Ah, a constitutional scholar. The relevant precedent (cited as recently as 2007) was that the government can't compel a defendant to reveal the contents of his mind. Doesn't mention torture, doesn't mention beating. Neither, for that matter, does the Fifth Amendment. It just (plainly) states that someone can't be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself". And that's what it means.
Her rights don't depend on you being more or less annoyed at what she's alleged to have done.
That what governments have always done - relied on the ignorance of the populace to usurp the rights of the unpopular to establish a precedent that's eventually used against others.
It's not EXACTLY the same thing. It's information (which is at best an abstraction of an abstraction of a description of what might be evidence - hardly a "dead body") which is meaningless without the addition of information stored in (in this case) the woman's mind. Forcing her to provide it is the same as forcing her to tell where she was when the body was put in the garage.
... with how his Administration (or the previous one, before you partisan bedwetters get all bunched up) has treated the *actual* Bill of Rights. So I don't have much hope for its respecting the goals of this one.
You're arguing that people should be prohibited by use of force from making a mutually agreeable transaction with someone, if it meets some arbitrary level of "fastness" that *you* think is... too fast?
Your second sentence does a thorough job of demonstrating your ignorance. For the icing on the cake, it's "leech" for this use, not "leach".
The War on Drugs (and the creation of te vile-named office of Drug Czar) is from *Nixon*. Along with it came the justification for "no-knock warrants", which itself has led to the 3AM ninja-suited, automatic-weapon toting bashing-down of doors for seemingly decreasingly dangerous arresting or warrant serving.
Important distinction: It differs from Huxley's scary envisioning because those (viewing? using? taking?) the material have chosen to. Were they to become homogenizing, brainwashing, lowest-common-denominator, they'd choose something else.
So, should the bad, awful rich person's stocks decrease in value will the government refund some of the tax paid?
Astonishing that the comment starts off by pointing out his TWO BILLION DOLLAR tax hit, then goes on to complain that he's getting away with something and/or not paying what he should.
It's also what any number of businesses whose bottom lines depends heavily on the price of some commodity do. Or investors exposed to more risk than they find acceptable, to hedge against loss. There are countless non-nefarious uses for short selling.
I wrote Rep Mizuno and Senator Tokuda asking why they'd sponsor such legislation> Tokuda replied and said she did so as a courtesy, at the request of another representative:
Thank you for emailing me with your concerns about SB2530.
Minority Floor Leader Representative Kymberly Pine met with me and requested that I introduce SB2530 as the companion measure of her House Bill, which she drafted as a result of personal experiences.
As with many bills requested to be introduced by citizens for the purpose of discussion, colleague’s requests hold similar importance. Whether you agree or disagree with the action or direction being proposed, a key tenant of the legislative process is an opportunity and a Constitutional right for people to have their voices heard.
Creativity, innovation, engagement and freedom of speech are among a great list of important features offered by the Internet and it is vital that we as lawmakers continue to enable the fostering of future growth and collaboration. At the same time, it is our job to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected. Thus, as the Internet evolves, it is important for all of us to have continued discussion.
While you may be disappointed that this bill was introduced, I hope this helps you better understand why I honored the request of a colleague. The hope is that the legislative process is an open forum where ideas that we both agree and disagree with can be debated and discussed.
oh: all their email addresses are available on the Hawaii government web site.
He said "be sure you're properly licensed". And "if your state allows for CCW" implies getting a permit if needed (as it usually is, except I think in AZ and NH).
Many (most?) industries have regulatory requirements that business communications be available to regulators, or legal requirements to answer subpoenas, or auditing requirements, which necessitate keeping the message in plaintext to be produced later.
In environments like that, user-to-user encryption is forbidden, unless there's a key-escrow system in place, which defeats its purpose.
Most mail servers (not counting bulk mailers + spammers) at least try TLS before relaying messages to the MX of the recipient domain - so most emails are not sent in plain text between servers.
You're right that almost nobody needs to fear a wrench attack. But read about the Boucher case, where the US government compelled a man to divulge the password to an encrypted hard drive he tried to transport across the border.
The point of the xkcd comic (to me) isn't that the evil government is likely to torture people; it's that there's a point of diminishing return (on more and more bits of encryption) where the increased cost in time, complexity, and hardware to crack their encryption is far higher than other, cheaper ways of extracting a password.
Well, they're made up of people. Do people in a group give up their speech rights?
And no, corporations are not people. They can't vote. They've been refused the same rights to counsel and against self-incrimination that individuals have.
And there is a death penalty: corporate criminal liability. Ask Arthur Andersen.
Good story except oops, the next election wasn't so far away and they reelected the incumbent in an essentially one-issue campaign. Also the screaming was in both directions, but don't let that make your post less sensational.
People aren't generally opposing licensing for doctors, though one could make an academic argument that a medical association would be a better standard-setter (see bar associations). Governments (local, county, state) are requiring licensing for professions including hairstylists, florists, etc. and are mostly an obstacle to competition set and supported by those benefiting from that lack of competition.
I've worked in financial IT for a long time, and interviewed hundreds of people for jobs. Anyone who thinks that a government certification can possibly add to what can be gleaned from an interview, a resume, and references... is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
What "right" does a teacher have to keep their employment evauations secret? Please.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of ridiculous things they *do* have a "right" to:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2406704/How-To-Fire-An-Incompetent-Teacher
Ah, a constitutional scholar. The relevant precedent (cited as recently as 2007) was that the government can't compel a defendant to reveal the contents of his mind. Doesn't mention torture, doesn't mention beating. Neither, for that matter, does the Fifth Amendment. It just (plainly) states that someone can't be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself". And that's what it means.
Article linked to says
Ruling Stands: Defendant Must Decrypt Laptop
Her rights don't depend on you being more or less annoyed at what she's alleged to have done.
That what governments have always done - relied on the ignorance of the populace to usurp the rights of the unpopular to establish a precedent that's eventually used against others.
Also, you have a much lower (nonexistent?) expectation of privacy when crossing the border than you do otherwise.
It's not EXACTLY the same thing. It's information (which is at best an abstraction of an abstraction of a description of what might be evidence - hardly a "dead body") which is meaningless without the addition of information stored in (in this case) the woman's mind. Forcing her to provide it is the same as forcing her to tell where she was when the body was put in the garage.
... with how his Administration (or the previous one, before you partisan bedwetters get all bunched up) has treated the *actual* Bill of Rights. So I don't have much hope for its respecting the goals of this one.
You're arguing that people should be prohibited by use of force from making a mutually agreeable transaction with someone, if it meets some arbitrary level of "fastness" that *you* think is ... too fast?
Your second sentence does a thorough job of demonstrating your ignorance. For the icing on the cake, it's "leech" for this use, not "leach".
The War on Drugs (and the creation of te vile-named office of Drug Czar) is from *Nixon*. Along with it came the justification for "no-knock warrants", which itself has led to the 3AM ninja-suited, automatic-weapon toting bashing-down of doors for seemingly decreasingly dangerous arresting or warrant serving.
Important distinction: It differs from Huxley's scary envisioning because those (viewing? using? taking?) the material have chosen to. Were they to become homogenizing, brainwashing, lowest-common-denominator, they'd choose something else.
So, should the bad, awful rich person's stocks decrease in value will the government refund some of the tax paid?
Astonishing that the comment starts off by pointing out his TWO BILLION DOLLAR tax hit, then goes on to complain that he's getting away with something and/or not paying what he should.
Pathetic.
I've never wished more for mod points than right now. +1 funny!
It's also what any number of businesses whose bottom lines depends heavily on the price of some commodity do. Or investors exposed to more risk than they find acceptable, to hedge against loss. There are countless non-nefarious uses for short selling.
I wrote Rep Mizuno and Senator Tokuda asking why they'd sponsor such legislation> Tokuda replied and said she did so as a courtesy, at the request of another representative:
Thank you for emailing me with your concerns about SB2530.
Minority Floor Leader Representative Kymberly Pine met with me and requested that I introduce SB2530 as the companion measure of her House Bill, which she drafted as a result of personal experiences.
As with many bills requested to be introduced by citizens for the purpose of discussion, colleague’s requests hold similar importance. Whether you agree or disagree with the action or direction being proposed, a key tenant of the legislative process is an opportunity and a Constitutional right for people to have their voices heard.
Creativity, innovation, engagement and freedom of speech are among a great list of important features offered by the Internet and it is vital that we as lawmakers continue to enable the fostering of future growth and collaboration. At the same time, it is our job to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected. Thus, as the Internet evolves, it is important for all of us to have continued discussion.
While you may be disappointed that this bill was introduced, I hope this helps you better understand why I honored the request of a colleague. The hope is that the legislative process is an open forum where ideas that we both agree and disagree with can be debated and discussed.
oh: all their email addresses are available on the Hawaii government web site.
He said "be sure you're properly licensed". And "if your state allows for CCW" implies getting a permit if needed (as it usually is, except I think in AZ and NH).
What did "corporations" have to do with or gain from any of those examples of government exceeding its proper bounds?
Aren't dozens of domains often hosted on single IPs?
Many (most?) industries have regulatory requirements that business communications be available to regulators, or legal requirements to answer subpoenas, or auditing requirements, which necessitate keeping the message in plaintext to be produced later.
In environments like that, user-to-user encryption is forbidden, unless there's a key-escrow system in place, which defeats its purpose.
Most mail servers (not counting bulk mailers + spammers) at least try TLS before relaying messages to the MX of the recipient domain - so most emails are not sent in plain text between servers.
You're right that almost nobody needs to fear a wrench attack. But read about the Boucher case, where the US government compelled a man to divulge the password to an encrypted hard drive he tried to transport across the border.
The point of the xkcd comic (to me) isn't that the evil government is likely to torture people; it's that there's a point of diminishing return (on more and more bits of encryption) where the increased cost in time, complexity, and hardware to crack their encryption is far higher than other, cheaper ways of extracting a password.
Well, they're made up of people. Do people in a group give up their speech rights?
And no, corporations are not people. They can't vote. They've been refused the same rights to counsel and against self-incrimination that individuals have.
And there is a death penalty: corporate criminal liability. Ask Arthur Andersen.
Good story except oops, the next election wasn't so far away and they reelected the incumbent in an essentially one-issue campaign. Also the screaming was in both directions, but don't let that make your post less sensational.
People aren't generally opposing licensing for doctors, though one could make an academic argument that a medical association would be a better standard-setter (see bar associations). Governments (local, county, state) are requiring licensing for professions including hairstylists, florists, etc. and are mostly an obstacle to competition set and supported by those benefiting from that lack of competition.
I've worked in financial IT for a long time, and interviewed hundreds of people for jobs. Anyone who thinks that a government certification can possibly add to what can be gleaned from an interview, a resume, and references ... is wrong.
What's wrong with compulsory government registration of your trade, which you'll be able to practice at the whim of that government? Fuck that.
This is hands-down my favorite example of the Striesand Effect thus far.