I dunno, the judge is right that warrants are granted for things like "Contents of X", including when X is a hard drive. Why is this materially different? Gmail holds ~7GB of email, I know people with PST files over 7GB.
Not to pull this down to a political argument, but just on a logical reasoning level, this is the WORST argument I've heard regarding regulation. Regulation is working badly! Clearly we're better off with regulation than no regulation!
Anyways, ICANN is not government regulation in the sense of "US Government". Its an organization that has rules, and noone is arguing that "rules" are, as a whole, a dumb idea-- except maybe anarchists, and there are precious few true anarchists out there.
As has been explained numerous times, there are gigantic differences between a company-provided email and what the NSA did.
1) MOST employers have an employee conduct agreement, or a computer-specific Acceptable Use Policy. This usually lays out the reality that you will be monitored. 2) The NSA does not have ownership rights over the servers hosting your personal email or comms. The company does have ownership rights. 3) Often companies have a legal liability if they do not monitor the communications-- for instance, if PII is transmitted in violation of HIPAA, both the employer and the employee could be legally liable. 4) Often companies have technical liability if they do not monitor the communications-- for instance, you could find your domain blacklisted if the email leaving your network is spam or virus-laden.
Theres generally no expectation of privacy; the email account is company property, sitting on a company server, on company storage. In what universe would the company not have rights to it?
Not only that, but most sane companies have an acceptable use policy that generally indicates "no expectation of privacy, and we are likely snooping on everything".
The only exceptions I've heard thrown around (not sure if these would even hold up in court) are if there is personal stuff in there, and the company is aware of it but snoops anyways.
Being "not at fault" does not mean you could not have prevented the accident by driving defensively. If you cant stop in time when you overtake someone, you were doing something very, very wrong.
I've been rear-ended because someone has the mentality of so many others here-- someone was following too close, I had to hit the brakes due to the driver in front of me hitting the brakes hard, and she plows into me. It seems like a lot of the posters here want to believe the front car in that scenario is at fault.
Thats why I said "the majority of cases", and not "always". I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen someone driving at one of those "dangerously slow speeds" on the highway.
Its like saying "The rear car is to blame in most 2-car collisions". Its not ALWAYS true, but in the vast majority of cases, it is. You all can argue this if you want, but as a driver it's your job to make sure you have adequate distance to stop if the car in front of you does something dangerous-- its called "defensive driving".
Basically, if you cannot see far enough ahead of you to stop if an obstacle would appear, you are driving too fast. If you are driving too fast to stop if the car in front of you slams on the brakes, you are going to fast. If you drive with those two scenarios in mind, theres basically no scenario where someone driving 25mph on the highway could actually cause you to hit them-- you would have time to notice how fast you were overtaking, and either slow down or go around.
The only issue Im having with what your saying is that interpretation of the constitution is NOT anyones job but SCOTUS-- so how can the president make a "binding" decision on what laws are enforceable?
I see the "lawfully"-- but if the POTUS has the power to determine a law is not lawful, doesnt that cross the "separation of powers" boundary? He all of a sudden has post-enactment veto power.
as to enforce a law you know to be unconstitutional, regardless of if it is ruled so, would be the actual violating your constitutional duty.
I commented this elsewhere, but according to Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison, the courts are the final authority on what is "constitutional". If they rule it constitutional, it becomes constitutional. Saying "the courts' ruling was constitutional" is a tautology-- it cannot not be true.
The executive's duty under the constitution is to execute all laws passed by congress. Saying "thats not possible" or "noone's done it perfectly" does not change their duty under the constitution. Announcing publicly an intention to not enforce certain laws is a refusal to carry out that duty.
I'd accuse you of holding this particular President to a higher standard than any other
I dont think I mentioned any particular president, nor indicated what standard I hold others to. You're doing an awful lot of projecting.
The problem with everything you posted is that the determination of whether a law is constitutional or not is a role relegated to the judicial branch, not the executive. If the executive branch merely needs to decide that something is unconstitutional to ignore it, it effectively neuters the legislative branch and impinges on the judicial.
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
According to Marbury vs Madison, the courts ARE who decide what constitutes "Constitutional". If SCOTUS calls a particular brand of gun control constitutional, it is by definition constitutional until overturned by a later ruling.
From the ruling (Chief Justice Marshall):
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
Thus, if a court rules something "legal", it is by definition legal. Streetlaw seems to agree with me (emphasis added):
...Instead, he announced that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and established the Supreme Court as the final authority for interpreting it.
o I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.
Did you skip the day in civics where they went over how the 3 branch system works? It is not in the executive branch's purview to determine what laws are constitutional-- that belongs solely to the judicial branch. The executive is charged with enforcing the law, running our military, and executing foreign policy-- nothing more.
A president who decides to ignore some laws and pretend thats executive discretion is on incredibly shakey ground; it undermines the whole foundation of the legislative branch's power. You seem to think its OK to just put the powers of both the judicial and legislative branches squarely in the president's hand, at which point you have created a dictatorship.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
Incorrect. The proper thing to do is to bring a lawsuit before the courts to have the law struck down, and in the meantime fulfill the constitutional duty of enforcing said law.
Normally I wouldnt respond to such an obvious troll, but youve piqued my interest: In what way is providing jobs to poorer folks from poorer countries conforming to the nationalistic "'Murica" meme?
Slashdot Mirror
The warrant in question describes the gmail account to be searched, based upon probable cause.
The Bill of Rights ensures due process, it doesnt say that you can use Gmail as a shield for illegal activity.
So, if a judge years ago did not allow the searching of a hard drive, this judge wouldn't have anything to stand on.
Or, the judge in this case would have set that precedent using the same reasoning that judge years ago did.
I dunno, the judge is right that warrants are granted for things like "Contents of X", including when X is a hard drive. Why is this materially different? Gmail holds ~7GB of email, I know people with PST files over 7GB.
Disclaimers dont magically make liability for fraud disappear.
Not to pull this down to a political argument, but just on a logical reasoning level, this is the WORST argument I've heard regarding regulation.
Regulation is working badly! Clearly we're better off with regulation than no regulation!
Anyways, ICANN is not government regulation in the sense of "US Government". Its an organization that has rules, and noone is arguing that "rules" are, as a whole, a dumb idea-- except maybe anarchists, and there are precious few true anarchists out there.
As has been explained numerous times, there are gigantic differences between a company-provided email and what the NSA did.
1) MOST employers have an employee conduct agreement, or a computer-specific Acceptable Use Policy. This usually lays out the reality that you will be monitored.
2) The NSA does not have ownership rights over the servers hosting your personal email or comms. The company does have ownership rights.
3) Often companies have a legal liability if they do not monitor the communications-- for instance, if PII is transmitted in violation of HIPAA, both the employer and the employee could be legally liable.
4) Often companies have technical liability if they do not monitor the communications-- for instance, you could find your domain blacklisted if the email leaving your network is spam or virus-laden.
You really cant compare the two.
No.
Theres generally no expectation of privacy; the email account is company property, sitting on a company server, on company storage. In what universe would the company not have rights to it?
Not only that, but most sane companies have an acceptable use policy that generally indicates "no expectation of privacy, and we are likely snooping on everything".
The only exceptions I've heard thrown around (not sure if these would even hold up in court) are if there is personal stuff in there, and the company is aware of it but snoops anyways.
One of them specifically told his wife recently that he won't follow at a correct distance because other people will change lanes into the open space.
Its not a race, and this seems to prove my point:
I know (and have known a lot of) people who are 30-55 and who get in a lot of accidents and are often not at fault.
One starts to wonder if the two are related. Use correct following distance and stop acting like its Mario Kart.
Being "not at fault" does not mean you could not have prevented the accident by driving defensively. If you cant stop in time when you overtake someone, you were doing something very, very wrong.
I've been rear-ended because someone has the mentality of so many others here-- someone was following too close, I had to hit the brakes due to the driver in front of me hitting the brakes hard, and she plows into me. It seems like a lot of the posters here want to believe the front car in that scenario is at fault.
Thats why I said "the majority of cases", and not "always". I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen someone driving at one of those "dangerously slow speeds" on the highway.
Its like saying "The rear car is to blame in most 2-car collisions". Its not ALWAYS true, but in the vast majority of cases, it is. You all can argue this if you want, but as a driver it's your job to make sure you have adequate distance to stop if the car in front of you does something dangerous-- its called "defensive driving".
Basically, if you cannot see far enough ahead of you to stop if an obstacle would appear, you are driving too fast. If you are driving too fast to stop if the car in front of you slams on the brakes, you are going to fast. If you drive with those two scenarios in mind, theres basically no scenario where someone driving 25mph on the highway could actually cause you to hit them-- you would have time to notice how fast you were overtaking, and either slow down or go around.
Old people don't actually GET into accidents ... they just CAUSE others around them to get into accidents.
If you get into an accident "caused by" someone driving slowly, you were doing something wrong in the vast majority of cases.
The only issue Im having with what your saying is that interpretation of the constitution is NOT anyones job but SCOTUS-- so how can the president make a "binding" decision on what laws are enforceable?
I see the "lawfully"-- but if the POTUS has the power to determine a law is not lawful, doesnt that cross the "separation of powers" boundary? He all of a sudden has post-enactment veto power.
as to enforce a law you know to be unconstitutional, regardless of if it is ruled so, would be the actual violating your constitutional duty.
I commented this elsewhere, but according to Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison, the courts are the final authority on what is "constitutional". If they rule it constitutional, it becomes constitutional. Saying "the courts' ruling was constitutional" is a tautology-- it cannot not be true.
The executive's duty under the constitution is to execute all laws passed by congress. Saying "thats not possible" or "noone's done it perfectly" does not change their duty under the constitution. Announcing publicly an intention to not enforce certain laws is a refusal to carry out that duty.
I'd accuse you of holding this particular President to a higher standard than any other
I dont think I mentioned any particular president, nor indicated what standard I hold others to. You're doing an awful lot of projecting.
The problem with everything you posted is that the determination of whether a law is constitutional or not is a role relegated to the judicial branch, not the executive. If the executive branch merely needs to decide that something is unconstitutional to ignore it, it effectively neuters the legislative branch and impinges on the judicial.
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
According to Marbury vs Madison, the courts ARE who decide what constitutes "Constitutional". If SCOTUS calls a particular brand of gun control constitutional, it is by definition constitutional until overturned by a later ruling.
From the ruling (Chief Justice Marshall):
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
Thus, if a court rules something "legal", it is by definition legal. Streetlaw seems to agree with me (emphasis added):
...Instead, he announced that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and established the Supreme Court as the final authority for interpreting it.
but they also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US Government is designed to work.
So do the majority of the comments on this article.
but US law states that you have no legal requirement to uphold/follow illegal laws/orders.
Laws are legal until they are struck down by a court. Executive branch officials do not have that power-- judicial review is a judicial power.
o I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.
Did you skip the day in civics where they went over how the 3 branch system works? It is not in the executive branch's purview to determine what laws are constitutional-- that belongs solely to the judicial branch. The executive is charged with enforcing the law, running our military, and executing foreign policy-- nothing more.
A president who decides to ignore some laws and pretend thats executive discretion is on incredibly shakey ground; it undermines the whole foundation of the legislative branch's power. You seem to think its OK to just put the powers of both the judicial and legislative branches squarely in the president's hand, at which point you have created a dictatorship.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
Incorrect. The proper thing to do is to bring a lawsuit before the courts to have the law struck down, and in the meantime fulfill the constitutional duty of enforcing said law.
People get mad at activist judges when they carry an obvious bias and look for any opportunity to work it into law.
Laws forbidding an out-of-state manufacturer from selling directly in a state would seem to fall under that category.
Those laws apply to in-state manufacturers as well, AFAIK.
You mean the ones where we had AUMFs issued by congress?
I don't want to, but I have no choice apparently
Sure you do; you just (apparently) want to use sites with AdSense too much to stop using them.
Also, noone is sequencing your DNA for marketing purposes, I promise you.
Anonymity is going the way of the dodos.
Only if you care so little as to not take steps to achieve anonymity, sure.
I had understood that it had been used to justify the existence of third party parts in spite of lawsuits to the contrary from auto makers.
Normally I wouldnt respond to such an obvious troll, but youve piqued my interest: In what way is providing jobs to poorer folks from poorer countries conforming to the nationalistic "'Murica" meme?
What would google want with XBox?