A substantial amount of alcohol use among slightly underage and newly legal drinkers is binge drinking, especially in places where alcohol is freely and readily available. Marijuana and other drugs may also be "available," but there is a great difference between having to know the right people or places to score, and having a tray of joints laid out at the fraternity door.
It's usually easier for a kid to get stoned than drunk. To get stoned, you have to ask an adult. To get high, you just have to ask the stoner kids to hook you up.
Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break more serious laws.
Which is exactly why nobody should consider cannabis a criminal behavior. If people find out that the anti-cannabis laws are full of shit(which is very much the case), they're more likely to believe that other laws are full of shit, and break them wantonly. People's respect for the law is directly related to the law's respect for them.
Anyway, we don't have to speculate as to what would happen if cannabis were legalized. In both Holland and Portugal, liberalizing cannabis laws failed to increase the rates of cannabis use.
And the argument that justifies the above? People who commit serious crimes of violence, murder, and theft have to lose their freedoms for the protection of wider human society.
That's great. Do you have an argument that applies to someone who hasn't committed a crime? Other than the crime of drug possession, which would obviously be a circular argument.
Thanks. Do you happen to have an argument that justifies the government's intrusion into one's sovereignty over one's own body? Or do you agree with me?
The judge is issuing a warrant based on the officers testimony that there is good reason to believe evidence will be found.
Yes, this is typically the standard. But executing such a warrant in this case would require the defendant to testify against himself. That's plainly unconstitutional.
In order to work around the constitution, the judge in Boucher created the legal fiction that if the government already knows something, it can compel it as testimony. This is equivalent to the "idiotic logic" you labeled "b)". It's not my logic that's idiotic, it's the judge's.
Wrong. "civil" or "criminal" refers to the type of contempt, not the type of court case during which the contempt occured. Civil contempt is coercive (forward looking), criminal contempt is punative (for something that already occured). Coercing someone to produce evidence is exactly the kind of thing civil contempt is used for.
Under civil contempt the victim is said to "hold the keys to his own cage", which is used as an excuse to deprive him of any sort of due process whatsoever. It's barbaric and should be abolished.
We can't tell the difference between the cops "knowing" and the cops "believing". All we really know is that the cops asserted something. If they want us to believe it, it's their burden to produce proof. Forcing someone to provide incriminating testimony on the word of the police is blatantly unconstitutional.
So they had proof he could access it, testimony that they'd actually observed it and a chain of evidence that the contents had not changed since then. That's a whole different level of knowing than just "knowing"
If they have so much evidence, why don't they just present that evidence to the jury and let them decide? If the encryption key isn't incriminating, they don't need it to make their case. If the encryption key is incriminating, then it's protected by the 5th amendment.
It's really quite simple, and the judge in Boucher got it completely wrong. He needs to go back to law school and take an elementary logic class.
I'm aware of that. It's a really bad decision. If the officer's testimony that the documents existed was sufficient to prove that the documents existed, the jury should be satisfied without seeing the documents. If the testimony of the officers was insufficient to convince the jury that the documents existed, then there is no foregone conclusion at all.
The decision is facially nonsensical. The judge fails not just at applying the constitution, but basic logic.
I do invest in small independent stuff. I give them money, and they give me a product that's worth more than I can get for that money anywhere else. Certainly a better value than mainstream crap. Investing in indie media pays off.
In the perfect world, that means that anything they find outside of that scope is inadmissible in a court of law, and, that if they investigate further solely based on the information found there, anything they find is inadmissible. Colloquially, it's called "Fruit of the poisonous tree"
Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and that's not what "fruit of the poisonous tree" means at all. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" only applies to evidence that was obtained illegally. If the search was performed legally, anything a cop sees incident to that search, even if it's outside the scope of the warrant, is admissible.
If a cop illegally searches your house for weapons, and finds drugs, that's not admissible. If he gets a warrant to search your house for weapons, and finds drugs, that's admissible. If he searches your house on exigent circumstances(e.g. he claims he saw a suspect flee towards your property), and he finds drugs, that's also admissible.
The awful part of Obama's presidency is the continuation of Bush's national security policy. Warrantless wiretapping, assassinating under age American citizens, keeping Guantanamo bay open, failing to prosecute anyone for torture. He stayed in Iraq until the last minute set by the Bush administration. All right, good he killed OBL. Now can we GTFO of Afghanistan? Can we stop war mongering with Iran?
Let's not forget his economic policy. Employ the exact same people who caused the problem, and watch them bail out their cronies and wonder why jobs aren't coming back. He didn't do a damn thing to ensure that banks were actually lending out the free money they handed out. He didn't prosecute any senior bank executives for the massive fraud that caused the crisis. Compare with Ronald Reagan who put nearly 1000 bankers in jail for the much smaller S&L crisis. Didn't prosecute anyone for perjury in the robosigning fiasco either. He's prosecuted plenty of whistleblowers and medical marijuana suppliers though.
I thought Bush was the worst president ever. I'm not sure anymore.
Why would Cascadia be any better? Aren't Seattle cops among the of the worst when it comes to thuggishness and insularity? How can you blame that on the feds? If you can't deal with the authoritarians in your own back yard, how do you expect secession would improve anything?
"Pretty much the entire country" except for the "moon bat" left. It was obvious us from 9/12 that the overreaction to the attacks would be far worse for the country than the attacks themselves were. Of course when we spoke up we were smeared as unpatriotic. You probably don't remember that the lead up to Iraq war included some of the largest demonstrations in history. Of course we were mostly ignored by the "main stream" (aka hard line statist) media. Over a decade later, I have no problem saying "I told you so".
Slashdot Mirror
A substantial amount of alcohol use among slightly underage and newly legal drinkers is binge drinking, especially in places where alcohol is freely and readily available. Marijuana and other drugs may also be "available," but there is a great difference between having to know the right people or places to score, and having a tray of joints laid out at the fraternity door.
It's usually easier for a kid to get stoned than drunk. To get stoned, you have to ask an adult. To get high, you just have to ask the stoner kids to hook you up.
Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break more serious laws.
Which is exactly why nobody should consider cannabis a criminal behavior. If people find out that the anti-cannabis laws are full of shit(which is very much the case), they're more likely to believe that other laws are full of shit, and break them wantonly. People's respect for the law is directly related to the law's respect for them.
Anyway, we don't have to speculate as to what would happen if cannabis were legalized. In both Holland and Portugal, liberalizing cannabis laws failed to increase the rates of cannabis use.
I hear they're charging him an arm and a leg for the procedure.
What open source projects does ESR actively contribute to?
Hey, great. We're on the same page then. That's always nice.
And the argument that justifies the above? People who commit serious crimes of violence, murder, and theft have to lose their freedoms for the protection of wider human society.
That's great. Do you have an argument that applies to someone who hasn't committed a crime? Other than the crime of drug possession, which would obviously be a circular argument.
If they were REALLY interested in protecting the privacy of their users, they'd publish any requests they recieved from law enforcement.
Thanks. Do you happen to have an argument that justifies the government's intrusion into one's sovereignty over one's own body? Or do you agree with me?
Imprisonment for asserting ones right to biochemical self determination is itself a violation of human rights.
The judge is issuing a warrant based on the officers testimony that there is good reason to believe evidence will be found.
Yes, this is typically the standard. But executing such a warrant in this case would require the defendant to testify against himself. That's plainly unconstitutional.
In order to work around the constitution, the judge in Boucher created the legal fiction that if the government already knows something, it can compel it as testimony. This is equivalent to the "idiotic logic" you labeled "b)". It's not my logic that's idiotic, it's the judge's.
Wrong. "civil" or "criminal" refers to the type of contempt, not the type of court case during which the contempt occured. Civil contempt is coercive (forward looking), criminal contempt is punative (for something that already occured). Coercing someone to produce evidence is exactly the kind of thing civil contempt is used for.
Under civil contempt the victim is said to "hold the keys to his own cage", which is used as an excuse to deprive him of any sort of due process whatsoever. It's barbaric and should be abolished.
We can't tell the difference between the cops "knowing" and the cops "believing". All we really know is that the cops asserted something. If they want us to believe it, it's their burden to produce proof. Forcing someone to provide incriminating testimony on the word of the police is blatantly unconstitutional.
So they had proof he could access it, testimony that they'd actually observed it and a chain of evidence that the contents had not changed since then. That's a whole different level of knowing than just "knowing"
If they have so much evidence, why don't they just present that evidence to the jury and let them decide? If the encryption key isn't incriminating, they don't need it to make their case. If the encryption key is incriminating, then it's protected by the 5th amendment.
It's really quite simple, and the judge in Boucher got it completely wrong. He needs to go back to law school and take an elementary logic class.
Except that an encrypted hard disk is not just like a safe in the physical world.
Yes, that's exactly what they plan to do.
When do we get a vaccine to money that we can forcibly administer to our politicians? This is the far more dangerous addiction.
I'm aware of that. It's a really bad decision. If the officer's testimony that the documents existed was sufficient to prove that the documents existed, the jury should be satisfied without seeing the documents. If the testimony of the officers was insufficient to convince the jury that the documents existed, then there is no foregone conclusion at all.
The decision is facially nonsensical. The judge fails not just at applying the constitution, but basic logic.
I do invest in small independent stuff. I give them money, and they give me a product that's worth more than I can get for that money anywhere else. Certainly a better value than mainstream crap. Investing in indie media pays off.
It's like making the equivalent of an NIT tournament in College Basketball.
I don't follow. Could you restate that as a car analogy?
In the perfect world, that means that anything they find outside of that scope is inadmissible in a court of law, and, that if they investigate further solely based on the information found there, anything they find is inadmissible. Colloquially, it's called "Fruit of the poisonous tree"
Of course, we don't live in a perfect world, and that's not what "fruit of the poisonous tree" means at all. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" only applies to evidence that was obtained illegally. If the search was performed legally, anything a cop sees incident to that search, even if it's outside the scope of the warrant, is admissible.
If a cop illegally searches your house for weapons, and finds drugs, that's not admissible. If he gets a warrant to search your house for weapons, and finds drugs, that's admissible. If he searches your house on exigent circumstances(e.g. he claims he saw a suspect flee towards your property), and he finds drugs, that's also admissible.
I know! Obama is so awful that it's hard to even keep track of how many terrible policies he's implemented.
If you're absolutely certain what's in the encrypted archive, you don't need the encryption key at all.
Exactly. Next they need to scan another group of babies at 6 months, identify the autistic type scans and see if that predicts autism 2 years out.
The awful part of Obama's presidency is the continuation of Bush's national security policy. Warrantless wiretapping, assassinating under age American citizens, keeping Guantanamo bay open, failing to prosecute anyone for torture. He stayed in Iraq until the last minute set by the Bush administration. All right, good he killed OBL. Now can we GTFO of Afghanistan? Can we stop war mongering with Iran?
Let's not forget his economic policy. Employ the exact same people who caused the problem, and watch them bail out their cronies and wonder why jobs aren't coming back. He didn't do a damn thing to ensure that banks were actually lending out the free money they handed out. He didn't prosecute any senior bank executives for the massive fraud that caused the crisis. Compare with Ronald Reagan who put nearly 1000 bankers in jail for the much smaller S&L crisis. Didn't prosecute anyone for perjury in the robosigning fiasco either. He's prosecuted plenty of whistleblowers and medical marijuana suppliers though.
I thought Bush was the worst president ever. I'm not sure anymore.
Why would Cascadia be any better? Aren't Seattle cops among the of the worst when it comes to thuggishness and insularity? How can you blame that on the feds? If you can't deal with the authoritarians in your own back yard, how do you expect secession would improve anything?
"Pretty much the entire country" except for the "moon bat" left. It was obvious us from 9/12 that the overreaction to the attacks would be far worse for the country than the attacks themselves were. Of course when we spoke up we were smeared as unpatriotic. You probably don't remember that the lead up to Iraq war included some of the largest demonstrations in history. Of course we were mostly ignored by the "main stream" (aka hard line statist) media. Over a decade later, I have no problem saying "I told you so".
With all the glowing screens and communication devices we have, it's easy to fill every hour at night as full as you would during the day.