Sigh...Lets hope the petty dictator Obama is gone by then.
...
Not American (in which case, fuck you and your shitty government*), too young to vote, or just ignorant of the election/term schedule?
* Yes, I know my government sucks a big one, but when I hear foreigners badmouth it, I tend to default to the "I don't come in to your job and tell you how to flip burgers" mentality. Especially considering that, generally speaking, any government with the kind of power the US wields would be equally corrupt.
Obviously he is aware that the right belongs to...the defendant. Obviously an individual right can have a negative effect on society.
I fail to see where the right to not self-incriminate obviates a net negative effect on society. Please expound.
I suspect that you already know this, but I'll say it anyway because I like to hear myself talk. It makes me feel important.
I find your honesty refreshing.
The fact that you need to use the word "net" in the statement shows that there is some amount of good and some amount of bad that need to be calculated.
Not particularly; I use the term "net" because speaking in gross terms, one can make something that is actually innocuous seem detrimental. To me, net in this case means "once all is said and done, does it or does it not affect society in an objectively negative way?"
Not to say you don't have a point: In the words of H.L. Mencken (quoted elsewhere in the thread as well), "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
It is "obviously" bad for society that guilty people sometimes get away with illegal activities (at least I hope it is obvious). It is also bad that innocent people sometimes are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. The "right to silence" makes it easier for the guilty to be acquitted - which is "bad" for society, but at the same time it makes it harder for the innocent to be convicted - which is "good" for society. To decide if the "net" result is good or bad we as a society need to decide what value each of those outcomes are and make a judgement based on that. Unfortunately it is hard to decide how much each of the outcomes is "worth", and then also take into account the larger effects on society that either outcome might have (if EVERYONE is fearful of talking to the police, that is probably a negative outcome for example). All of these calculations have different outcomes depending on time and place (different societies and communities within them can have different values of importance placed on these factors, and different reactions to similar or different situations).
Thus it is possible that having the "right to silence" could have a net negative effect on society. The fact that there are fully functional human societies that do not have this right enshrined in their legal systems should act as a counter example to the extreme position that lack of such a right would be completely catastrophic - but of course none of these societies are the same as the USA in every other respect beyond the "right to silence".
To me, regardless of banter and bloviations, it all boils down to Blackstone''s Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," for the suffering of that one individual is an affront to justice, and therefore society, as a whole. Therefore, having the out provided by the 5th, regardless of whether or not it is invoked by guilty parties, is a net positive.
I mean, when you think about the implementation, it's much better IMO to live in a country with a presumption of innocence and a right to not self incriminate, than to live somewhere that the government can beat the living shit out of you until you say what they want you to say.
To make a real study for it, we could randomly assign half the counties across the USA to being "5th Amendment Free" zones and see how things work out over a few decades. Maybe we should do the same thing with each of the amendments....
You mean they still let you guys plead the 5th in the Constitution-Free Zone? That's a surprise, considering.
Curved or flexible phones will be a fad that ends quickly.
Consider the uselessness of a touch devices with a concave or floppy limp screen?
Agreed - the idea of a phone that's not flat comes off as kind of silly.
Now, a convex screen that somewhat follows the contour of, say, a forearm? Now that is an idea that might gain some useful traction - a smartwatch that doesn't look like someone glued a wrist strap to a handful of LEGO bricks might just have a market.
That aside, there are some 'self-healing' plastic coatings that I'd be interested in seeing on a cell phone. I pretty much don't care how it feels - I just want it to work well and be low-maintenance.
Nissan makes a self-healing clear coat for their cars, I wonder how difficult it would be to use the substance on a flexible, plastic screen.
I'd love to see $30 smart phones on the horizon - plastic-sandwiched OLED could help there.
Eff that, wake me when someone starts marketing these
The video is answering a different question from the one I asked.
What's that? A video made several years ago doesn't answer the question you just fucking asked? Travesty!
Yes, but all three of those people were guilty (Martha Stewart, very probably; Jones and Vick, beyond any doubt), so while it may have been better for them to remain silent, it would not have been better for the legal system as a whole.
Actually, it is good for the legal system, because if you had Clue 1 what you were talking about you would know that a just and effective legal system is based on the consideration of evidence, not coerced confessions. You know who bases their legal systems off coercion? Fascists.
In fact, in the 'rebuttal' video from Officer Bruch, he says at the 6:20 mark:
"You're going to lose [in the police interrogation room], unless you're purely innocent. On the other side of it, I don't want to put anyone who's innocent in jail. I try not to bring anyone in to the interview room who's innocent. And there are a couple that I have let walk away because they were innocent."
This appears to contradict Professor Duane, who said repeatedly that even if you're innocent, "it CANNOT help" to talk to the police, and that "you CANNOT talk to the police out of arresting you". Unless Bruch was lying, then Duane's statement was wrong
... or, YOU are basing your statements on a sampling error, as you assume that A) Bruch is telling the truth now and has never, ever fibbed, and B) that every cop in the nation has exactly the same mentality as Ofc. Bruch. Which would be a stupid assertion to make.
For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence.
You don't see the problem with a legal system that punishes people for exercising their legal rights? Wow. Just... just wow. Pray this moron never ends up on your jury, Slashdot.
4. Professor Duane's argument is about talking to the cops; I'm asking about the merits of the Fifth Amendment as it applies in a courtroom as well.
So, again you point out that one of your main arguments is that a years old video doesn't answer questions you just asked.
Jesus Christ, it's like being interrogated by a third grader! What's next, responding to every answer with, "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?"
5. Finally, are the police really that corrupt and/or stupid?
It's not necessarily that they're corrupt; if you had actually payed attention to the materials you're critiquing, you would know that police officers are trained to treat everyone as a suspect, to use every word you say AGAINST YOU in court (Obviously Bennett Hasselton has never actually read the Miranda Rights), and to attempt to get "criminals," i.e. citizens who have not yet been convicted, to implicate themselves. It's the system that's corrupted, an obvious fact that this cockmuncher seems to have completely missed, either by deliberation or by virtue of the fact that he's a fucking knob.
From reading your post, I assume you missed the part where OP said:
In fact cars almost never catch on fire in normal accidents
It really is a rare occurrence for a car to burst into flames as the result of an accident (considering the volume of MVAs that happen on a daily basis); it's practically unheard of for one to literally explode ala Die Hard/Mission Impossible/What-have-you.
All in all, the strategy is to try and keep the fuel in the tank at all costs, because once it's out, yes it is extremely dangerous and likely to burn violently.
Only when introduced to a source of ignition - I, personally, have seen fuel tanks rupture and empty during an accident, but did not catch fire due to a lack of spark or sufficient heat.
Side Note: This discussion, and an episode of Top Gear I watched last night, caused me to ponder: What would happen to a Tesla, or any electric car for that matter, if it were to come into contact with a live power line?
No it isn't. Those words have meaning. That's what words are for. To convey meaning.
People have differing interpretations of the same words, based on their individual preconceptions and prejudices. That's what people do - understand the meaning they want to understand.
If things were as simple as your post makes them out to be, there would be no debate as to the meaning of Constitutional Amendments.
If you want to spy on somebody, a better solution is a camera with a big zoom lens, on a tripod, on solid ground. Or a GoPro on a pole if you want to peer over fences.
Today perhaps. But remember, it wasn't all that long ago that a video camera was a big, bulky, unwieldy thing you had to manually stick a cartridge of analog tape into.
Right now toy drones might not be the best choice for peeping toms, but don't expect things to stay that way for long.
Why do you folks see conspiracy in everything Bill Gates does?
Oh, please, fanboy. The summary nor the vast majority of comments have fuck-all to do with Gates, other then mentioning that his foundation is bankrolling this intrusion; most people are talking about either the program or the corporation itself. Stop being so paranoid that you see attackers around every corner, sheesh.
Let's start by stealing private data from kindergarteners!
Aw, c'mon, man, you're not really that dense are you? It's not about "stealing data," whatever you mean by that - it's about creating a lifetime profile of a person that can be used for a myriad of reasons, from targeted advertising to targeted strikes.
Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.
Yea... this program is obviously quite well planned out, and by some rather competent people (Gates Foundation and Newscorp). I think what you meant to say is, 'never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance (and possibly idiocy),' which actually describes your post better than any other.
Mark this one as a troll, if you like, but I'm actually just expressing my non-orthodox opinion - which I don't dare do here using my Slashdot login.
That's called being weak in your convictions (and, where I hail from, a total chickenshit). Or, maybe you're afraid that certain reactions to your posts may have a negative effect on your social status... which is deliciously ironic, considering the topic at hand.
A thousand times this; does half of/. check out their brains anytime a Tesla story is posted, or do they really not understand that movie physics are not real physics?
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh...Lets hope the petty dictator Obama is gone by then.
...
Not American (in which case, fuck you and your shitty government*), too young to vote, or just ignorant of the election/term schedule?
* Yes, I know my government sucks a big one, but when I hear foreigners badmouth it, I tend to default to the "I don't come in to your job and tell you how to flip burgers" mentality. Especially considering that, generally speaking, any government with the kind of power the US wields would be equally corrupt.
Last time one of my friends was in Green Bay, he spent two hours asking directions to the Fudgepackers museum.
The key difference being, you're a lot less likely to get the shit beat out of you for being a smart-ass in Japan than Michigan.
I mean we all know that's why they create lifelike looking robots, instead of producing roomba's or drones.
From the stories I've heard about what goes on in the Olympic Village, the sex-bots would be superfluous.
Obviously he is aware that the right belongs to...the defendant. Obviously an individual right can have a negative effect on society.
I fail to see where the right to not self-incriminate obviates a net negative effect on society. Please expound.
I suspect that you already know this, but I'll say it anyway because I like to hear myself talk. It makes me feel important.
I find your honesty refreshing.
The fact that you need to use the word "net" in the statement shows that there is some amount of good and some amount of bad that need to be calculated.
Not particularly; I use the term "net" because speaking in gross terms, one can make something that is actually innocuous seem detrimental. To me, net in this case means "once all is said and done, does it or does it not affect society in an objectively negative way?"
Not to say you don't have a point: In the words of H.L. Mencken (quoted elsewhere in the thread as well), "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
It is "obviously" bad for society that guilty people sometimes get away with illegal activities (at least I hope it is obvious). It is also bad that innocent people sometimes are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. The "right to silence" makes it easier for the guilty to be acquitted - which is "bad" for society, but at the same time it makes it harder for the innocent to be convicted - which is "good" for society. To decide if the "net" result is good or bad we as a society need to decide what value each of those outcomes are and make a judgement based on that. Unfortunately it is hard to decide how much each of the outcomes is "worth", and then also take into account the larger effects on society that either outcome might have (if EVERYONE is fearful of talking to the police, that is probably a negative outcome for example). All of these calculations have different outcomes depending on time and place (different societies and communities within them can have different values of importance placed on these factors, and different reactions to similar or different situations).
Thus it is possible that having the "right to silence" could have a net negative effect on society. The fact that there are fully functional human societies that do not have this right enshrined in their legal systems should act as a counter example to the extreme position that lack of such a right would be completely catastrophic - but of course none of these societies are the same as the USA in every other respect beyond the "right to silence".
To me, regardless of banter and bloviations, it all boils down to Blackstone''s Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," for the suffering of that one individual is an affront to justice, and therefore society, as a whole. Therefore, having the out provided by the 5th, regardless of whether or not it is invoked by guilty parties, is a net positive.
I mean, when you think about the implementation, it's much better IMO to live in a country with a presumption of innocence and a right to not self incriminate, than to live somewhere that the government can beat the living shit out of you until you say what they want you to say.
To make a real study for it, we could randomly assign half the counties across the USA to being "5th Amendment Free" zones and see how things work out over a few decades. Maybe we should do the same thing with each of the amendments....
You mean they still let you guys plead the 5th in the Constitution-Free Zone? That's a surprise, considering.
Curved or flexible phones will be a fad that ends quickly.
Consider the uselessness of a touch devices with a concave or floppy limp screen?
Agreed - the idea of a phone that's not flat comes off as kind of silly.
Now, a convex screen that somewhat follows the contour of, say, a forearm? Now that is an idea that might gain some useful traction - a smartwatch that doesn't look like someone glued a wrist strap to a handful of LEGO bricks might just have a market.
That aside, there are some 'self-healing' plastic coatings that I'd be interested in seeing on a cell phone. I pretty much don't care how it feels - I just want it to work well and be low-maintenance.
Nissan makes a self-healing clear coat for their cars, I wonder how difficult it would be to use the substance on a flexible, plastic screen.
I'd love to see $30 smart phones on the horizon - plastic-sandwiched OLED could help there.
Eff that, wake me when someone starts marketing these
Obviously he is aware that the right belongs to...the defendant. Obviously an individual right can have a negative effect on society.
I fail to see where the right to not self-incriminate obviates a net negative effect on society. Please expound.
Sometimes Slashdot editors troll. They know that lots of readers like to argue, and that some like to argue so much, they'll argue with Bennett.
There's no arguing with this particular brand of stupid.
What's that? A video made several years ago doesn't answer the question you just fucking asked? Travesty!
Actually, it is good for the legal system, because if you had Clue 1 what you were talking about you would know that a just and effective legal system is based on the consideration of evidence, not coerced confessions. You know who bases their legal systems off coercion? Fascists.
For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence.
You don't see the problem with a legal system that punishes people for exercising their legal rights? Wow. Just... just wow. Pray this moron never ends up on your jury, Slashdot.
So, again you point out that one of your main arguments is that a years old video doesn't answer questions you just asked.
Jesus Christ, it's like being interrogated by a third grader! What's next, responding to every answer with, "Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?"
It's not necessarily that they're corrupt; if you had actually payed attention to the materials you're critiquing, you would know that police officers are trained to treat everyone as a suspect, to use every word you say AGAINST YOU in court (Obviously Bennett Hasselton has never actually read the Miranda Rights), and to attempt to get "criminals," i.e. citizens who have not yet been convicted, to implicate themselves. It's the system that's corrupted, an obvious fact that this cockmuncher seems to have completely missed, either by deliberation or by virtue of the fact that he's a fucking knob.
Bennett Hasselton, don't quit your day job.
Bennett Haselton is not a lawyer, a judge, or a cop. He has a degree in mathematics and is a computer professional.
... and, apparently, so shitty at what he does professionally that he has the time to write novels on topics of law he obviously does not understand.
Nothing about this guy says, "I am someone worth paying attention to." Nothing.
From reading your post, I assume you missed the part where OP said:
In fact cars almost never catch on fire in normal accidents
It really is a rare occurrence for a car to burst into flames as the result of an accident (considering the volume of MVAs that happen on a daily basis); it's practically unheard of for one to literally explode ala Die Hard/Mission Impossible/What-have-you.
All in all, the strategy is to try and keep the fuel in the tank at all costs, because once it's out, yes it is extremely dangerous and likely to burn violently.
Only when introduced to a source of ignition - I, personally, have seen fuel tanks rupture and empty during an accident, but did not catch fire due to a lack of spark or sufficient heat.
Side Note: This discussion, and an episode of Top Gear I watched last night, caused me to ponder: What would happen to a Tesla, or any electric car for that matter, if it were to come into contact with a live power line?
It'll be a laugh-riot right up until some Good Samaritan rats out your kid to a store employee and they initiate a Code Adam and lock down the store.
You know, if I patronized Walmart, I would totally do that. Constantly.
- Benjamin Einstein Lincoln
Aww, you missed the bonus point by not mentioning Tesla!
No it isn't. Those words have meaning. That's what words are for. To convey meaning.
People have differing interpretations of the same words, based on their individual preconceptions and prejudices. That's what people do - understand the meaning they want to understand.
If things were as simple as your post makes them out to be, there would be no debate as to the meaning of Constitutional Amendments.
If you want to spy on somebody, a better solution is a camera with a big zoom lens, on a tripod, on solid ground. Or a GoPro on a pole if you want to peer over fences.
Today perhaps. But remember, it wasn't all that long ago that a video camera was a big, bulky, unwieldy thing you had to manually stick a cartridge of analog tape into.
Right now toy drones might not be the best choice for peeping toms, but don't expect things to stay that way for long.
Why do you folks see conspiracy in everything Bill Gates does?
Oh, please, fanboy. The summary nor the vast majority of comments have fuck-all to do with Gates, other then mentioning that his foundation is bankrolling this intrusion; most people are talking about either the program or the corporation itself. Stop being so paranoid that you see attackers around every corner, sheesh.
Let's start by stealing private data from kindergarteners!
Aw, c'mon, man, you're not really that dense are you? It's not about "stealing data," whatever you mean by that - it's about creating a lifetime profile of a person that can be used for a myriad of reasons, from targeted advertising to targeted strikes.
Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.
Yea... this program is obviously quite well planned out, and by some rather competent people (Gates Foundation and Newscorp). I think what you meant to say is, 'never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance (and possibly idiocy),' which actually describes your post better than any other.
Mark this one as a troll, if you like, but I'm actually just expressing my non-orthodox opinion - which I don't dare do here using my Slashdot login.
That's called being weak in your convictions (and, where I hail from, a total chickenshit). Or, maybe you're afraid that certain reactions to your posts may have a negative effect on your social status... which is deliciously ironic, considering the topic at hand.
Calm down; He was asking you a question. Hence the question mark at the end of the sentence.
I, too, am moderately curious as to the answer, but I know that it's an unlikely one, as the road not traveled is impossible to quantify.
Fingerprints should be treated as user names, not as a substitute for passwords.
Ha, yea, I can just imagine the look on someone's face when they inevitable come across this error message:
The username you selected is in use; please choose another, or click here to reset your password.
WTF??!!
A thousand times this; does half of /. check out their brains anytime a Tesla story is posted, or do they really not understand that movie physics are not real physics?
I'm pretty sure if it's a good idea to have regulations on drones in one single country in the world, they're a good idea everywhere.
The world is not under the FAA's jurisdiction, which was the point I was making. But yea, you're pretty spot-on: "what's good for the goose" and all.
... and we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms.
Doubleplusgood!
While I was confused at first as well, I don't think the guy deserves to be called "stupid".
Ignorant, yes, but I agree - I doubt anyone on Slashdot knows the man personally, and surely not well enough to accurately gauge his intellect.
Probably just an issue of vernacular: 'drone' rolls of the tongue much more readily than 'remote controlled quadcopter.'
Sensationalism, for sure.
To that end, everything the FAA regulates is domestic. Otherwise it would be the IAA.
No, it's your interpretation of the term that's chock full of whatever. The term itself is generic and innocuous.