And the FISA courts are approved by Congress which is constitutionally prohibited from approving searches without probable cause.
Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.
If you know English, you can read the fucking 4th amendment. The Constitution is valid because it was ratified by The People. If The People aren't capable of understanding it, then they aren't capable of consenting to it. Either the Constitution is understandable in plain English by the common person, or it is not valid at all.
This is one of the problems with Open Source in general: the engineers are expert in coding, and believe that this is all one needs for a great product.
And this has been borne out by experience. Open source products are generally better than closed source products.
There are acknowledged experts in usability and presentation (and documentation and testing and installation procedures and marketing) who have spent many years of study and have experience in these things.
If all that expertise were worth anything, they would have come up with something better than the UNIX shell. It's been 30 years and it's yet to be surpassed.
You assume spending to keep citizens alive has the same economic impact as spending to make non-citizens dead. That's clearly not the case.
But you do have a point. There's nothing in the ACA to address costs of care. The ACA should be repealed, and replaced with single payer. But since we can't do that, I'll take universal coverage any way we can get it.
Bin Laden's stated goal was to goad the US into a prolonged and expensive war that would cripple the US. He achieved that.
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
My "fears" are called "the right to privacy", which includes privacy when I have a police officer in my house investigating a crime I've reported.
And how does that affect you in a way that's even remotely as severe as being beaten by the police? "oh no, my dirty kitchen will be on CopTube" is not a serious concern. "oh no, I'm being arrested for assaulting that cop's boot with my face", THAT's a serious concern.
That you're happy with letting cops get away with police brutality is your problem and should not become mine.
You do realize that they'll simply do it with the camera lens obscured
Ah, so because we can never eliminate all police brutality, we should never try to eliminate any? Why does that only work for crimes committed by police?
"Trod upon the rights of your fellow citizens" isn't the option I was looking for.
Nor was I. Why are you so eager to trod on our rights to a police force that obeys the law?
Maybe immediate and full disclosure is the right policy for open-source hobbyist software like Linux. I mean, hey, just go compile your own kernel, right?
You mean open source professional software like Linux. Your entire argument is not an argument against immediate disclosure. Your argument is one against relying on closed source software for anything important. And a very good one at that.
Absolutely. Immediate disclosure to the public means that they can immediately take measures to reduce their risk. If you tell me that there's a bug in a package I use, I can stop using the package. If you tell the vendor that there's a bug in a package I use, I can't do anything to protect myself.
IMHO, full disclosure after a reasonable period of private disclosure is the responsible choice.
Why give an attacker a window of time in which he can use his exploit freely? Inform the public immediately, and they can stop using the software, or decide if it's worth the risk.
you give the subject time to fix it before an exploit gets produced
Why do you assume an exploit does not already exist? If you can find it, an attacker can find it too. The prudent assumption is that any bug that can be exploited is being exploited.
No, the responsible thing to do is to inform those who are at risk because of the bug. They are the party that needs to know first, because they will suffer the harm.
You aren't in danger based on any of your hypothetical musings about my relationships.
If your fears prevent constant recording of police, I stand a higher risk of being assaulted by them, since they know they can get away with it.
At the point the false accusation has been made, your chance of being falsely accused is now 100% and your chance of being beaten is still less than 1.
And after you've been beaten by the police, the chance of you having been beaten by police is 1. What does that have to do with anything?
I guess you being happy with your interrogation over a false charge being immediately available to the public should cancel out all my concerns about privacy.
Assault is far more serious than an invasion of privacy.
You cannot be more responsible than full disclosure. The responsible thing to do when you find a bug is to inform those who are at risk from the bug. Any delay leaves those people at risk unnecessarily, and is irresponsible.
But what if I don't want my interaction with a police officer recorded?
What if I don't want to be beaten up and framed by bad cops?
What do you lose if I get my way? A tiny bit of privacy when interacting with a public servant. What do I lose if you get your way? The ability to hold those in power accountable. How are these concerns even slightly comparable? Your concern is a convenience at best, mine is essential to a functioning justice system.
What if I'm telling him about the drug dealer down the street and would rather that guy not find out who was talking to the cops?
That's what tip lines and the mail is for.
Or maybe a cop regularly comes in and shoots-the-shit with me in my retail business.
So?
It's not good that those people would be concerned that everything they said to the cop gets recorded
It's also not good that people would be concerned that the police will kick their ass and get away with it.
But unless there is some way to mitigate my concerns, I believe recording day-to-day officer interactions would do more harm than good.
You haven't identified any concerns here that come within an order of magnitude of the problem of police brutality. Even if all your concerns were realized to their maximal extent, I believe we'd prevent far more crime by recording police officers constantly. A police force we can trust will be far more effective than one we cannot.
I expect the slim chance of me getting my ass kicked by police is a lot fatter than the slim chance of me getting falsely accused of rape. And I'm secure enough in my relationship that false allegations don't threaten me at all. Maybe your significant other doesn't trust you, but I shouldn't be at risk of police beatings because of your relationship problems.
Imagine if you had to wear one of these at your work place knowing that your boss can activate it at any time
That's the deal you should have to accept if you want authorization to use force on your fellow citizens. If you're not OK with complete oversight, I'm not OK with granting you power.
The proposed devices record constantly, but they throw away the video after 30 seconds unless the officer triggers them to keep it. That's not "recording at all times"; it's "recording when the officer chooses to record".
That's the problem. The officer can choose not to record himself planting evidence or kicking a suspects ass. That makes these devices useless for the most important use of this technology.
The alternative would be continuous recording even when neither side thinks it's a good idea. I'm not sure I want to live in that world.
It's ALWAYS a good idea to record public servants, otherwise we can't hold them accountable. Not only should police be recorded constantly, any missing footage should be a strict liability crime. Any recording that goes missing should land the last person on the chain of custody in jail.
Let's think about this for a second, lets say you were falsely arrested for rape, it happens EVERY day thanks to a certain breed of woman, would you really want that footage to immediately be uploaded for the public's viewing? Probably not.
I'll take my chances getting tried in the court of public opinion, if it means the cop that kicks my ass gets tried in an actual court and sent to prison.
They are one and the same when functioning properly. By which I mean when the electorate is well informed and actually votes for their own interests. e.g. even the most religious electorate, properly enlightened, would vote for religious freedom because that freedom protects their own right to practice. This is why Jefferson said "The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate." Without that electorate, you don't have a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
It was supposedly approved by the FISA courts.
And the FISA courts are approved by Congress which is constitutionally prohibited from approving searches without probable cause.
Im not sure if it was legal, but if you're not a lawyer I imagine you are also not in a position to determine that.
If you know English, you can read the fucking 4th amendment. The Constitution is valid because it was ratified by The People. If The People aren't capable of understanding it, then they aren't capable of consenting to it. Either the Constitution is understandable in plain English by the common person, or it is not valid at all.
How is that not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
They have no problem with electricity
You're right, their problem is with logic and applying it to the real world.
If it weren't for the 5th, Congress could pass a law making it illegal to refuse to confess to a crime, even if you didn't commit it.
This is one of the problems with Open Source in general: the engineers are expert in coding, and believe that this is all one needs for a great product.
And this has been borne out by experience. Open source products are generally better than closed source products.
There are acknowledged experts in usability and presentation (and documentation and testing and installation procedures and marketing) who have spent many years of study and have experience in these things.
If all that expertise were worth anything, they would have come up with something better than the UNIX shell. It's been 30 years and it's yet to be surpassed.
So if I don't have anything to hide, I shouldn't have anything to fear? That never made any other residents of any other police states any safer.
You assume spending to keep citizens alive has the same economic impact as spending to make non-citizens dead. That's clearly not the case.
But you do have a point. There's nothing in the ACA to address costs of care. The ACA should be repealed, and replaced with single payer. But since we can't do that, I'll take universal coverage any way we can get it.
Bin Laden's stated goal was to goad the US into a prolonged and expensive war that would cripple the US. He achieved that.
My "fears" are called "the right to privacy", which includes privacy when I have a police officer in my house investigating a crime I've reported.
And how does that affect you in a way that's even remotely as severe as being beaten by the police? "oh no, my dirty kitchen will be on CopTube" is not a serious concern. "oh no, I'm being arrested for assaulting that cop's boot with my face", THAT's a serious concern.
That you're happy with letting cops get away with police brutality is your problem and should not become mine.
You do realize that they'll simply do it with the camera lens obscured
Ah, so because we can never eliminate all police brutality, we should never try to eliminate any? Why does that only work for crimes committed by police?
"Trod upon the rights of your fellow citizens" isn't the option I was looking for.
Nor was I. Why are you so eager to trod on our rights to a police force that obeys the law?
Maybe immediate and full disclosure is the right policy for open-source hobbyist software like Linux. I mean, hey, just go compile your own kernel, right?
You mean open source professional software like Linux. Your entire argument is not an argument against immediate disclosure. Your argument is one against relying on closed source software for anything important. And a very good one at that.
Absolutely. Immediate disclosure to the public means that they can immediately take measures to reduce their risk. If you tell me that there's a bug in a package I use, I can stop using the package. If you tell the vendor that there's a bug in a package I use, I can't do anything to protect myself.
IMHO, full disclosure after a reasonable period of private disclosure is the responsible choice.
Why give an attacker a window of time in which he can use his exploit freely? Inform the public immediately, and they can stop using the software, or decide if it's worth the risk.
you give the subject time to fix it before an exploit gets produced
Why do you assume an exploit does not already exist? If you can find it, an attacker can find it too. The prudent assumption is that any bug that can be exploited is being exploited.
No, the responsible thing to do is to inform those who are at risk because of the bug. They are the party that needs to know first, because they will suffer the harm.
You aren't in danger based on any of your hypothetical musings about my relationships.
If your fears prevent constant recording of police, I stand a higher risk of being assaulted by them, since they know they can get away with it.
At the point the false accusation has been made, your chance of being falsely accused is now 100% and your chance of being beaten is still less than 1.
And after you've been beaten by the police, the chance of you having been beaten by police is 1. What does that have to do with anything?
I guess you being happy with your interrogation over a false charge being immediately available to the public should cancel out all my concerns about privacy.
Assault is far more serious than an invasion of privacy.
You cannot be more responsible than full disclosure. The responsible thing to do when you find a bug is to inform those who are at risk from the bug. Any delay leaves those people at risk unnecessarily, and is irresponsible.
Why does it matter? Full disclosure is the only responsible choice. That doesn't change no matter who your employer is.
But what if I don't want my interaction with a police officer recorded?
What if I don't want to be beaten up and framed by bad cops?
What do you lose if I get my way? A tiny bit of privacy when interacting with a public servant. What do I lose if you get your way? The ability to hold those in power accountable.
How are these concerns even slightly comparable? Your concern is a convenience at best, mine is essential to a functioning justice system.
What if I'm telling him about the drug dealer down the street and would rather that guy not find out who was talking to the cops?
That's what tip lines and the mail is for.
Or maybe a cop regularly comes in and shoots-the-shit with me in my retail business.
So?
It's not good that those people would be concerned that everything they said to the cop gets recorded
It's also not good that people would be concerned that the police will kick their ass and get away with it.
But unless there is some way to mitigate my concerns, I believe recording day-to-day officer interactions would do more harm than good.
You haven't identified any concerns here that come within an order of magnitude of the problem of police brutality. Even if all your concerns were realized to their maximal extent, I believe we'd prevent far more crime by recording police officers constantly. A police force we can trust will be far more effective than one we cannot.
I expect the slim chance of me getting my ass kicked by police is a lot fatter than the slim chance of me getting falsely accused of rape. And I'm secure enough in my relationship that false allegations don't threaten me at all. Maybe your significant other doesn't trust you, but I shouldn't be at risk of police beatings because of your relationship problems.
Imagine if you had to wear one of these at your work place knowing that your boss can activate it at any time
That's the deal you should have to accept if you want authorization to use force on your fellow citizens. If you're not OK with complete oversight, I'm not OK with granting you power.
The proposed devices record constantly, but they throw away the video after 30 seconds unless the officer triggers them to keep it. That's not "recording at all times"; it's "recording when the officer chooses to record".
That's the problem. The officer can choose not to record himself planting evidence or kicking a suspects ass. That makes these devices useless for the most important use of this technology.
The alternative would be continuous recording even when neither side thinks it's a good idea. I'm not sure I want to live in that world.
It's ALWAYS a good idea to record public servants, otherwise we can't hold them accountable. Not only should police be recorded constantly, any missing footage should be a strict liability crime. Any recording that goes missing should land the last person on the chain of custody in jail.
Then the video goes viral, and official statement from the department is conveniently omitted from the copying frenzy
That's because the official statement is nothing but stonewalling and whitewashing.
Let's think about this for a second, lets say you were falsely arrested for rape, it happens EVERY day thanks to a certain breed of woman, would you really want that footage to immediately be uploaded for the public's viewing? Probably not.
I'll take my chances getting tried in the court of public opinion, if it means the cop that kicks my ass gets tried in an actual court and sent to prison.
You have to have broken the law - and be charged with a crime- to be arrested.
Really? Everyone who is arrested has broken the law? In reality, you don't even have to have broken the law to be convicted.
Remember: democracy is not advocacy of freedoms.
They are one and the same when functioning properly. By which I mean when the electorate is well informed and actually votes for their own interests. e.g. even the most religious electorate, properly enlightened, would vote for religious freedom because that freedom protects their own right to practice. This is why Jefferson said "The cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate." Without that electorate, you don't have a democracy.
Is that so hard to believe?