One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means. It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this. The constitution is not a complicated document, and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand.
Where in the Amendment you quoted does it say the warrant has to be served on the person who has ownership but not custody of the papers?
Can't wait. When I want serious legal analysis, I turn to programmers, because being only an attorney myself, I need their help in figuring this stuff out.
But as applied to ISPs, this is a statement of fact, not a statement of law, and as a statement of fact it's simply wrong. ISP employees, even the most highly placed ones, do not have access to customers' e-mails "in the ordinary course of business."
Of course they do. Why on earth would you think they didn't?
And even in the non-ordinary course of business, in the case where e-mails have to be inspected to satisfy a subpoena requirement or to investigate an abuse report, only employees with the proper business justification can read the e-mails.
I am curious as to which law this is enshrined in.
Now, most of us don't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities.
You'd think so...
There is a difference between leaving property in someone else's possession because you don't care very much about keeping it private, and leaving property in someone else's possession because you have no choice.
There's a difference between storing apples and oranges; the question is really "is there a legal difference?" First, you're not addressing that, and secondly, factually that's not true. You have a choice to use gmail, just like you have a choice to use e-mail at all.
Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.
Parliamentary systems have that. They don't seem to be any better than the U.S. in terms of political health; in fact, a lot of them are even worse.
Wait, what? I thought that ESR's "I'm not a racist because I don't think I'm a racist" racism followed from his libertarian-flavored neoconservative ideology. Did he say or do something obnoxiously racist before 9/11?
Hmm, actually I may be getting my chronology wrong, maybe the terrorist paranoia came before the racism. Though I'm sure he probably did have the racist views prior to 9/11 because I remember some of the garbage he was spouting on Usenet in the early 2000s (which had nothing to do with terrorists, so I would assume he had those beliefs for a while). He, coincidentally enough, did construct a very narrow definition of racism in that thread in order to show he wasn't, his statement that white people were on the average smarter than black people notwithstanding.
Of course, the last writing of his that I got any use out of was his nethack manual back in the late 80s/early 90s or whenever that was, so I could very well have my chronology off.
Social Security was predicated on a growing population, and that didn't happen. It's completely bankrupt and headed for collapse. Who could possibly be dumb enough to build another (even larger) system predicated on the same type of assumption?
"Larger?" Social security provides living wages (or is meant to) for its retiree recipients; do you really think the expense to provide medical care for the majority of the elderly is actually going to exceed the cost to feed, clothe and house them? Besides which, expenses can go down if we eliminate the ridiculous expenses inherent in the US' privately run healthcare.
Because there is simply no theoretical limit, and the course of technology is to expand to it's theoretical bounds.
That's just silly. By your logic we don't have to worry about any of this because perfectly designed robots will eventually take care of all of us. What's even sillier is how you have this image of limitless medical technology in the near future, yet you're convinced that it will only prolong the lives of "worthless" and "drooling" elderly. If these advances are so great, why would we still have these incapacitated elderly? They could support themselves.
Organs can be grown and transplanted.
They're only just starting to do that, and not for the organs whose failure is most likely to mean death; the heart and brain.
Hormones can be synthesized and replaced.
Hormone therapy can improve function, increase muscle mass, etc., but the effects aren't especially significant or long-lasting.
The only limit is available resources and the labor to exploit them.
Good grief no, the limit is the TREMENDOUS amount of research that still needs to be done in all these things.
Otherwise you should reasonably expect that force will be met with force and no one's health will be improving because of it.
My experience is that the people who threaten to respond to government intrusion with force are the ones least likely to be competent at it.
You don't seem to understand that there is no technological limit to the extension of human life.
Of course there is; while average life expectancy has increased dramatically in the modern era, maximum human lifespan hasn't changed in millenia. Once you hit your 80s and 90s you're on borrowed time. A handful of people every generation might hit 120 at the maximum, but that is literally like 1 in a billion. While this may change in the far future, it's not going to change anytime soon. Where on earth did you get the idea that there's no technological limit?
So, again I ask: where the hell do you expect to find those resources and how do you intend to expropriate them? How many generations do you expect to fall for this ponzi scheme before it collapses?
See above. Let me ask you, when you are old and worthless and drooling, are you going to gladly give up your healthcare?
With a decent healthcare system like many countries already have, and a stable population, which demographers expect to happen within the next century, one generation pays for the next. Not really that complicated.
Who in God's name do you expect to provide you with this health care? In exchange for what? Where do you expect to find the resources to keep billions of worthless drooling incapacitated elderly people alive indefinitely?
Are you on some sort of highly potent, neurologically destructive crack cocaine? "Indefinitely"? The average lifespan in the first world average something under 80. Considering a retirement age of 65, that's about 15 years average of medical care. The "worthless" (what are you, a sociopath?) "incapacitated" elderly people will make up a minor percentage of that group. Of course, those that need the most expensive care will likely die sooner than 80, on average.
Oh, did you want an actual answer as to who is going to provide this care? The answer is you. And then, when you get old, someone else will pay for yours. See how this works out? No, you probably don't. Don't like it, do you? Nobody cares.
True, and his kernel development supervision keeps him on the list even today.
Eric S. Raymond (Open Source advocate)
Influential in his own mind maybe. Serious proponents of OSS gave up listening to that fruitcake years ago, I'd estimate at some point after the racism, but before the terrorist paranoia.
Bruce Perens (started Debian Linux and coined the term "Open Source"
Yet the lying scum want to blame anything and everything except the buffoon that screwed up.
And considering they fired the staffer responsible for the leak, how on earth can you say they're not blaming the person? I really don't understand your interpretation of the events.
Twenty years ago, they'd have been blaming the Xerox machine instead of the person that accidentally left copies at Kinkos after making unauthorized copies on an unsecured Xerox machine.
The committee released a statement explaining how the document was leaked. They didn't "blame" P2P, they simply detailed how the document got where it is. If they had said that someone smuggled the document outside in their briefcase, would you interpret it as them attacking briefcases?
They're dangerous because they are unaware of what they don't know, so they feel qualified (authorized) to make decisions about what they do not really understand.
In my experience, politicans are a lot more likely to seek out expert advice in an area outside their realm than techie are.
So long as two computers can communicate with each other, so you will have P2P.
Luckily, we have politicians who's only education is in English, law, history, politics, art. So it's easy to push any techno-babble on them because they are dangerously uneducated fools.
The committee released a statement on the issue, saying "[o]ur initial review suggests that this unlawful access to confidential information involved the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software on the personal computer of a junior staffer, who is no longer employed by the Committee, while working from home."
Please tell me what technical error or incorrect terminology she used, because I can't see it.
Why should our government even have ethics documents that are confidential?
Guess they figure it's unfair to publicly announce someone's being investigated if there are no merits to the claim. Want to run for congress? Get someone to accuse your opponent of something bad, then publicize the resulting investigation.
Not quite. The OFFICERS can he held liable but only if it can be proven they commited a criminal act or negligent activity. Officers obviously can be stockholders but they don't come after Joe SixPack's stock or his 401K. "Piercing the veil" is very difficult and doesn't occur very often and certainly not 30-50 years after the fact, there is something called "tolling the statute".
Actually stockholders can be reached through piercing the corporate veil, though it's rare. And tolling a statute [presumably you mean of limitations] means to suspend it, so tolling would actually help you sue someone for something that was done a while ago.
Did you just imply that "poor people are dumb enough not to know what 'poisonous' means"?
Has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with education. The factory pours chemicals into the river. River smells horrible. You catch a fish from the river. Fish doesn't look any different than any other fish you've caught. Therefore, you can eat the fish. If you never took a chemistry or biology class, and never followed a news story talking about carcinogens, then how are you supposed to know the fish could poison you?
That sounds like a strong argument for less centralization of government authority, and a return of decision-making power to localities and private citizens (who have a bigger voice in local government).
Well it wouldn't be too much of a "return," munipalities have never had that sort of power. And honestly, people in small towns tend to be very anti-environmentalist when they think it may impact the economy. In poorer areas with a less-educated populace, you also have a large number of people who can't make the intuitive leap to realize that toxic chemicals can actually be dangerous instead of just unpleasant smelling.
Note that this accounting failure is the descendant of a deliberate choice made by various courts shortly after the Industrial Revolution, when they chose to rule for polluting manufacturers and against impacted property owners in a blatant display of "progressive" social engineering triumphing over property rights.
My observations have been that when you talk about pollution with rabidly pro-free-market libertarians, it proceeds something like this:
Q: Won't that new plant they're building cause a lot of pollution?
A: Well they should have to pay for externalities like cleaning up after themselves.
Q: Ok, they built the plant, can't we stop it from pouring all that pollution into the environment?
A: That's not really pollution. It's shoddy science to say it is. There's no proof that it causes cancer. Who cares if the rates of cancer have tripled, correlation does not equal causation. Making it cleaner will cost too much.
Q: Well the plant's been shut down, now the area around it is a dead zone, the economy's shot, and people are dying, isn't this a failure of the economy?
A: Well they should have been made to pay for externatlities like cleaning up after themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand what this means. It is absolutely clear that email DOES apply to this. The constitution is not a complicated document, and it is not designed to require a modern law degree to understand.
Where in the Amendment you quoted does it say the warrant has to be served on the person who has ownership but not custody of the papers?
The law, its analysis, and its debate are everyone's business.
But published analysis should be done by someone who understands it.
You do know that we're not meant to click on the links in the summary, right?
They were sneaky, the entire article was in the summary...
Yet he seems to have become slashdot's resident legal columnist. I don't think I've read anything of his that hasn't irritated the hell out of me.
Read on for the rest of Bennett's analysis.
Can't wait. When I want serious legal analysis, I turn to programmers, because being only an attorney myself, I need their help in figuring this stuff out.
But as applied to ISPs, this is a statement of fact, not a statement of law, and as a statement of fact it's simply wrong. ISP employees, even the most highly placed ones, do not have access to customers' e-mails "in the ordinary course of business."
Of course they do. Why on earth would you think they didn't?
And even in the non-ordinary course of business, in the case where e-mails have to be inspected to satisfy a subpoena requirement or to investigate an abuse report, only employees with the proper business justification can read the e-mails.
I am curious as to which law this is enshrined in.
Now, most of us don't have the expertise to comment on the legal technicalities.
You'd think so...
There is a difference between leaving property in someone else's possession because you don't care very much about keeping it private, and leaving property in someone else's possession because you have no choice.
There's a difference between storing apples and oranges; the question is really "is there a legal difference?" First, you're not addressing that, and secondly, factually that's not true. You have a choice to use gmail, just like you have a choice to use e-mail at all.
Just imagine how much healthier our Republic would be if, instead of 60% democrats and 40% republicans, the ratio was 40% democrats, 30% republicans, 20% libertarians, and 10% socialists. No party could dominate.
Parliamentary systems have that. They don't seem to be any better than the U.S. in terms of political health; in fact, a lot of them are even worse.
Wait, what? I thought that ESR's "I'm not a racist because I don't think I'm a racist" racism followed from his libertarian-flavored neoconservative ideology. Did he say or do something obnoxiously racist before 9/11?
Hmm, actually I may be getting my chronology wrong, maybe the terrorist paranoia came before the racism. Though I'm sure he probably did have the racist views prior to 9/11 because I remember some of the garbage he was spouting on Usenet in the early 2000s (which had nothing to do with terrorists, so I would assume he had those beliefs for a while). He, coincidentally enough, did construct a very narrow definition of racism in that thread in order to show he wasn't, his statement that white people were on the average smarter than black people notwithstanding.
Of course, the last writing of his that I got any use out of was his nethack manual back in the late 80s/early 90s or whenever that was, so I could very well have my chronology off.
Social Security was predicated on a growing population, and that didn't happen. It's completely bankrupt and headed for collapse. Who could possibly be dumb enough to build another (even larger) system predicated on the same type of assumption?
"Larger?" Social security provides living wages (or is meant to) for its retiree recipients; do you really think the expense to provide medical care for the majority of the elderly is actually going to exceed the cost to feed, clothe and house them? Besides which, expenses can go down if we eliminate the ridiculous expenses inherent in the US' privately run healthcare.
Because there is simply no theoretical limit, and the course of technology is to expand to it's theoretical bounds.
That's just silly. By your logic we don't have to worry about any of this because perfectly designed robots will eventually take care of all of us. What's even sillier is how you have this image of limitless medical technology in the near future, yet you're convinced that it will only prolong the lives of "worthless" and "drooling" elderly. If these advances are so great, why would we still have these incapacitated elderly? They could support themselves.
Organs can be grown and transplanted.
They're only just starting to do that, and not for the organs whose failure is most likely to mean death; the heart and brain.
Hormones can be synthesized and replaced.
Hormone therapy can improve function, increase muscle mass, etc., but the effects aren't especially significant or long-lasting.
The only limit is available resources and the labor to exploit them.
Good grief no, the limit is the TREMENDOUS amount of research that still needs to be done in all these things.
Otherwise you should reasonably expect that force will be met with force and no one's health will be improving because of it.
My experience is that the people who threaten to respond to government intrusion with force are the ones least likely to be competent at it.
You don't seem to understand that there is no technological limit to the extension of human life.
Of course there is; while average life expectancy has increased dramatically in the modern era, maximum human lifespan hasn't changed in millenia. Once you hit your 80s and 90s you're on borrowed time. A handful of people every generation might hit 120 at the maximum, but that is literally like 1 in a billion. While this may change in the far future, it's not going to change anytime soon. Where on earth did you get the idea that there's no technological limit?
So, again I ask: where the hell do you expect to find those resources and how do you intend to expropriate them? How many generations do you expect to fall for this ponzi scheme before it collapses?
See above. Let me ask you, when you are old and worthless and drooling, are you going to gladly give up your healthcare?
With a decent healthcare system like many countries already have, and a stable population, which demographers expect to happen within the next century, one generation pays for the next. Not really that complicated.
Who in God's name do you expect to provide you with this health care? In exchange for what? Where do you expect to find the resources to keep billions of worthless drooling incapacitated elderly people alive indefinitely?
Are you on some sort of highly potent, neurologically destructive crack cocaine? "Indefinitely"? The average lifespan in the first world average something under 80. Considering a retirement age of 65, that's about 15 years average of medical care. The "worthless" (what are you, a sociopath?) "incapacitated" elderly people will make up a minor percentage of that group. Of course, those that need the most expensive care will likely die sooner than 80, on average.
Oh, did you want an actual answer as to who is going to provide this care? The answer is you. And then, when you get old, someone else will pay for yours. See how this works out? No, you probably don't. Don't like it, do you? Nobody cares.
It's ridiculous when GM assembly line workers expect health care in perpetuity.
Honestly, no, I don't think it's ridiculous for someone in the modern era, in a first world country, to expect health care in perpetuity.
Who is John Galt?
A one-dimensional character in a lousy book representing a fatally flawed philosophy dreamt up by a sociopathic meth addict and hypocrite?
Or Forbidden Planet when it was called The Tempest?
Yes, I think on an artistic level, The Tempest was better than Forbidden Planet.
Linus Torvalds (Linux creator)
True, and his kernel development supervision keeps him on the list even today.
Eric S. Raymond (Open Source advocate)
Influential in his own mind maybe. Serious proponents of OSS gave up listening to that fruitcake years ago, I'd estimate at some point after the racism, but before the terrorist paranoia.
Bruce Perens (started Debian Linux and coined the term "Open Source"
Debian was started by Ian Murdock (hence the -ian part; the deb comes from his wife's name). And "open source" was coined long before OSI took credit for it.
You could probably make a better argument that Perens deserves to be on the list through his lobbying, especially on the international stage.
Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation spiritual father)
Well more important than its spiritual father, he's its president, so I think that gets him on the list.
Best. Show. Ever. And the Apple II computer games based on it they let us play were pretty cool too.
Then why does congress get this kind of protection when private citizens suspected of a crime do not?
Wish I knew. I do, however, think the answer is "protect private citizens too," not "take away congress' protection."
Yet the lying scum want to blame anything and everything except the buffoon that screwed up.
And considering they fired the staffer responsible for the leak, how on earth can you say they're not blaming the person? I really don't understand your interpretation of the events.
Twenty years ago, they'd have been blaming the Xerox machine instead of the person that accidentally left copies at Kinkos after making unauthorized copies on an unsecured Xerox machine.
The committee released a statement explaining how the document was leaked. They didn't "blame" P2P, they simply detailed how the document got where it is. If they had said that someone smuggled the document outside in their briefcase, would you interpret it as them attacking briefcases?
They're dangerous because they are unaware of what they don't know, so they feel qualified (authorized) to make decisions about what they do not really understand.
In my experience, politicans are a lot more likely to seek out expert advice in an area outside their realm than techie are.
So long as two computers can communicate with each other, so you will have P2P.
Luckily, we have politicians who's only education is in English, law, history, politics, art. So it's easy to push any techno-babble on them because they are dangerously uneducated fools.
The committee released a statement on the issue, saying "[o]ur initial review suggests that this unlawful access to confidential information involved the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software on the personal computer of a junior staffer, who is no longer employed by the Committee, while working from home."
Please tell me what technical error or incorrect terminology she used, because I can't see it.
Why should our government even have ethics documents that are confidential?
Guess they figure it's unfair to publicly announce someone's being investigated if there are no merits to the claim. Want to run for congress? Get someone to accuse your opponent of something bad, then publicize the resulting investigation.
Default judgments are easy to get vacated.
Not quite. The OFFICERS can he held liable but only if it can be proven they commited a criminal act or negligent activity. Officers obviously can be stockholders but they don't come after Joe SixPack's stock or his 401K. "Piercing the veil" is very difficult and doesn't occur very often and certainly not 30-50 years after the fact, there is something called "tolling the statute".
Actually stockholders can be reached through piercing the corporate veil, though it's rare. And tolling a statute [presumably you mean of limitations] means to suspend it, so tolling would actually help you sue someone for something that was done a while ago.
Did you just imply that "poor people are dumb enough not to know what 'poisonous' means"?
Has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with education. The factory pours chemicals into the river. River smells horrible. You catch a fish from the river. Fish doesn't look any different than any other fish you've caught. Therefore, you can eat the fish. If you never took a chemistry or biology class, and never followed a news story talking about carcinogens, then how are you supposed to know the fish could poison you?
That sounds like a strong argument for less centralization of government authority, and a return of decision-making power to localities and private citizens (who have a bigger voice in local government).
Well it wouldn't be too much of a "return," munipalities have never had that sort of power. And honestly, people in small towns tend to be very anti-environmentalist when they think it may impact the economy. In poorer areas with a less-educated populace, you also have a large number of people who can't make the intuitive leap to realize that toxic chemicals can actually be dangerous instead of just unpleasant smelling.
Note that this accounting failure is the descendant of a deliberate choice made by various courts shortly after the Industrial Revolution, when they chose to rule for polluting manufacturers and against impacted property owners in a blatant display of "progressive" social engineering triumphing over property rights.
My observations have been that when you talk about pollution with rabidly pro-free-market libertarians, it proceeds something like this:
Q: Won't that new plant they're building cause a lot of pollution?
A: Well they should have to pay for externalities like cleaning up after themselves.
Q: Ok, they built the plant, can't we stop it from pouring all that pollution into the environment?
A: That's not really pollution. It's shoddy science to say it is. There's no proof that it causes cancer. Who cares if the rates of cancer have tripled, correlation does not equal causation. Making it cleaner will cost too much.
Q: Well the plant's been shut down, now the area around it is a dead zone, the economy's shot, and people are dying, isn't this a failure of the economy?
A: Well they should have been made to pay for externatlities like cleaning up after themselves.