The site seems to be focused on legal protests, not riots. Likely supportive of things that lead to arrests, but that's standard civil disobedience.
Would you limit the search warrant if the server was hosting child porn or any other illegal content?
Absolutely. To shut up cunts like you, I'd be okay with completely legalizing child porn. A few kids getting diddled is peanuts in comparison to the amount of freedom it's led to us sacrificing.
Using a warrant is not getting around anyone's rights. That is the proper way to do these types of things. If you are going to argue scope, stick with scope.
I'm not saying that the problem is seeking a warrant. I'm saying this warrant overwhelmingly fails the standard of being "reasonable" and "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
issued by the independent judiciary
That's a good one. Our court system rubber stamps warrants, especially if you can shop around.
No, you just strawmanned the argument again. It's quite possible that there are more than 200 relevant accounts. But there are a lot of number between 200 and 1.3 million. 2000 users, I could believe as reasonable. 5000 users might even pass the test. If there are more, they can ask for more after they've gotten the evidence from the ones they asked for. But not 1.3 million. That's completely ridiculous, and I refuse to believe that you are a sapient human being if you claim otherwise.
Do you have any legal expertise to say your opinion has more merit than the judge giving the ok?
Yes, I know enough about the Constitution to know that a warrant for 1.3 million people is bullshit.
False equivalency. The claim isn't that the site should get to select which information it releases to the government, it's that the government has to provide specifics. In the case of Clinton's email server, they selected "all of the information" because she was a part of the government, and thus everything was needed for transparency purposes. In other investigations, its going to be like the information they have one users, X,Y, and Z, and maybe their most frequent contacts. You don't just ask a private website to give you absolutely everything on everyone.
Okay, so if I plan to commit a crime using facebook, then it's okay to get info on their ~1 billion users, or do we expect that it be a bit more fine tuned? Do you know the first thing about police and warrants, and thus you get them to turn over only the relevant information, like people I've messaged and commented to within the last 6 months? If you don't know how to get reasonable search parameters, why the hell are you on/.?
Are you sure about that with the ~200 felon rioters? Do you know the evidence the government has to get a warrant?
Yes, because when you divide 200 by 1.3 million, you get a really small number. plus, half of the people arrested probably weren't even rioting. You know, since post 9/11, we just arrest anybody we don't like, and get around to their rights later, if we feel like it.
Strawman argument, even assuming that those arrested were 1) actually rioters and 2) conspired to riot using this site. You don't need all of that information to catch the other conspirators, and to be honest, looking for conspirators is an enormous waste of time. money, and manpower. Trump wasted far more resources dropping a bomb on the CIA's tunnels in Afghanistan.
The historical numbers are very much relevant for explaining just how outlandish this is. A warrant covering THE ENTIRE STATES OF VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA during the time when these limitations were codified is batshit insane. I'm not saying it's a legally important metric, I'm saying its a sign of how utterly ridiculous this is, to the point that you cannot have even a basic understanding of our legal system and support it.
You omitted the "during the signing of the constitution" part of my post. You see, in 1776, the US population was around 2.5 million, and in 1788, it was around 3.8 million. 1.3 million is more than half of the 1776 population, but a bit less than the 1788 population. If you tell the framers that you have a warrant covering 1.3 million people, they'd hang you.
used as a communication path to commit riots which the warrant ap states
What a fucking word salad of legalese bullshit. It very clearly indicates that just like this administration, you are on fishing expedition..
The primary purpose of the site was for legal organizing. it's possible that rioters made use of the site, but even if every single person arrested used the site to organize, that's still only about 0.02% of the users. I don't care if you're dumb enough to think that Trump isn't complete subhuman garbage, this is a fishing expedition, and any good American would tell the Trump administration to fuck off with this authoritarian garbage.
A group the size of about half of the US population during the signing of the constitution cannot be considered a "narrow scope." 1.3 milliion and narrow scope are mutually exclusive.
The site was organized for PROTEST, which is legal. That it lead to illegal riots, assuming the website had any involvement, is likely more due to Trump being a walking youtube comment section than premeditated acts relevant to 1.3 million website visitors. This is 100% bullshit, and anybody who was halfway conscious during high school civics knows that.
The interesting thing, to me, was that he cited a perfectly reasonable solution for increasing women in management. Shifting the way management is selected and the roles management fills to be more in line with social and biological trends for women.
That's a component that typically goes unaddressed. No matter how much you try and level the playing field, corporate leadership is built around the traits and values associated with men. Changing the role to be less tied to masculine values is probably going to be more effective than getting women to fill a role largely designed for men.
How many illegal immigrants are on voter rolls, and if they are, shouldn't that be the bigger concern? It seems like every pro-Voter ID post is from someone who doesn't understand the basic mechanics of voting.
Well, on the subjects of "distraction," Silicon Valley is a lot more in agreement with the "left."
Or, you could just not be a moron and acknowledge that there are multiple axes to politics, and that he is complaining about something outside of what is directly an economic issue.
I don't think in the modern world there is any reason to not be providing a photo ID for free to every citizen and requiring it be used to vote
Well, when we get the first part down, then we can discuss the latter. Unfortunately, states that pass voter ID law, such as Alabama, have trended towards the very opposite.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have many black friends.
The simple fact is in person voter fraud is possible, there is no reason not to control for it because if anything it would give the election a greater appearance of legitimacy, which is critical to a functioning republic/democracy. That alone is a more than strong enough argument to require id.
I would agree with that sentiment IF even a fraction of the effort was put into the real world ways electoral fraud happens. But while the GOP is beating the drum about this issue, they won't even bother to properly staff a lot of districts, let alone actually securing the results.
The truth is there is tons of evidence now that millions of votes are in fact cast by people who are not eligible, because they have lost voting rights due to felony convictions, are not a legal US citizen, etc. ID would raise the bar beyond just getting on the rolls to these ineligible votes. THAT is the real reason the left opposes ID laws, because they do impact elections.
I am deeply opposed to stopping felons from voting. that aside, the problem with this is, like in other cases, a matter of maintaining the roles. Same for dead voters. How fucking stupid are you to think solving a completely unrelated problem is useful?
And places where you have a 110% voter turnout is never a credible threat?
No, election fraud is incredibly easy. A technologically sharp teenager could rig just about any local election results, provided moderate interest and effort. But physically defrauding that one meatbag is another meatbag, and having meatbags do so on a grand enough scale to change results is the stupidest way to rig an election.
I'll agree though that the place where voting fraud is most likely to happen is at the point of those collecting the votes. In other words at the local voting precinct.
Well, given that it takes less effort, is more difficult to track, and can skew the results more, why isn't the bulk of the effort placed on preventing this kind of fraud? Probably because Voter ID is a distraction from actual issues/a slightly effective way of suppressing or discouraging certain groups of voters.
You are conflating the economic political with the social one. Yes, Google is economically to the right, but that doesn't mean they aren't on the left on social issues.
It's easy to make claims about voter impersonation. Not only does it not happen, it's an incredibly unwieldy method of fraud. it COSTS MORE than any other method, has a HIGHER risk of getting caught, and yields the LOWEST returns. It's so risky and inefficient that you'd be better of with legitimate campaigning techniques.
In an electoral system where one person is entitled to one vote, it's essential to make it as difficult as possible for people to vote more than once. The very integrity of the election itself depends on this. Checking for ID is a very reasonable way of doing so.
Only if you are an idiot that doesn't understand statistics. Voter impersonation has never and will never be a credible threat. Having meatbags double vote is the least effective and most dangerous method of electoral fraud.
One threat can have tangible effects on our elections, while the other is an excuse for losing to a candidate that is less popular than being punched in the balls.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the worst cover story for a mad scientist I've ever heard.
No, FEAR is the mind killer, not stress.
Except that the concern is privacy, not cleanliness or disruption. the government has no business spying on its political enemies.
Absolutely. To shut up cunts like you, I'd be okay with completely legalizing child porn. A few kids getting diddled is peanuts in comparison to the amount of freedom it's led to us sacrificing.
I'm not saying that the problem is seeking a warrant. I'm saying this warrant overwhelmingly fails the standard of being "reasonable" and "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
That's a good one. Our court system rubber stamps warrants, especially if you can shop around.
My cat is a better man than Trump, and my cat is an asshole.
Yes, I know enough about the Constitution to know that a warrant for 1.3 million people is bullshit.
False equivalency. The claim isn't that the site should get to select which information it releases to the government, it's that the government has to provide specifics. In the case of Clinton's email server, they selected "all of the information" because she was a part of the government, and thus everything was needed for transparency purposes. In other investigations, its going to be like the information they have one users, X,Y, and Z, and maybe their most frequent contacts. You don't just ask a private website to give you absolutely everything on everyone.
Yes, because when you divide 200 by 1.3 million, you get a really small number. plus, half of the people arrested probably weren't even rioting. You know, since post 9/11, we just arrest anybody we don't like, and get around to their rights later, if we feel like it.
Strawman argument, even assuming that those arrested were 1) actually rioters and 2) conspired to riot using this site. You don't need all of that information to catch the other conspirators, and to be honest, looking for conspirators is an enormous waste of time. money, and manpower. Trump wasted far more resources dropping a bomb on the CIA's tunnels in Afghanistan.
The historical numbers are very much relevant for explaining just how outlandish this is. A warrant covering THE ENTIRE STATES OF VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA during the time when these limitations were codified is batshit insane. I'm not saying it's a legally important metric, I'm saying its a sign of how utterly ridiculous this is, to the point that you cannot have even a basic understanding of our legal system and support it.
You omitted the "during the signing of the constitution" part of my post. You see, in 1776, the US population was around 2.5 million, and in 1788, it was around 3.8 million. 1.3 million is more than half of the 1776 population, but a bit less than the 1788 population. If you tell the framers that you have a warrant covering 1.3 million people, they'd hang you.
What a fucking word salad of legalese bullshit. It very clearly indicates that just like this administration, you are on fishing expedition. .
The primary purpose of the site was for legal organizing. it's possible that rioters made use of the site, but even if every single person arrested used the site to organize, that's still only about 0.02% of the users. I don't care if you're dumb enough to think that Trump isn't complete subhuman garbage, this is a fishing expedition, and any good American would tell the Trump administration to fuck off with this authoritarian garbage.
A group the size of about half of the US population during the signing of the constitution cannot be considered a "narrow scope." 1.3 milliion and narrow scope are mutually exclusive.
The site was organized for PROTEST, which is legal. That it lead to illegal riots, assuming the website had any involvement, is likely more due to Trump being a walking youtube comment section than premeditated acts relevant to 1.3 million website visitors. This is 100% bullshit, and anybody who was halfway conscious during high school civics knows that.
How about we put them both in jail? Would that make you happy?
The interesting thing, to me, was that he cited a perfectly reasonable solution for increasing women in management. Shifting the way management is selected and the roles management fills to be more in line with social and biological trends for women.
That's a component that typically goes unaddressed. No matter how much you try and level the playing field, corporate leadership is built around the traits and values associated with men. Changing the role to be less tied to masculine values is probably going to be more effective than getting women to fill a role largely designed for men.
How many illegal immigrants are on voter rolls, and if they are, shouldn't that be the bigger concern? It seems like every pro-Voter ID post is from someone who doesn't understand the basic mechanics of voting.
Well, on the subjects of "distraction," Silicon Valley is a lot more in agreement with the "left." Or, you could just not be a moron and acknowledge that there are multiple axes to politics, and that he is complaining about something outside of what is directly an economic issue.
Well, when we get the first part down, then we can discuss the latter. Unfortunately, states that pass voter ID law, such as Alabama, have trended towards the very opposite.
I would agree with that sentiment IF even a fraction of the effort was put into the real world ways electoral fraud happens. But while the GOP is beating the drum about this issue, they won't even bother to properly staff a lot of districts, let alone actually securing the results.
I am deeply opposed to stopping felons from voting. that aside, the problem with this is, like in other cases, a matter of maintaining the roles. Same for dead voters. How fucking stupid are you to think solving a completely unrelated problem is useful?
No, election fraud is incredibly easy. A technologically sharp teenager could rig just about any local election results, provided moderate interest and effort. But physically defrauding that one meatbag is another meatbag, and having meatbags do so on a grand enough scale to change results is the stupidest way to rig an election.
Well, given that it takes less effort, is more difficult to track, and can skew the results more, why isn't the bulk of the effort placed on preventing this kind of fraud? Probably because Voter ID is a distraction from actual issues/a slightly effective way of suppressing or discouraging certain groups of voters.
You are conflating the economic political with the social one. Yes, Google is economically to the right, but that doesn't mean they aren't on the left on social issues.
It's easy to make claims about voter impersonation. Not only does it not happen, it's an incredibly unwieldy method of fraud. it COSTS MORE than any other method, has a HIGHER risk of getting caught, and yields the LOWEST returns. It's so risky and inefficient that you'd be better of with legitimate campaigning techniques.
Only if you are an idiot that doesn't understand statistics. Voter impersonation has never and will never be a credible threat. Having meatbags double vote is the least effective and most dangerous method of electoral fraud.
One threat can have tangible effects on our elections, while the other is an excuse for losing to a candidate that is less popular than being punched in the balls.