The uninsured and suspended drivers get tracked, the cops use the tracking to find and arrest them. Their cars get impounded. Essentially, they are harassed off the road. Suspended/uninsured drivers cause most of the accidents.
This is an interesting Fifth Amendment problem that courts have not handled in a uniform manner.
The Fifth Amendment is not exactly a "right to remain silent." For instance, a person charged with uttering a threat can be required to speak in a "voice identification lineup" where the person is directed to speak a certain pattern of words.
The Fifth Amendment does not always prevent you from giving evidence against yourself, as a person can be compelled to produce fingerprints and blood (think Blood Alcohol or DNA) if there is sufficient probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being compelled to "testify" against himself or to provide "testimonial" evidence. Here's what the Supreme Court has said about the matter: "[T]he Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the papers on their face might incriminate the taxpayer, for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications."
Certainly, and without question, making a person reveal a password to a computer is a testimonial act because giving up the password is just another way of stating that you know how to run that computer (or a part thereof) that nobody else can get to run. So, for the dude on the street, your password sits squarely within your commonly understood "right to remain silent."
It gets very weird, however, when the government does not care about the "testimonial" component of the computer-owner's 'password-statement' and the government seeks to use the Court to compel the witness/suspect to give up the password. In other words, the government doesn't give a damn about your testimonial act of providing the papers--it just wants the papers themselves to use them against you.
For instance, the Government can give the witness USE immunity and seek to compel the witness to enter the password into the computer (or disclose it) and THE ACT OF ENTERING THE PASSWORD (or disclosing it) into the computer could never be USED against the witness (but other evidence, including the formerly encrypted documents, sure could).
Courts have been split on the issue, but as I read it, most courts look on the password as a virtual key to a virtual file cabinet. A court can definitely make you give up the key to your file cabinet, but your act of producing the key to that cabinet can never be used against you.
One difference between the locked file and the encrypted file is that the locked file is not transformed by the act of unlocking the file cabinet. The act of password use, however, is a transformative act because the entry of the password changes the file. The act of password use is also dependent upon the mental processes of the witness. The latter consideration has mattered to some courts.
Seems to me that if you want to protect your data from seizure, you have to protect the data from yourself. If you can "open the file cabinet," the government can compel you to open the file cabinet (or jail you for a long time).
I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Khadafy, Ceaucescu, Honecker, Ulbricht, Saddam, et. al. would have really enjoyed this technology. I'm sure that others will too.
I read a very good book called "Confessions of A Record Producer" by Moses Avalon.
This book breaks down and explains the contracts involved in music production. It is quite informative. It left me with the clear impression that the labels are incredibly greedy and rapacious, but so are the producers and the artists. The only difference is that the labels have all the bargaining power.
You should read your history. Nixon was playing the shell game super-big time. Listen to his speech where he announces the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlichman--it is a classic.
And your "President's Men" tip is BS. The movie ends before the DRAWN-OUT Nixon endgame played out. If you were alive then, you remember how long it to get that vile crook out of office.
If you're looking at it like a priest, then I agree with you. If you're looking at it like a potential investor, then Groupon looks like it is gouging the very customers that it needs to sustain its business.
It is not only total bullshit, it is total bullshit that can very well be challenged in Court. All it takes is for ANOTHER person to make the same request, then file a lawsuit. And ANOTHER. And ANOTHER . . ... (exponentially). Pretty soon the weight of public disclosure lawsuits will force the State to cave. They don't want to bet millions on a very bad decision.
The only people who get to decide what's offensive are the prosecutor or DA (who brings charges) and the jury (if there is one). What you find offensive simply doesn't matter because it will not be brought up in the courtroom.
In reality this will be a handy way of imposing legal costs, fines and jail time on anyone the DA doesn't like or who offends people with influence in that department.
A lot of times criminal laws are the foundations of tort. This may (or may not) turn out to be such a case. I don't think that your conclusion is necessarily so certain.
It will be interesting to see what the first test case is. Is it a yahoo prosecutor, acting all stupid for the benefit of his electorate, or is it a prosecutor from a large county who brings a truly you-know-it-when-you-see-it offensive before the court?
If I was the elected prosecutor, I'd let this law sit unprosecuted like a lot of the anti-union laws that were enacted at the turn of the last century.
Slashdot Mirror
The uninsured and suspended drivers get tracked, the cops use the tracking to find and arrest them. Their cars get impounded. Essentially, they are harassed off the road. Suspended/uninsured drivers cause most of the accidents.
This kind of thing would be utter hell on suspended and uninsured drivers. It could help make the roads WAY safer.
Providing "education" is no excuse for exploitation.
The complete logs, as Wired said, don't contain anything new or revealing. All they do is show that Bradley Manning is a complete emotional mess.
What you have just written looks very much like legalese.
This is an interesting Fifth Amendment problem that courts have not handled in a uniform manner.
The Fifth Amendment is not exactly a "right to remain silent." For instance, a person charged with uttering a threat can be required to speak in a "voice identification lineup" where the person is directed to speak a certain pattern of words.
The Fifth Amendment does not always prevent you from giving evidence against yourself, as a person can be compelled to produce fingerprints and blood (think Blood Alcohol or DNA) if there is sufficient probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being compelled to "testify" against himself or to provide "testimonial" evidence. Here's what the Supreme Court has said about the matter: "[T]he Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the papers on their face might incriminate the taxpayer, for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications."
Certainly, and without question, making a person reveal a password to a computer is a testimonial act because giving up the password is just another way of stating that you know how to run that computer (or a part thereof) that nobody else can get to run. So, for the dude on the street, your password sits squarely within your commonly understood "right to remain silent."
It gets very weird, however, when the government does not care about the "testimonial" component of the computer-owner's 'password-statement' and the government seeks to use the Court to compel the witness/suspect to give up the password. In other words, the government doesn't give a damn about your testimonial act of providing the papers--it just wants the papers themselves to use them against you.
For instance, the Government can give the witness USE immunity and seek to compel the witness to enter the password into the computer (or disclose it) and THE ACT OF ENTERING THE PASSWORD (or disclosing it) into the computer could never be USED against the witness (but other evidence, including the formerly encrypted documents, sure could).
Courts have been split on the issue, but as I read it, most courts look on the password as a virtual key to a virtual file cabinet. A court can definitely make you give up the key to your file cabinet, but your act of producing the key to that cabinet can never be used against you.
One difference between the locked file and the encrypted file is that the locked file is not transformed by the act of unlocking the file cabinet. The act of password use, however, is a transformative act because the entry of the password changes the file. The act of password use is also dependent upon the mental processes of the witness. The latter consideration has mattered to some courts.
Seems to me that if you want to protect your data from seizure, you have to protect the data from yourself. If you can "open the file cabinet," the government can compel you to open the file cabinet (or jail you for a long time).
Engineers are the people who will make stuff that people will want.
MBAs are the people who will spend company assets doing things like share buybacks.
MBAs are tools (in both senses of the word).
I'm sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Khadafy, Ceaucescu, Honecker, Ulbricht, Saddam, et. al. would have really enjoyed this technology. I'm sure that others will too.
I strongly agree with you. Piracy fuels demand for RIAA products.
So many of the "INDIE" labels are derivatives of major labels.
Beware.
I read a very good book called "Confessions of A Record Producer" by Moses Avalon.
This book breaks down and explains the contracts involved in music production. It is quite informative. It left me with the clear impression that the labels are incredibly greedy and rapacious, but so are the producers and the artists. The only difference is that the labels have all the bargaining power.
You should read your history. Nixon was playing the shell game super-big time. Listen to his speech where he announces the resignations of Haldeman and Ehrlichman--it is a classic.
And your "President's Men" tip is BS. The movie ends before the DRAWN-OUT Nixon endgame played out. If you were alive then, you remember how long it to get that vile crook out of office.
"Official"? What does that mean? Are you kidding me?
Don't mistake the governmental reflection of the power structure from the power structure itself.
The United States was mighty competitive with Great Britain around the turn of the last century.
Same game, different faces.
Ahh, German bread and German beer! A meal in itself. With sausage and cheese . . . extravagant!
I still remember how very much I hated AOL when I got their trial membership for "free." I don't think I've ever hated any company more.
You are expending too much effort. There are people here who weren't impressed with the memristor either.
Agree with your sentiments, though.
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
Some politicians trade in fear. They do so because it works.
Obama is afraid of appearing "soft." That's why the jerk has the US militarily involved in three wars at the same time.
Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. We should pay attention. The fearmongers are in it for their own self interest.
A bomb by any other name would kill as dead.
If you're looking at it like a priest, then I agree with you.
If you're looking at it like a potential investor, then Groupon looks like it is gouging the very customers that it needs to sustain its business.
Thanks for that excellent posting. It's very well thought out.
It is not only total bullshit, it is total bullshit that can very well be challenged in Court. All it takes is for ANOTHER person to make the same request, then file a lawsuit. And ANOTHER. And ANOTHER . . . .. (exponentially). Pretty soon the weight of public disclosure lawsuits will force the State to cave. They don't want to bet millions on a very bad decision.
The only people who get to decide what's offensive are the prosecutor or DA (who brings charges) and the jury (if there is one). What you find offensive simply doesn't matter because it will not be brought up in the courtroom.
In reality this will be a handy way of imposing legal costs, fines and jail time on anyone the DA doesn't like or who offends people with influence in that department.
A lot of times criminal laws are the foundations of tort. This may (or may not) turn out to be such a case. I don't think that your conclusion is necessarily so certain.
It will be interesting to see what the first test case is. Is it a yahoo prosecutor, acting all stupid for the benefit of his electorate, or is it a prosecutor from a large county who brings a truly you-know-it-when-you-see-it offensive before the court?
If I was the elected prosecutor, I'd let this law sit unprosecuted like a lot of the anti-union laws that were enacted at the turn of the last century.