Actually, let's look at this one a little closer to. You do not have a "right" to drive a vehicle. Driving a vehicle is a "privledge" extended to you by the state, by virtue of you having followed the laws and taken appropriate testing and and training. As a privledge, the state is perfectly within it's "rights" to demand certain concessions, such as possession of such items that can prove you are legally entitled to operate the vehicle and that the vehicle is within the bounds of the law, such as registrations and safety checks. You can forgo giving the state this "right" by simply not operating a motor vehicle.
Since I don't have mod points right now, I guess I'll have to respond instead of modding you to oblivion.
Did you read the same brief? I got my info from FindLaw.
Read the opinion. There is no requirement of probable cause in the demand for one's name. A police officer can do it at any time for any reason, under this Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
For those of you that haven't read the decision, here's some highlights. If you don't care, you can skip to the ---- and read the rest of my comment.
"2. Deputy Dove demanded that petitioner identify himself under the authority of NRS 171.123, which provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.[Emphasis added]
* * * * *
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.[Emphasis added] Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."
"Requiring a person to identify himself during an investigative stop does not intrude on any legitimate expectation of privacy."
"Of particular relevance, the Court has held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his voice or handwriting. In United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973), a grand jury witness argued that a subpoena requiring a voice exemplar for identification purposes violated the Fourth Amendment. This Court rejected that claim, holding that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the sound of his voice."
"The principle that a person can claim no Fourth Amendment protection for what he "knowingly exposes to the public" (Katz, 389 U.S. at 351) is readily applicable in this case. "Except for the rare recluse who chooses to live his life in complete solitude" (Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted)), a person routinely exposes his identity to the public. Individuals exchange their names as a matter of course in everyday social interactions, and regularly display their names when using credit cards or checks in commercial transactions. And a person must reveal his name in order to drive a car, obtain a job, open a bank account, or receive mail. In short, disclosing one's identity is an essential part of everyday life."
"'This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,' Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-744, and 'has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities,' id. at 744 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, accordingly, officers could have followed petitioner to his home or workplace and learned his identity from his neighbors or coworkers-an entirely lawful practice that most would consider a more significant invasion of privacy than a mere requirement to provide one's name."
"The relevant inquiry is whether the particular item sought by law enforcement implicates a legitimate expectation of privacy, not whether that item might facilitate discovery of other information that implicates a cognizable privacy interest.4"
"The Court held in Terry, however, that when officers form a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a brief, investigative detention for purposes of questioning the suspect is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 20-23. The Court has made clear that the questions put to the subject of a Terry stop can include a request for the person's name.[Emphasis added] See Hayes,
The only real method of fixing this is to charge for e-mail. Once the spammers have to pay then their rate of return (ROI) will decrease so that it is no longer a viable business model.
Dude, who's YOUR ISP? See, I already pay for email. I get this bill every month, and if I don't pay it, my access is shut off and my email address is terminated. Sounds to me like I pay for email already. Maybe only a small percentage of my total bill, but you can bet that part of my ISP charges go toward the purchase of hardware and bandwidth for their mail servers. Whether I use them or not.
I can still send paper letters for free. It just requires some creativity. I have to find someone I know that is traveling in the direction of the place I want my letter to go. If enough people cooperate, it will get there, just fine. Maybe a little late, but it will get there. This is the internet model.
Instead, I pay the US Federal Government.37, not because I CAN'T get the job done another way, but because it's easier, cheaper, and more reliable. That is the ONLY reason I pay.37. This is the Federal Monopoly method. Works great in the world of paper... Not so great in the Internet.
Why does the Internet method work on the 'Net? Because when the vehicles are travelling at the speed of light, it doesn't matter if you take a round about path to the other location, you'll still get there at about the same time as someone who goes straight to it. That kills the Easier argument. I'm already paying for access to the Internet, so I do not have to pay someone to carry my message onward. This takes care of cheaper. And with the redundancy of the Internet and the retry periods on most mail servers, I'm usually pretty sure that if I've addressed it right, the email will get where it's going. Actually, I'm MORE sure than if I send a snail mail letter through the post office! That kills the reliability argument.
Your argument is like saying we can cure smog by making every road a toll road. It doesn't matter that I pay for my car, I pay for my gas, and I pay for the roads with gasoline taxes. Every road, street, and alleyway should be a toll road. That would encourage more people to walk, right?
Umm... Open your car door and get your cell phone back out? The article didn't say anything about not leaving your cell in your car in the parking lot.
That said, a cell phone CAN make a difference. However, it USUALLY does not. Just like having a fire extinguisher in your car can make a difference. How many people do you know that carry one?
One of my jobs requires that I enter courtrooms and jails. In both cases cell phones must be turned off. You learn to live with it. There have been listed many different ways to fix the problem, most easily, to force them to provide a pager. Yes, it is inconvenient to wear 2 items when you're not in the office, but if wearing a second communication device makes you leave your job... You're not in the same reality as the rest of the universe.
I had a similar experience, but mine worked out better. My ISP became my employer. I used my personal account for work the first 2 years I worked there. We eventually put in a staff server with email addresses like flast@staff.domain.com. I left 3 years later, and still got email from clients on my old address. I left on good terms though, so I just forwarded everything to the appropriate contact. I was also tech contact on a ton of domains. I had to constantly send a notice to the new domain admin to get it changed.:)
As for signing things however, I worked it this way. I told my boss (a lawyer) that I didn't mind the NDA, since I know enough to keep my mouth shut about other people's business. I didn't have a problem with the "no-compete" clause because I knew it wouldn't stand up in court in my state (PA). I drew the line at an IP contact that basically said anything I developed or conceived, whether or not work related, was owned by the company. I explained to him that if I wrote the next netscape on my personal time, the company was NOT entitled to own the patents. If he felt different it was time for me to leave. He backed down. I never signed anything and kept my job. Of course, for a lawyer, Dan was a decent person. YMMV.
Where are they getting the fuel? How about spare parts? Raw materials? At least the moon and mars have natural resources that can be exploited to help produce material goods. Space stations are nothing but consumers. A planet (or an asteroid) has the capability of creating goods, not just consuming them.
We put a man on the moon in 1969. Have we been anywhere else? No.
Because we changed priorities to a LEO model. Was it the smart thing to do? Probably not, but it fit with the military and civilian needs at the time. Plus we had people screaming about what a waste the big rockets were. After all, you could only use them once and then throw them away! We couldn't have that, so we dumped a lot of money into a design compromised re-usable shuttle program that has gone WAY over estimates of cost. But at least we're not just throwing away those big rockets anymore, right?
Not because of the time it will take to get the project going though. Because of all the rampant corporate fascism and cronyism in the current administration. Huge sums of money will be taken from YOU (the taxpayers) and funnelled into this supposed project to go to Mars.
As opposed to all the huge sums of money wasted on the shuttle project? How about the money "wasted" on the Moon landings? Do you think the contractors worked for free on those projects? There was a TON of money to be made, and since it was a government project, they just kept throwing money at it until they got the results they wanted. At least when they take money from the taxpayers for these projects, the public eventually gets a product. Maybe not what we need or want, but a product. Which means that it employs engineers, craftsmen, laborers, and other people that get paychecks. As opposed to welfare, that generates almost nothing except higher taxes.
Then when the Bush admin is thrown out of office or we get a good Democrat back in office
When will that happen I wonder? Not the Bush admin thrown out, the political machine out there will get the Republicans out eventually, but when will we get a "good" Democrat back in? We haven't had one of those for a LONG time either.
we'll suddenly be hearing news stories saying... "whatever happened to those plans to go to Mars"?
Actually, no you won't. You'll hear how those "good" democrats "saved the taxpayers a fortune" as they shift the money into projects that help their particular district and/or another entitlement boondoggle.
There will be scandals involving the contractors who went bust, but not before the CEO grabbed the money and ran off to the tropics. (Bastards)
Not really, since the crooked ones will pay off anyone in power, so you won't hear anything about it at all. Amazing that no one realizes that Enron employed ex-Clinton employees who attempted to sway the governemt away from exposing and into bailing out Enron. Bush said no. Think Al Gore would have? When he's getting calls from the "good old boy" network? Doubtful. Enron's biggest mistake was highering ex-Clinton people instead of ex GHW Bush people.
If we as humans from the planet Earth (not Americans, not Japanese, not French or German or Europeans or whatever you may be) are serious about exploring space, we need to take this into our own hands as one big world project.
Yeah, the UN and all their pet projects have so helped the world. It's just more red tape and more pork for every other nation in the world. Just like we tried with the ISS. Where did almost all the money come from? Who footed the bill? Let me tell you, it wasn't the European Union, Russia, Japan, or Somalia. It was the good old USA, who paid good American cash to get substandard parts built in 3rd world countries so that we could call it an "International" space station.
Like the egyptians who had the pyramids built as a civic project, this should be the same thing.
You're RIGHT! We should enslave entire populations, especially the Jews, and make them work 16 hours days at hard physical labor for no recompense. Do you know ANYTHING about history? Or just the pap they sell in most of the government schools today?
Add to that a sprinkle of the GNU GPL as applied to propulsion development, software development and mission pla
But does the Sheriffs department own the content, or does the hoster (since he was hosting it for free).
If the hoster owns the content because he's hosting it for free, then why did he attempt to get money for back work and bandwidth? If I put up a website for my city, complete with free email addresses for the workers, and claim the entire property as mine, then I can't very well demand that the city pay for the content, bandwidth, and development. After all, I own it. I provided bandwidth for free. And I developed it for shits and giggles.
The heart of the matter appears to be that he made an agreement to develop and host the site for free. Then (according to the article) he demanded payment for said free development and hosting. That's BS. Then he claims he owns the data provided to him by the Sheriff's office. True, he may own the specific implementation, but even that's only true if the contract specifies. Then again, IANAL.
Yeah, but they didn't have a contract. Regardless of what he verbally agreed to, there was no legal document stating what is and what should be.
Actually he DID have a contract. A verbal contract is still a binding contract, as a former landlord found out to his chagrin when he tried to bang me for rent in violation of a verbal agreement. Always have a witness standing by during these negotiations.
Based on that, he CAN (although it's not professional) at a later date say, "Look, this is eating up my time and I feel I should be compensated for this."
Correct. However, he cannot say, "This ate up my time for X years, so I want paid for all that time I put in." If I volunteer at the Red Cross, I can't work for years there, then suddenly say, "Pay me for the time I 'volunteered,' or I will burn down the chapter house." He performed a service for a fee, a fee of $0 true, then demanded compensation for the service at a different fee, which appears to be hugely inflated on the surface of the argument, or he would bring down the website. Had he merely requested compensation starting from a future date, or a flat reasonable rate for transferring the data and domain to somewhere else, then I'd be on his side 100%. As it is I'd have to read a text of the extortion law they are charging him under before I could render a decision.
It's just as much their fault as it is HIS for not making a contract. His fault because, look, you don't have a contract, they aren't obligated to pay you a dime. It's their fault because.. well, they didn't have a contract, so any situations or change of minds that later pop up you can't really do much about legall except for firing him.
It's still a contract. Now he could have backed out gracefully, but apparently decided to retroactively bill for time, equipment, bandwidth, etc. He did this using dubious claims. And since he is a "former" deputy, there's probably some bad blood between them anyway, so who knows what the whole situation is. It'll come out in court, and once it's there for us to review, someone in Michigan needs to post a followup story so that we can actually follow the facts of the case instead of some reporters opinions of the facts, as well as the defense team's propoganda page.
I'm not sure I would rely on this listing either. It does not give any detail on when exactly he changed the registration. Another question would be why would a VA company buy that domain name? Except for extortion purposes.
But, for all we know, he did the change request the day the article was first published, or even slightly before. Not saying he did it that way, but relying on this record to "prove" he didn't lie is a joke.
I guess a lot of that would depend on what is up there. We really don't know much about the moon at all, since we only had a few quick visits. A permanent base would allow for better research in resources on Luna. But I would bet we'll probably find at least iron ore up there. Perhaps titanium as well. Maybe uranium. No one really knows.
a lot on the type of vehicle to be used? If we start looking at NERVA rockets and such, the moon would be a much better place to launch them from than Florida. A standard chem rocket to get to the moon, then something nuclear to get to mars.
Or, if the rocket is refuelable, you use a tank getting to the moon, escaping the 1G gravity well, then you refuel and use a lot less fuel getting out of moon's gravity field (isn't it 1/6th of earth?). This puts you in orbit for Mars with a whole lot of fuel left in a tank of the same size, right?
so is it legal to give (or even sell) your very own right to third person?
You're not allowed to do that by law, although I'm sure some people do it because...
but in classic way, I need to come to voting place, to identify myself and there is no misuse of voting rights in such obvious way.
Most if not all states in the US not only do not require identification to vote, but are not allowed to ask for it! You give your name, they look you up in the rolls, and you go vote. It would have been very easy for someone to vote for my old roommate, since he lives in Maryland now, but still shows up on the rolls as a voter in PA at my address. It's only been 6 years or so since he moved, and PA never clears the voting rolls. They keep talking about turnout going down, but part of that is the rolls only get bigger. No one is ever REMOVED from the rolls. So as people die or move, they're still showed as registered voters, so the percentage shrinks every year.
Make something foolproof and they'll make a better fool. The only messups we really hear about are the Florida elections where people were too stupid to punch the right hole. There were also problems in places that used the "fill in the bubble" method because IDIOTS did crap like circled the name of the person they wanted, or drew a line through all the candidates they DIDN'T want, or underlined the guy they wanted, etc.
Now, my solution for all those idiots that couldn't figure out how to vote and tried to anyway? Do we REALLY want their votes to count? If they're too bloody stupid to read directions, ask questions, and do things properly, do we REALLY want them deciding the leaders of the United States? Instead we're going to ditch all those other methods, that worked for YEARS, and go with some untested digital crap made by an ATM manufacturer that is totally closed source, so we can't see what the heck it does, and leaves absolutely no paper trail.
Let's see... Who here can write code that says, "If it's the first Tuesday in November, and later than 8AM, but earlier than 8PM, every third straight party vote actually votes for Ralph Nader." Bet about 90% of the people here can do it in a couple of lines of their favorite language. (I'm in the 10%... Can't code worth a damn). These are computers, with hardware clocks. Something like this would let the machine pass the pre-election tests with flying colors and still manage to totally screw up the results of a presidential election. And even if you find the code, THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX IT AFTER THE FACT. No paper trail means the results that the computer says are final. No recourse.
Hmmmm... I don't understand this comment. In my town we used for years a lever type voting booth. This punches the results of the elections onto a tape, which can later be read back and verified. This tape is (I would assume) sequential, so the same problem would have existed with it.
I actually asked the Diebold rep who was showing off one of these machines last November in my voting district how they would do a recount. He said, "Hit this button and it recalculates the total." *sigh* He actually thought this was INTELLIGENT! I tied him up for 2 hours (I was working the polls for a candidate anyway, had no where else to go.) and made him call in to the home office to try to get a real answer. They couldn't come up with one.
You people think 2000 was messy, wait until 2004. Al Gore and George Bush couldn't steal the election because there was a paper trail to follow. In 2004, that will be eliminated. There will be no more possible recounts. Which will make ANY contested election a point for people to grumble about for another 4 years.
The upshot of the segregation into cities and metropolitan areas is the same, though. To cater to the audiences in the big cities, they'll talk exclusively about metropolitan concerns and thus lock rural people out of the political debate.
Have you looked at the statistics from the last several elections? Rural America has been discounted by urban Amerika for ages. Does my mother, who lives in a town with no police department, no fire department, no roads department, no streetlights, and one lousy blinker light (actually 2 now I think) REALLY care if we hire 100,000 new police officers? Her town sees one cop at 2AM every night trying to catch drunks. That's it.
Density (in both population and skull bones) counts more to the major parties. I think I could say that all major candidates are lawyers or businessmen who have personal fortunes well in excess of $1 million. They really don't have anything in common with the common people at the local diner. They just study what their underlings give them so they know what promises to mouth, and then they're gone. And the promises go right in the trash unless they happen to agree with their urban powerbase.
Population density is extremely important for economical reasons. Most candidates need bang for buck. That means that you're going to focus your messages to areas that get a LOT of people, like NY, LA, Miami, Philly, etc. Some small town that doesn't even have a TV station isn't even really on the radar for these people.
Dave, it comes down to the examples that people see. As an example, an attorney I know who was once a partner in an ISP I worked for stated in all seriousness, "Lawyers should get paid $300/hr. Everyone else should work for $8/hr or less." Then you have the "Injury Claim" lawyers, who as another attorney I know put it, "They've never even seen the inside of a courtroom." make millions swindling the system.
Are some lawyers selfless dedicated individuals? Yes, I know many. Are some greedy self absorbed bastards who would sell their grandmother if the price was right? Yes, I know many.
Why should a lawyer get $300/hr for working in a suit in a clean tidy warm courtroom, when the guy that picks up his garbage, makes his clothes, grows his food, educates his children, etc. are often making do on less (often FAR less) than $20/hr? Hell, a JUDGE in our area only makes about $100k/yr, (~$50/hr. based on a 40 hour work week), and he's got just as much if not more experience and education.
When I see something like the cigarette lawsuits, I personally get disgusted, since these lawyers are raping the American people to a high degree. And why is this? Because most politicians are lawyers, so the people making the laws make them as tough to understand as possible. Try filing an appeal to a case on your own, and you'll quickly learn that a lawyer is the only way to do it. And when you see the work he does, you quickly realize that had the laws and regulations been spelled out in plain English, you could have done the same job yourself.
Actually, no, I'm not a police officer. I am however a bail agent, and have dealt with many people in all sorts of criminal situations. Yes, I have seen people railroaded because of a lousy cop. I can even point to a few. I have even urged several individuals to sue officers and judges who interfere with their right to bail. I've also seen a lot of very dedicated people get trashed because of a few bad apples.
I have also seen officers wounded or in some rare cases killed because they didn't act suspicious. It is a very thin line. My major problem is the majority of people out there who immediately hear about something like this, and without even watching the video, automatically assume the police officer did some heinous act. Put your self in the officers' shoes for a moment. Take some of the training and learn what it's like to become paranoid. With the current makeup of the court system, it's hard to say which way this will go... It's even hard to say which way it SHOULD go. I'm just saying that it underscores something that many people in society seem to have forgotten. Politeness and respectability count.
Wesleyville Boro, Erie County, PA. That is starting salary for a part time police officer (who usually works 60 hours a week since they don't have to pay benefits). With massive overtime this does add up, but I can get a job flipping burgers in the same town for $7/hr. Most of the communities around here are running about the same. Erie "City" pays a slightly higher wage. I think they start at $10/hr.
Thanks for the well thought out and polite reply. I was actually quite amazed to see such a thing on/.!
I just didn't see this as bullying though. He told the person what was going on/why he stopped. He made a simple request. Instead of a simple answer, the suspect started acting in a (what appeared to me from the video) violent manner.
As for the treatment of the female, remember how many officers are attacked, not by the person they're cuffing, but by the person that called in the domestic in the first place! Cops are taught at most academies to remember that the victim is NOT your friend. In many cases, the supposed victim will attack and injure or kill the police officer while he is in the process of arresting the suspect. It's human nature in a way. We may be mad, we may be scared, but if we see someone "hurting" one of our own, EVEN AT OUR OWN REQUEST, we often flip to the other side, protecting one of ours against "them."
As for refusing to talk, you're right, the deputy probably could have handled things a bit better. I don't see that he was "abusing the weapon." however, because he continued to try to talk after the suspect had made it clear through body language and responses that he was not going to be civil about the situation. The only place that he really screwed up was by not asking for a name first. Getting on a name (whether first or last) basis with someone can really help difuse the situation.
An anonymous phone call isn't much... and if you make it from the cell phone while driving, it's not that anonymous, since enhanced 911 tells me whose cell phone it is and where it was when the call was made.
And yes, that may be precisely what may happen if he acts in a violent manner towards an officer. However, if he acts reasonably, he's most likely out nothing more than the time it took to pull over and talk to the cop. Unfortunately the cops have to investigate and take these things seriously, because the first time they don't, then everyone screams about how they're not doing their jobs.
Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around. These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every bar fight, etc. If they act in any way to protect themselves and others they're considered Nazi's. If they don't, they're considered incompetent when someone dies on their watch. People waste their time by doing just the kind of trick you've described, and laugh about it. People treat them like dog crap all the time. And still they go out, put on a uniform and take a risk of getting shot. And often it's for 8 bucks an hour and no benefits.
Do I respect all cops? No. There are several in my local precinct that I could definitely do without. There are a bunch on the street that are uptight overdeveloped steroid popping pricks. And they all get tarred with the same brush. But there's also the guy that dives in front of a moving train to save a suicider, breaking several ribs in the process, all for 8 bucks an hour and no medical insurance. Don't believe me? On that one I can even name a name.
Now, when your GF/Wife/Mother/Sister/"domestic partner"/family friend/etc. has an abusive incident, and the cops don't do a damn thing about it, remember what has been posted here today, because incidents like this just cause more cops to look the other way. It's usually easier, and you don't have to testify in Washington DC.
Oh, and I would DEFINITELY make that call from a payphone. False reports to law enforcement is a crime, at least here in Pennsylvania.
And a simple I don't have one, or a simple I left it at home, or even a reasonably asked question, such as "Why do you want my ID? Am I a suspect in something?" would have laid that to rest very quickly.
Regardless, I believe the case is that Nevada DOES require it. Simple enough. The state has a right to establish such in law, the federal government does not.
I have no wants and warrants. I produce my ID when asked because it is often the quickest way to get around these issues. If I don't have it with me, I don't act in a belligerent or aggressive manner. I've never had a problem, even though I have been asked to produce it and not had it on me. Probably because I didn't act like an over testosterone'd ass.
But the cop tried to bully the guy, and I guess cowboys really hate that...
Back that up please? I watched the beginning of the clip (having problem with QuickTime), and read the transcript. The police officer did not appear to "bully" the individual. He merely said there was a report of a fight between the two people, and requested that he be shown some ID. I didn't catch any "bullying" there.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, let's look at this one a little closer to. You do not have a "right" to drive a vehicle. Driving a vehicle is a "privledge" extended to you by the state, by virtue of you having followed the laws and taken appropriate testing and and training. As a privledge, the state is perfectly within it's "rights" to demand certain concessions, such as possession of such items that can prove you are legally entitled to operate the vehicle and that the vehicle is within the bounds of the law, such as registrations and safety checks. You can forgo giving the state this "right" by simply not operating a motor vehicle.
Did you read the same brief? I got my info from FindLaw.
Read the opinion. There is no requirement of probable cause in the demand for one's name. A police officer can do it at any time for any reason, under this Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
For those of you that haven't read the decision, here's some highlights. If you don't care, you can skip to the ---- and read the rest of my comment.
"2. Deputy Dove demanded that petitioner identify himself under the authority of NRS 171.123, which provides: 1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. [Emphasis added] * * * * * 3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. [Emphasis added] Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer."
"Requiring a person to identify himself during an investigative stop does not intrude on any legitimate expectation of privacy."
"Of particular relevance, the Court has held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his voice or handwriting. In United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973), a grand jury witness argued that a subpoena requiring a voice exemplar for identification purposes violated the Fourth Amendment. This Court rejected that claim, holding that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the sound of his voice."
"The principle that a person can claim no Fourth Amendment protection for what he "knowingly exposes to the public" (Katz, 389 U.S. at 351) is readily applicable in this case. "Except for the rare recluse who chooses to live his life in complete solitude" (Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted)), a person routinely exposes his identity to the public. Individuals exchange their names as a matter of course in everyday social interactions, and regularly display their names when using credit cards or checks in commercial transactions. And a person must reveal his name in order to drive a car, obtain a job, open a bank account, or receive mail. In short, disclosing one's identity is an essential part of everyday life."
"'This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,' Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-744, and 'has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities,' id. at 744 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, accordingly, officers could have followed petitioner to his home or workplace and learned his identity from his neighbors or coworkers-an entirely lawful practice that most would consider a more significant invasion of privacy than a mere requirement to provide one's name."
"The relevant inquiry is whether the particular item sought by law enforcement implicates a legitimate expectation of privacy, not whether that item might facilitate discovery of other information that implicates a cognizable privacy interest.4"
"The Court held in Terry, however, that when officers form a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a brief, investigative detention for purposes of questioning the suspect is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 20-23. The Court has made clear that the questions put to the subject of a Terry stop can include a request for the person's name. [Emphasis added] See Hayes,
The only real method of fixing this is to charge for e-mail. Once the spammers have to pay then their rate of return (ROI) will decrease so that it is no longer a viable business model.
.37, not because I CAN'T get the job done another way, but because it's easier, cheaper, and more reliable. That is the ONLY reason I pay .37. This is the Federal Monopoly method. Works great in the world of paper... Not so great in the Internet.
Dude, who's YOUR ISP? See, I already pay for email. I get this bill every month, and if I don't pay it, my access is shut off and my email address is terminated. Sounds to me like I pay for email already. Maybe only a small percentage of my total bill, but you can bet that part of my ISP charges go toward the purchase of hardware and bandwidth for their mail servers. Whether I use them or not.
I can still send paper letters for free. It just requires some creativity. I have to find someone I know that is traveling in the direction of the place I want my letter to go. If enough people cooperate, it will get there, just fine. Maybe a little late, but it will get there. This is the internet model.
Instead, I pay the US Federal Government
Why does the Internet method work on the 'Net? Because when the vehicles are travelling at the speed of light, it doesn't matter if you take a round about path to the other location, you'll still get there at about the same time as someone who goes straight to it. That kills the Easier argument. I'm already paying for access to the Internet, so I do not have to pay someone to carry my message onward. This takes care of cheaper. And with the redundancy of the Internet and the retry periods on most mail servers, I'm usually pretty sure that if I've addressed it right, the email will get where it's going. Actually, I'm MORE sure than if I send a snail mail letter through the post office! That kills the reliability argument.
Your argument is like saying we can cure smog by making every road a toll road. It doesn't matter that I pay for my car, I pay for my gas, and I pay for the roads with gasoline taxes. Every road, street, and alleyway should be a toll road. That would encourage more people to walk, right?
Umm... Open your car door and get your cell phone back out? The article didn't say anything about not leaving your cell in your car in the parking lot.
That said, a cell phone CAN make a difference. However, it USUALLY does not. Just like having a fire extinguisher in your car can make a difference. How many people do you know that carry one?
One of my jobs requires that I enter courtrooms and jails. In both cases cell phones must be turned off. You learn to live with it. There have been listed many different ways to fix the problem, most easily, to force them to provide a pager. Yes, it is inconvenient to wear 2 items when you're not in the office, but if wearing a second communication device makes you leave your job... You're not in the same reality as the rest of the universe.
I had a similar experience, but mine worked out better. My ISP became my employer. I used my personal account for work the first 2 years I worked there. We eventually put in a staff server with email addresses like flast@staff.domain.com. I left 3 years later, and still got email from clients on my old address. I left on good terms though, so I just forwarded everything to the appropriate contact. I was also tech contact on a ton of domains. I had to constantly send a notice to the new domain admin to get it changed. :)
As for signing things however, I worked it this way. I told my boss (a lawyer) that I didn't mind the NDA, since I know enough to keep my mouth shut about other people's business. I didn't have a problem with the "no-compete" clause because I knew it wouldn't stand up in court in my state (PA). I drew the line at an IP contact that basically said anything I developed or conceived, whether or not work related, was owned by the company. I explained to him that if I wrote the next netscape on my personal time, the company was NOT entitled to own the patents. If he felt different it was time for me to leave. He backed down. I never signed anything and kept my job. Of course, for a lawyer, Dan was a decent person. YMMV.
given sufficient fuel and time
Where are they getting the fuel? How about spare parts? Raw materials? At least the moon and mars have natural resources that can be exploited to help produce material goods. Space stations are nothing but consumers. A planet (or an asteroid) has the capability of creating goods, not just consuming them.
We put a man on the moon in 1969. Have we been anywhere else? No.
Because we changed priorities to a LEO model. Was it the smart thing to do? Probably not, but it fit with the military and civilian needs at the time. Plus we had people screaming about what a waste the big rockets were. After all, you could only use them once and then throw them away! We couldn't have that, so we dumped a lot of money into a design compromised re-usable shuttle program that has gone WAY over estimates of cost. But at least we're not just throwing away those big rockets anymore, right?
Not because of the time it will take to get the project going though. Because of all the rampant corporate fascism and cronyism in the current administration. Huge sums of money will be taken from YOU (the taxpayers) and funnelled into this supposed project to go to Mars.
As opposed to all the huge sums of money wasted on the shuttle project? How about the money "wasted" on the Moon landings? Do you think the contractors worked for free on those projects? There was a TON of money to be made, and since it was a government project, they just kept throwing money at it until they got the results they wanted. At least when they take money from the taxpayers for these projects, the public eventually gets a product. Maybe not what we need or want, but a product. Which means that it employs engineers, craftsmen, laborers, and other people that get paychecks. As opposed to welfare, that generates almost nothing except higher taxes.
Then when the Bush admin is thrown out of office or we get a good Democrat back in office
When will that happen I wonder? Not the Bush admin thrown out, the political machine out there will get the Republicans out eventually, but when will we get a "good" Democrat back in? We haven't had one of those for a LONG time either.
we'll suddenly be hearing news stories saying... "whatever happened to those plans to go to Mars"?
Actually, no you won't. You'll hear how those "good" democrats "saved the taxpayers a fortune" as they shift the money into projects that help their particular district and/or another entitlement boondoggle.
There will be scandals involving the contractors who went bust, but not before the CEO grabbed the money and ran off to the tropics. (Bastards)
Not really, since the crooked ones will pay off anyone in power, so you won't hear anything about it at all. Amazing that no one realizes that Enron employed ex-Clinton employees who attempted to sway the governemt away from exposing and into bailing out Enron. Bush said no. Think Al Gore would have? When he's getting calls from the "good old boy" network? Doubtful. Enron's biggest mistake was highering ex-Clinton people instead of ex GHW Bush people.
If we as humans from the planet Earth (not Americans, not Japanese, not French or German or Europeans or whatever you may be) are serious about exploring space, we need to take this into our own hands as one big world project.
Yeah, the UN and all their pet projects have so helped the world. It's just more red tape and more pork for every other nation in the world. Just like we tried with the ISS. Where did almost all the money come from? Who footed the bill? Let me tell you, it wasn't the European Union, Russia, Japan, or Somalia. It was the good old USA, who paid good American cash to get substandard parts built in 3rd world countries so that we could call it an "International" space station.
Like the egyptians who had the pyramids built as a civic project, this should be the same thing.
You're RIGHT! We should enslave entire populations, especially the Jews, and make them work 16 hours days at hard physical labor for no recompense. Do you know ANYTHING about history? Or just the pap they sell in most of the government schools today?
Add to that a sprinkle of the GNU GPL as applied to propulsion development, software development and mission pla
Here's one.
:)
Here's another.
Here's one for the Internet.
Seems to me a lot of them have been published... Now we just need to convince the users to READ them!
And if you're really lucky, she's a cute redhead, and you're attached to the posts on her bed... But maybe that's just me... :)
But does the Sheriffs department own the content, or does the hoster (since he was hosting it for free).
If the hoster owns the content because he's hosting it for free, then why did he attempt to get money for back work and bandwidth? If I put up a website for my city, complete with free email addresses for the workers, and claim the entire property as mine, then I can't very well demand that the city pay for the content, bandwidth, and development. After all, I own it. I provided bandwidth for free. And I developed it for shits and giggles.
The heart of the matter appears to be that he made an agreement to develop and host the site for free. Then (according to the article) he demanded payment for said free development and hosting. That's BS. Then he claims he owns the data provided to him by the Sheriff's office. True, he may own the specific implementation, but even that's only true if the contract specifies. Then again, IANAL.
Yeah, but they didn't have a contract. Regardless of what he verbally agreed to, there was no legal document stating what is and what should be.
.. well, they didn't have a contract, so any situations or change of minds that later pop up you can't really do much about legall except for firing him.
Actually he DID have a contract. A verbal contract is still a binding contract, as a former landlord found out to his chagrin when he tried to bang me for rent in violation of a verbal agreement. Always have a witness standing by during these negotiations.
Based on that, he CAN (although it's not professional) at a later date say, "Look, this is eating up my time and I feel I should be compensated for this."
Correct. However, he cannot say, "This ate up my time for X years, so I want paid for all that time I put in." If I volunteer at the Red Cross, I can't work for years there, then suddenly say, "Pay me for the time I 'volunteered,' or I will burn down the chapter house." He performed a service for a fee, a fee of $0 true, then demanded compensation for the service at a different fee, which appears to be hugely inflated on the surface of the argument, or he would bring down the website. Had he merely requested compensation starting from a future date, or a flat reasonable rate for transferring the data and domain to somewhere else, then I'd be on his side 100%. As it is I'd have to read a text of the extortion law they are charging him under before I could render a decision.
It's just as much their fault as it is HIS for not making a contract. His fault because, look, you don't have a contract, they aren't obligated to pay you a dime. It's their fault because
It's still a contract. Now he could have backed out gracefully, but apparently decided to retroactively bill for time, equipment, bandwidth, etc. He did this using dubious claims. And since he is a "former" deputy, there's probably some bad blood between them anyway, so who knows what the whole situation is. It'll come out in court, and once it's there for us to review, someone in Michigan needs to post a followup story so that we can actually follow the facts of the case instead of some reporters opinions of the facts, as well as the defense team's propoganda page.
I'm not sure I would rely on this listing either. It does not give any detail on when exactly he changed the registration. Another question would be why would a VA company buy that domain name? Except for extortion purposes.
But, for all we know, he did the change request the day the article was first published, or even slightly before. Not saying he did it that way, but relying on this record to "prove" he didn't lie is a joke.
Point.
I guess a lot of that would depend on what is up there. We really don't know much about the moon at all, since we only had a few quick visits. A permanent base would allow for better research in resources on Luna. But I would bet we'll probably find at least iron ore up there. Perhaps titanium as well. Maybe uranium. No one really knows.
a lot on the type of vehicle to be used? If we start looking at NERVA rockets and such, the moon would be a much better place to launch them from than Florida. A standard chem rocket to get to the moon, then something nuclear to get to mars.
Or, if the rocket is refuelable, you use a tank getting to the moon, escaping the 1G gravity well, then you refuel and use a lot less fuel getting out of moon's gravity field (isn't it 1/6th of earth?). This puts you in orbit for Mars with a whole lot of fuel left in a tank of the same size, right?
so is it legal to give (or even sell) your very own right to third person?
You're not allowed to do that by law, although I'm sure some people do it because...
but in classic way, I need to come to voting place, to identify myself and there is no misuse of voting rights in such obvious way.
Most if not all states in the US not only do not require identification to vote, but are not allowed to ask for it! You give your name, they look you up in the rolls, and you go vote. It would have been very easy for someone to vote for my old roommate, since he lives in Maryland now, but still shows up on the rolls as a voter in PA at my address. It's only been 6 years or so since he moved, and PA never clears the voting rolls. They keep talking about turnout going down, but part of that is the rolls only get bigger. No one is ever REMOVED from the rolls. So as people die or move, they're still showed as registered voters, so the percentage shrinks every year.
something foolproof like that
Make something foolproof and they'll make a better fool. The only messups we really hear about are the Florida elections where people were too stupid to punch the right hole. There were also problems in places that used the "fill in the bubble" method because IDIOTS did crap like circled the name of the person they wanted, or drew a line through all the candidates they DIDN'T want, or underlined the guy they wanted, etc.
Now, my solution for all those idiots that couldn't figure out how to vote and tried to anyway? Do we REALLY want their votes to count? If they're too bloody stupid to read directions, ask questions, and do things properly, do we REALLY want them deciding the leaders of the United States? Instead we're going to ditch all those other methods, that worked for YEARS, and go with some untested digital crap made by an ATM manufacturer that is totally closed source, so we can't see what the heck it does, and leaves absolutely no paper trail.
Let's see... Who here can write code that says, "If it's the first Tuesday in November, and later than 8AM, but earlier than 8PM, every third straight party vote actually votes for Ralph Nader." Bet about 90% of the people here can do it in a couple of lines of their favorite language. (I'm in the 10%... Can't code worth a damn). These are computers, with hardware clocks. Something like this would let the machine pass the pre-election tests with flying colors and still manage to totally screw up the results of a presidential election. And even if you find the code, THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX IT AFTER THE FACT. No paper trail means the results that the computer says are final. No recourse.
Hmmmm... I don't understand this comment. In my town we used for years a lever type voting booth. This punches the results of the elections onto a tape, which can later be read back and verified. This tape is (I would assume) sequential, so the same problem would have existed with it.
I actually asked the Diebold rep who was showing off one of these machines last November in my voting district how they would do a recount. He said, "Hit this button and it recalculates the total." *sigh* He actually thought this was INTELLIGENT! I tied him up for 2 hours (I was working the polls for a candidate anyway, had no where else to go.) and made him call in to the home office to try to get a real answer. They couldn't come up with one.
You people think 2000 was messy, wait until 2004. Al Gore and George Bush couldn't steal the election because there was a paper trail to follow. In 2004, that will be eliminated. There will be no more possible recounts. Which will make ANY contested election a point for people to grumble about for another 4 years.
The upshot of the segregation into cities and metropolitan areas is the same, though. To cater to the audiences in the big cities, they'll talk exclusively about metropolitan concerns and thus lock rural people out of the political debate.
Have you looked at the statistics from the last several elections? Rural America has been discounted by urban Amerika for ages. Does my mother, who lives in a town with no police department, no fire department, no roads department, no streetlights, and one lousy blinker light (actually 2 now I think) REALLY care if we hire 100,000 new police officers? Her town sees one cop at 2AM every night trying to catch drunks. That's it.
Density (in both population and skull bones) counts more to the major parties. I think I could say that all major candidates are lawyers or businessmen who have personal fortunes well in excess of $1 million. They really don't have anything in common with the common people at the local diner. They just study what their underlings give them so they know what promises to mouth, and then they're gone. And the promises go right in the trash unless they happen to agree with their urban powerbase.
Population density is extremely important for economical reasons. Most candidates need bang for buck. That means that you're going to focus your messages to areas that get a LOT of people, like NY, LA, Miami, Philly, etc. Some small town that doesn't even have a TV station isn't even really on the radar for these people.
Dave, it comes down to the examples that people see. As an example, an attorney I know who was once a partner in an ISP I worked for stated in all seriousness, "Lawyers should get paid $300/hr. Everyone else should work for $8/hr or less." Then you have the "Injury Claim" lawyers, who as another attorney I know put it, "They've never even seen the inside of a courtroom." make millions swindling the system.
Are some lawyers selfless dedicated individuals? Yes, I know many. Are some greedy self absorbed bastards who would sell their grandmother if the price was right? Yes, I know many.
Why should a lawyer get $300/hr for working in a suit in a clean tidy warm courtroom, when the guy that picks up his garbage, makes his clothes, grows his food, educates his children, etc. are often making do on less (often FAR less) than $20/hr? Hell, a JUDGE in our area only makes about $100k/yr, (~$50/hr. based on a 40 hour work week), and he's got just as much if not more experience and education.
When I see something like the cigarette lawsuits, I personally get disgusted, since these lawyers are raping the American people to a high degree. And why is this? Because most politicians are lawyers, so the people making the laws make them as tough to understand as possible. Try filing an appeal to a case on your own, and you'll quickly learn that a lawyer is the only way to do it. And when you see the work he does, you quickly realize that had the laws and regulations been spelled out in plain English, you could have done the same job yourself.
Actually, no, I'm not a police officer. I am however a bail agent, and have dealt with many people in all sorts of criminal situations. Yes, I have seen people railroaded because of a lousy cop. I can even point to a few. I have even urged several individuals to sue officers and judges who interfere with their right to bail. I've also seen a lot of very dedicated people get trashed because of a few bad apples.
I have also seen officers wounded or in some rare cases killed because they didn't act suspicious. It is a very thin line. My major problem is the majority of people out there who immediately hear about something like this, and without even watching the video, automatically assume the police officer did some heinous act. Put your self in the officers' shoes for a moment. Take some of the training and learn what it's like to become paranoid. With the current makeup of the court system, it's hard to say which way this will go... It's even hard to say which way it SHOULD go. I'm just saying that it underscores something that many people in society seem to have forgotten. Politeness and respectability count.
but nobody is hiring cops for a mere $16K salary.
Wesleyville Boro, Erie County, PA. That is starting salary for a part time police officer (who usually works 60 hours a week since they don't have to pay benefits). With massive overtime this does add up, but I can get a job flipping burgers in the same town for $7/hr. Most of the communities around here are running about the same. Erie "City" pays a slightly higher wage. I think they start at $10/hr.
Thanks for the well thought out and polite reply. I was actually quite amazed to see such a thing on /.!
I just didn't see this as bullying though. He told the person what was going on/why he stopped. He made a simple request. Instead of a simple answer, the suspect started acting in a (what appeared to me from the video) violent manner.
As for the treatment of the female, remember how many officers are attacked, not by the person they're cuffing, but by the person that called in the domestic in the first place! Cops are taught at most academies to remember that the victim is NOT your friend. In many cases, the supposed victim will attack and injure or kill the police officer while he is in the process of arresting the suspect. It's human nature in a way. We may be mad, we may be scared, but if we see someone "hurting" one of our own, EVEN AT OUR OWN REQUEST, we often flip to the other side, protecting one of ours against "them."
As for refusing to talk, you're right, the deputy probably could have handled things a bit better. I don't see that he was "abusing the weapon." however, because he continued to try to talk after the suspect had made it clear through body language and responses that he was not going to be civil about the situation. The only place that he really screwed up was by not asking for a name first. Getting on a name (whether first or last) basis with someone can really help difuse the situation.
Thanks for the sarcasm tags.
An anonymous phone call isn't much... and if you make it from the cell phone while driving, it's not that anonymous, since enhanced 911 tells me whose cell phone it is and where it was when the call was made.
And yes, that may be precisely what may happen if he acts in a violent manner towards an officer. However, if he acts reasonably, he's most likely out nothing more than the time it took to pull over and talk to the cop. Unfortunately the cops have to investigate and take these things seriously, because the first time they don't, then everyone screams about how they're not doing their jobs.
Police officer has to be one of the most thankless jobs around. These people take their lives in to their own hands with every traffic stop, every domestic abuse call, every bar fight, etc. If they act in any way to protect themselves and others they're considered Nazi's. If they don't, they're considered incompetent when someone dies on their watch. People waste their time by doing just the kind of trick you've described, and laugh about it. People treat them like dog crap all the time. And still they go out, put on a uniform and take a risk of getting shot. And often it's for 8 bucks an hour and no benefits.
Do I respect all cops? No. There are several in my local precinct that I could definitely do without. There are a bunch on the street that are uptight overdeveloped steroid popping pricks. And they all get tarred with the same brush. But there's also the guy that dives in front of a moving train to save a suicider, breaking several ribs in the process, all for 8 bucks an hour and no medical insurance. Don't believe me? On that one I can even name a name.
Now, when your GF/Wife/Mother/Sister/"domestic partner"/family friend/etc. has an abusive incident, and the cops don't do a damn thing about it, remember what has been posted here today, because incidents like this just cause more cops to look the other way. It's usually easier, and you don't have to testify in Washington DC.
Oh, and I would DEFINITELY make that call from a payphone. False reports to law enforcement is a crime, at least here in Pennsylvania.
And a simple I don't have one, or a simple I left it at home, or even a reasonably asked question, such as "Why do you want my ID? Am I a suspect in something?" would have laid that to rest very quickly.
Regardless, I believe the case is that Nevada DOES require it. Simple enough. The state has a right to establish such in law, the federal government does not.
I have no wants and warrants. I produce my ID when asked because it is often the quickest way to get around these issues. If I don't have it with me, I don't act in a belligerent or aggressive manner. I've never had a problem, even though I have been asked to produce it and not had it on me. Probably because I didn't act like an over testosterone'd ass.
But the cop tried to bully the guy, and I guess cowboys really hate that...
Back that up please? I watched the beginning of the clip (having problem with QuickTime), and read the transcript. The police officer did not appear to "bully" the individual. He merely said there was a report of a fight between the two people, and requested that he be shown some ID. I didn't catch any "bullying" there.