals. I think it likely that the judge will not take kindly to the defense of "I forgot it". I am pretty sure the judge will say, "Initial rulings went against you. Your failure to record the password so that it could be retrieved if your appeals went against you (which they did). represents an attempt to wiggle out of a legitimate court ruling. This court finds you in contempt."
Higher courts (either all the way to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court declined to hear the case after a lower court ruled) have already ruled on this and decided that this is not covered under the Fifth Amendment. The logic is that she has already admitted that it is her computer and that she was the only person to know the password. The correct argument for a Fifth Amendment defense here would be that she did not know the password because it was not her laptop. Of course the best way to do this would be to not have the entire hard drive encrypted and then claim that even though it is your laptop, you were unaware of the encrypted portion and have no idea how to access it.