Heh, yeah; I dunno if it's required by law or something for the rep to say if you have money coming back, but I sure appreciated it all the same. Every once in a while, you run across a government employee that seems to honestly care about his/her fellow citizens.
Yup, my own anecdote points to this being the case. On a whim, I called the IRS (can't really remember why now) and asked a basic question about something, they looked up my account and said that they owed me like two thousand dollars. They said I had to file the amended form which the telephone agent mailed to me and told me what I needed to change. I got the return, filled it out and sent it in and received my two grand a short time later.
But yeah, they weren't in any hurry to throw money at me unless I pointed out the error. Even then, however, I never really pointed out any error at all -- the phone rep did.
these two sites (I chose them randomly one day) and I have never once seen a YouTube pre-video advert. In fact, I'm so used to not seeing them that I'm always -- always -- surprised to see them when I'm at a friends house or another computer other than my own.
I think you and I don't have much in the way of a disagreement. I'm saying, however, that the police are not as free in this manner as another citizen would be. Due to the special powers granted to them on behalf of the people of the United States, they have to abide by certain rules that the rest of the population does not.
Accordingly, I do not believe that police are allowed to do so. That they do, irrespective of the constitutionality of the behavior, is irrelevant to my point.
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
I think they are unreasonable; absent reasonable articulable suspicion that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime, then there is no legal justification for any kind of tracking whatsoever.
Why people seem to think -- or have fallen for -- the absurdity that the constitution outlines the only rights we have and not as a curb on governmental powers is beyond me.
All together now -- ABSENT REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION OR PROBABLE CAUSE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT. It matters not that computers are fast enough to scan a billion license plates per hour, or that certain activities do not carry an expectation of privacy. That's the sugary lie that is used to get us to swallow the ultimate poison of the police state.
They acted in a way they believed the law specified. It took 5 years of lawyers and judges wrangling for it to be conclusively decided that the law didn't specify that and the arrest was wrongful.
If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision? It would be more than a bit harsh to brand cops criminals when they were forced to make a decision that was beyond their capability.
Then maybe -- just maybe -- the cops SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE AN ARREST IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN if they didn't really know for sure. I mean, what was the emergency here? Was somebody going to die in the next five seconds? Was somebody being raped in the parking lot? Was a hostage situation going down?
NO.
A bunch of thugs with badges didn't want their crimes to be recorded in public, so they drummed up any old excuse to harass an innocent person -- all the moreso that they decided on a felony to try an intimidate the guy rather than a misdemeanor.
To "err on the side of caution" should mean "maybe I'd better not waste time and effort in arresting some dude if I really don't have a rock-solid reason" rather than "jail 'em all and let a judge sort it out."
Just remember that the constitution does not grant you the right to fly either.
a) The constitution is a limit on the powers of government, it is not a granter of rights
b) the right to travel has been long recognized -- since the founding of this country -- including the right to travel by any conveyance such as by airline.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
In 49 U.S.C. Â 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
That the overreaching done by the TSA (read: federal government) tramples these rights in no way repudiates that these rights exist not only through the constitution but law as well.
Throughout the entire history of this country, taking from examples even before that, it has been firmly held that the jury is both the trier of fact as well as law, and that a jury is seen as a final check against governmental abuse.
You're also wrong in that judges certainly have the ability to ask questions themselves of defendants and witnesses and it used to be the case that jurors could as well. Jurors were allowed to and encouraged to take notes, but not much any more. Why? Because of the FUD that judges try to pull over on the populace and that attorneys are complicit in these days by claiming the nonsense that you're claiming now.
Have you tried golf? You can swear all you want, and young, pretty women drive around the courses offering you beer. It's a win-win, and a lot better than being at work.
Eighteen holes in one day and I still have time for golf! -Tiger Woods
What would a criminal need to fake your fingerprint at a crime scene?
What would a criminal need to fake your DNA at a crime scene? A piece of hair from a brush or comb or from your last trip to the barber shop? A few flakes of skin that they could collect from you as they brush past you in on a crowded subway terminal or restaurant?
Apparently, this isn't as far-fetched as you'd believe...
"Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases. The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person."
"I had kind of an interesting morning this morning. I call it 'interesting', I use that word because I don't have a 'nice' day anymore. Frankly, I don't bother with them. I feel as if I've outgrown the nice day. Let someone else have a few. I've had my share. Why should I be hogging all the really nice ones? So I feel I'm beyond the nice day now.
'Course people still want me to have one. Everybody wants me to have a nice day. "Have a nice day!" "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Would you give me my fuckin' change, please?" Some people are really insistent- "I said have a nice day!" "Okay, okay goddammit, all right!"
That's the trouble with 'have a nice day'; it puts all the pressure on you. Now you've gotta go out and somehow manage to have a good time. All because of some loose lipped cashier.
'Have a nice day'...
Maybe I don't feel like having a nice day. Maybe, just maybe, I've had 63 nice days in a row. And, by God, I'm ready for a crappy day. Let someone wish me a crappy day. I never hear that. "Have a crappy day!" That's no problem at all. All you have to do is get up some mornings. There's no planning involved."
You highlight a very important point here. In most cases when you purchase an e-book, just like with digital music, you are only licensing the content. You don't actually own it and therefore the first sale doctrine does not apply.
Yes, exactly. Except that what they're saying is that if you want to buy a DVD movie it's twenty bucks and if you want to rent it, it's twenty five.
Something's wrong with this picture and it ain't me.
Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights.
Absolutely correct, sir! It is required only when you are in a custodial setting.
HOWEVER, any answers you give to ANY police questioning AT ANY TIME also will be used against you and there is no requirement for them to Mirandize you.
That is why you must ALWAYS seriously consider whether or not to answer ANY questions by police, even during a traffic stop, for example.
Two things to remember:
1) You can't talk yourself out of trouble, but you can certainly talk yourself into it; and,
2) All cops will lie to you. You, however cannot lie to them. BUT. You can refuse to answer any questions at any time.
If (and it's a big if) there is a felony committed in your presence, you may effect a citizen's arrest. This arrest power is not limited to who may be arrested. By virtue of a cop swaggeringly believing he's above the law and therefore untouchable, he will resist arrest. If you draw down on him, the fact that you were required to use lethal force will be taken into consideration and may even exonerate you.
I would strongly advise never to personally test this, though the US Supreme Court has ruled that a non-cop can lawfully kill a cop.
Your statement is correct in the idea that it's a crime to threaten LE. You may, of course, use force to effect your own citizen's arrest.
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS. I'm just reporting what I understand of the law that has been settled.
I don't think we're at odds at all on this topic; it never really occurred to me why there wasn't any provision for punishing the government (i.e., government employees/agents) in the constitution. I'm not terribly surprised that no constitutional amendments have been made either in that regard.
My guess is that the founders had thought that the People would be active enough in guarding their rights that the governmental employees would be wary enough to not encroach or attempt to pass legislation or enforce laws that the People did not want.
Apparently people were much more pragmatic and self-sufficient and very much willing to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" than we are today.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, yeah; I dunno if it's required by law or something for the rep to say if you have money coming back, but I sure appreciated it all the same. Every once in a while, you run across a government employee that seems to honestly care about his/her fellow citizens.
scams that drive up prices for honest buyers
Got any evidence for that? Not trying to be snarky, just genuinely curious.
Yup, my own anecdote points to this being the case. On a whim, I called the IRS (can't really remember why now) and asked a basic question about something, they looked up my account and said that they owed me like two thousand dollars. They said I had to file the amended form which the telephone agent mailed to me and told me what I needed to change. I got the return, filled it out and sent it in and received my two grand a short time later.
But yeah, they weren't in any hurry to throw money at me unless I pointed out the error. Even then, however, I never really pointed out any error at all -- the phone rep did.
And my brother is the president and ceo of a large corporation, and he makes a 7 digit salary.
Speaking of which, I make a seven digit salary too. Five of those digits are on the right side of the decimal, though.
Google inserting advertising content into YouTube streams is, IMO, much more nefarious and difficult to block.
Just use a comprehensive hosts file. I put together a hosts file from
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
and
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
these two sites (I chose them randomly one day) and I have never once seen a YouTube pre-video advert. In fact, I'm so used to not seeing them that I'm always -- always -- surprised to see them when I'm at a friends house or another computer other than my own.
HTH
I would love to shove my fist up each every one of there collective asses.
You're hired!
Sincerely,
TSA Human Resources Department
I think you and I don't have much in the way of a disagreement. I'm saying, however, that the police are not as free in this manner as another citizen would be. Due to the special powers granted to them on behalf of the people of the United States, they have to abide by certain rules that the rest of the population does not.
Accordingly, I do not believe that police are allowed to do so. That they do, irrespective of the constitutionality of the behavior, is irrelevant to my point.
The best argument against this is that trailing a person requires resources (the cop), and has an opportunity cost for the police. They are not going to tail someone without a (hopefully good) reason. If, on the other hand, they engage in mass surveillance with minimal cost cost per victim, that eliminates the cost for the police to engage in such behavior.
The point needs to be made that, absent probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, the police/government has no authority to track anyone. So instead of you and I "hoping" that they can't follow us without a good reason (and thus, by extension, "hoping" that they won't abuse the privilege), they are first required to have a good reason before being allowed to follow us.
They never needed a warrant to "tail" a guy driving round in his car, or "shadow" him walking down the street, so why need one to tail/shadow a cellphone? I don't think any of these events is unreasonable.
I think they are unreasonable; absent reasonable articulable suspicion that someone is committing or is about to commit a crime, then there is no legal justification for any kind of tracking whatsoever.
Why people seem to think -- or have fallen for -- the absurdity that the constitution outlines the only rights we have and not as a curb on governmental powers is beyond me.
All together now -- ABSENT REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION OR PROBABLE CAUSE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO ACT. It matters not that computers are fast enough to scan a billion license plates per hour, or that certain activities do not carry an expectation of privacy. That's the sugary lie that is used to get us to swallow the ultimate poison of the police state.
They acted in a way they believed the law specified. It took 5 years of lawyers and judges wrangling for it to be conclusively decided that the law didn't specify that and the arrest was wrongful.
If it took people who have been studying law most of their lives that long to decide, what chance does a police officer, with a comparatively small legal knowledge and a few minutes under pressure to make his mind up, have to get to the right decision? It would be more than a bit harsh to brand cops criminals when they were forced to make a decision that was beyond their capability.
Then maybe -- just maybe -- the cops SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE AN ARREST IN THE FIRST PLACE THEN if they didn't really know for sure. I mean, what was the emergency here? Was somebody going to die in the next five seconds? Was somebody being raped in the parking lot? Was a hostage situation going down?
NO.
A bunch of thugs with badges didn't want their crimes to be recorded in public, so they drummed up any old excuse to harass an innocent person -- all the moreso that they decided on a felony to try an intimidate the guy rather than a misdemeanor.
To "err on the side of caution" should mean "maybe I'd better not waste time and effort in arresting some dude if I really don't have a rock-solid reason" rather than "jail 'em all and let a judge sort it out."
Just remember that the constitution does not grant you the right to fly either.
a) The constitution is a limit on the powers of government, it is not a granter of rights
b) the right to travel has been long recognized -- since the founding of this country -- including the right to travel by any conveyance such as by airline.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
In 49 U.S.C. Â 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
That the overreaching done by the TSA (read: federal government) tramples these rights in no way repudiates that these rights exist not only through the constitution but law as well.
Educate yourself before spouting this nonsense.
Throughout the entire history of this country, taking from examples even before that, it has been firmly held that the jury is both the trier of fact as well as law, and that a jury is seen as a final check against governmental abuse.
You're also wrong in that judges certainly have the ability to ask questions themselves of defendants and witnesses and it used to be the case that jurors could as well. Jurors were allowed to and encouraged to take notes, but not much any more. Why? Because of the FUD that judges try to pull over on the populace and that attorneys are complicit in these days by claiming the nonsense that you're claiming now.
While the club does require membership approval, she approved every member who came across her*, so it's something of a cosmic wash.
Heh. As a fellow bitter-humorist, I approve heartily!
Have you tried golf? You can swear all you want, and young, pretty women drive around the courses offering you beer. It's a win-win, and a lot better than being at work.
Eighteen holes in one day and I still have time for golf!
-Tiger Woods
Free swab tests upon membership approval!
Membership approval? Somehow you're giving the impression that she was not, in any way 'default deny'...
Bitter humor is the best kind.
Preach it, brother!
Do your videos randomly get 30-second un-skippable advertisements placed in front of them as well?
No, they don't. I think it's because I use a fairly comprehensive hosts file though, but I'm not 100% certain.
What's that thundering noise underground? Is it a worm? No, it's just a boring machine.
A boring machine?? OH MY GOD! They've figured out how to clone Alistair Darling!!
What would a criminal need to fake your fingerprint at a crime scene?
What would a criminal need to fake your DNA at a crime scene? A piece of hair from a brush or comb or from your last trip to the barber shop? A few flakes of skin that they could collect from you as they brush past you in on a crowded subway terminal or restaurant?
Apparently, this isn't as far-fetched as you'd believe...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1
And this is from 2009, too.
"Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person."
"I had kind of an interesting morning this morning. I call it 'interesting', I use that word because I don't have a 'nice' day anymore. Frankly, I don't bother with them. I feel as if I've outgrown the nice day. Let someone else have a few. I've had my share. Why should I be hogging all the really nice ones? So I feel I'm beyond the nice day now.
'Course people still want me to have one. Everybody wants me to have a nice day.
"Have a nice day!"
"Yeah, yeah, yeah. Would you give me my fuckin' change, please?"
Some people are really insistent- "I said have a nice day!"
"Okay, okay goddammit, all right!"
That's the trouble with 'have a nice day'; it puts all the pressure on you. Now you've gotta go out and somehow manage to have a good time. All because of some loose lipped cashier.
'Have a nice day'...
Maybe I don't feel like having a nice day. Maybe, just maybe, I've had 63 nice days in a row. And, by God, I'm ready for a crappy day. Let someone wish me a crappy day. I never hear that. "Have a crappy day!" That's no problem at all. All you have to do is get up some mornings. There's no planning involved."
-George Carlin
You highlight a very important point here. In most cases when you purchase an e-book, just like with digital music, you are only licensing the content. You don't actually own it and therefore the first sale doctrine does not apply.
Yes, exactly. Except that what they're saying is that if you want to buy a DVD movie it's twenty bucks and if you want to rent it, it's twenty five.
Something's wrong with this picture and it ain't me.
Here's your problem, your using Monster Cables. They are known to exceed C.
They are certainly known for exceeding $...
the italian mafia was the establishment.
What do you mean? The Italian mafia still is the establishment.
Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights.
Absolutely correct, sir! It is required only when you are in a custodial setting.
HOWEVER, any answers you give to ANY police questioning AT ANY TIME also will be used against you and there is no requirement for them to Mirandize you.
That is why you must ALWAYS seriously consider whether or not to answer ANY questions by police, even during a traffic stop, for example.
Two things to remember:
1) You can't talk yourself out of trouble, but you can certainly talk yourself into it; and,
2) All cops will lie to you. You, however cannot lie to them. BUT. You can refuse to answer any questions at any time.
If (and it's a big if) there is a felony committed in your presence, you may effect a citizen's arrest. This arrest power is not limited to who may be arrested. By virtue of a cop swaggeringly believing he's above the law and therefore untouchable, he will resist arrest. If you draw down on him, the fact that you were required to use lethal force will be taken into consideration and may even exonerate you.
I would strongly advise never to personally test this, though the US Supreme Court has ruled that a non-cop can lawfully kill a cop.
Your statement is correct in the idea that it's a crime to threaten LE. You may, of course, use force to effect your own citizen's arrest.
DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS. I'm just reporting what I understand of the law that has been settled.
Thank you for your polite clarification!
I don't think we're at odds at all on this topic; it never really occurred to me why there wasn't any provision for punishing the government (i.e., government employees/agents) in the constitution. I'm not terribly surprised that no constitutional amendments have been made either in that regard.
My guess is that the founders had thought that the People would be active enough in guarding their rights that the governmental employees would be wary enough to not encroach or attempt to pass legislation or enforce laws that the People did not want.
Apparently people were much more pragmatic and self-sufficient and very much willing to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" than we are today.