The conference didn't stop the presentation, the presenters withdrew it on advice of their own council since they believe they didn't have the legal authority to present the results of the research.
Put your tin foil away. People at institutions like Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute typically work on grants and funding that come with conditions, such as the funder owns the material or can dictate its dissemination. It sounds like the researchers discovered something they thought interesting, looked around and decided BlackHat would be a good place to present, then the lawyers pointed out that they hadn't yet received the required permissions per the funding agreement/grant so they have backed off for now.
An NSL is a directive to disclose info that may include the requirement not to reveal the disclosure occurred. An NSL is not a way to simply order someone to be quiet.
I recently saw an article that said, basically, by installing privacy software you make your machine more unique versus the other machines on the Internet and therefore make it EASIER to uniquely identify your machine. You may not be loading the cookies they try to ram down your browser's throat, and all the other persistent ways to track, but they can tell you DON'T load certain images, or keep certain cookies, and that too can be a clue for them.
When you perform a terrorist act you tell that YOU did it in order to intimidate. You don't deny you did it.
They did tell us they did it in a Twitter post right after the shootdown, but that was when they thought they had shot down a military transport. Then they discovered the plane was a civilian airliner so they deleted the post and shifted into denial mode. Nope, didn't shoot it, never had such a missile system, nothing to see so please go away.
I also find funny Putin's explanation that it is Ukraine's fault since if they were to have just rolled over and let the fighters have what they want, then they wouldn't have been shooting at planes. Officer, it isn't my fault the guy got shot, he got in the way of my bullet so it's his fault!
The problem with your description is that some of the laws Tesla is now fighting are recent legislation or regulations. For example, in New Jersey, the regulation prohibiting Tesla from performing direct sales was only put in place on March 11, 2014 by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (composed of political appointees of the Governor). Likewise in New York, they are looking at passing legislation to ban the way Tesla is selling vehicles.
It is/was legal but being made illegal. While aspects of the requirement of franchises may be in previous laws, Tesla built their model to comply with those laws, so the dealership associations are having their paid stooges rewrite the laws to block Tesla.
Traditional car companies see Tesla as a threat. They see Tesla is using a different sales model, namely that Tesla sells their cars directly to the consumer instead of using a dealership, and then the big guys use this difference to try and block Tesla from selling cars by influencing state legislatures (with things like money) to pass laws that say new cars can only be be sold through a franchised car dealership, not directly. The car companies know that all the new US car companies in the last century that have tried to enter market using dealership have failed for a few reasons, but one big one is that the new guy is too small so the dealership is one that would handle multiple brands, and as the new unproven line, the cars don't get pushed, so wither and die. That is what the big manufacturers want, for Tesla to fail, and they are paying their lawmakers to create laws to make Tesla's job impossible.
My problem with these kind of articles is how they state it as 'case closed'. All this is is a theory of what is happening. Maybe it has a lot of solid science behind it, maybe it is even right, but right now it is still just a theory for us to explain what is happening. Using words like "Now an international team has solved the mystery" makes it sound like there is no debate, this is the answer, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. While I am not a scientist, I come close enough, and this fails the scientific method, at least in how the reporting represents it.
My guess is the Tesla hitting one of the "street poles" (telephone pole?) mentioned while sliding sideways at a high rate of speed was the cause of the car being split in two. This differs from Interstates in a very important way, namely, most poles on or near highways are designed either to break away if struck, or have crash barriers around them to absorb the crash energy. Poles on city streets on the other hand are designed for impacts at city street speeds, not highway speeds. At city street speeds cars crumple, not subdivide. An aluminum light pole with a breakaway is a lot different than a one foot diameter wood pole cemented into the ground when hit.
The idea behind fast-flux is to make blocking or recognizing an activity based on IP addresses essentially impossible, since by the time the bad IP address is known, communicated, and entered into whatever system is doing the blocking or detection, the addresses have changed to a new set and the race starts over. 5 to 15 minutes is a common rolling period for these people.
You can't, but in order to regain control, all they need to do is successfully register ONE of them so when the botnet swarm tries to phone home it finds that one and they are back in business. Based on the summary, each week it tries a different list of random domain names so they can keep trying, week after week, until they succeed. I am also presuming these domains are spread across multiple TLD so it isn't just a matter of having the registrar for.com or.org block them. They would also need to get all the country TLD registrars to block the list as well.
Not true about reckless endangerment. For a person to be guilty of that crime, they must knowingly have committed the act that caused others to be endangered and known that it could endanger them (or at least a reasonable person would have known). The "intent" part is when caution was thrown to the wind. A drunk driver doesn't intent to kill the minivan full of people, but they chose to drink then to drive, and that is where the intent came in. They intended to be reckless.
Actually, this can happen to a fashion in the United States as well. In a trial, both sides are required to give the list of witnesses and evidence to the other side in advance of the trial so they can perform whatever investigation/interviews/... they need to. The witness out of nowhere seen in movies doesn't happen. There are however two exceptions I know of: 1) one side presents something, like a statement from a witness not contained in depositions, and the other side then produces a witness to refute it, and 2) when new evidence is discovered that didn't allow time for the pretrial notification (they still have to convince the judge it really is newly discovered and has a significant impact on the prosecution/defense). Having a witness you know of and not revealing who it is until you want to call them to the stand, would fail the above test and the witness would not be allowed to testify, no matter what you feel they would have to say.
I think the term "stop and identify" is not being used correctly, since your quote says " to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person". Being stopped and asked is a lot different than being arrested and asked. One arrested they have a right to know who you are for processing. Just being stopped does not carry that requirement. That doesn't mean the Texas law isn't absurd though (haven't read it).
Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Funny, I tried googling your quote to see what congressman said it and when, but Google didn't find any matches. I also tried some variants of the wording but still no luck. It seems to me that such a quote would produce a lot of search results if it happened. Citation please?
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
That is what I have been saying.
It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
It is not about the world or how I or you think it should be or is. It is about acknowledging that we will always disagree about what color the world is; and agreeing to some guidelines that both of us think is acceptable enough to make the world as awesome as possible. It is about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say; why it says it; and what happens if you ignore it. That document is the end-all-be-all of our entire system of government. It is supposed to sit there for those moments when there is doubt as to whether or not something the government is doing is acceptable by the people. It is supposed to answer whatever burning question you have as to whether or not the government has the right to do something. That is truly what the Constitution is: a definition of the government's rights, not ours; we KNOW our rights for they are inherent and inalienable. We collectively decided that we will "give up" some, specific, rights in the interest of obtaining all the benefits a central government has to offer. To make it absolutely clear which rights we were willing to give up, and what the government could do with them, the Constitution was written. It can only do its job if we always agree on what it says. Not what it should say, but what it actually says.
Agreed.
When somebody decides "Section {whatever} doesn't apply in situation X because I don't think it should" (and that is what any argument boils down to if you're not citing some other part of the Constitution), they change the Constitution. The moment somebody justifies violating the Constitution with a reason other than some other part of the Constitution, that justification has just been implicitly included in the document. As those other reasons are not codified in the Constitution, they are included arbitrarily and open to any interpretation the powers de jour feel like. And as the entire decision to include or exclude is without rules or bounds, that means the government's powers are likewise without rules or bounds.
Also agree, but then the problem of language is always there. Two people can read the same sentence in the Constitution and think it means two different things. To quote Bill Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
By saying there are exceptions to the rules as specified in the Constitution, you are saying there is no limit to the government's power for any right, at any time, can be justified as being too important; or too minor; or not intended by the framers; or not applicable to the times; to deny to the government. That is why we're here today, in this situation. Because at some point in the past, somebody decided that Section XYZ didn't apply. So now anybody and their mother is using that same logic to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The debate going on today is "when can the government violate citizen's rights?", but that question was already answered over 250 years ago with a detailed list!
I mostly agree, but now we get to the crux of the problem. My statements have been about how rights have exceptions because at times they will conf
You do realize that there is no firm consensus of what "free" and "brave" mean in that statement
Ah, so it means giving up our freedoms for safety, then. Yes, that's what free and brave mean.
I think your English didn't match what you were trying to say, but either way I did not say that, I just was responding to your defense of saying the there was no room for debate by your quoting a line from the National Anthem.
Some people have a different view of the meaning and how we achieve them, and you feel people with a different view from you "who says otherwise should move to North Korea". Nice argument style.
You're defending people who want to discard our fundamental freedoms and give the government all kinds of unchecked power for 'safety.' You cannot defend them. There are no excuses.
Again, I did not say that, rather my intention is to look at the issue, not a polarized and inflammatory restatement of it. I am not trying to defend "people who want to discard our fundamental freedoms and give the government all kinds of unchecked power". I find them a blight to our society. I just wanted to explain that rights have limits, such as threatening to kill your spouse/neighbor/teacher/President isn't protected speech under the First Amendment, or at least very few people would think so. To claim speech is absolutely protected is to say there can be no crime of assault (remember, the courts have held actions are also a form of speech), nor is there any crime of fraud (those false statements would be protected speech), not even perjury (again, protected), plus many more such examples. Is that what you believe?
Instead of continuing this since I believe your viewpoint is clear, I will just say that a famous quote by Mark Twain about arguing is coming to mind...
It only works in my favor, because I'm pro-freedom.
That statement speaks for reems.
Since we're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," there is no room for debate as to what kind of country this is supposed to be.
You do realize that there is no firm consensus of what "free" and "brave" mean in that statement, so it seems there is room for debate, though I am sure you will state your interpretation and say it is the correct one. Some people have a different view of the meaning and how we achieve them, and you feel people with a different view from you "who says otherwise should move to North Korea". Nice argument style.
I do not believe that the Constitution is interpreted as what comes first overrides everything that comes later.
What? That's not what I said at all.
Then I misunderstood. You said "The first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, and it comes after article three, section 3" with the implication being the order mattered. I interpreted your statement as a rational for why the first amendment did NOT nullify the constitutional definition of treason (treason was defined first). Did you instead mean you feel the First Amendment comes later so makes meaningless the definition of treason in Article Three, Section 3 as it relates to something a person says or prints? I think the courts have never seen it that way, nor the founding fathers who passed both within a few years of each other.
Look, the amendment that created prohibition was later overridden by the one that canceled it out. That's kind of the point of an amendment to the constitution; it amends the constitution, thereby changing it. Since the first amendment came later, it overrides everything that came before it in the relevant areas.
Of course, the first line of the 21st Amendment which abolished prohibition is "The Eighteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed". Kind of makes clear that it intended to remove enforcement of the earlier amendment. If an amendment and an earlier section of the Constitution were to conflict in a manner that was not intended by the framers, I believe you would see a court challenge to establish which conflicting law would prevail. It is this need to evaluate and decide such conflicts that I brought up in my original post, including many of those rights that are implied but not explicitly spelled out, such as the right to privacy. Or do you think it should be constitutionally protected to walk down main street with sarin gas grenades strapped to my chest (2nd Amendment) shouting that I will go to the local school and throw them at kids (1st Amendment)? If the 1sth Amendment is absolute then verbal threats, like threatening to kill someone, can never be illegal. Where is the line? Of course, saying there is a line means there are caveats to the amendments.
Anyone who says otherwise should move to North Korea.
Really? Tell me, is it therefore OK if they have an opinion that differs from yours to believe YOU should move to a hostile country? Or does this philosophy only work in your favor?
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment?
The first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, and it comes after article three, section 3. Remember how constitutional amendments are supposed to work...? Apparently, no one does.
I do not believe that the Constitution is interpreted as what comes first overrides everything that comes later. Also, I was specifically giving a counter example to the claim "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats". The clause about Treason in the Constitution sounded like a caveat to his interpretation that the right to speak was absolute; was I wrong that it is a caveat, or can a person never commit treason through speech, including through print?
The problem with that argument is that your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats. Your right to not be slandered is not. The Constitution grants Congress various powers. None of which include violating the Constitution in any way, shape or form.
So from a true purist's point of view, there is never a valid reason to violate certain rights, because nobody has that right.
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
In my previous post I was trying to point out that there are exceptions to rights since rights can be in conflict, including the right to free speech. Your concern however demonstrates a fear the founding fathers had in creating the Bill of Rights, namely that a person could construe the listed rights as a definitive list, or as a list of rights that are more important than those not listed, such as the pursuit of happiness including life without being slandered. The "right to privacy" suffers from this since privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I am not a constitutional scholar so I am sure there are many such examples of conflicts in rights, but I can only list those I can readily see.
As I said, I do not have access to all the information the Board did, but based on what I know I disagree with the Board's conclusion, as I believe you do. It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
The summary is deliberately phrased in a biased fashion by presenting the issue as a dichotomy, and preemptively labeling the NSA's actions as violations. All rights have limitations, and it is essentially the legislature and the court's job to weight benefit versus the cost for those rights. For example, as the saying goes, your right to swing your arms stops at my nose. Another example is a person's right to free speech does not include libel and slander. When two or more rights conflict, lawmakers and the courts must sort out who's rights win. So from a purist's point of view, there are valid reasons to "violate" certain rights, since use or protection of one right may violate another.
Does your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have more or less weight than your rights under the 4th amendment et.al.? It is an open ended question since the answer may be different for different circumstances. You may feel that your right to privacy from the government is absolute and should always win. That is a valid belief. Other may feel differently given a significant threat from foreign groups hellbent on harming the US, which is also a valid belief. We elect our representatives to make the laws to create the balance resulting from these kinds of conflicts. It is not a black-and-white problem as is often portrayed on Slashdot, such as you have done above. I can see the arguments on the other side as well.
That being said, I do feel this group is probably biased in favor of the government and that the NSA has overstepped their authority.
You may still be on the hook. A "signature" is when you write an identifying mark. It doesn't have to be your name, though that is the most common. This is even referenced in movies where people put a big X as their signature. You could sign "Barack Obama" and legally it would still be binding on you. The question is, would the phrase "I don't agree" count as a signature or a statement? If you put it on the signature line when asked to sign, especially as a "scrawl", you may have a problem, while anywhere else you would probably be OK.
FYI - IANAL, though I have filed an won as a Pro Se.
Slashdot Mirror
The conference didn't stop the presentation, the presenters withdrew it on advice of their own council since they believe they didn't have the legal authority to present the results of the research.
Put your tin foil away. People at institutions like Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute typically work on grants and funding that come with conditions, such as the funder owns the material or can dictate its dissemination. It sounds like the researchers discovered something they thought interesting, looked around and decided BlackHat would be a good place to present, then the lawyers pointed out that they hadn't yet received the required permissions per the funding agreement/grant so they have backed off for now.
An NSL is a directive to disclose info that may include the requirement not to reveal the disclosure occurred. An NSL is not a way to simply order someone to be quiet.
I recently saw an article that said, basically, by installing privacy software you make your machine more unique versus the other machines on the Internet and therefore make it EASIER to uniquely identify your machine. You may not be loading the cookies they try to ram down your browser's throat, and all the other persistent ways to track, but they can tell you DON'T load certain images, or keep certain cookies, and that too can be a clue for them.
When you perform a terrorist act you tell that YOU did it in order to intimidate. You don't deny you did it.
They did tell us they did it in a Twitter post right after the shootdown, but that was when they thought they had shot down a military transport. Then they discovered the plane was a civilian airliner so they deleted the post and shifted into denial mode. Nope, didn't shoot it, never had such a missile system, nothing to see so please go away.
I also find funny Putin's explanation that it is Ukraine's fault since if they were to have just rolled over and let the fighters have what they want, then they wouldn't have been shooting at planes. Officer, it isn't my fault the guy got shot, he got in the way of my bullet so it's his fault!
This is what they say, now let's see what they do! I truly hope they are true to their words, including behind the scenes where we don't normally see.
The problem with your description is that some of the laws Tesla is now fighting are recent legislation or regulations. For example, in New Jersey, the regulation prohibiting Tesla from performing direct sales was only put in place on March 11, 2014 by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (composed of political appointees of the Governor). Likewise in New York, they are looking at passing legislation to ban the way Tesla is selling vehicles.
NY dealers have Tesla ban in sights
It is/was legal but being made illegal. While aspects of the requirement of franchises may be in previous laws, Tesla built their model to comply with those laws, so the dealership associations are having their paid stooges rewrite the laws to block Tesla.
Traditional car companies see Tesla as a threat. They see Tesla is using a different sales model, namely that Tesla sells their cars directly to the consumer instead of using a dealership, and then the big guys use this difference to try and block Tesla from selling cars by influencing state legislatures (with things like money) to pass laws that say new cars can only be be sold through a franchised car dealership, not directly. The car companies know that all the new US car companies in the last century that have tried to enter market using dealership have failed for a few reasons, but one big one is that the new guy is too small so the dealership is one that would handle multiple brands, and as the new unproven line, the cars don't get pushed, so wither and die. That is what the big manufacturers want, for Tesla to fail, and they are paying their lawmakers to create laws to make Tesla's job impossible.
My problem with these kind of articles is how they state it as 'case closed'. All this is is a theory of what is happening. Maybe it has a lot of solid science behind it, maybe it is even right, but right now it is still just a theory for us to explain what is happening. Using words like "Now an international team has solved the mystery" makes it sound like there is no debate, this is the answer, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. While I am not a scientist, I come close enough, and this fails the scientific method, at least in how the reporting represents it.
OK, I feel better now.
If I was China I would ban western products.
That is China's goal. It is just their stated reasons that are suspect.
My guess is the Tesla hitting one of the "street poles" (telephone pole?) mentioned while sliding sideways at a high rate of speed was the cause of the car being split in two. This differs from Interstates in a very important way, namely, most poles on or near highways are designed either to break away if struck, or have crash barriers around them to absorb the crash energy. Poles on city streets on the other hand are designed for impacts at city street speeds, not highway speeds. At city street speeds cars crumple, not subdivide. An aluminum light pole with a breakaway is a lot different than a one foot diameter wood pole cemented into the ground when hit.
The idea behind fast-flux is to make blocking or recognizing an activity based on IP addresses essentially impossible, since by the time the bad IP address is known, communicated, and entered into whatever system is doing the blocking or detection, the addresses have changed to a new set and the race starts over. 5 to 15 minutes is a common rolling period for these people.
You can't, but in order to regain control, all they need to do is successfully register ONE of them so when the botnet swarm tries to phone home it finds that one and they are back in business. Based on the summary, each week it tries a different list of random domain names so they can keep trying, week after week, until they succeed. I am also presuming these domains are spread across multiple TLD so it isn't just a matter of having the registrar for .com or .org block them. They would also need to get all the country TLD registrars to block the list as well.
Not true about reckless endangerment. For a person to be guilty of that crime, they must knowingly have committed the act that caused others to be endangered and known that it could endanger them (or at least a reasonable person would have known). The "intent" part is when caution was thrown to the wind. A drunk driver doesn't intent to kill the minivan full of people, but they chose to drink then to drive, and that is where the intent came in. They intended to be reckless.
Actually, this can happen to a fashion in the United States as well. In a trial, both sides are required to give the list of witnesses and evidence to the other side in advance of the trial so they can perform whatever investigation/interviews/... they need to. The witness out of nowhere seen in movies doesn't happen. There are however two exceptions I know of: 1) one side presents something, like a statement from a witness not contained in depositions, and the other side then produces a witness to refute it, and 2) when new evidence is discovered that didn't allow time for the pretrial notification (they still have to convince the judge it really is newly discovered and has a significant impact on the prosecution/defense). Having a witness you know of and not revealing who it is until you want to call them to the stand, would fail the above test and the witness would not be allowed to testify, no matter what you feel they would have to say.
I think the term "stop and identify" is not being used correctly, since your quote says " to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person". Being stopped and asked is a lot different than being arrested and asked. One arrested they have a right to know who you are for processing. Just being stopped does not carry that requirement. That doesn't mean the Texas law isn't absurd though (haven't read it).
Once, a congressman from the United States said of his constituents, "There are no law-abiding citizens, there are only citizens who haven't yet broken a law."
Funny, I tried googling your quote to see what congressman said it and when, but Google didn't find any matches. I also tried some variants of the wording but still no luck. It seems to me that such a quote would produce a lot of search results if it happened. Citation please?
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
That is what I have been saying.
It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
It is not about the world or how I or you think it should be or is. It is about acknowledging that we will always disagree about what color the world is; and agreeing to some guidelines that both of us think is acceptable enough to make the world as awesome as possible. It is about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say; why it says it; and what happens if you ignore it. That document is the end-all-be-all of our entire system of government. It is supposed to sit there for those moments when there is doubt as to whether or not something the government is doing is acceptable by the people. It is supposed to answer whatever burning question you have as to whether or not the government has the right to do something. That is truly what the Constitution is: a definition of the government's rights, not ours; we KNOW our rights for they are inherent and inalienable. We collectively decided that we will "give up" some, specific, rights in the interest of obtaining all the benefits a central government has to offer. To make it absolutely clear which rights we were willing to give up, and what the government could do with them, the Constitution was written. It can only do its job if we always agree on what it says. Not what it should say, but what it actually says.
Agreed.
When somebody decides "Section {whatever} doesn't apply in situation X because I don't think it should" (and that is what any argument boils down to if you're not citing some other part of the Constitution), they change the Constitution. The moment somebody justifies violating the Constitution with a reason other than some other part of the Constitution, that justification has just been implicitly included in the document. As those other reasons are not codified in the Constitution, they are included arbitrarily and open to any interpretation the powers de jour feel like. And as the entire decision to include or exclude is without rules or bounds, that means the government's powers are likewise without rules or bounds.
Also agree, but then the problem of language is always there. Two people can read the same sentence in the Constitution and think it means two different things. To quote Bill Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
By saying there are exceptions to the rules as specified in the Constitution, you are saying there is no limit to the government's power for any right, at any time, can be justified as being too important; or too minor; or not intended by the framers; or not applicable to the times; to deny to the government. That is why we're here today, in this situation. Because at some point in the past, somebody decided that Section XYZ didn't apply. So now anybody and their mother is using that same logic to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The debate going on today is "when can the government violate citizen's rights?", but that question was already answered over 250 years ago with a detailed list!
I mostly agree, but now we get to the crux of the problem. My statements have been about how rights have exceptions because at times they will conf
You do realize that there is no firm consensus of what "free" and "brave" mean in that statement
Ah, so it means giving up our freedoms for safety, then. Yes, that's what free and brave mean.
I think your English didn't match what you were trying to say, but either way I did not say that, I just was responding to your defense of saying the there was no room for debate by your quoting a line from the National Anthem.
Some people have a different view of the meaning and how we achieve them, and you feel people with a different view from you "who says otherwise should move to North Korea". Nice argument style.
You're defending people who want to discard our fundamental freedoms and give the government all kinds of unchecked power for 'safety.' You cannot defend them. There are no excuses.
Again, I did not say that, rather my intention is to look at the issue, not a polarized and inflammatory restatement of it. I am not trying to defend "people who want to discard our fundamental freedoms and give the government all kinds of unchecked power". I find them a blight to our society. I just wanted to explain that rights have limits, such as threatening to kill your spouse/neighbor/teacher/President isn't protected speech under the First Amendment, or at least very few people would think so. To claim speech is absolutely protected is to say there can be no crime of assault (remember, the courts have held actions are also a form of speech), nor is there any crime of fraud (those false statements would be protected speech), not even perjury (again, protected), plus many more such examples. Is that what you believe?
Instead of continuing this since I believe your viewpoint is clear, I will just say that a famous quote by Mark Twain about arguing is coming to mind...
It only works in my favor, because I'm pro-freedom.
That statement speaks for reems.
Since we're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," there is no room for debate as to what kind of country this is supposed to be.
You do realize that there is no firm consensus of what "free" and "brave" mean in that statement, so it seems there is room for debate, though I am sure you will state your interpretation and say it is the correct one. Some people have a different view of the meaning and how we achieve them, and you feel people with a different view from you "who says otherwise should move to North Korea". Nice argument style.
I do not believe that the Constitution is interpreted as what comes first overrides everything that comes later.
What? That's not what I said at all.
Then I misunderstood. You said "The first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, and it comes after article three, section 3" with the implication being the order mattered. I interpreted your statement as a rational for why the first amendment did NOT nullify the constitutional definition of treason (treason was defined first). Did you instead mean you feel the First Amendment comes later so makes meaningless the definition of treason in Article Three, Section 3 as it relates to something a person says or prints? I think the courts have never seen it that way, nor the founding fathers who passed both within a few years of each other.
Look, the amendment that created prohibition was later overridden by the one that canceled it out. That's kind of the point of an amendment to the constitution; it amends the constitution, thereby changing it. Since the first amendment came later, it overrides everything that came before it in the relevant areas.
Of course, the first line of the 21st Amendment which abolished prohibition is "The Eighteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed". Kind of makes clear that it intended to remove enforcement of the earlier amendment. If an amendment and an earlier section of the Constitution were to conflict in a manner that was not intended by the framers, I believe you would see a court challenge to establish which conflicting law would prevail. It is this need to evaluate and decide such conflicts that I brought up in my original post, including many of those rights that are implied but not explicitly spelled out, such as the right to privacy. Or do you think it should be constitutionally protected to walk down main street with sarin gas grenades strapped to my chest (2nd Amendment) shouting that I will go to the local school and throw them at kids (1st Amendment)? If the 1sth Amendment is absolute then verbal threats, like threatening to kill someone, can never be illegal. Where is the line? Of course, saying there is a line means there are caveats to the amendments.
Anyone who says otherwise should move to North Korea.
Really? Tell me, is it therefore OK if they have an opinion that differs from yours to believe YOU should move to a hostile country? Or does this philosophy only work in your favor?
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment?
The first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, and it comes after article three, section 3. Remember how constitutional amendments are supposed to work...? Apparently, no one does.
I do not believe that the Constitution is interpreted as what comes first overrides everything that comes later. Also, I was specifically giving a counter example to the claim "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats". The clause about Treason in the Constitution sounded like a caveat to his interpretation that the right to speak was absolute; was I wrong that it is a caveat, or can a person never commit treason through speech, including through print?
The problem with that argument is that your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats. Your right to not be slandered is not. The Constitution grants Congress various powers. None of which include violating the Constitution in any way, shape or form.
So from a true purist's point of view, there is never a valid reason to violate certain rights, because nobody has that right.
So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
In my previous post I was trying to point out that there are exceptions to rights since rights can be in conflict, including the right to free speech. Your concern however demonstrates a fear the founding fathers had in creating the Bill of Rights, namely that a person could construe the listed rights as a definitive list, or as a list of rights that are more important than those not listed, such as the pursuit of happiness including life without being slandered. The "right to privacy" suffers from this since privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. I am not a constitutional scholar so I am sure there are many such examples of conflicts in rights, but I can only list those I can readily see.
As I said, I do not have access to all the information the Board did, but based on what I know I disagree with the Board's conclusion, as I believe you do. It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
The summary is deliberately phrased in a biased fashion by presenting the issue as a dichotomy, and preemptively labeling the NSA's actions as violations. All rights have limitations, and it is essentially the legislature and the court's job to weight benefit versus the cost for those rights. For example, as the saying goes, your right to swing your arms stops at my nose. Another example is a person's right to free speech does not include libel and slander. When two or more rights conflict, lawmakers and the courts must sort out who's rights win. So from a purist's point of view, there are valid reasons to "violate" certain rights, since use or protection of one right may violate another.
Does your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" have more or less weight than your rights under the 4th amendment et.al.? It is an open ended question since the answer may be different for different circumstances. You may feel that your right to privacy from the government is absolute and should always win. That is a valid belief. Other may feel differently given a significant threat from foreign groups hellbent on harming the US, which is also a valid belief. We elect our representatives to make the laws to create the balance resulting from these kinds of conflicts. It is not a black-and-white problem as is often portrayed on Slashdot, such as you have done above. I can see the arguments on the other side as well.
That being said, I do feel this group is probably biased in favor of the government and that the NSA has overstepped their authority.
You may still be on the hook. A "signature" is when you write an identifying mark. It doesn't have to be your name, though that is the most common. This is even referenced in movies where people put a big X as their signature. You could sign "Barack Obama" and legally it would still be binding on you. The question is, would the phrase "I don't agree" count as a signature or a statement? If you put it on the signature line when asked to sign, especially as a "scrawl", you may have a problem, while anywhere else you would probably be OK.
FYI - IANAL, though I have filed an won as a Pro Se.