How does this law hurt Googles ability to hire? seriously? Does this law prevent Google from giving same sex partner benefits?
Under the guise of 'hurts hiring' one could wax a whole bunch of laws that should be in place. Laws *dont* exist to serve corperate interest... okay, okay laws *should* not exist to serve corperate interest.
"I'm not buying this 'both ends of the line have to have U.S. Citizens on them to be protected' bullshit"
You are leaving out the both people need to be in the US for protection and if they are, citizen or not, they are protected.
"and from the looks of it, not too many people are."
On/., imagine that..
"Let me make this painfully obvious to you. -I- (yes, me, an American citizen) have a right to protection from government search of my communications (papers)."
Not when you're crossing a border you don't.
"If I'm talking to Johnny Badass, an Australian National, you're trying to tell me that the U.S. has an inherent right (not enumerated by the Constitution BTW) to tap Johnny Badass (just because he's not a Citizen)"
If Johnny is in the US than no their is no right to tap but if he is in Australia the communications is crossing aa US border and is *no* different than a suitcase.
"I can't possibly figure out why Johnny Badass being born in another country negates or invalidates MY Constitutional right."
For the same reason that crossing a border negates it..
"Am I expected to just be understanding of the situation, or do I have to actually feel grateful for losing my rights because of your fear?"
You never had a right to cross a US border without search, you have not lost anything..
Nothing is being censored "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" select communications with people outside the US being monitored without court order is not censorship
"a clear logical fallacy that stretches, way out of proportion, the statement he's trying to make"
Can also be said about calling monitoring of *some* foreign communications 'censorship'.
"I believe that if we wish to be the shining beacon this country was supposed to represent, then the rights enumerated by our laws should extend to all human kind."
really? all people everywhere have the right to bear arms? Or do you just mean in the US? What about felons?
Sorry but the US has, traditionally, had far looser immigration standards than foreign nations and while someone is here but is not yet a citizen then while the basic principles of our rights should apply the extent should be limited until such time as they are full participating citizens of our nation. I say this as the grandson of immigrants and the husband of an immigrant.
The US has no authority to enumerate rights for all peoples, we are not the good and perfect. Our constitution is a social contract between the government and citizens you have to be one or the other to participate in that contract.
"If your premise of who the rights extend to differs, then our problem is not one of warrantless wiretaps; it is one of a bigot who only cares about the rights of Americans vs. someone who cares about the rights of all humans regardless of where they're from."
Rights for non citizens exist in American but they are not constitutional laws, rather they are the regular laws passed and then vetted against the constitution for their integrity. Biggotry has nothing to do with it.
"Mod this Troll or Asshole or whatever you like, but all humans deserve those rights"
There is not even an agreement into what some of those rights are for citizens (e.g. 2nd amendment) you now think the US should be the arbitor of what rights should exist for all mankind?
"You're no more deserving of those rights than anyone in any other country. You just got the luck of the draw."
If by 'luck of the draw' you mean my grandfather came here and gave up all ties to his homeland, swore and oath and I have obeyed the laws and signed up for selective service (the draft) at 18 then yea.. sure whatever.
"The rights enumerated in the Constitution, like all human rights, apply to all people -- citizens or no. "
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, nope that oft repeated steaming pile is incorrect..
"I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens** think these securities necessary" -- James Madison
"That common law right was held only by citizens and those who swore allegiance to the Government, It did not include everyone present on American soil." U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres
--
One only needs to look at the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to see specifically that Rights enumerated in the constitution are intended to address only US citizens. Now some of these are extended to foreign nationals on US soil and some we recognize to be absolute truths for all mankind but those provisions are enumerated and defined with extra constitutional laws..
The entire reason for a judicial branch is to make sure the law is justly applied consistent with the constitution. Thus if a journalist is communicating from overseas and its nothing then nothing should be done and, yes, the listening should not be done without *some* probable cause. And that is where the legislators and courts come into play.
Now I do have a problem with the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' method of intelligence but thats not what this case was about.
"I disagree. Communication to me is the transmission of ideas. If you are still attaching them to pieces of trees, then they may be searched although the contents of that idea should not be."
Please we are in the information age Ideas are just as, if not more, powerful than 'pieces of trees'. But if you want to play it that way just say that the electrons are being inspected. The telephone to us is what the written letter was to the founders.
"A package, on the other hand, is the transmission of matter."
Electrons are matter..
"The government may keep that right to intercept those but I will not stand for the censorship and/or interception of ideas or information!"
Go yell fire in a crowded theater.. why should anyone be allowed to censor you..
"And don't whine to me about National Security... it's the agencies' jobs to keep that from ever being sent across a border."
"Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?"
A communication coming in abroad is no different than a package. The government has *always* had a right to intercept foreign shipments and communications. The 4th applies to American citizens *in* America not aything about people who are not Americans or persons (be they American or not) overseas.
Only a public defender *has* to take a case and even then there are ways to get out of it. A private lawyer working, usually, with the initiator of a law suit, can say no for any reason they want (outside of normal discrimination laws)
Oh don't get me wrong I knew Obama was going to turn out to be just like the rest of them, albeit more well spoken, I just like to point out the 'Hope' and 'Change' is nothing but a slogan (sort of like 'Mission Accomplished') for people to gobble up..
That's why I said this is *close* to breaking the promise nit that he did break the promise. Since about 2001 this guy has been on speed dial for a lobby group. I am unable to find anything he has done outside of the Recording industry for the past seven years. This, to me, is straining the spirit of that promise.. The guy decided to make his bones throwing for one industry while in public life (2001-2008) and lawyer or not that says something about his relationship to lobbyist..
And as they have their claws into Obama via Biden and not an RIAA lawyer appointed to the administration (Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general). To me hiring this man comes awful close to breaking a promise of not lobbyist in his administration..
Saying 'there is scientific consensus so it must be true' by its very nature is basing nothing on evidence rather its basing it on others interpretations of the evidence (or their interpretations of others interpretations of someone who looked at the evidence)
"What's so wonderful about Reborns is that, um, they're forever babies,"
If it has not puked on you, urinated on you, defecated on you, woke you up in the middle of the night and shaved off at least a decade of your youth with scary moments then its not a baby, its a doll..
Slashdot Mirror
Google Cambridge
5 Cambridge Center, Floors 3-6.
Cambridge, MA 02142
Seems they already can compete for MA employees..
Should all companies get to repeal laws that might make their life harder or just the companys you like or laws you hate?
How does this law hurt Googles ability to hire? seriously? Does this law prevent Google from giving same sex partner benefits?
Under the guise of 'hurts hiring' one could wax a whole bunch of laws that should be in place. Laws *dont* exist to serve corperate interest... okay, okay laws *should* not exist to serve corperate interest.
sheesh can businesses just stay out of crap, their money being in the system is more than half the problem..
"I'm not buying this 'both ends of the line have to have U.S. Citizens on them to be protected' bullshit"
You are leaving out the both people need to be in the US for protection and if they are, citizen or not, they are protected.
"and from the looks of it, not too many people are."
On /., imagine that..
"Let me make this painfully obvious to you. -I- (yes, me, an American citizen) have a right to protection from government search of my communications (papers)."
Not when you're crossing a border you don't.
"If I'm talking to Johnny Badass, an Australian National, you're trying to tell me that the U.S. has an inherent right (not enumerated by the Constitution BTW) to tap Johnny Badass (just because he's not a Citizen)"
If Johnny is in the US than no their is no right to tap but if he is in Australia the communications is crossing aa US border and is *no* different than a suitcase.
"I can't possibly figure out why Johnny Badass being born in another country negates or invalidates MY Constitutional right."
For the same reason that crossing a border negates it..
"Am I expected to just be understanding of the situation, or do I have to actually feel grateful for losing my rights because of your fear?"
You never had a right to cross a US border without search, you have not lost anything..
"Comparing the censorship of one man's opinion"
Nothing is being censored "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" select communications with people outside the US being monitored without court order is not censorship
"a clear logical fallacy that stretches, way out of proportion, the statement he's trying to make"
Can also be said about calling monitoring of *some* foreign communications 'censorship'.
"What about international calls to and from Americans *in* America?"
Two Americans, both of whom are located in America? I believe a warrant is required and this decisions does not impact that.
"Even if it isn't being used against Citizens now, who would know if they started doing it later?"
That's a slippery slope argument..
"I believe that if we wish to be the shining beacon this country was supposed to represent, then the rights enumerated by our laws should extend to all human kind."
really? all people everywhere have the right to bear arms? Or do you just mean in the US? What about felons?
Sorry but the US has, traditionally, had far looser immigration standards than foreign nations and while someone is here but is not yet a citizen then while the basic principles of our rights should apply the extent should be limited until such time as they are full participating citizens of our nation. I say this as the grandson of immigrants and the husband of an immigrant.
The US has no authority to enumerate rights for all peoples, we are not the good and perfect. Our constitution is a social contract between the government and citizens you have to be one or the other to participate in that contract.
"If your premise of who the rights extend to differs, then our problem is not one of warrantless wiretaps; it is one of a bigot who only cares about the rights of Americans vs. someone who cares about the rights of all humans regardless of where they're from."
Rights for non citizens exist in American but they are not constitutional laws, rather they are the regular laws passed and then vetted against the constitution for their integrity. Biggotry has nothing to do with it.
"Mod this Troll or Asshole or whatever you like, but all humans deserve those rights"
There is not even an agreement into what some of those rights are for citizens (e.g. 2nd amendment) you now think the US should be the arbitor of what rights should exist for all mankind?
"You're no more deserving of those rights than anyone in any other country. You just got the luck of the draw."
If by 'luck of the draw' you mean my grandfather came here and gave up all ties to his homeland, swore and oath and I have obeyed the laws and signed up for selective service (the draft) at 18 then yea.. sure whatever.
"The rights enumerated in the Constitution, like all human rights, apply to all people -- citizens or no. "
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, nope that oft repeated steaming pile is incorrect..
"I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens** think these securities necessary" -- James Madison
"That common law right was held only by citizens and those who swore allegiance to the Government, It did not include everyone present on American soil." U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres
--
One only needs to look at the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to see specifically that Rights enumerated in the constitution are intended to address only US citizens. Now some of these are extended to foreign nationals on US soil and some we recognize to be absolute truths for all mankind but those provisions are enumerated and defined with extra constitutional laws..
The entire reason for a judicial branch is to make sure the law is justly applied consistent with the constitution. Thus if a journalist is communicating from overseas and its nothing then nothing should be done and, yes, the listening should not be done without *some* probable cause. And that is where the legislators and courts come into play.
Now I do have a problem with the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' method of intelligence but thats not what this case was about.
"I disagree. Communication to me is the transmission of ideas. If you are still attaching them to pieces of trees, then they may be searched although the contents of that idea should not be."
Please we are in the information age Ideas are just as, if not more, powerful than 'pieces of trees'. But if you want to play it that way just say that the electrons are being inspected. The telephone to us is what the written letter was to the founders.
"A package, on the other hand, is the transmission of matter."
Electrons are matter..
"The government may keep that right to intercept those but I will not stand for the censorship and/or interception of ideas or information!"
Go yell fire in a crowded theater.. why should anyone be allowed to censor you..
"And don't whine to me about National Security ... it's the agencies' jobs to keep that from ever being sent across a border."
"Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?"
A communication coming in abroad is no different than a package. The government has *always* had a right to intercept foreign shipments and communications. The 4th applies to American citizens *in* America not aything about people who are not Americans or persons (be they American or not) overseas.
Consider yourself corrected...
Only a public defender *has* to take a case and even then there are ways to get out of it. A private lawyer working, usually, with the initiator of a law suit, can say no for any reason they want (outside of normal discrimination laws)
Oh don't get me wrong I knew Obama was going to turn out to be just like the rest of them, albeit more well spoken, I just like to point out the 'Hope' and 'Change' is nothing but a slogan (sort of like 'Mission Accomplished') for people to gobble up..
quick its coming right at us /ned
That's why I said this is *close* to breaking the promise nit that he did break the promise. Since about 2001 this guy has been on speed dial for a lobby group. I am unable to find anything he has done outside of the Recording industry for the past seven years. This, to me, is straining the spirit of that promise.. The guy decided to make his bones throwing for one industry while in public life (2001-2008) and lawyer or not that says something about his relationship to lobbyist..
And as they have their claws into Obama via Biden and not an RIAA lawyer appointed to the administration (Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general). To me hiring this man comes awful close to breaking a promise of not lobbyist in his administration..
Its ow available for distribution on my website...
Here is the problem:
Saying 'there is scientific consensus so it must be true' by its very nature is basing nothing on evidence rather its basing it on others interpretations of the evidence (or their interpretations of others interpretations of someone who looked at the evidence)
one more way in which far left environmentalism is the most fundamentalist religion on the planet..
"What's so wonderful about Reborns is that, um, they're forever babies,"
If it has not puked on you, urinated on you, defecated on you, woke you up in the middle of the night and shaved off at least a decade of your youth with scary moments then its not a baby, its a doll..
Part of the joy of Kids is watching them grow...
Its a bleak mark on someone who promised change to bring in tha top gun lawyer for what amounts to a lobby group...
Its a great way to get a grant..
I think Cosby understands them pretty well..
Attacking the source... wow that intellectually weak..
"Voted against a 2005 law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers stemming from acts committed by others using their products."
"Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. "
"Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing."
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html
The is for the AWB that is a federal law restricting Gun Ownership...
"Every time I have heard him talk, he has talked about how gun regulations at a federal level are completely infeasible"
Except the Assault Weapons Ban that he thought Bush should have renewed right? I mean did you miss that one?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289373,00.html