Well, to do that, you're going to need to draft up a Constitutional Amendment that voids the First Amendment, then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.
Considering the source is Bennett Haselton, I think it's less a slashvertisment for the product so much as it is a slashvertisment for Bennett Haselton.
Sorry, but I've fed your trolling enough for one week.
You go right ahead and keep thinking that the law doesn't apply to you because you disagree with how things are defined; I'm sure Dick Cheney will be glad to take your custom (he owns a chain of prisons, you see).
I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry.
He also had the right to tell the man to leave the property, as well as a right to report the potential felony he witnessed to the proper authorities; I don't know if it applies to copyright law, but in certain circumstances you are legally obligated to report a witnessed crime, or risk being charged as an accessory. So there's a possible CYA motive you're too emotionally involved to notice.
What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here.
From what I understand, at no point was the gentleman so much as detained; he chose to stay and be interviewed by the FBI, as well as gave them access to the contents of the device, all of his own free will. So what right, pray tell, was violated?
They made very specific false allegations without evidence
Such as? He was sitting in a movie theater with a recording device on his face. Logically speaking, that's no different that sitting there with a VHS camcorder on your shoulder - "dur, I'm not recording anything" is not a very convincing argument.
Cute how you completely ignore the parts of my post that show you don't understand what property rights are, and instead choose to harp on the one aspect that is purely a matter of opinion.
Oh, wait, it's not cute at all; it's that other thing... stupid? Yea, I think stupid is a fair word for it.
"The data present on this hard disk, dated between mmddyy and m2d2y2" or "the data transmitted between these two IP addresses on thus-and-such a date." It's not really any harder than "garage at 123 Main Street". Anything beyond a specified location (and with data, a date) is fishing beyond the scope of a warrant.
Anyway, that's how I'd do it; your prosecutors may vary.
Don't forget naming the "particular [data] to be seized." Otherwise, it's still a fishing expedition. I don't think "the data" is nearly specific enough; that's like saying "we're going to search your house for illegal stuff we think might be there," and I know that one doesn't fly in a real court of law.
So, here's a serious question: How hard would it be to have a warrant describe the data to be seized, as being present in thus-and-such a quanity in a specified place and timeframe? or something like that, whatever would confine the warrant to a specific lot of data, rather than vaguely all over the place.
For someone like your typical Slashdot reader? Probably not hard at all - we understand the technology and related terminology.
The problem is that legislators don't understand what they're making laws about.
Well, OK, maybe not so much "legislators" as "the lobbyists who ghost-write most legislation..."
McAffee products such as antivirus and especially smartfilter, is and pretty much always has been useless.
Worse than useless - default installs of McAffee products on box-store computer has long been held to be malware by many in the IT community, present company included.
1) Yes. And had he been unlawfully arrested and/or falsely imprisoned, he might have recourse. But neither of those things ever actually happened; RTFA.
2) I don't know why, but you linked to a UK government document, which does not apply within the borders of the United States of America.
Law enforcement and Government in general doesn't like when random citizens record things
Neither do private property owners, especially when the 'random citizens' who have been allowed on the property have been made abundantly aware they are explicitly denied from using recording devices while on said private property.
Federal law is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies.
Why do people think the FBI is some mystical über-crime fighting force?
Because their 'knowledge' of US law enforcement agencies is essentially based on a mix of CSI, Law & Order, 24, and a host of other fictional portrayals of federal agents.
In other circumstances some functionary will come up to you and say "put that away please".
FTFY.
Obviously the feds don't get called every time some jackass is pointing a camera at a theater screen, lest it would not be considered newsworthy on the rare occasion it actually happens.
If you walk into the theater with a modern smart phone, you also have a video camera with you. Should you be interrogated by the FBI just because you carried your phone with you?
If you are holding the phone with the camera pointed at the screen, and the property owner suspects you are committing a felony, then yea, you probably should be interrogated.
See, me? I just avoid doing things that will get me fucked with. Especially when those "things" also happen to be federal crimes, because if I'm going to be fucked with, I'd rather it be over some bullshit than actual suspicion of crime.
Or, you know, he just didn't think it bothered anyone and no one said anything to him until the FBI dragged him out of a theater. Maybe he didn't see any reason for carrying two pairs of glasses around for doing different things. I only need glasses for reading. I don't wear them all the time and I don't carry them with me because it's a pain to carry a fragile pair of glasses around unless your actually wearing them. Glasses are too fragile to just stick in your pant pocket and cases for them are too bulky.
He still wore a wearable video camera into a movie theatre. What the hell did he think would happen?
A million times this.
It's like walking into a shopping mall with an AK-47. Sure, you know that you're just picking up some pink socks for your daughter, but that won't prevent every cop in a 1/2 mile radius from converging on you, guns drawn.
Doesn't matter... your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.
I presume you've never heard the term 'reductio ad absurdum?' Because that's a pretty good example of one.
And just why do you wear clothes to the movies
Er, because I don't want to spend a naked night in jail when I'm inevitably arrested for indecent exposure?
Look, it's really simple: A movie theater is someone else's private property. If the property owner says, "You may not have a recording device visible while in the theater," then you keep the phone/Glass/what-have-you in your pocket. Otherwise, you're violating the property owner's right to set their own rules (within reason, of course), and the property owner has the right to ask you to be removed if you refuse to leave voluntarily.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can think that such a thing as a "new problem" exists, and never realize that it's really just a variation on an existing theme.
I, for one, do not believe we should live in fear of murder, rape and violence of all sorts. I don't care how far the state has to go and how cruel it has to do on those criminals to stop and deter all violent crimes.
So it's less that you do not believe in "violence of all sorts," but rather that you believe the state should have a monopoly on violence.
Yea, that's pretty much the opposite of what I said.
You're interpretation of the 4th amendment is wrong. It isn't cut and dry. Here is an explanation by the EFF, which I hope would be considered a reliable source on Slashdot:
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
First off, I don't know what "You are interpretation" is supposed to mean.
Second, assuming you actually meant "your interpretation," Please note that I did not 'interpret' shit, but rather posted a moderately paraphrased wording of a portion of the Amendment, i.e. "warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin[g] to be seized."
That you disagree with the wording of the amendment itself is by no means a reflection on my understanding of its intent.
the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant
what is proper warrant for the different kinds of digital communication?
THATS THE QUESTION that none of the privacy trolls here on slashdot want to discuss.
I think the issue is rather that the anti-privacy advocates do everything in their power to avoid that question, since the answer is pretty cut-and-dried - warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin to be seized, pursuant to Amendment IV of the United States Constitution.
Don't like it? Amend the Constitution, or deal with it and operate within existing law. Feigned ignorance is no excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
This fanatical "activism" needs to be stopped.
Well, to do that, you're going to need to draft up a Constitutional Amendment that voids the First Amendment, then get 2/3 of state legislatures to ratify it.
Good luck with that, chief.
Sorry, but we found the word 'sex' on this webpage, so we're going to have to block it.
Again, dreadfully sorry about all that.
Sincerely.
Her Majesty's Nanny-State
Considering the source is Bennett Haselton, I think it's less a slashvertisment for the product so much as it is a slashvertisment for Bennett Haselton.
How easy is it to set up a fake tower?
Well, that depends: did you bring the money in wheelbarrows, trucks, or shipping containers?
Sorry, but I've fed your trolling enough for one week.
You go right ahead and keep thinking that the law doesn't apply to you because you disagree with how things are defined; I'm sure Dick Cheney will be glad to take your custom (he owns a chain of prisons, you see).
I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry.
He also had the right to tell the man to leave the property, as well as a right to report the potential felony he witnessed to the proper authorities; I don't know if it applies to copyright law, but in certain circumstances you are legally obligated to report a witnessed crime, or risk being charged as an accessory. So there's a possible CYA motive you're too emotionally involved to notice.
What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here.
From what I understand, at no point was the gentleman so much as detained; he chose to stay and be interviewed by the FBI, as well as gave them access to the contents of the device, all of his own free will. So what right, pray tell, was violated?
They made very specific false allegations without evidence
Such as? He was sitting in a movie theater with a recording device on his face. Logically speaking, that's no different that sitting there with a VHS camcorder on your shoulder - "dur, I'm not recording anything" is not a very convincing argument.
There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.
Yea, that's probably coming from your upper lip.
Another (automotive-related, even) example of the "premium" feature effect you describe:
Automatic transmissions. They are mechanically much simpler, and cheaper to manufacture, than old-fashioned manual transmissions.
Wow; you know absolutely nothing about automotive transmissions. I'm not trying to be a dick, either, I mean that purely as a statement of fact.
Start here, then check out this video and this video. that should bring you up to speed.
Good luck getting it to run without using the ECM.
http://www.megamanual.com/inde...
Just imagine what products would hit the market if there was enough consumer interest.
Cute how you completely ignore the parts of my post that show you don't understand what property rights are, and instead choose to harp on the one aspect that is purely a matter of opinion.
Oh, wait, it's not cute at all; it's that other thing... stupid? Yea, I think stupid is a fair word for it.
"The data present on this hard disk, dated between mmddyy and m2d2y2" or "the data transmitted between these two IP addresses on thus-and-such a date." It's not really any harder than "garage at 123 Main Street". Anything beyond a specified location (and with data, a date) is fishing beyond the scope of a warrant.
Anyway, that's how I'd do it; your prosecutors may vary.
Don't forget naming the "particular [data] to be seized." Otherwise, it's still a fishing expedition. I don't think "the data" is nearly specific enough; that's like saying "we're going to search your house for illegal stuff we think might be there," and I know that one doesn't fly in a real court of law.
So, here's a serious question: How hard would it be to have a warrant describe the data to be seized, as being present in thus-and-such a quanity in a specified place and timeframe? or something like that, whatever would confine the warrant to a specific lot of data, rather than vaguely all over the place.
For someone like your typical Slashdot reader? Probably not hard at all - we understand the technology and related terminology.
The problem is that legislators don't understand what they're making laws about.
Well, OK, maybe not so much "legislators" as "the lobbyists who ghost-write most legislation..."
McAffee products such as antivirus and especially smartfilter, is and pretty much always has been useless.
Worse than useless - default installs of McAffee products on box-store computer has long been held to be malware by many in the IT community, present company included.
Doesn't America have laws against Unlawful arrest and false imprisonment?
Two points:
1) Yes. And had he been unlawfully arrested and/or falsely imprisoned, he might have recourse. But neither of those things ever actually happened; RTFA.
2) I don't know why, but you linked to a UK government document, which does not apply within the borders of the United States of America.
Law enforcement and Government in general doesn't like when random citizens record things
Neither do private property owners, especially when the 'random citizens' who have been allowed on the property have been made abundantly aware they are explicitly denied from using recording devices while on said private property.
Federal law is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies.
Why do people think the FBI is some mystical über-crime fighting force?
Because their 'knowledge' of US law enforcement agencies is essentially based on a mix of CSI, Law & Order, 24, and a host of other fictional portrayals of federal agents.
I only wish I was kidding.
In other circumstances some functionary will come up to you and say "put that away please".
FTFY.
Obviously the feds don't get called every time some jackass is pointing a camera at a theater screen, lest it would not be considered newsworthy on the rare occasion it actually happens.
If you walk into the theater with a modern smart phone, you also have a video camera with you. Should you be interrogated by the FBI just because you carried your phone with you?
If you are holding the phone with the camera pointed at the screen, and the property owner suspects you are committing a felony, then yea, you probably should be interrogated.
See, me? I just avoid doing things that will get me fucked with. Especially when those "things" also happen to be federal crimes, because if I'm going to be fucked with, I'd rather it be over some bullshit than actual suspicion of crime.
Or, you know, he just didn't think it bothered anyone and no one said anything to him until the FBI dragged him out of a theater. Maybe he didn't see any reason for carrying two pairs of glasses around for doing different things. I only need glasses for reading. I don't wear them all the time and I don't carry them with me because it's a pain to carry a fragile pair of glasses around unless your actually wearing them. Glasses are too fragile to just stick in your pant pocket and cases for them are too bulky.
He still wore a wearable video camera into a movie theatre. What the hell did he think would happen?
A million times this.
It's like walking into a shopping mall with an AK-47. Sure, you know that you're just picking up some pink socks for your daughter, but that won't prevent every cop in a 1/2 mile radius from converging on you, guns drawn.
How would a cinema enforce a life-time, chain-wide ban?
Just keep bugging them and don't forget to lawyer up.
... You aren't a property owner, are you?
Doesn't matter... your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.
I presume you've never heard the term 'reductio ad absurdum?' Because that's a pretty good example of one.
And just why do you wear clothes to the movies
Er, because I don't want to spend a naked night in jail when I'm inevitably arrested for indecent exposure?
Look, it's really simple: A movie theater is someone else's private property. If the property owner says, "You may not have a recording device visible while in the theater," then you keep the phone/Glass/what-have-you in your pocket. Otherwise, you're violating the property owner's right to set their own rules (within reason, of course), and the property owner has the right to ask you to be removed if you refuse to leave voluntarily.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people can think that such a thing as a "new problem" exists, and never realize that it's really just a variation on an existing theme.
I live in an area with multiple unicorns. There are unicorn fights at least once every few months around here
FTFY.
Anecdote != evidence.
I, for one, do not believe we should live in fear of murder, rape and violence of all sorts. I don't care how far the state has to go and how cruel it has to do on those criminals to stop and deter all violent crimes.
So it's less that you do not believe in "violence of all sorts," but rather that you believe the state should have a monopoly on violence.
Yea, that's pretty much the opposite of what I said.
You're interpretation of the 4th amendment is wrong. It isn't cut and dry. Here is an explanation by the EFF, which I hope would be considered a reliable source on Slashdot:
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy
First off, I don't know what "You are interpretation" is supposed to mean.
Second, assuming you actually meant "your interpretation," Please note that I did not 'interpret' shit, but rather posted a moderately paraphrased wording of a portion of the Amendment, i.e. "warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin[g] to be seized."
That you disagree with the wording of the amendment itself is by no means a reflection on my understanding of its intent.
the debate is about WHEN and HOW...the government has the right to access your personal data with proper warrant
what is proper warrant for the different kinds of digital communication?
THATS THE QUESTION that none of the privacy trolls here on slashdot want to discuss.
I think the issue is rather that the anti-privacy advocates do everything in their power to avoid that question, since the answer is pretty cut-and-dried - warrants shall be issued describing the particular place to be searched, and the particular thin to be seized, pursuant to Amendment IV of the United States Constitution.
Don't like it? Amend the Constitution, or deal with it and operate within existing law. Feigned ignorance is no excuse.