Why use hyperbolic language about the 4th Amendment being inconvenient
I'm wondering more why you seem to be defending this.
when the issue is merely how to interpret evidence relevant to it?
That is not "merely" the issue, and other people have pointed out as much.
If you whine that the sky is falling when anything happens which you personally don't like
Did I say the sky is falling? No. The sky wouldn't fall even if the government decided to raid everyone's homes for absolutely no reason, but that wouldn't mean what they're doing isn't something bad.
you destroy the power of your own speech.
If you say doing X will destroy the power of your own speech, you'll destroy the power of your own speech. Spewing fourth vague nonsense is easy.
It is a loud warning klaxon to immaturity when someone is incapable grasping nuance.
It is a loud warning klaxon to immaturity when someone is incapable of grasping the problem.
The word "immaturity" is also vague and ambiguous; I'm not sure why you bother spewing forth such garbage.
There are some flagrant violations of the 4th Amendment going on in the US right now, many of which have been covered on Slashdot - this is not one of them.
Some believe the TSA is also not a violation of the fourth amendment. I don't care much what you believe this is.
as you feel an injustice has been done but aren't clear how to frame your objection
If it's not clear enough to you, then perhaps you're simply 'immature.'
But in the grand scheme of things though, life ain't that bad, even with lobbied politicians and the NSA. At least compared to say North Korea, Syria or even China in some respects.
I think the situation is quite bad. When the government can flagrantly violate the very thing that gives it any power at all and violate people's fundamental rights, and the people either accept it passively or (probably more commonly) agree with the abuses, I believe the situation is quite out of hand.
And I think saying that we're not quite as bad as countries like North Korea should tell you how bad the situation is right now.
(1) Things really aren't that bad; most of the issues are theoretical/hypothetical (such as the NSA reading your emails) and will never affect you anyway (2) YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. We have no power. So why make your life miserable and feel depressed over the state of the world? Learn to enjoy life and find things that make life worth living.
A real freedom lover, you are.
most others have learnt to deal with it and don't complain all the time
I believe that's because they're utterly worthless imbeciles.
Thinking you're going to make a difference with your one-man army (or a bunch of nerds agreeing with each other on the Internet) is dangerous fantasizing.
Yeah, just give up; that's a much better solution. Change comes when you just roll over and let the oppressors win. How did anyone ever make change throughout history? By giving up, of course!
And your point is... what? This wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with the government's (or the interpretations of individuals in the government) interpretation of the constitution.
To the claimant, this guy has interfered with their freedom by doing one or more of stealing, lying or breaking a contract of employment.
I believe it is better that we let 'guilty' people go than allow idiocy like this to take place. That said, I suppose the fourth amendment is inconvenient sometimes, and helps 'guilty' people get away. Maybe we should get rid of that?
Again, to me, freedom > safety. Newspeak all you want; it's not going to work on me.
Doesn't sound like much of a 'justice' system to me.
Err, his equipment hasn't been seized simply because he announced himself to be (as the judge understood it) a criminal who damages computer equipment.
I think the judge should probably do a five second search. This level of ignorance is dangerous, especially when the ignorant one is an authority figure.
This was the tipping point for deciding whether the guy was likely to damage computer equipment which would also be evidence in in an on-going case.
Which I disagree with.
And, yes, a great deal of criminals simply confess.
In theory, this could be good because the "pre-screening" information they use could mean people won't need to go through horrendous security theater checks.
Actually, I believe that sacrificing your privacy just so you can get on a plane would be awful even if the government were full of perfect angels.
You think it's not reasonable that a police officer or judge will view you with suspicion if you tell them that you're a murderer/rapist/thief/fraudster/cracker/whatever?
Suspicion? Perhaps. Raiding people? No.
How would a criminal justice system work in your utopia?
So... you're saying that most 'criminals' simply confess?
No, but it arouses reasonable suspicion regarding intent and means
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
Maybe I'm looking at it like someone with legal training. All I can say here is: it is good to have a lawyer. Words have meanings, and they'll not be interpreted the way YOU want them to be interpreted. If in doubt, keep your mouth shut.
You do indeed have to be careful around thugs who want to violate your rights.
It's not? As soon as any amount of time passes after you steal something, you can say, "I was a thief." You can't be a thief until you've stolen something, either. Merely calling yourself a thief doesn't mean that you're planning on stealing something.
The reason I need to agree is that in supporting a candidate who wants less TSA surveillance, I may find that I'm supporting one who supports something else that I strongly oppose - like extra-judicial killings of american citizens.
What does the ACLU do that you disagree with? Since you brought that up, I'm guessing it's going to be something egregious?
Not kidding about the space program - different things matter to different people.
A totalitarian government would affect more than just you; keep that in mind the next time you say a dictatorship would be okay if it had a nice space program.
Please, tell me how many actual criminals and terrorists have been caught by airport security in America since airport security existed.
Why? The problem I have with making such requests is that it makes it seem as if this violation of people's freedoms would be okay if it actually made us safer, and I don't think that's the message I want people to convey.
2) "Working for the government" just means I have a degree of oversight vs working for private enterprise
Yeah, because the NSA had a ton of oversight... And private entities typically don't have the power to ruin your life in unspeakable ways like the government does, but as I implied, I don't trust them with data, either.
3) The camera also lies. CCTV is rarely conclusive evidence.
And? As if the government cares about that when it goes to harass people. It could just be used to mark certain people as 'interesting.'
Anyway, the point was that comparing the human eye to cameras is just silly.
No, it is not. Want to know how you do it? You leave people alone; that's how you do it. For a country that many seem to claim is the land of the free, I think that's how it should be done.
We've already seen how well businesses and such protect data from governments.
and the rest of which only reveal what any person walking along the public right of way would see with their own eyes.
But people's memories are faulty, they don't have videos to give to other people, and they typically aren't working for the government. There are large differences between people seeing something and cameras seeing something.
Slashdot Mirror
Why use hyperbolic language about the 4th Amendment being inconvenient
I'm wondering more why you seem to be defending this.
when the issue is merely how to interpret evidence relevant to it?
That is not "merely" the issue, and other people have pointed out as much.
If you whine that the sky is falling when anything happens which you personally don't like
Did I say the sky is falling? No. The sky wouldn't fall even if the government decided to raid everyone's homes for absolutely no reason, but that wouldn't mean what they're doing isn't something bad.
you destroy the power of your own speech.
If you say doing X will destroy the power of your own speech, you'll destroy the power of your own speech. Spewing fourth vague nonsense is easy.
It is a loud warning klaxon to immaturity when someone is incapable grasping nuance.
It is a loud warning klaxon to immaturity when someone is incapable of grasping the problem.
The word "immaturity" is also vague and ambiguous; I'm not sure why you bother spewing forth such garbage.
There are some flagrant violations of the 4th Amendment going on in the US right now, many of which have been covered on Slashdot - this is not one of them.
Some believe the TSA is also not a violation of the fourth amendment. I don't care much what you believe this is.
as you feel an injustice has been done but aren't clear how to frame your objection
If it's not clear enough to you, then perhaps you're simply 'immature.'
But in the grand scheme of things though, life ain't that bad, even with lobbied politicians and the NSA. At least compared to say North Korea, Syria or even China in some respects.
I think the situation is quite bad. When the government can flagrantly violate the very thing that gives it any power at all and violate people's fundamental rights, and the people either accept it passively or (probably more commonly) agree with the abuses, I believe the situation is quite out of hand.
And I think saying that we're not quite as bad as countries like North Korea should tell you how bad the situation is right now.
(1) Things really aren't that bad; most of the issues are theoretical/hypothetical (such as the NSA reading your emails) and will never affect you anyway
(2) YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. We have no power. So why make your life miserable and feel depressed over the state of the world? Learn to enjoy life and find things that make life worth living.
A real freedom lover, you are.
most others have learnt to deal with it and don't complain all the time
I believe that's because they're utterly worthless imbeciles.
Thinking you're going to make a difference with your one-man army (or a bunch of nerds agreeing with each other on the Internet) is dangerous fantasizing.
Yeah, just give up; that's a much better solution. Change comes when you just roll over and let the oppressors win. How did anyone ever make change throughout history? By giving up, of course!
The search was duly authorised by a court
Which can be unconstitutional (the NSA warrants were, for example).
Unless you mean self-describing yourself as a hacker can be used as probable cause? Which seems fair enough.
Why does that seem fair? I wouldn't even call that close to probable cause.
And your point is... what? This wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with the government's (or the interpretations of individuals in the government) interpretation of the constitution.
To the claimant, this guy has interfered with their freedom by doing one or more of stealing, lying or breaking a contract of employment.
I believe it is better that we let 'guilty' people go than allow idiocy like this to take place. That said, I suppose the fourth amendment is inconvenient sometimes, and helps 'guilty' people get away. Maybe we should get rid of that?
Again, to me, freedom > safety. Newspeak all you want; it's not going to work on me.
In the past it's often to prevent them from flushing drugs down the toilet
Is that supposed to be a good thing? And since when is freedom less important than safety?
The search was reasonable, if you read the decision.
I disagree that it was reasonable.
But hm, he could also be a 'black-hat hacker'... that fits in with what most of the world understands the term to mean.
Freedom > safety, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see myself agreeing with you, since you seem to be sympathizing with this nonsense.
And it has nothing to do with "tyranny" or whatever it is angry geeks like to hyperbolise with
Sure it does.
Doesn't sound like much of a 'justice' system to me.
Err, his equipment hasn't been seized simply because he announced himself to be (as the judge understood it) a criminal who damages computer equipment.
I think the judge should probably do a five second search. This level of ignorance is dangerous, especially when the ignorant one is an authority figure.
This was the tipping point for deciding whether the guy was likely to damage computer equipment which would also be evidence in in an on-going case.
Which I disagree with.
And, yes, a great deal of criminals simply confess.
I wonder how many are actually guilty.
In theory, this could be good because the "pre-screening" information they use could mean people won't need to go through horrendous security theater checks.
Actually, I believe that sacrificing your privacy just so you can get on a plane would be awful even if the government were full of perfect angels.
You think it's not reasonable that a police officer or judge will view you with suspicion if you tell them that you're a murderer/rapist/thief/fraudster/cracker/whatever?
Suspicion? Perhaps. Raiding people? No.
How would a criminal justice system work in your utopia?
So... you're saying that most 'criminals' simply confess?
No, but it arouses reasonable suspicion regarding intent and means
I don't think it's reasonable at all.
Maybe I'm looking at it like someone with legal training. All I can say here is: it is good to have a lawyer. Words have meanings, and they'll not be interpreted the way YOU want them to be interpreted. If in doubt, keep your mouth shut.
You do indeed have to be careful around thugs who want to violate your rights.
because as soon as its required you know damn well you will install it.
You know that's false. How do I know this? I don't know, but it's true. Whatever I say about you is simply true, and you'll just have to accept that.
if they pass the law then that's what you have to do.
Yeah, because it's impossible for people to break the law.
but to a large degree you just have to suck it up and accept it.
I don't think that's a good idea.
That, to me, is what they should have gone after.
Why? Being a hacker does not necessarily imply that you do illegal things.
If they committed a crime, and said they don't want to stop, then obviously this is a real sticking point here!
Not wanting to stop doing something is not the same as planning to do it.
In short nothing to see here, normal legal proceedings
Just like the TSA molesting people is 'normal'; that does not make it okay as far as I'm concerned.
It's not about having been a thief
It's not? As soon as any amount of time passes after you steal something, you can say, "I was a thief." You can't be a thief until you've stolen something, either. Merely calling yourself a thief doesn't mean that you're planning on stealing something.
No, they don't. If the government says otherwise, it might need to reread the constitution.
The reason I need to agree is that in supporting a candidate who wants less TSA surveillance, I may find that I'm supporting one who supports something else that I strongly oppose - like extra-judicial killings of american citizens.
What does the ACLU do that you disagree with? Since you brought that up, I'm guessing it's going to be something egregious?
Not kidding about the space program - different things matter to different people.
A totalitarian government would affect more than just you; keep that in mind the next time you say a dictatorship would be okay if it had a nice space program.
Please, tell me how many actual criminals and terrorists have been caught by airport security in America since airport security existed.
Why? The problem I have with making such requests is that it makes it seem as if this violation of people's freedoms would be okay if it actually made us safer, and I don't think that's the message I want people to convey.
2) "Working for the government" just means I have a degree of oversight vs working for private enterprise
Yeah, because the NSA had a ton of oversight... And private entities typically don't have the power to ruin your life in unspeakable ways like the government does, but as I implied, I don't trust them with data, either.
3) The camera also lies. CCTV is rarely conclusive evidence.
And? As if the government cares about that when it goes to harass people. It could just be used to mark certain people as 'interesting.'
Anyway, the point was that comparing the human eye to cameras is just silly.
but I don't agree with everything that they do.
Do you need to? And what do they do that's such a problem?
Personally I'd take a dictatorship with a successful space program over a free country without one (everything else being equal) .
Then I think you're naive... or that's a joke.
I actually do think this could be good
Why? Why not just get rid of the TSA and leave people alone?
This is how you do it.
No, it is not. Want to know how you do it? You leave people alone; that's how you do it. For a country that many seem to claim is the land of the free, I think that's how it should be done.
Yeah, most of which are privately owned
We've already seen how well businesses and such protect data from governments.
and the rest of which only reveal what any person walking along the public right of way would see with their own eyes.
But people's memories are faulty, they don't have videos to give to other people, and they typically aren't working for the government. There are large differences between people seeing something and cameras seeing something.