Yes, there are parts of the Constitution and its amendments that apply to persons rather than citizens, but just mentioning them is not a complete argument for their applicability. How does the law contravene due process? How does the law contravene equal protection?
Further, Moofie was inferring that all rights under the Constitution applied to citizens and non-citizens alike, which is what I was demonstrating to be false. I was not attempting to demonstrate that no rights were conferred to non-citizens.
Law varies from state to state, but in general and as applied in AZ, an officer must have RAS (reasonable, articulatable suspicion) before detaining anybody, which is why a person sensitive about their rights should ask a LEO 'Am I being detained?' If no, keep walking, you have no obligation to interact further with the LEO. If yes, ask 'Under what suspicion am I being detained?' If the officer cannot articulate his suspicion, there is no valid reason for detention and any detainment is thereby unlawful.
Problem of course is most people are so in awe of anybody with a badge that they automatically comply with requests even when they have no legal obligation to do so. Some LEOs get so used to this that they begin to think they are entitled and they make things hard on suspects because they know that the system will more likely protect them than their suspects.
All that being said, a person validly detained must provide their true full name to the officer or they are criminally liable. The officer will then of course check the name. If there are outstanding problems such as warrants, or the name is a known alias, or something like that, then things will progress from there, otherwise if the name is 'clean' or 'unknown' the LEO must cease detaining the suspect.
I am not a lawyer and the above should not be construed as legal advice.
I am not under the delusion that the law or LEOs are infallible, but where laws are written they should be enforced, that's the core of what rule-of-law is. This whole issue is a direct result of the failure of agencies of the federal government to fully enforce its existing laws. Either repeal the law (by voting out incumbents if necessary, that's how democracy works), rule it unconstitutional if it really is, or do your damn jobs and enforce it.
The 4th Amendment does not apply, because it is not unreasonable to seize a person for violating USC Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII(e), a Federal law that requires all aliens to carry proof of legal presence that has been in effect for more than 70 years and carries the explicitly stated possible prison term of up to 30 days. AZ just made its own law to grant its state officers the same authority. If you have a problem with that, maybe you'd like to sort out why there are both state and federal laws for things like murder? Does that authority overlap too much?!
You might want to re-read the 14th Amendment. It explicitly defines what a citizen is, and it explicitly applies to citizens. 'Persons' are only guaranteed due process and equal protection (which is just rule-of-law, such that people can't be detained or have things confiscated for no reason), NOT privileges and immunities. If the whole 14th Amendment applied to everybody, then non-citizen foreign nationals could vote in our elections, at which point we would lose all semblance of national sovereignty, if we have any left.
Wow, so the Constitution guarantees that non-citizens can vote? I had no idea, probably because you're a complete idiot and haven't read the very thing you're criticizing others for not understanding. Let's take some choice quotes!
From Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
From the 14th Amendment that people keep ignorantly saying this is violating:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
But don't let the words on the page disabuse you of your humble opinion.
I'm unfortunately losing some moderations to do this, but FUD needs to be stopped.
Your 'lawyer friend' needs to find a new line of work, because he must be a terrible lawyer. (IANAL, the following is not legal advice.)
The 'papers please' part of the law is not unconstitutional because it does not pertain to US citizens just as the voting rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not applicable to non-citizens. Additionally, federal law already requires what the AZ law requires and has done so for 70+ years. Please refer to Title 8 of the USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII(e):
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Because the Federal government is not fulfilling its duty to enforce its own laws, the state of AZ has passed its own. OH NOES! TEH RACISM!
Further, are you and/or your 'lawyer friend' completely high? "AZ has no constitutional authority to pass this law." Please point out to me where in the Constitution this law is explicitly prohibited. If you have any idea how laws in this country work, you would know that anything not expressly denied to the states by the Constitution is, in fact, expressly granted and reserved for the states by ye olde forgotten Amendment X.
Lastly, it doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. Go read the 14th Amendment. Count the times it says 'citizens'. Then SLAP YOURSELF IN THE GODDAMN FACE THAT NUMBER OF TIMES. Illegal aliens are NOT citizens. The 14th Amendment EXPLICITLY does not apply to them. That is the LAW.
This is what we get for portraying viruses in movies as LSD-trip-colored renditions of Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man spouting villainistic drivel. Too bad pop-up windows saying "Click here!" with flashing yellow warning icons just don't seem to connect with movie-goers the same way.
Both mechanics and techs are wary that at some point they'll come across somebody who knows what they're doing but is just too lazy to do it themselves (which happens more with cars) who will out them (and potentially prosecuted them) if they try any charlatanry.
Actually there are some places where water purification is necessary. Go to Moline, IL and see how you like the tap water. Is it safe? Of course, but it's nasty. Water purification companies never say that the alternative isn't 'scary unsafe' just that the purified water tastes better, and compared to some places, it might.
Pardon me, sir, but I would be remiss if I didn't inform you that you have clearly contracted a rare disease that will kill you painfully in short order UNLESS you pay me to inject this substance into you. You can trust me, I'm a doctor.
....
Why is it that virtually nobody would fall for that in meatspace, but innumerable people fall for it online? It's just like the 419 scams. What is it about THE INTARWEBS that makes people exponentially more gullible than they would be to a random person on the street?
How is that giving me the benefit of the doubt? Your statement is not cogent. Further, the link is right there, and numbers are sourced in a market survey clearly indicated.
Of course Apple is selling product, but it's to a flat market. That market is already bigger, so of course they will have high numbers, but that market is not growing, in fact it is slightly shrinking. Conversely, if you think Android's increase in marketshare isn't similarly tied to increase in sales then I can't help you.
Huh. iPhone is the leader? I think maybe you should try explaining that to RIM. Their 40+% marketshare might disagree.
Beyond that, you claim the growth is unsustainable. This is a relatively new and evolving market segment. A lot of share has been ceded to Google by MS and Palm, but so far only 'potential' share has come off of RIM and Apple. You think it's impossible for them to lose any ground? They can grow forever but Google can't even keep growing through the end of the year? I sense bias.
Oh and the Apple profits that you vaunt are a direct result of gouging the consumer. Margins like that can't proceed from high quality hardware. Apple sells mediocre crap and an image brand for heinous markup. Only so many people will be duped by that, which is why Apple has a completely flat line of market share in the computing world. They've been at 'around an 8% market share' for years .
Joke's on you, I am actually bisexual, and you are actually a bigot, which is no doubt why you post as an AC to begin with.
The difference between 1-2:50 vs 4.1:11.5 is obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together, which explains why it escapes your understanding.
And what you're describing is choice. Some people like classic interfaces, some people like new interfaces, but where Windows and Linux give people varying degrees of control over the interface, Apple gives you practically no control.
What choice do you have with the iPhone? None. What choice do you get with Android phones? Several different interfaces.
how can droid hope to compete with the iphone if users can't expect the same interface on all models?
lol, wut? Because people are going to buy and use three phones simultaneously? Having different interfaces is better because it allows people to choose one that they find most comfortable. They're only going to be using that one interface for the entire time they have that phone. I don't see how that's complex. Yeah, went they want a new phone months/years down the line, then they might have to think about a different interface. Big deal.
Well, I just looked at the numbers. Between 11/2009 and 2/2010 iPhone market share is flat as Kansas. Android market share on the other hand has more than doubled in that period. Hmmm... zero gains vs. more than double gains... yeah if Jobs isn't shaking then he's dumber than I thought.
Yeah, well I used to work for a company that basically acknowledged that so long as work got done in expected timeframes they didn't care what you did. Furthermore, since it was a design house that included women's swimwear, we were all issued calendars that included hot models in bikinis. That's right, we could browse youtube all day on slow days and we had company-issued softcore calendars. I would have never left that company if my wife hadn't been transferred to another state (and no, I'm not naming names).
Where I am now is not nearly as nice, but they don't get on our cases too much, and we're so short-staffed and in such specially-trained positions that there's no way any of us are in jeopardy.
If you don't like your working conditions, you should look for other work. The end. There are places out there that are awesome to work for.
Regardless of the fact that you have no idea how IR cameras work (here's a hint: radiation is LoS unless the frequency is high enough to work its way through the intervening materials, and IR is a lower frequency than visible light, so anything that blocks light blocks IR too, durrr), that's an effort designed to penetrate a reasonable expectation of privacy. If somebody is having a conversation on their lawn and I walk up with a tape recorder but remain on public property, they can't (in single party consent states like mine) take any action against me. However, if I have to get a laser microphone trained on their window to hear and record a conversation inside their house, that enters into the realm of 'intrusion of solitude and seclusion'. This does not apply to wireless, because that signal comes to me. There is no penetration involved, in fact quite the opposite, the signal practically forces itself on the equipment. Back in the day when wireless was new, a lot of wireless cards were configured to a wildcard SSID that would connect to any broadcasting open network. It's still in the 802.11b standard, though I haven't tried it with g or n.
Equipment owners/operators are responsible for everything their equipment does within its design specifications. Equipment manufacturers are responsible for everything that their equipment does outside of its design specifications (and are expected to recall it if necessary). Ignorance is no excuse for anybody, and claims of 'I didn't know!' tend not to hold up well in courts.
Having dealt with this in depth before, I will refer you to read the posts from this exchange.
However to briefly address your points:
You would probably be upset even if they just were copying down the VIN from the car, which is displayed on the car window.
And there would be no ground for you stand on to complain about it unless that information were used in a fraudulent or otherwise damaging way.
The difference is that the law doesn't presume that everyone has the technological expertise to secure the wireless.
The law also doesn't presume that open access points are illegal, and short of naming an access point 'PLEASE CONNECT IF YOU WANT' or similar there is no way of telling if an AP is open due to unintended negligence or a deliberate desire to make it available. Since the broadcast is public and an address is assigned by the device indiscriminately it can be legally assumed that the device operator intended to do that. A device's operator assumes all liability for its configuration except where that would be outside of the design specifications of the device, wherein that liability then becomes that of the device manufacturer.
This may not sit well with people who want to be insulated from personal responsibility, but I list several analogous examples in the discussion to which I linked.
We're talking about the physical layer here. Nothing about IPv6 negates what I originally said: wireless addresses don't face the internet. They are physically separate and distinct. Even if the MAC of the client and the AP/router are included in the IP addresses of the client and the AP/router, that's still irrelevant because those will be non-routable IP addresses. Access to the outside will still be through a physically separate WAN port via NAT that does have a routable address.
Uh yeah, hate to break it to you but a transition to IPv6 will have no effect on the division of interfaces. Whatever had separate addressing before will have separate addressing later. The format may change to EUI-64, but so what.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are parts of the Constitution and its amendments that apply to persons rather than citizens, but just mentioning them is not a complete argument for their applicability. How does the law contravene due process? How does the law contravene equal protection?
Further, Moofie was inferring that all rights under the Constitution applied to citizens and non-citizens alike, which is what I was demonstrating to be false. I was not attempting to demonstrate that no rights were conferred to non-citizens.
Law varies from state to state, but in general and as applied in AZ, an officer must have RAS (reasonable, articulatable suspicion) before detaining anybody, which is why a person sensitive about their rights should ask a LEO 'Am I being detained?' If no, keep walking, you have no obligation to interact further with the LEO. If yes, ask 'Under what suspicion am I being detained?' If the officer cannot articulate his suspicion, there is no valid reason for detention and any detainment is thereby unlawful.
Problem of course is most people are so in awe of anybody with a badge that they automatically comply with requests even when they have no legal obligation to do so. Some LEOs get so used to this that they begin to think they are entitled and they make things hard on suspects because they know that the system will more likely protect them than their suspects.
All that being said, a person validly detained must provide their true full name to the officer or they are criminally liable. The officer will then of course check the name. If there are outstanding problems such as warrants, or the name is a known alias, or something like that, then things will progress from there, otherwise if the name is 'clean' or 'unknown' the LEO must cease detaining the suspect.
I am not a lawyer and the above should not be construed as legal advice.
I am not under the delusion that the law or LEOs are infallible, but where laws are written they should be enforced, that's the core of what rule-of-law is. This whole issue is a direct result of the failure of agencies of the federal government to fully enforce its existing laws. Either repeal the law (by voting out incumbents if necessary, that's how democracy works), rule it unconstitutional if it really is, or do your damn jobs and enforce it.
The 4th Amendment does not apply, because it is not unreasonable to seize a person for violating USC Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII(e), a Federal law that requires all aliens to carry proof of legal presence that has been in effect for more than 70 years and carries the explicitly stated possible prison term of up to 30 days. AZ just made its own law to grant its state officers the same authority. If you have a problem with that, maybe you'd like to sort out why there are both state and federal laws for things like murder? Does that authority overlap too much?!
You might want to re-read the 14th Amendment. It explicitly defines what a citizen is, and it explicitly applies to citizens. 'Persons' are only guaranteed due process and equal protection (which is just rule-of-law, such that people can't be detained or have things confiscated for no reason), NOT privileges and immunities. If the whole 14th Amendment applied to everybody, then non-citizen foreign nationals could vote in our elections, at which point we would lose all semblance of national sovereignty, if we have any left.
From Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
From the 14th Amendment that people keep ignorantly saying this is violating:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
But don't let the words on the page disabuse you of your humble opinion.
Your 'lawyer friend' needs to find a new line of work, because he must be a terrible lawyer. (IANAL, the following is not legal advice.)
The 'papers please' part of the law is not unconstitutional because it does not pertain to US citizens just as the voting rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not applicable to non-citizens. Additionally, federal law already requires what the AZ law requires and has done so for 70+ years. Please refer to Title 8 of the USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII(e):
(e) Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Because the Federal government is not fulfilling its duty to enforce its own laws, the state of AZ has passed its own. OH NOES! TEH RACISM!
Further, are you and/or your 'lawyer friend' completely high? "AZ has no constitutional authority to pass this law." Please point out to me where in the Constitution this law is explicitly prohibited. If you have any idea how laws in this country work, you would know that anything not expressly denied to the states by the Constitution is, in fact, expressly granted and reserved for the states by ye olde forgotten Amendment X.
Lastly, it doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. Go read the 14th Amendment. Count the times it says 'citizens'. Then SLAP YOURSELF IN THE GODDAMN FACE THAT NUMBER OF TIMES. Illegal aliens are NOT citizens. The 14th Amendment EXPLICITLY does not apply to them. That is the LAW.
This is what we get for portraying viruses in movies as LSD-trip-colored renditions of Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man spouting villainistic drivel. Too bad pop-up windows saying "Click here!" with flashing yellow warning icons just don't seem to connect with movie-goers the same way.
I believe you may have been looking to say "svchost.exe"
Both mechanics and techs are wary that at some point they'll come across somebody who knows what they're doing but is just too lazy to do it themselves (which happens more with cars) who will out them (and potentially prosecuted them) if they try any charlatanry.
Actually there are some places where water purification is necessary. Go to Moline, IL and see how you like the tap water. Is it safe? Of course, but it's nasty. Water purification companies never say that the alternative isn't 'scary unsafe' just that the purified water tastes better, and compared to some places, it might.
Someday it's going to say:
FLAGRANT SYSTEM ERROR
Computer over.
Virus = Very Yes.
Pardon me, sir, but I would be remiss if I didn't inform you that you have clearly contracted a rare disease that will kill you painfully in short order UNLESS you pay me to inject this substance into you. You can trust me, I'm a doctor.
....
Why is it that virtually nobody would fall for that in meatspace, but innumerable people fall for it online? It's just like the 419 scams. What is it about THE INTARWEBS that makes people exponentially more gullible than they would be to a random person on the street?
How is that giving me the benefit of the doubt? Your statement is not cogent. Further, the link is right there, and numbers are sourced in a market survey clearly indicated.
Of course Apple is selling product, but it's to a flat market. That market is already bigger, so of course they will have high numbers, but that market is not growing, in fact it is slightly shrinking. Conversely, if you think Android's increase in marketshare isn't similarly tied to increase in sales then I can't help you.
Huh. iPhone is the leader? I think maybe you should try explaining that to RIM. Their 40+% marketshare might disagree.
Beyond that, you claim the growth is unsustainable. This is a relatively new and evolving market segment. A lot of share has been ceded to Google by MS and Palm, but so far only 'potential' share has come off of RIM and Apple. You think it's impossible for them to lose any ground? They can grow forever but Google can't even keep growing through the end of the year? I sense bias.
Oh and the Apple profits that you vaunt are a direct result of gouging the consumer. Margins like that can't proceed from high quality hardware. Apple sells mediocre crap and an image brand for heinous markup. Only so many people will be duped by that, which is why Apple has a completely flat line of market share in the computing world. They've been at 'around an 8% market share' for years .
Joke's on you, I am actually bisexual, and you are actually a bigot, which is no doubt why you post as an AC to begin with.
The difference between 1-2:50 vs 4.1:11.5 is obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together, which explains why it escapes your understanding.
And what you're describing is choice. Some people like classic interfaces, some people like new interfaces, but where Windows and Linux give people varying degrees of control over the interface, Apple gives you practically no control.
What choice do you have with the iPhone? None.
What choice do you get with Android phones? Several different interfaces.
how can droid hope to compete with the iphone if users can't expect the same interface on all models?
lol, wut? Because people are going to buy and use three phones simultaneously? Having different interfaces is better because it allows people to choose one that they find most comfortable. They're only going to be using that one interface for the entire time they have that phone. I don't see how that's complex. Yeah, went they want a new phone months/years down the line, then they might have to think about a different interface. Big deal.
Well, I just looked at the numbers. Between 11/2009 and 2/2010 iPhone market share is flat as Kansas. Android market share on the other hand has more than doubled in that period. Hmmm... zero gains vs. more than double gains... yeah if Jobs isn't shaking then he's dumber than I thought.
Yeah, well I used to work for a company that basically acknowledged that so long as work got done in expected timeframes they didn't care what you did. Furthermore, since it was a design house that included women's swimwear, we were all issued calendars that included hot models in bikinis. That's right, we could browse youtube all day on slow days and we had company-issued softcore calendars. I would have never left that company if my wife hadn't been transferred to another state (and no, I'm not naming names).
Where I am now is not nearly as nice, but they don't get on our cases too much, and we're so short-staffed and in such specially-trained positions that there's no way any of us are in jeopardy.
If you don't like your working conditions, you should look for other work. The end. There are places out there that are awesome to work for.
I'm glad I don't work where you do.
Regardless of the fact that you have no idea how IR cameras work (here's a hint: radiation is LoS unless the frequency is high enough to work its way through the intervening materials, and IR is a lower frequency than visible light, so anything that blocks light blocks IR too, durrr), that's an effort designed to penetrate a reasonable expectation of privacy. If somebody is having a conversation on their lawn and I walk up with a tape recorder but remain on public property, they can't (in single party consent states like mine) take any action against me. However, if I have to get a laser microphone trained on their window to hear and record a conversation inside their house, that enters into the realm of 'intrusion of solitude and seclusion'. This does not apply to wireless, because that signal comes to me. There is no penetration involved, in fact quite the opposite, the signal practically forces itself on the equipment. Back in the day when wireless was new, a lot of wireless cards were configured to a wildcard SSID that would connect to any broadcasting open network. It's still in the 802.11b standard, though I haven't tried it with g or n.
Equipment owners/operators are responsible for everything their equipment does within its design specifications. Equipment manufacturers are responsible for everything that their equipment does outside of its design specifications (and are expected to recall it if necessary). Ignorance is no excuse for anybody, and claims of 'I didn't know!' tend not to hold up well in courts.
However to briefly address your points:
You would probably be upset even if they just were copying down the VIN from the car, which is displayed on the car window.
And there would be no ground for you stand on to complain about it unless that information were used in a fraudulent or otherwise damaging way.
The difference is that the law doesn't presume that everyone has the technological expertise to secure the wireless.
The law also doesn't presume that open access points are illegal, and short of naming an access point 'PLEASE CONNECT IF YOU WANT' or similar there is no way of telling if an AP is open due to unintended negligence or a deliberate desire to make it available. Since the broadcast is public and an address is assigned by the device indiscriminately it can be legally assumed that the device operator intended to do that. A device's operator assumes all liability for its configuration except where that would be outside of the design specifications of the device, wherein that liability then becomes that of the device manufacturer.
This may not sit well with people who want to be insulated from personal responsibility, but I list several analogous examples in the discussion to which I linked.
We're talking about the physical layer here. Nothing about IPv6 negates what I originally said: wireless addresses don't face the internet. They are physically separate and distinct. Even if the MAC of the client and the AP/router are included in the IP addresses of the client and the AP/router, that's still irrelevant because those will be non-routable IP addresses. Access to the outside will still be through a physically separate WAN port via NAT that does have a routable address.
Uh yeah, hate to break it to you but a transition to IPv6 will have no effect on the division of interfaces. Whatever had separate addressing before will have separate addressing later. The format may change to EUI-64, but so what.