Sorry as well, but the law doesn't actually follow your assumptions. As is my usual, I'll defer my explanation to The Illustrated Guide To Law, written by a lawyer with far more artistic and educational talent than I have. Note the section toward the bottom, where the many criteria for excluding evidence are nicely clarified. Note especially the line that the police "don't have to ignore" evidence they find.
As I understand it from my time working with FOUO information, it really depends on what information you give to whom whether it can be considered espionage. In short, as I recall, you have to make sure that anyone you give the information to has a US-supporting reason to have it.
Also note that I didn't say "exploits". I said "problems". For instance, if a hypothetical electronic widget does not display a warning when a certain part is put in backwards, but it still won't work, the document describing that problem (and the new procedure to fix it) would likely be FOUO. In order to actually make use of such an issue, the enemy would need physical access to the device, in which case they could do worse than easily-found sabotage.
Given the content of the warrant and the laws governing search warrants, officers serving said warrant examining ANY documents that were not laid out and readable in plain sight is a violation of 4A rights and exceeds the scope of the search warrant used.
Not necessarily. If the warrant specified that a car could be searched, and the house were searched, instead, that's exceeding the scope. Looking in folders for guns is perfectly reasonable, as there are small guns that will fit easily under or inside a stack of papers. Once the investigators are authorized to look somewhere, there is no requirement that they ignore anything else questionable that they see, including merely documents with FOUO markings.
The Fourth Amendment is written and intended to protect citizens from the police inventing reasons to interrupt their lives, as was standard practice in colonial America. If the British soldiers didn't like a shopkeeper, they'd just "search" the store repeatedly, shutting it down in the meanwhile, and confiscate everything in it. There would never be any followup, except probably just more searches until the shopkeeper was broke (and likely facing debtor's prison) or tried to run away (which would be treated as fleeing a crime, and punished with no due process). Under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the interruption to the citizen's life must have a good reason (such as a husband's prior conviction and evidence that he was collecting firearms, in this case). Again, once that interruption is approved by the court, any further evidence of possible criminal acts need not be ignored, even if the original investigation was for something totally different.
That depends on the meaning you assign to it. If your trade secrets are all labeled FOUO, and you find a competitor with those documents, there's a case there for industrial espionage.
The US government's use of FOUO carries some legal weight. No, it's not the same heavy penalties as releasing secrets, but the information is still sensitive and obtaining it legitimately requires a very good (need-to-know) reason or a FOIA request... Lacking that, espionage or other similar charges may apply.
I've never seen a right-to-work law that prohibits organizing into a union. You and your coworkers can still organize into a group and make your demands to employers, but under right-to-work you just aren't allowed to force other coworkers to join.
The stack of documents taken had one labeled "For Official Use Only", which means it's considered sensitive information that should not be widespread. It's not important enough to classify as a secret, but it could be a contribution to a security risk. For example, a list of known problems with military equipment is usually FOUO, because an enemy could exploit the problem before it can be fixed.
That makes the whole stack fair game for confiscation, while they make sure that the information contained within is actually safe for release (which apparently, it was, as the FOUO document was from a FOIA request).
A complaint to the court, and probably a lawsuit against the TSA, but not much else. The initial warrant was for guns, but one of the papers were labeled "For Official Use Only", which in government terms means it's secret information that's not meant for public release. Yes, it's usually legal for such documents to be confiscated, along with any derivatives. In this case, the FOUO document was acquired legitimately through a FOIA request, but the article is unclear whether it has been returned.
...perhaps all evidence collected on [whistleblowers] after this date should be tossed out as inadmissible due to illegal search and seizure? As in, they would not have begun gathering intel on the sources without the notes to point the finger at them, and the notes were seized outside warrant...
Nope. That's not how investigations work, though it does make for great television. Police can gather evidence against somebody for any reason at any time, period*. All that matters is that they do so in a legal manner. The whistleblowers need to be absolutely certain they're not doing anything illegal, because yes, they'll likely be under the eye of law enforcement for a while.
* "Any reason" can't include the usual discrimination criteria like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but "we got a tip this guy's up to no good" is generally legal.
There's a company near me that has company cars for all managers above a certain level. They're encouraged to drive it for personal use, partly because there's a big logo on the side, and partly because the managers participate in an ongoing marketing campaign.
Even without explicit "right-to-work" laws, that's already the case in any state that has at-will employment, which is a separate issue. As for reading the law, yes, I did actually read the law that as proposed for my state, which was just one of several dozen proposals over the last decade. It had no provision effecting at-will employment.
I'll also argue that enacting right-to-work laws is a major step along the way to merit-based employment, rather than basing job placement on who's been feeding the union coffers the longest.
Re:It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As a mild Java fanboy, I feel compelled to mention that real Java isn't really locked in to a single vendor, as the reference implementation (OpenJDK) is open-source. However, the reference implementation lacks a lot of the features that aren't real Java, that Sun and Oracle have so kindly implemented in their own versions. A careful Java developer isn't locked in, but a careless one easily can be.
And to seal the deal, we need federal legislation to drop the ban-hammer on so-called "right to work" state legislation; The laws should be written so only conduct which directly impacts the company, while using company resources, can be subject to disciplinary action.
I don't see what disciplinary action has to do with being forced to pay a union for permission to work in a particular industry.
What if you're the sort of person who gets distracted by errant profanity? The boss catching such things would indeed make your workplace better, in your opinion. Similarly, a fleet mechanic's job would be easier if the fleet's drivers were more cautious, and marketing's job is easier if the executives aren't engaging in impropriety.
It ultimately boils down to what kind of company it is. Is the management so paranoid about imperfection that they'll fire someone for minor problems, or are they friendly enough that encouragement and positive reinforcement are the go-to solutions? Surveillance technology is a tool, and it can be used for good just as easily as for evil.
Look, nothing said anything about a virus before, then that technician installed that Norton thing, and now it says I have 423,827 viruses. Hey Bubs, bring your shotgun... I gotta find this Norton guy...
Since the case isn't yet over, there are few facts that can be presented at all, let alone in a neutral manner. Such a statement would have to be along the lines of "This judge approved an ex parte order based on evidence given to the court, the relevance of some of which has been questioned." Any more than that, and you lose neutrality, since one side of the story hasn't even been presented yet.
This is an insightful answer, and I wish I had mod points now.
What's on job listings gives a good indication of what other companies have invested in, and what they're going to need support for in the next decade.
Cloud services take all of your IT problems, and give them to someone else, period. A cloud is not inherently going to fix your problems, or make them worse, but just delegate them to someone who may or may not be able to handle them better.
A few times for emphasis, I have no problem with. That's still reasonable restraint.
What the fuck I fucking argue against is the stupid shits who think every motherfucking thing they fucking say has to be fucking punctuated by bullshit profanity for no fucking point, like the entire fucking validity of their fucking argument is based on the fucking language they fucking giggle about in the fucking hallways of their fucking middle school.
Phrasing like that, I find distracting, and any emphasis or literary effect is lost in the profanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry as well, but the law doesn't actually follow your assumptions. As is my usual, I'll defer my explanation to The Illustrated Guide To Law, written by a lawyer with far more artistic and educational talent than I have. Note the section toward the bottom, where the many criteria for excluding evidence are nicely clarified. Note especially the line that the police "don't have to ignore" evidence they find.
As I understand it from my time working with FOUO information, it really depends on what information you give to whom whether it can be considered espionage. In short, as I recall, you have to make sure that anyone you give the information to has a US-supporting reason to have it.
Also note that I didn't say "exploits". I said "problems". For instance, if a hypothetical electronic widget does not display a warning when a certain part is put in backwards, but it still won't work, the document describing that problem (and the new procedure to fix it) would likely be FOUO. In order to actually make use of such an issue, the enemy would need physical access to the device, in which case they could do worse than easily-found sabotage.
Given the content of the warrant and the laws governing search warrants, officers serving said warrant examining ANY documents that were not laid out and readable in plain sight is a violation of 4A rights and exceeds the scope of the search warrant used.
Not necessarily. If the warrant specified that a car could be searched, and the house were searched, instead, that's exceeding the scope. Looking in folders for guns is perfectly reasonable, as there are small guns that will fit easily under or inside a stack of papers. Once the investigators are authorized to look somewhere, there is no requirement that they ignore anything else questionable that they see, including merely documents with FOUO markings.
The Fourth Amendment is written and intended to protect citizens from the police inventing reasons to interrupt their lives, as was standard practice in colonial America. If the British soldiers didn't like a shopkeeper, they'd just "search" the store repeatedly, shutting it down in the meanwhile, and confiscate everything in it. There would never be any followup, except probably just more searches until the shopkeeper was broke (and likely facing debtor's prison) or tried to run away (which would be treated as fleeing a crime, and punished with no due process). Under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the interruption to the citizen's life must have a good reason (such as a husband's prior conviction and evidence that he was collecting firearms, in this case). Again, once that interruption is approved by the court, any further evidence of possible criminal acts need not be ignored, even if the original investigation was for something totally different.
Yeah, I missed the GGP's context. I read that as:
Personally, I would use the names of some bad guys at the TSA as [my personal] aliases [while doing things to get them in trouble], ...
Sorry about that. It's a hazard of ADD browsing.
That depends on the meaning you assign to it. If your trade secrets are all labeled FOUO, and you find a competitor with those documents, there's a case there for industrial espionage.
The US government's use of FOUO carries some legal weight. No, it's not the same heavy penalties as releasing secrets, but the information is still sensitive and obtaining it legitimately requires a very good (need-to-know) reason or a FOIA request... Lacking that, espionage or other similar charges may apply.
I've never seen a right-to-work law that prohibits organizing into a union. You and your coworkers can still organize into a group and make your demands to employers, but under right-to-work you just aren't allowed to force other coworkers to join.
...but the article is unclear whether it has been returned.
Correction: The documents were returned once cleared.
The stack of documents taken had one labeled "For Official Use Only", which means it's considered sensitive information that should not be widespread. It's not important enough to classify as a secret, but it could be a contribution to a security risk. For example, a list of known problems with military equipment is usually FOUO, because an enemy could exploit the problem before it can be fixed.
That makes the whole stack fair game for confiscation, while they make sure that the information contained within is actually safe for release (which apparently, it was, as the FOUO document was from a FOIA request).
...and be indicted for fraud.
what is a reasonable legal response?
A complaint to the court, and probably a lawsuit against the TSA, but not much else. The initial warrant was for guns, but one of the papers were labeled "For Official Use Only", which in government terms means it's secret information that's not meant for public release. Yes, it's usually legal for such documents to be confiscated, along with any derivatives. In this case, the FOUO document was acquired legitimately through a FOIA request, but the article is unclear whether it has been returned.
...perhaps all evidence collected on [whistleblowers] after this date should be tossed out as inadmissible due to illegal search and seizure? As in, they would not have begun gathering intel on the sources without the notes to point the finger at them, and the notes were seized outside warrant...
Nope. That's not how investigations work, though it does make for great television. Police can gather evidence against somebody for any reason at any time, period*. All that matters is that they do so in a legal manner. The whistleblowers need to be absolutely certain they're not doing anything illegal, because yes, they'll likely be under the eye of law enforcement for a while.
* "Any reason" can't include the usual discrimination criteria like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but "we got a tip this guy's up to no good" is generally legal.
That's partly what taxes are for, yes.
There's a company near me that has company cars for all managers above a certain level. They're encouraged to drive it for personal use, partly because there's a big logo on the side, and partly because the managers participate in an ongoing marketing campaign.
Even without explicit "right-to-work" laws, that's already the case in any state that has at-will employment, which is a separate issue. As for reading the law, yes, I did actually read the law that as proposed for my state, which was just one of several dozen proposals over the last decade. It had no provision effecting at-will employment.
I'll also argue that enacting right-to-work laws is a major step along the way to merit-based employment, rather than basing job placement on who's been feeding the union coffers the longest.
As a mild Java fanboy, I feel compelled to mention that real Java isn't really locked in to a single vendor, as the reference implementation (OpenJDK) is open-source. However, the reference implementation lacks a lot of the features that aren't real Java, that Sun and Oracle have so kindly implemented in their own versions. A careful Java developer isn't locked in, but a careless one easily can be.
And to seal the deal, we need federal legislation to drop the ban-hammer on so-called "right to work" state legislation; The laws should be written so only conduct which directly impacts the company, while using company resources, can be subject to disciplinary action.
I don't see what disciplinary action has to do with being forced to pay a union for permission to work in a particular industry.
What if you're the sort of person who gets distracted by errant profanity? The boss catching such things would indeed make your workplace better, in your opinion. Similarly, a fleet mechanic's job would be easier if the fleet's drivers were more cautious, and marketing's job is easier if the executives aren't engaging in impropriety.
It ultimately boils down to what kind of company it is. Is the management so paranoid about imperfection that they'll fire someone for minor problems, or are they friendly enough that encouragement and positive reinforcement are the go-to solutions? Surveillance technology is a tool, and it can be used for good just as easily as for evil.
Look, nothing said anything about a virus before, then that technician installed that Norton thing, and now it says I have 423,827 viruses. Hey Bubs, bring your shotgun... I gotta find this Norton guy...
Thank you so much Blackberry team. I was waiting this app. It is really great user friendly and smooth.
Clearly, M = $991,596.63865.
Who cashed those checks?
But that's not notable, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Since the case isn't yet over, there are few facts that can be presented at all, let alone in a neutral manner. Such a statement would have to be along the lines of "This judge approved an ex parte order based on evidence given to the court, the relevance of some of which has been questioned." Any more than that, and you lose neutrality, since one side of the story hasn't even been presented yet.
This is an insightful answer, and I wish I had mod points now.
What's on job listings gives a good indication of what other companies have invested in, and what they're going to need support for in the next decade.
Cloud services take all of your IT problems, and give them to someone else, period. A cloud is not inherently going to fix your problems, or make them worse, but just delegate them to someone who may or may not be able to handle them better.
A few times for emphasis, I have no problem with. That's still reasonable restraint.
What the fuck I fucking argue against is the stupid shits who think every motherfucking thing they fucking say has to be fucking punctuated by bullshit profanity for no fucking point, like the entire fucking validity of their fucking argument is based on the fucking language they fucking giggle about in the fucking hallways of their fucking middle school.
Phrasing like that, I find distracting, and any emphasis or literary effect is lost in the profanity.