I don't know where you got your ideas about the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment doesn't apply specifically to anything, except to what it says: searches and seizures. That is a broad class of actions that are not limited to any particular instrument, but rather to the government's mandate to protect our privacy rights, and not to violate them.
Subpoenas are issuable by the prosecution only on their authority as officers of the court, proxies for the judge, in non-criminal matters. Subpoenas are neither searches nor seizures, and are commands to witnesses or controllers of evidence to appear in court. They can be quashed by legal challenge to either its basis for issuance or its conflict with one's rights.
Our rights, and the Constitution's protection of them, trump unreasonable searches, seizures, and unjustified subpoenas. These are not legal hairs: they are the basis of how we live free in this country.
The Democrats are another story. They are in an aristocratic class that's generally privileged above the reach of the law (though DWI seems to give random cops power over them once in a while, and sometimes exposure in the media melts all their shields), even though they're slightly less privileged than their rival in the duopoly, the Republicans. They're all gradually being forced by the tide against the violations of our rights that have leaked out to play out roles to save themselves from being taken down with that outer layer that's run its course. But standing against only one or another form of these invasions isn't really enough. It lets the underlying implosion of the basis of our liberty, the expectations of the government to protect our rights, slip away in favor of shadowboxing just one implementation.
This whole regime of privacy invasion as destruction of the line between public and private domains is the problem. I'm not satisfied with just exhorting people to stand against NSLs, NSA wiretapping, TIA/MATRIX and other specific products. I will not be satisfied until there's a Privacy Amendment to the Constitution that requires the government to respect and enforce our privacy rights in unequivocal modern language, locking out the weasel room the past few generations have inserted into government interpretations of its instructions to protect us.
Maybe I won't see it. But I aim high, and shoot to kill. Maybe it's just an Overton Window strategy to drag the range of acceptable options back towards liberty and security, without a chance of actually getting all the way there. But that's where I'm at. I'm not compromising on liberty. Let the tyrants compromise with me. And with whoever else prefers my end of the freedom spectrum.
One approach would just copy this "walkin coffemaker", with buds pooting down pneumatic tubes into electric vaporization units at the tables. Maybe some hydroponics growing the buds, and some gratuitous robot harvester conveying the buds to a drier, then over to the pneumatic tubes.
But I think the way to go is to integrate the vaporizers into the couches, so the place really is a walkin bong, not just a central-smoke bongeteria. Invert the bong so the people are really inside of it, with the vaporizers bubbling up through some visible water tanks. With big aquarium tanks throughout, as the walls defining the interior spaces, bubbling away.
I might just build one here in Brooklyn, and call it "Vancouver". That would put this boro on the map for sure!
Repeatedly querying to extract every permutation of their API could be much larger than their underlying data (think of the combinatorics of only 5 query fields of only 5 values each, against only a couple of hundred values in the database, like many at sites), and far too much traffic for small sites (and probably for big sites, too, if their combinations of queries at all matches their traffic).
What could be even better would be if sites that don't want get that huge load just to have their data searchable in Google would be a "getindex" keyword, rather than just "noindex", that specifies a URL from which the site's data index can be retrieved by Google. The getindex keyword would also point to a schema URL that would let Google decode the index.
That way, the site in question could let all its data get added to Google's centrally searchable index, if it wants to allow it (otherwise, it would post "noindex"). Sites might even find themselves using Google's copy of their index for their own queries, rather than use CPU time querying their own local copy. Just like sites today use Google's index for searching their site's documents.
All they'd do would be to regenerate their index whenever they want, and maybe ping a Google API at Google.com that reloads their index from their site back into Google's updated index. Such an "index hosting" service would quickly become the norm for many sites, just as searching sites by searching their document index at Google is the norm today, but would have been considered weird a decade ago.
Well, it would be up to each person how far their recursive friend of a friend lists worked, but I'd say defaulting to just one degree of Kevin Bacon, though some more trustworthy friends could allow their friends, etc. And there's room for complex rules like if an incoming message comes from someone who's on the whitelist of each of three of my friends, it's an OK FoaF, but not if they're only friends of two or fewer friends.
That's how we manually decide we recognize people, and we're willing to work that way. I just want to see social trust networks automated, so it's easy, and they can be set by default. If they work even halfway, they might kill the critical mass of easy spamming that's eating up the Internet and annoying us so much.
Judging from how much more spam I get since the CAN-SPAM law supposedly outlawed it, I don't think these online registries do anything but register a high-value contact address. The Do-Not-Call list is different, because the telcos control the calls, and there's a lot more legal precedent (teeth) in counterattacking harassing phonecalls.
It's interesting how despite telcos like AT&T declaring they're going to police the Internet for copyright violation, and otherwise snoop content and traffic as they please, they don't seem to be implementing network spam filters, like with do-not-spam registries. Even though that would be very popular with users, and give the telcos each an excuse to get our contact lists, "to use as whitelists" (or whatever else they want).
There really should be a major push to enforce protecting our privacy. Every email system should operate with a whitelist by default, so only people you add (and maybe people on their whitelist) can get through to you. What would work even better would be micropayments to the recipient for each email they receive, with payments waived (or charged back in bulk or net) for those on the whitelist. Make the micropayments settable by the user (and variable even in the whitelist). Then spammers could pay me to spam me, if they can afford it, and I can make money off being spammed if I set the micropayments low enough. My associates will get to me for free, and new associates can pay to get my attention, then get it refunded if I accept their new contact (and then put them on the whitelist).
Otherwise the noise in our messaging systems really degrade their high value, and inhibit our making using them second nature. Just like what would have happened to the telephone if it were as cheap for telemarketers to annoy us as it is for them to spam us.
As I posted this reply, as I see with most pages, the FF status bar showed "Waiting for www.google-analytics.com" (very briefly, though sometimes it stalls with a blank page for quite a while). It also flashes "Waiting for ads.doubleclick.net", but doesn't get hung up, that I can recall.
I don't know whether the report is accurate. But if Yahoo has a way to avoid getting the blame like that, maybe even just by enforcing the placement of the links to them in site HTML, then they'll score a victory over Google.
Someone should open a store that does this with marijuana instead of coffee. I think total automation so the consumer doesn't have to do anything but suck in the nifty chemical would go even better with potheads than wired coffee addicts who need something to do with their ampup.
Something like this would put Vancouver on the map.
Hot pursuit itself requires more than "probable cause": it requires the police personally witnessing the criminal red handed (and seeing that the escaping perpetrator is a clear and present danger). The seizure (and possible search) must then be justified in court, with evidence establishing that probable cause had been met or exceeded.
So even in the application of our protected rights in the real world, probable cause and court approval are still required for searches or seizures to be reasonable.
Health inspectors and fire marshals are accessing businesses that are not purely private property, but places that the public has free entry into, who they are protecting. They don't have the power to enter pure private property, like a home, without probable cause and a warrant. Even so, those inspectors still must follow due process in order to enter even a semi-private building, not arbitrary whim.
I'd like to see some evidence that the US government can indeed enter with impunity an American house during combat the way you describe. Keep in mind that the Constitution allows the suspension of some rights protections, like Habeas Corpus, in times of "insurrection", which is exactly what the battles in the Civil War were - and why Lincoln was justified, even if he agonized over executing it, in suspending Habeas Corpus in some cases during that war.
You should look into the actual long discussions in the Supreme Court about what is required for a search and seizure to be reasonable. It is long-settled law in the US (on good reasons) that no search or seizure is reasonable without probable cause and a warrant. There are indeed exceptions, but they are all justified on the basis of "emergencies", just as you cite yourself.
And, not by accident, just as the Bush regime always cites, in order to make violating the Constitution seem necessary. But that doesn't mean it's Constitutional - just that it works.
Which is one reason why every American (except the traitors who know, but still believe Bush isn't a criminal) should be angry (and in the streets) over last week's revelation that Bush would ignore the Constitution if he conveniently ordered domestic military operations. A revelation by the same EFF exposing this FBI lie about the NSLs (and posted by Slashdot fave Cory Doctorow).
The difference is that Bush is president right now. He's the only one who's impeachable. This isn't just some exercise in history. Especially since Bush's abuses capitalize on all the sustainable, even if criminal and unacceptable, examples before him to finally do it to death and ruin the country. Otherwise, there'd be no unexploited unconstitutional powers left to steal, and Bush has blown them all away.
You should read Klein's _The Shock Doctrine_. It will explain how simple abuse of power by previous presidents is smalltime compared to Bush's ruination of the country.
I generally agree with you (generally agreeing with me;). But what does
They wrote this in to our core doctrines as an unalienable right of the people to protect themselves against tyranny in government. This is sort of a stupid idea today since we would start losing things we take for granted like the Internet to start, then US postal service, and the right to freely travel from state to state.
mean? How is the inalienable right of the people to protect ourselves against tyranny in government "sort of a stupid idea today"? Ben Franklin created the USPS, was the first Postmaster General. How do our rights against tyranny conflict with the Internet, the USPS, and our right to interstate travel?
Spoken like a true Canadian, from "the kinder, gentler nation". As in "Peace, Order and Good Government*" (*not valid in Quebec and sometimes Ontario, Alberta or Ottawa;).
A clickable "Details..." button on the Status Bar sounds like a great FF plugin. And if it aggregated (anonymous) stats to a collection/publishing website, those results might encourage sites to improve their loading performance. Could make some money selling access to the stats, maybe even send some money back to those who submitted the stats used (or maybe a lottery among them so they could get some real money).
With this NSL stunt, we see the entire Bush/Cheney Doctrine at its most blatant. The Doctrine is exploit any crisis first to expand Executive power far past Constitutional limits, without any accountability, then attend the crisis only so much as necessary to preserve those powers, then abuse them elsewhere without restraint. It's "Shock and Awe" for every occasion, especially domestically. Shocking and awful, though we're pretty numb to it by now, as the details finally start to leak out after years of digging by unsung heroes like the people at EFF.
You can look at any crisis, unexpected or manufactured, through the long 7 1/4 years of Bush/Cheney's presidency, and see that Doctrine hard at work (the only hard work done by the regime).
Or you can read Naomi Klein's book _The Shock Doctrine_ for the (literally) gory details.
Unlike normal subpoenas, NSLs do not require probable cause and you're never allowed to talk about having received one, leading to a lack of accountability that caused them to be widely abused.
The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No search or seizure is reasonable unless determined by a court to derive from probable cause for the search or seizure.
NSLs are inherent violations of the Constitution. Every time, even when they're "properly" used. When they're not even used according to the FBI's rules, there is not even a flimsy excuse for violating the Constitution.
Thousands of times, as a matter of course, or on a whim. Mueller and every other official with their hands dirty from these crooked anti-American NSLs should be impeached immediately. And then charged with criminal penalties, then slammed in prison with the people they were charged with busting. Because they're all criminals. Some, like Mueller, far more dangerous than others.
In a slightly less civilized country (but one with perhaps more dignity), Mueller would have been hanged from a tree or ripped to shreds by an angry mob. He should be grateful that we have the decency to just throw him in jail.
The best way to compete with Google Analytics would be to set it up somehow so that I never see "Waiting for Google Analytics" in my browser while a page is blank, stalled and not loading.
H.R. 811 runs contrary to the fundamental cornerstone of (HAVA) which is state flexibility in implementation of federal election reform mandates. H.R. 811 sets very specific standards for paper trail and audit procedures that currently don't exist in any state. It requires "durable" paper for paper trail receipts and calls for random audits of federal elections and creates a private right of action against a state for perceived violations. H.R. 811 also requires states to comply with all of its provisions in time for the November, 2008 presidential election. If H.R. 811 becomes law, every state, even those with paper trail and audit provisions currently in state law, will have to revise their laws to comply with new federal mandates. There is no appropriation for the implementation of H.R. 811, and HAVA itself has yet to be fully funded; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that states will be bearing most if not all of the implementation costs.
HAVA achieved implementation of new voting equipment and procedures within a four-year timeframe without disastrous unintended consequences only because Congress carefully crafted its provisions through extended consultation and significant input from organizations representing state and local elected officials and election administrators. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), the sponsor of H.R. 811, failed to consult with the states or NCSL in the process.
In other words, they like HAVA, and they don't want anything interfering with HAVA. But HAVA is a travesty. It was indeed a highly funded, no specifics set of new rules. That did practically nothing to ensure voting integrity, which is why new rules like HR811 and now this new (indadequate) bill by Holt even make sense. All HAVA did was transfer a lot of money through states to unaccountable digital machines, even replacing mechanical ones (like we have in NY) that are not problematic in vote verification. In other words, HAVA was a conjob, that wasted a ton of money and time making the problem worse, if anything, but giving those in the money chain an excuse to say "we fixed it already".
FWIW, I don't believe that Holt "failed to consult with the states", as the NCSL claims, considering all the hearings I've seen Holt have on the matter over the past several years.
No, the NCSL has its reasons, which are probably just bribes from digital machine vendors like Diebold that can't pass real tests, combined with laziness. But they're not good reasons. Certainly not good enough to sacrifice the integrity of our voting for another year or more. Unless, perhaps, you're a state legislator elected by that broken system, and you've come to depend on it, and fear an accountable system that's different from the one that gave you your power.
Like in Florida? Funny how that never happens. People just get discouraged, bitter and cynical. That's what the crooks count on. And so far, they're winning.
TrollMods only want to hear the good news from Iraq, though there's nearly none. But they'll still try to shut down the bad news. Which is why we can't believe a word that comes out of Iraq.
Crucially, the change to paper is opt-in, making it possible for local jurisdictions to govern their own choices
Yes, that is crucial. Because in the jurisdictions that are running rigged elections, that don't want to leave evidence of their rigging, or are just getting bribed by crappy non-verifiable voting machine vendors to buy the crap, despite how it fails any reasonable quality test, those jurisdictions don't have to change anything.
A good bill would require opt-out, and only subject to some accountability, like a judge's decision that there are extenuating circumstances, or a (paper trail) vote by the people in the jurisdiction.
I mean, who else but a crooked politicial or a salesperson for a crooked or broken machine could possibly have a reason to opt out, when it's all paid for by the Feds (you and me)? What kind of priorities put anything above the integrity and respectability of our most essential link to democracy, the counting of our votes?
A recent news report that armed robots had been pulled out of Iraq is mistaken, according to the company that makes the robot and the Army program manager.
Who here still believes an Iraqi military contractor telling us "it's just an urban legend" (or "it's just a conspiracy theory") when what we heard should have canceled their contract, because their product didn't work, and cost lives and the trust for our troops?
The contractor might even have been telling the truth. But at this late stage in the game, with so many lies, so many unnecessary deaths, so many $BILLIONS wasted and stolen, so many arrogant coverups, so much trust squandered for so many years, how can we possibly just trust anything coming out of Iraq that simply benefits some contractor's bottom line? Especially when it's the contractor's word we have to take, and not some independent investigator? Is it even possible to believe there is any such thing as an "independent investigator" anymore?
If the Erik Sofge, author of the _Popular Mechanics_ article Wired is claiming now to debunk, issued a correction now, after rechecking his sources in light of the new denial of his story, I might believe it. I'd still be at least a little suspicious that Sofge was changing his story now only because of some kind of "encouragement" from the robot maker and the Army. But with just Wired, the contractor and the Army's word to take, I don't believe a word of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you got your ideas about the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment doesn't apply specifically to anything, except to what it says: searches and seizures. That is a broad class of actions that are not limited to any particular instrument, but rather to the government's mandate to protect our privacy rights, and not to violate them.
Subpoenas are issuable by the prosecution only on their authority as officers of the court, proxies for the judge, in non-criminal matters. Subpoenas are neither searches nor seizures, and are commands to witnesses or controllers of evidence to appear in court. They can be quashed by legal challenge to either its basis for issuance or its conflict with one's rights.
Our rights, and the Constitution's protection of them, trump unreasonable searches, seizures, and unjustified subpoenas. These are not legal hairs: they are the basis of how we live free in this country.
The Democrats are another story. They are in an aristocratic class that's generally privileged above the reach of the law (though DWI seems to give random cops power over them once in a while, and sometimes exposure in the media melts all their shields), even though they're slightly less privileged than their rival in the duopoly, the Republicans. They're all gradually being forced by the tide against the violations of our rights that have leaked out to play out roles to save themselves from being taken down with that outer layer that's run its course. But standing against only one or another form of these invasions isn't really enough. It lets the underlying implosion of the basis of our liberty, the expectations of the government to protect our rights, slip away in favor of shadowboxing just one implementation.
This whole regime of privacy invasion as destruction of the line between public and private domains is the problem. I'm not satisfied with just exhorting people to stand against NSLs, NSA wiretapping, TIA/MATRIX and other specific products. I will not be satisfied until there's a Privacy Amendment to the Constitution that requires the government to respect and enforce our privacy rights in unequivocal modern language, locking out the weasel room the past few generations have inserted into government interpretations of its instructions to protect us.
Maybe I won't see it. But I aim high, and shoot to kill. Maybe it's just an Overton Window strategy to drag the range of acceptable options back towards liberty and security, without a chance of actually getting all the way there. But that's where I'm at. I'm not compromising on liberty. Let the tyrants compromise with me. And with whoever else prefers my end of the freedom spectrum.
One approach would just copy this "walkin coffemaker", with buds pooting down pneumatic tubes into electric vaporization units at the tables. Maybe some hydroponics growing the buds, and some gratuitous robot harvester conveying the buds to a drier, then over to the pneumatic tubes.
But I think the way to go is to integrate the vaporizers into the couches, so the place really is a walkin bong, not just a central-smoke bongeteria. Invert the bong so the people are really inside of it, with the vaporizers bubbling up through some visible water tanks. With big aquarium tanks throughout, as the walls defining the interior spaces, bubbling away.
I might just build one here in Brooklyn, and call it "Vancouver". That would put this boro on the map for sure!
Repeatedly querying to extract every permutation of their API could be much larger than their underlying data (think of the combinatorics of only 5 query fields of only 5 values each, against only a couple of hundred values in the database, like many at sites), and far too much traffic for small sites (and probably for big sites, too, if their combinations of queries at all matches their traffic).
What could be even better would be if sites that don't want get that huge load just to have their data searchable in Google would be a "getindex" keyword, rather than just "noindex", that specifies a URL from which the site's data index can be retrieved by Google. The getindex keyword would also point to a schema URL that would let Google decode the index.
That way, the site in question could let all its data get added to Google's centrally searchable index, if it wants to allow it (otherwise, it would post "noindex"). Sites might even find themselves using Google's copy of their index for their own queries, rather than use CPU time querying their own local copy. Just like sites today use Google's index for searching their site's documents.
All they'd do would be to regenerate their index whenever they want, and maybe ping a Google API at Google.com that reloads their index from their site back into Google's updated index. Such an "index hosting" service would quickly become the norm for many sites, just as searching sites by searching their document index at Google is the norm today, but would have been considered weird a decade ago.
You might come closer to getting it done if you considered it sometime when you're not using the individual units with window ventilation.
Well, it would be up to each person how far their recursive friend of a friend lists worked, but I'd say defaulting to just one degree of Kevin Bacon, though some more trustworthy friends could allow their friends, etc. And there's room for complex rules like if an incoming message comes from someone who's on the whitelist of each of three of my friends, it's an OK FoaF, but not if they're only friends of two or fewer friends.
That's how we manually decide we recognize people, and we're willing to work that way. I just want to see social trust networks automated, so it's easy, and they can be set by default. If they work even halfway, they might kill the critical mass of easy spamming that's eating up the Internet and annoying us so much.
Judging from how much more spam I get since the CAN-SPAM law supposedly outlawed it, I don't think these online registries do anything but register a high-value contact address. The Do-Not-Call list is different, because the telcos control the calls, and there's a lot more legal precedent (teeth) in counterattacking harassing phonecalls.
It's interesting how despite telcos like AT&T declaring they're going to police the Internet for copyright violation, and otherwise snoop content and traffic as they please, they don't seem to be implementing network spam filters, like with do-not-spam registries. Even though that would be very popular with users, and give the telcos each an excuse to get our contact lists, "to use as whitelists" (or whatever else they want).
There really should be a major push to enforce protecting our privacy. Every email system should operate with a whitelist by default, so only people you add (and maybe people on their whitelist) can get through to you. What would work even better would be micropayments to the recipient for each email they receive, with payments waived (or charged back in bulk or net) for those on the whitelist. Make the micropayments settable by the user (and variable even in the whitelist). Then spammers could pay me to spam me, if they can afford it, and I can make money off being spammed if I set the micropayments low enough. My associates will get to me for free, and new associates can pay to get my attention, then get it refunded if I accept their new contact (and then put them on the whitelist).
Otherwise the noise in our messaging systems really degrade their high value, and inhibit our making using them second nature. Just like what would have happened to the telephone if it were as cheap for telemarketers to annoy us as it is for them to spam us.
That's why I picked Vancouver. It's like I made a Cheech and Chong stoner joke.
As I posted this reply, as I see with most pages, the FF status bar showed "Waiting for www.google-analytics.com" (very briefly, though sometimes it stalls with a blank page for quite a while). It also flashes "Waiting for ads.doubleclick.net", but doesn't get hung up, that I can recall.
I don't know whether the report is accurate. But if Yahoo has a way to avoid getting the blame like that, maybe even just by enforcing the placement of the links to them in site HTML, then they'll score a victory over Google.
Ottawa is the capital city of Canada. Ontario is just one of its provinces, with its provincial capital city Toronto,
Perhaps a little ignorant of geography?
Someone should open a store that does this with marijuana instead of coffee. I think total automation so the consumer doesn't have to do anything but suck in the nifty chemical would go even better with potheads than wired coffee addicts who need something to do with their ampup.
Something like this would put Vancouver on the map.
Hot pursuit itself requires more than "probable cause": it requires the police personally witnessing the criminal red handed (and seeing that the escaping perpetrator is a clear and present danger). The seizure (and possible search) must then be justified in court, with evidence establishing that probable cause had been met or exceeded.
So even in the application of our protected rights in the real world, probable cause and court approval are still required for searches or seizures to be reasonable.
Health inspectors and fire marshals are accessing businesses that are not purely private property, but places that the public has free entry into, who they are protecting. They don't have the power to enter pure private property, like a home, without probable cause and a warrant. Even so, those inspectors still must follow due process in order to enter even a semi-private building, not arbitrary whim.
I'd like to see some evidence that the US government can indeed enter with impunity an American house during combat the way you describe. Keep in mind that the Constitution allows the suspension of some rights protections, like Habeas Corpus, in times of "insurrection", which is exactly what the battles in the Civil War were - and why Lincoln was justified, even if he agonized over executing it, in suspending Habeas Corpus in some cases during that war.
You should look into the actual long discussions in the Supreme Court about what is required for a search and seizure to be reasonable. It is long-settled law in the US (on good reasons) that no search or seizure is reasonable without probable cause and a warrant. There are indeed exceptions, but they are all justified on the basis of "emergencies", just as you cite yourself.
And, not by accident, just as the Bush regime always cites, in order to make violating the Constitution seem necessary. But that doesn't mean it's Constitutional - just that it works.
Which is one reason why every American (except the traitors who know, but still believe Bush isn't a criminal) should be angry (and in the streets) over last week's revelation that Bush would ignore the Constitution if he conveniently ordered domestic military operations . A revelation by the same EFF exposing this FBI lie about the NSLs (and posted by Slashdot fave Cory Doctorow).
The difference is that Bush is president right now. He's the only one who's impeachable. This isn't just some exercise in history. Especially since Bush's abuses capitalize on all the sustainable, even if criminal and unacceptable, examples before him to finally do it to death and ruin the country. Otherwise, there'd be no unexploited unconstitutional powers left to steal, and Bush has blown them all away.
You should read Klein's _The Shock Doctrine_. It will explain how simple abuse of power by previous presidents is smalltime compared to Bush's ruination of the country.
mean? How is the inalienable right of the people to protect ourselves against tyranny in government "sort of a stupid idea today"? Ben Franklin created the USPS, was the first Postmaster General. How do our rights against tyranny conflict with the Internet, the USPS, and our right to interstate travel?
Boil them in oil. Straight-up and poetic justice, in one handy, disposable package.
I'm talking about Slashdot. How shall we kill it? I've been wondering that for years. Is there a FF plugin to do it?
Spoken like a true Canadian, from "the kinder, gentler nation". As in "Peace, Order and Good Government*" (*not valid in Quebec and sometimes Ontario, Alberta or Ottawa ;).
A clickable "Details..." button on the Status Bar sounds like a great FF plugin. And if it aggregated (anonymous) stats to a collection/publishing website, those results might encourage sites to improve their loading performance. Could make some money selling access to the stats, maybe even send some money back to those who submitted the stats used (or maybe a lottery among them so they could get some real money).
With this NSL stunt, we see the entire Bush/Cheney Doctrine at its most blatant. The Doctrine is exploit any crisis first to expand Executive power far past Constitutional limits, without any accountability, then attend the crisis only so much as necessary to preserve those powers, then abuse them elsewhere without restraint. It's "Shock and Awe" for every occasion, especially domestically. Shocking and awful, though we're pretty numb to it by now, as the details finally start to leak out after years of digging by unsung heroes like the people at EFF.
You can look at any crisis, unexpected or manufactured, through the long 7 1/4 years of Bush/Cheney's presidency, and see that Doctrine hard at work (the only hard work done by the regime).
Or you can read Naomi Klein's book _The Shock Doctrine_ for the (literally) gory details.
No search or seizure is reasonable unless determined by a court to derive from probable cause for the search or seizure.
NSLs are inherent violations of the Constitution. Every time, even when they're "properly" used. When they're not even used according to the FBI's rules, there is not even a flimsy excuse for violating the Constitution.
Thousands of times, as a matter of course, or on a whim. Mueller and every other official with their hands dirty from these crooked anti-American NSLs should be impeached immediately. And then charged with criminal penalties, then slammed in prison with the people they were charged with busting. Because they're all criminals. Some, like Mueller, far more dangerous than others.
In a slightly less civilized country (but one with perhaps more dignity), Mueller would have been hanged from a tree or ripped to shreds by an angry mob. He should be grateful that we have the decency to just throw him in jail.
The best way to compete with Google Analytics would be to set it up somehow so that I never see "Waiting for Google Analytics" in my browser while a page is blank, stalled and not loading.
In other words, they like HAVA, and they don't want anything interfering with HAVA. But HAVA is a travesty. It was indeed a highly funded, no specifics set of new rules. That did practically nothing to ensure voting integrity, which is why new rules like HR811 and now this new (indadequate) bill by Holt even make sense. All HAVA did was transfer a lot of money through states to unaccountable digital machines, even replacing mechanical ones (like we have in NY) that are not problematic in vote verification. In other words, HAVA was a conjob, that wasted a ton of money and time making the problem worse, if anything, but giving those in the money chain an excuse to say "we fixed it already".
FWIW, I don't believe that Holt "failed to consult with the states", as the NCSL claims, considering all the hearings I've seen Holt have on the matter over the past several years.
No, the NCSL has its reasons, which are probably just bribes from digital machine vendors like Diebold that can't pass real tests, combined with laziness. But they're not good reasons. Certainly not good enough to sacrifice the integrity of our voting for another year or more. Unless, perhaps, you're a state legislator elected by that broken system, and you've come to depend on it, and fear an accountable system that's different from the one that gave you your power.
Like in Florida? Funny how that never happens. People just get discouraged, bitter and cynical. That's what the crooks count on. And so far, they're winning.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
TrollMods only want to hear the good news from Iraq, though there's nearly none. But they'll still try to shut down the bad news. Which is why we can't believe a word that comes out of Iraq.
Yes, that is crucial. Because in the jurisdictions that are running rigged elections, that don't want to leave evidence of their rigging, or are just getting bribed by crappy non-verifiable voting machine vendors to buy the crap, despite how it fails any reasonable quality test, those jurisdictions don't have to change anything.
A good bill would require opt-out, and only subject to some accountability, like a judge's decision that there are extenuating circumstances, or a (paper trail) vote by the people in the jurisdiction.
I mean, who else but a crooked politicial or a salesperson for a crooked or broken machine could possibly have a reason to opt out, when it's all paid for by the Feds (you and me)? What kind of priorities put anything above the integrity and respectability of our most essential link to democracy, the counting of our votes?
Who here still believes an Iraqi military contractor telling us "it's just an urban legend" (or "it's just a conspiracy theory") when what we heard should have canceled their contract, because their product didn't work, and cost lives and the trust for our troops?
The contractor might even have been telling the truth. But at this late stage in the game, with so many lies, so many unnecessary deaths, so many $BILLIONS wasted and stolen, so many arrogant coverups, so much trust squandered for so many years, how can we possibly just trust anything coming out of Iraq that simply benefits some contractor's bottom line? Especially when it's the contractor's word we have to take, and not some independent investigator? Is it even possible to believe there is any such thing as an "independent investigator" anymore?
If the Erik Sofge, author of the _Popular Mechanics_ article Wired is claiming now to debunk, issued a correction now, after rechecking his sources in light of the new denial of his story, I might believe it. I'd still be at least a little suspicious that Sofge was changing his story now only because of some kind of "encouragement" from the robot maker and the Army. But with just Wired, the contractor and the Army's word to take, I don't believe a word of it.