Unfortunately it's not when it comes to electronic communications.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A phone call isn't clearly covered, and SCOTUS explicitly decided it wasn't in 1928, then reversed itself in 1967. That's also when they came up with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test, which I always thought was reasonable. Of course 1967 was an era when the court thought its job was to defend the Bill of Rights, rather than play nitpicking legal games to create as many loopholes as possible.
Don't bother trying to convince me that email, etc, should be covered by the 4th, as you'll be preaching to the choir. I don't give a damn what kind of legal games they play about you not owning the servers or storage medium. That's like saying that the 4th doesn't apply if you rent rather than own your home. My only point was that SCOTUS is free to play lots of games. My favorite is their recent Catch-22 nonsense, that you can't sue the government for a secret program violating your rights because you can't be sure they've been violated (of course not, it's a secret!). Maybe Snowden will release info on who has unlawfully been a surveillance target so they can sue.
[ ] It was the NSA. [ ] The NSA forced us [ ] We need this information to make our products suck less [ ] We have no idea why this is happening, it must be a bug [ ] Hey, you're not suposed to notice
Part of the reality of "security" is taking responsibility for your own.
The only way to get real security and privacy with a cell phone is not to have one. A bonus is that implementation of that strategy requires no special technical knowledge.
Google sees an aggregate or approximation, that may-or-may-not describe you.
So there is a probability distribution describing how much of you Google is likely to sell. Determining the shape and parameters of that distribution is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's not that "H1Bs are entitled to special consideration". It's that people who want to immigrate take whatever paths are available to them
It is special consideration because there is no justification for it, but I don't blame people here on H-1B's or hold any animosity towards them whatsoever. It's US government policy that I have a problem with.
Most other countries that do immigration also provide the work-to-citizenship track.
We're talking about work-to-green-card, not work-to-citizenship. If US policies were seriously about immigration then we'd skip the indentured servitude step and just give them green cards. That was the correct and traditional US approach. Five years and you can apply for citizenship (a policy we had since 1790).
As for what other countries do, I don't care. My only interest is in what makes sense. Traditionally US immigration policy specifically forbade companies from hiring or soliciting people who didn't already have immigration visas, because that's an obvious way for companies to undercut American salaries. The US also generally didn't have guest worker visas for several good reasons. "Guest worker" visas are a sham, unless you enforce draconian policies like Singapore. Also, unlike the German guest worker policy, the US traditionally recognized people as people and not just "workers".
If by "guest workers" you mean all H-1Bs, then you should understand that for many people this is, effectively, the only viable path to green card
Why is that effectively the only viable path? Because there are limits and quotas on immigration to the US, and there are many more applicants than available slots. So why are H-1B's entitled to special consideration? There's no objective evidence that their skills are in short supply in this country.
In which case their stance would be very much pro-immigration in practice.
No, the H-1B doesn't increase chances for immigrants in general, it just skews the selection of immigrants in a way that's to the advantage of tech billionaires. If you believe that Zuckerberg, Gates, and the rest of these oppressed billionaires have suddenly passionately embraced our immigration tradition from a sense of patriotism and moral obligation, then I've got a bridge to sell you. If that were the case, they'd be talking about refugees and so forth, instead of people who can only afford one live-in servant in their country of origin.
If we're quoting deceased leaders of the free world that existed in a very different geo-political climate, why not bring Teddy Roosevelt into the discussion?
Because Teddy didn't know about nukes, Winnie did. As for "a very different geo-political climate", it's not clear how that makes nukes any less destructive.
A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, which are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.
Sounds like we better get cracking on those mine shafts.
This. A regular 2000lb bomb leaves about a 30' crater. A nuke is going to leave one 1.5-2 orders of magnitude bigger. So, let's say 3000'. If you are more than a couple miles away in a well built building, and not standing next to the window, you are probably going to live through the initial blast. Fires will probably kill more, but that is dependent on the city you live in. If you live in Nagasaki or Hiroshima with a lot of wood and rice paper buildings, you are probably out of luck.
Even cancer deaths and birth defects are over-feared. Check the stats on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure, you can find some spectacular cases, but statistically the increases were a lot less than was feared and not even close to enough to lead to extinction.
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
Yes - I've always found it amusing that the US is so proud of being a "melting pot". This suggests that all cultural distinctiveness will be lost and you have to become just like everyone else
Nice try at snarky low-level anti-Americanism, but it means no such thing. It does not mean that any more than being, say Polish, means that Poles have no individual identity. It does mean that our culture is an American alloy.
Anyone who thinks America should adhere only to the original wording of the declaration and the original constitution is an idiot. Basing society which has experienced 237 years of social change on an equally old document is ludicrous.
You want to discard the Constitution? Sorry, but the NSA beat you to it.
Why did the people who wrote our constitution include a clause granting citizenship to those who are born here?
To ensure that former slaves and their descendants were considered citizens. You're talking about the 14th Amendment, which was ratified 3 years after the Civil War. I believe in birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, but as a matter of historical fact that was not why the 14th Amendment was enacted. In fact children of white immigrants were considered citizens by birthright long before the Civil War.
When I was a schoolboy we were taught to take pride in the fact that we were and always had been a melting pot.
They told me it was a salad bowl (seriously). The idea that "we were and always had been a melting pot" is seriously idealized, but I will say that I believe in the ideal (even if it, to put it mildly, wasn't always practiced). Does that mean though that the US shouldn't place any limits on immigration, or that the US doesn't have the right to determine the criteria for immigration?
It's a pointless comment, makes unproven assertions with no supporting evidence
And that differs from most comments how?
seems self-evidently wrong
Strictly a matter of opinion.
calls someone an inflammatory name
Inflammatory isn't necessarily undesirable in a debate, as long as that inflammatory name is relevant to the debate. "Traitor" is a political comment if I've ever seen one.
It doesn't matter from what country I am from when we say: "you Americans"
Stereotypes are universal? Please, you're denigrating your country's own culture by saying it doesn't add its own particular flavor to them.
More importantly, knowing what country you're from would help me make the appropriate references when praising your country's eternal goodness and niceness.
We are simply non-Americans for you.
More stereotypes! Please, we Americans hate different countries for different reasons.
so we're the great terrorist nation of Finland now in the axis of evil with Germany and Italy? me thinks they should advance their calendars by couple of decades
Good to hear that Finland will never again engage in such behavior (though I don't recall anyone before you here mentioning the Finnish-Nazi alliance). Once reformed, one can always rely on countries to be pure as the driven snow.
technically NSA isn't supposed to provide corporate espionage which this spying of EU just pretty much boils down to
So you don't think there are any strategic concerns w/ EU countries? I don't think they've become that irrelevant.
As for corporate espionage, do you have any idea how much corporate/economic espionage many European intelligence services have engaged in, including against the US? The usual question was why didn't the US do more in this respect.
he's pretty much just showing that the USA gov. has pretty much just decided that being dicks is A-OK and cheating is winning!
Sorry we hurt your feelings. Please promise your embassy won't retaliate by flying the Union Jack on the Fourth of July.
Slashdot Mirror
The truly Orwellian thing about this nightmare isn't even so much the surveillance, but the wholesale redefinition of language.
Orwell's classic essay on the subject, Politics and the English Language.
The fourth amendment seems pretty clear to me.
Unfortunately it's not when it comes to electronic communications.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A phone call isn't clearly covered, and SCOTUS explicitly decided it wasn't in 1928, then reversed itself in 1967. That's also when they came up with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test, which I always thought was reasonable. Of course 1967 was an era when the court thought its job was to defend the Bill of Rights, rather than play nitpicking legal games to create as many loopholes as possible.
Don't bother trying to convince me that email, etc, should be covered by the 4th, as you'll be preaching to the choir. I don't give a damn what kind of legal games they play about you not owning the servers or storage medium. That's like saying that the 4th doesn't apply if you rent rather than own your home. My only point was that SCOTUS is free to play lots of games. My favorite is their recent Catch-22 nonsense, that you can't sue the government for a secret program violating your rights because you can't be sure they've been violated (of course not, it's a secret!). Maybe Snowden will release info on who has unlawfully been a surveillance target so they can sue.
[ ] It was the NSA.
[ ] The NSA forced us
[ ] We need this information to make our products suck less
[ ] We have no idea why this is happening, it must be a bug
[ ] Hey, you're not suposed to notice
You forgot "all of the above".
Somehow, I feel safer sending my data to the Chinese...
Same reason I'm comfortable using Kaspersky at home - I doubt the FSB gives a damn about me.
Part of the reality of "security" is taking responsibility for your own.
The only way to get real security and privacy with a cell phone is not to have one. A bonus is that implementation of that strategy requires no special technical knowledge.
Google sees an aggregate or approximation, that may-or-may-not describe you.
So there is a probability distribution describing how much of you Google is likely to sell. Determining the shape and parameters of that distribution is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's not that "H1Bs are entitled to special consideration". It's that people who want to immigrate take whatever paths are available to them
It is special consideration because there is no justification for it, but I don't blame people here on H-1B's or hold any animosity towards them whatsoever. It's US government policy that I have a problem with.
Most other countries that do immigration also provide the work-to-citizenship track.
We're talking about work-to-green-card, not work-to-citizenship. If US policies were seriously about immigration then we'd skip the indentured servitude step and just give them green cards. That was the correct and traditional US approach. Five years and you can apply for citizenship (a policy we had since 1790).
As for what other countries do, I don't care. My only interest is in what makes sense. Traditionally US immigration policy specifically forbade companies from hiring or soliciting people who didn't already have immigration visas, because that's an obvious way for companies to undercut American salaries. The US also generally didn't have guest worker visas for several good reasons. "Guest worker" visas are a sham, unless you enforce draconian policies like Singapore. Also, unlike the German guest worker policy, the US traditionally recognized people as people and not just "workers".
If by "guest workers" you mean all H-1Bs, then you should understand that for many people this is, effectively, the only viable path to green card
Why is that effectively the only viable path? Because there are limits and quotas on immigration to the US, and there are many more applicants than available slots. So why are H-1B's entitled to special consideration? There's no objective evidence that their skills are in short supply in this country.
In which case their stance would be very much pro-immigration in practice.
No, the H-1B doesn't increase chances for immigrants in general, it just skews the selection of immigrants in a way that's to the advantage of tech billionaires. If you believe that Zuckerberg, Gates, and the rest of these oppressed billionaires have suddenly passionately embraced our immigration tradition from a sense of patriotism and moral obligation, then I've got a bridge to sell you. If that were the case, they'd be talking about refugees and so forth, instead of people who can only afford one live-in servant in their country of origin.
Walls are a sign of a society in decline: Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall
The "Chinese" starting building those walls several centuries BC, before there even was a China.
Hadrian's Wall was built in 122 AD, 354 years before the fall of the Western Empire, and 1331 years before the fall of the Eastern Empire.
If we're quoting deceased leaders of the free world that existed in a very different geo-political climate, why not bring Teddy Roosevelt into the discussion?
Because Teddy didn't know about nukes, Winnie did. As for "a very different geo-political climate", it's not clear how that makes nukes any less destructive.
If every nuke on the planet were detonated the combined dust clouds might cause a year or two without a summer
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Recent_modeling
A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, which are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.
Sounds like we better get cracking on those mine shafts.
This. A regular 2000lb bomb leaves about a 30' crater. A nuke is going to leave one 1.5-2 orders of magnitude bigger. So, let's say 3000'. If you are more than a couple miles away in a well built building, and not standing next to the window, you are probably going to live through the initial blast. Fires will probably kill more, but that is dependent on the city you live in. If you live in Nagasaki or Hiroshima with a lot of wood and rice paper buildings, you are probably out of luck.
Even cancer deaths and birth defects are over-feared. Check the stats on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure, you can find some spectacular cases, but statistically the increases were a lot less than was feared and not even close to enough to lead to extinction.
Ok, let's go for it Dr. Teller.
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbxeolK27b4
If the stockpiled weapons are that useless, why don't we just get rid of them?
If every nuke on the planet were detonated the combined dust clouds might cause a year or two without a summer
Different simulations give different results. Want to try an experiment?
"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."
-- Winston S. Churchill
Every other country that ever existed was based on ethnicity. ... The melting pot idea was introduced by people who had something to gain.
First you praise the US for not being based on ethnicity, and then you criticize the melting pot. Talk about a confused argument.
Yes - I've always found it amusing that the US is so proud of being a "melting pot". This suggests that all cultural distinctiveness will be lost and you have to become just like everyone else
Nice try at snarky low-level anti-Americanism, but it means no such thing. It does not mean that any more than being, say Polish, means that Poles have no individual identity. It does mean that our culture is an American alloy.
Anyone who thinks America should adhere only to the original wording of the declaration and the original constitution is an idiot. Basing society which has experienced 237 years of social change on an equally old document is ludicrous.
You want to discard the Constitution? Sorry, but the NSA beat you to it.
Why did the people who wrote our constitution include a clause granting citizenship to those who are born here?
To ensure that former slaves and their descendants were considered citizens. You're talking about the 14th Amendment, which was ratified 3 years after the Civil War. I believe in birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, but as a matter of historical fact that was not why the 14th Amendment was enacted. In fact children of white immigrants were considered citizens by birthright long before the Civil War.
When I was a schoolboy we were taught to take pride in the fact that we were and always had been a melting pot.
They told me it was a salad bowl (seriously). The idea that "we were and always had been a melting pot" is seriously idealized, but I will say that I believe in the ideal (even if it, to put it mildly, wasn't always practiced). Does that mean though that the US shouldn't place any limits on immigration, or that the US doesn't have the right to determine the criteria for immigration?
From the summary:
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a new ad from FWD.us, his pro-immigration reform PAC.
This is inaccurate. The main focus of the PAC is on guest workers, not immigrants.
It's a pointless comment, makes unproven assertions with no supporting evidence
And that differs from most comments how?
seems self-evidently wrong
Strictly a matter of opinion.
calls someone an inflammatory name
Inflammatory isn't necessarily undesirable in a debate, as long as that inflammatory name is relevant to the debate. "Traitor" is a political comment if I've ever seen one.
I have no idea what Ecuador exports, but that makes me want to find out and buy a whole bunch of it.
It doesn't matter from what country I am from when we say: "you Americans"
Stereotypes are universal? Please, you're denigrating your country's own culture by saying it doesn't add its own particular flavor to them.
More importantly, knowing what country you're from would help me make the appropriate references when praising your country's eternal goodness and niceness.
We are simply non-Americans for you.
More stereotypes! Please, we Americans hate different countries for different reasons.
so we're the great terrorist nation of Finland now in the axis of evil with Germany and Italy? me thinks they should advance their calendars by couple of decades
Good to hear that Finland will never again engage in such behavior (though I don't recall anyone before you here mentioning the Finnish-Nazi alliance). Once reformed, one can always rely on countries to be pure as the driven snow.
technically NSA isn't supposed to provide corporate espionage which this spying of EU just pretty much boils down to
So you don't think there are any strategic concerns w/ EU countries? I don't think they've become that irrelevant.
As for corporate espionage, do you have any idea how much corporate/economic espionage many European intelligence services have engaged in, including against the US? The usual question was why didn't the US do more in this respect.
he's pretty much just showing that the USA gov. has pretty much just decided that being dicks is A-OK and cheating is winning!
Sorry we hurt your feelings. Please promise your embassy won't retaliate by flying the Union Jack on the Fourth of July.