I doubt she tremendously increased her salary as that would be noticeable at a later time. The question then being whether or not it would have been better to take the chance of her getting away with it than burdening the cost of maintaining an expiring password scheme. Time/frustration spent by users, IT personnel reseting said passwords, etc. I'm not suggesting an expiring password scheme isn't worth the cost, especially on a financial system per se, but it's type of issue raised by the article.
You do not help the economy by imposing a tax or restriction on industry. Ecotaxes may indeed create jobs, but so would paying a guy to randomly smash windows.
Furthermore, the article you cited credits job creation predominantly to "income redistribution" from ecotaxes; So, it really has little to do with "eco" and more to do with "taxes".
Ecotaxes and alike will hurt the economy, period. But, is it a necessary cost in order to preserve our environment?
The police can follow me around all day without a warrant, but they can not place an officer in my vehicle's back seat without a warrant.
I expect police to show probable cause to some magistrate before placing something on my personal vehicle for enforcement purposes.
"...in order to eliminate all that pesky privacy when the police have physical access to your computer."
Sorry, but the Search Warrant is what eliminates all your "peaky privacy", not something from Microsoft.
And before you even think of the word "Patriot Act", any agency utilizing that act to search doesn't need anything from Microsoft.
Believe it or not, criminals use computers too, and smaller agencies can use all the help they can get.
The reason they don't use a loud speaker isn't because they're concerned with annoying the general public in the area. It's because they don't want a ticket from the local 5-O for violating a city noise ordinance.
So, if the beam could be measured with decibel meter and found to exceed the limit, problem solved. If not, then just wait a month for a new city ordinance to be passed once the advertising becomes prevalent in your area.
Of course, if and what specific restrictions are implemented will vary between municipalities. The inevitable whining from the ad companies about 1st Amendment issues will come. Then they can take it to federal court, spend lots of money, and lose. And lose they will.
For some departments the Taser is considered soft empty hand control (i.e. if you can touch them you can tase them). The problem becomes that officers who are not confident resort to the Taser quickly in cases where the suspect was offering only passive resistance or, in come cases of abuse, none at all.
A more effective strategy can be seen in departments that consider the Taser a "intermediate" weapon. This is the level just below deadly force and includes impact weapons (batons). So, the Taser is only deployed in cases where the suspect is showing active aggression (attempting to assault the officer) or in cases where lesser means to effect the arrest have been exhausted.
On a side note, while I agree that Tasers should be considered "intermediate force" and pepper spray remain "empty hand control", I personally rather be tased than pepper sprayed (again).
It takes a writ of discovery for a defendant in a criminal matter to get information about his own information in NCIC. It is not subject to any subpoena of a civil court.
States also make other information gathered for law enforcement purposes immune to civil subpoenas. And information systems related to NCIC (such as that's State's crime information center) is also immune.
It depends what system they are using and what that State's laws are. If it currently is subject to subpoena, expect that to change in the near future as it becomes more widespread.
As for the scanning of license plates...
The Supreme Court is clear in that this kind of observation by law enforcement doesn't constitute a search under the 4th Amendment. So you can't debate whether it is a reasonable or an unreasonable search as it never was a search to begin with.
1) Is the person in a public place? Simple yes or no.
2) Does the person have an expectation of privacy? For instance, a closed telephone booth is in a public place, but grants a person an expectation of privacy and law enforcement thus needs a warrant to record a conversation therein.
If 1 is yes and 2 is no, then it falls under the plain sight (or plain view) doctrine. It is an exception to the warrant requirement, requires no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and is not considered a search (of any kind) under the 4th Amendment.
As for tracking/storing this data for long periods of time...
If the police can legally obtain information, there is nothing stopping them from amassing it in a database under the 4th Amendment. Something that wasn't a search to begin with doesn't magically become a search because it is entered it in to a database. A ruling stating otherwise would be groundbreaking.
However, the Court has ruled that you have a "right to privacy" under the 9th Amendment and some other numbers they pulled out of the butt of their number-gnome (since the Constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about privacy). So perhaps the Court will rule that the privacy of citizens outweighs the benefit to law enforcement in rearguards to warehousing this information.
If I had to bet, I'd say the ACLU is going to lose. But nothing stops the people of Springdale, Ohio from expecting a higher level of privacy than the minimums set by the US Constitution. I've not been to Ohio, but I'm pretty sure they have local elections there too.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt she tremendously increased her salary as that would be noticeable at a later time. The question then being whether or not it would have been better to take the chance of her getting away with it than burdening the cost of maintaining an expiring password scheme. Time/frustration spent by users, IT personnel reseting said passwords, etc. I'm not suggesting an expiring password scheme isn't worth the cost, especially on a financial system per se, but it's type of issue raised by the article.
You do not help the economy by imposing a tax or restriction on industry. Ecotaxes may indeed create jobs, but so would paying a guy to randomly smash windows. Furthermore, the article you cited credits job creation predominantly to "income redistribution" from ecotaxes; So, it really has little to do with "eco" and more to do with "taxes". Ecotaxes and alike will hurt the economy, period. But, is it a necessary cost in order to preserve our environment?
The police can follow me around all day without a warrant, but they can not place an officer in my vehicle's back seat without a warrant. I expect police to show probable cause to some magistrate before placing something on my personal vehicle for enforcement purposes.
"...in order to eliminate all that pesky privacy when the police have physical access to your computer." Sorry, but the Search Warrant is what eliminates all your "peaky privacy", not something from Microsoft. And before you even think of the word "Patriot Act", any agency utilizing that act to search doesn't need anything from Microsoft. Believe it or not, criminals use computers too, and smaller agencies can use all the help they can get.
The reason they don't use a loud speaker isn't because they're concerned with annoying the general public in the area. It's because they don't want a ticket from the local 5-O for violating a city noise ordinance.
So, if the beam could be measured with decibel meter and found to exceed the limit, problem solved. If not, then just wait a month for a new city ordinance to be passed once the advertising becomes prevalent in your area.
Of course, if and what specific restrictions are implemented will vary between municipalities. The inevitable whining from the ad companies about 1st Amendment issues will come. Then they can take it to federal court, spend lots of money, and lose. And lose they will.For some departments the Taser is considered soft empty hand control (i.e. if you can touch them you can tase them). The problem becomes that officers who are not confident resort to the Taser quickly in cases where the suspect was offering only passive resistance or, in come cases of abuse, none at all. A more effective strategy can be seen in departments that consider the Taser a "intermediate" weapon. This is the level just below deadly force and includes impact weapons (batons). So, the Taser is only deployed in cases where the suspect is showing active aggression (attempting to assault the officer) or in cases where lesser means to effect the arrest have been exhausted. On a side note, while I agree that Tasers should be considered "intermediate force" and pepper spray remain "empty hand control", I personally rather be tased than pepper sprayed (again).
It takes a writ of discovery for a defendant in a criminal matter to get information about his own information in NCIC. It is not subject to any subpoena of a civil court.
States also make other information gathered for law enforcement purposes immune to civil subpoenas. And information systems related to NCIC (such as that's State's crime information center) is also immune.
It depends what system they are using and what that State's laws are. If it currently is subject to subpoena, expect that to change in the near future as it becomes more widespread.
As for the scanning of license plates...
The Supreme Court is clear in that this kind of observation by law enforcement doesn't constitute a search under the 4th Amendment. So you can't debate whether it is a reasonable or an unreasonable search as it never was a search to begin with.
1) Is the person in a public place? Simple yes or no. 2) Does the person have an expectation of privacy? For instance, a closed telephone booth is in a public place, but grants a person an expectation of privacy and law enforcement thus needs a warrant to record a conversation therein.
If 1 is yes and 2 is no, then it falls under the plain sight (or plain view) doctrine. It is an exception to the warrant requirement, requires no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, and is not considered a search (of any kind) under the 4th Amendment.
As for tracking/storing this data for long periods of time...
If the police can legally obtain information, there is nothing stopping them from amassing it in a database under the 4th Amendment. Something that wasn't a search to begin with doesn't magically become a search because it is entered it in to a database. A ruling stating otherwise would be groundbreaking.
However, the Court has ruled that you have a "right to privacy" under the 9th Amendment and some other numbers they pulled out of the butt of their number-gnome (since the Constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about privacy). So perhaps the Court will rule that the privacy of citizens outweighs the benefit to law enforcement in rearguards to warehousing this information.
If I had to bet, I'd say the ACLU is going to lose. But nothing stops the people of Springdale, Ohio from expecting a higher level of privacy than the minimums set by the US Constitution. I've not been to Ohio, but I'm pretty sure they have local elections there too.