But the practical implementation could provide a way to prove that they voted for someone. My cynical suspicion is that by the second or third election, they'll use mass-produced ballots ballots that only have three or four different sets of codes on them to reduce the cost of ballot printing.
See section 4.9 of the paper (actually, read the whole thing). Auditing is done both by candidates and by independent auditors.
How exactly do we verify that the choices we didn't pick on the form don't have the same set of verification characters as the candidate we did choose?
That's handled by pre-election auditing. There's more information on how at http://scantegrity.org./
Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.
Per TFA, only about 5% of participants have to validate their vote afterward to assure the election's integrity to within normal margins. Also, exit polls in the Maryland town showed that about 30% of voters copied down their validation info. If a third of them bother to go online to check their ballots, that will be double the required participation.
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.
Individuals will always have suspicions, but unless there is a widespread pattern of "errors", rational voters will be able to have greater confidence than they do in any other system. Unlike any other system, this one actually provide a way where lost or altered ballots have a chance of being discovered.
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.
Again, isolated cases will occur, but that happens regardless. In the absence of significant numbers of reports from generally honest and reliable people, then we'll have more confidence in the accuracy of the vote than any other system can provide.
Basically, your objections boil down to "Nothing is perfect". Well, duh. But it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better. And it is.
One would hope there are no web logs kept, because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.
Reveal your identity and.... what? The ballot you check on-line just has some random letters on it that should match what you wrote down in the voting booth. It says nothing about who you voted for. So if someone identifies you from the web log, all they've verified is that (a) you voted and (b) you verified your ballot.
It does what many people would have said is impossible: It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly, but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for. An audit trail, without opening the door to coercion. This is a major improvement over traditional voting technologies.
It can't even do that, unless Congress authorizes the funds. The executive branch has some latitude in how it spends the money that Congress appropriates, but without the appropriation it can do nothing.
All correct, with one small caveat: I'd say you shouldn't be shooting someone you aren't willing to kill, rather than someone you aren't intending to kill. There are very few situations in which a law-abiding person should be shooting with intent to kill. Self-defense and defense of others is about attempting to stop the target, not attempting to kill the target. Generally, the best possible outcome is that the target is prevented from doing harm, but makes a complete recovery from the injury sustained.
That said, the best way to stop the target is to stop his brain from working, either from direct trauma to the central nervous system or by inducing massive, rapid blood loss that deprives the brain of blood and causes blackout. So the sorts of injuries that stop most effectively are usually fatal, but that's an unfortunate (but acceptable) side effect, not the intent.
Off-topic hair splitting, sorry. The rest of your post was completely accurate.
A safe deposit box is not the same as financial records. They can't open the box without you, so your point is moot.
Yes, they can open it without me. And they will if presented with a search warrant.
Please, show me where it says anyone has the right to refuse to provide the information until the 3rd party is notified. That's what this case is about.. there is no legal requirement to notify anyone, and such a response will likely piss of the judge.
There's no legal requirement, but there certainly is a legal option. Refusal of a subpoena requires a justification, and providing an inadequate justification is grounds for being held in contempt, but "Your Honor, we hold this information on behalf of Mr. Plague3106, and we prefer not to provide it without giving him an opportunity to respond to the request" is a perfectly valid justification, and no judge is going to have a problem with it. At *worst* the judge is going to say "I understand your position, but notwithstanding your duty to Mr. Plague3106, I'm ordering you to provide the information now." At that point it's not just a subpoena, but a court order.
Its not a matter of fact. He told you that's what happens, that doesn't make it true, even if you believe it. Add to the fact that you could be making the whole thing up, we're back at square one. How you claim things work is not relevent unless you can show some other source.
Ah, so your argument is that either I'm lying or the lawyer lied to me. I already pointed out that you could believe I'm lying, but that you might think and experienced attorney might lie about such a thing is laugh-out-loud funny.
Anyway, I don't respond to people who call me a liar, so I'm done here. If you'd like, you might want to check the Wikipedia article on subpoenas, which also describes how the writs are often issued in blank. But you'll probably just say I wrote that there.
You miss the point; banks will respond to subpoenas the same way.
They will not. If you serve a subpoena to my bank for the contents of my safe deposit box, the bank will refer you to me. Your bank will do exactly the same. Don't believe me? Read the contract for your safe deposit box. It details these matters.
I seriously doubt ANY ISP will fight a subpoena unless the cost of fighting is less than the cost of fulfilling the subpoena.
They don't have to fight it, just refuse to provide the information pending notification of the user. It's by far the cheapest option.
Anecdote isn't evidence, nor is one lawyers opinion relevent.
Bah. This isn't a question of opinion, it's a question of fact, and the factual experience of one attorney who's been getting stacks of signed, blank subpoenas for 20 years is absolutely convincing evidence, at least for the courts in my state (he's never practiced in other states). Of course, you may choose not to believe my secondhand report of this fact. If there's a weakness in my response it isn't the anecdotal nature nor the source of the information, it's that from your perspective it's hearsay.
Well, without computers the US military would just be a bunch of people armed with knives and handguns.
I must have missed where the military has computerized their rifles.
All the major modern weapons systems require all sorts of computer systems to design, build, and operate them
I would say that all the modern weapons systems make use of computer systems, because computers exist. Without computers, nearly all of the weapons would still exist, though they'd be less effective. The loss in effectiveness would be in accuracy and communications, though, not in destructive power.
Computers are very useful tools, but they're hardly a replacement for firearms.
Apparently you've never seen AP or teflon(illgeal in 90% of places) coated rounds.
Teflon has nothing to do with bullets' armor piercing capabilities or lack thereof. The reason some AP bullets are coated in Teflon is because they have very hard jackets and the Teflon reduces wear on the gun barrel.
Teflon coatings are not illegal under federal law; the federal anti-AP ammunition statutes focus on the jacket and core composition, not on coatings. There are a handful of states which ban the coatings.
for awhile the talons were very popular until they were outlawed as well.
The Winchester Black Talons are not and were not armor piercing. They were pretty normal jacketed hollowpoints, coated with Lubalox (not Teflon) which gave them the black color. Black Talons were voluntarily removed from the market by Winchester, but have never been banned in any jurisdiction. Winchester replaced them with the very similar Ranger SXT round, which doesn't include the Lubalox coating. Winchester does use the coating on some rifle rounds.
Your basic premise is correct: I know of no states that have a general duty to report. There are exceptions in specific areas of the law, both state and federal, but violent crimes aren't among them, AFAIK.
However, your statement:
Now if the crime is actually committed, you can't be guilty of knowing about a future crime and not reporting it, since the crime itself is now past and no longer future.
makes no sense. If there were a duty to report, you could indeed be found guilty of knowing and failing to report.
Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack, killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage, every year if that's what's required to retain our basic freedoms? Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks?
Without a doubt, and with no hesitation, I am willing. Even though you raised the ante substantially past what was reality. It does not matter; liberty or death and I won't die without a fight.
As would any true patriot. And I agree that an annual 9/11 attack is unrealistic. I'm skeptical that these warrantless wiretaps accomplished any reduction at all in terrorist activity, personally.
Yes, and we're only discussing criminal law here, since the judge is commenting on a criminal case.
Doesn't matter. The point under discussion is whether or not Gmail users have an expectation of privacy. The fact that Google will routinely respond to subpoenas (civil or criminal) means that they have a lower expectation than they might have. The other approach Google could take is to refuse compliance until the user had been notified and given an opportunity to fight it. Good ISPs take that approach.
As you said though, the judge still must determine its relevant. As for your assertion that its a matter of routine that they sign blank papers, please provide some evidence of that.
Personal experience from a civil suit I was peripherally involved in a few years ago. The attorney thought it was routine.
So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it? Based purely on your blanket statement?
Depends. Does it also say that after X number of heads are lopped off, constitutional protections will be given their full effect for the next 100 years? If so, I guarantee there will be people willing to give their own lives in order to protect the freedom of generations to come, assuming there's a reason to believe the promise.
I prefer to pose the question more concretely, though: Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack, killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage, every year if that's what's required to retain our basic freedoms? Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks?
Copyright is constitutional. Unlimited retroactive extensions is questionable, and the scope of copyright might be an issue, but the basic idea is explicitly supported by the US constitution.
No, they can't issue a subpena that's not related to the case at hand. So you're notion that any case can be stretched to ask for unrelated information is nonsense.
Let's backtrack a bit. The discussion was whether or not Gmail users have any expectation of privacy in light of Google's policy that they'll provide information in response to a subpoena. The comment was made that because Google must honor warrants, Google's decision to also respond to subpoenas doesn't reduce users' privacy.
I responded that warrants and subpoenas are different, and they are.
See, Google does have a choice about how they handle subpoenas. They do not have a choice about how they handle warrants. Google does not have to simply hand over information in response to a subpoena, they can instead go to court and argue that they should not have to provide said information. They don't even have to have a consistent policy about this. The can in some cases choose to fight and in other cases choose not to. Their stated policy is to ALWAYS comply with a subpoena. That is a reduction in privacy from what is required by law, which implies that there is grounds to believe that Gmail users have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Also, many states have grand juries to determine if a case should proceed. Meaning an average citizen has to be convienced that there's probable cause.
That's only for criminal law. Subpoenas are also used in civil cases, which is why "anyone can issue a subpoena", as I said. You file a civil suit against someone and then you can issue all the subpoenas you want as part of discovery.
Warrants are only used in criminal cases.
In neither civil nor criminal cases does the judge determine in advance whether the information requested by a subpoena is justified on any sort of probable cause basis. The standard of review is relevance only. If the information requested appears that it would provide facts relevant to the case at hand, it is granted. That's the theory. In practice, judges usually rely on attorneys' ethical behavior and don't review subpoena requests at all. They sign a stack of blank subpoenas and hand them over.
The reason for the lower standard of review is that the target of the subpoena has the option of fighting it. If they can show that the information is not relevant, or if they can show some other reason why the harm caused by responding would outweigh the harm caused by not responding, then the judge will quash the subpoena. You can't quash a search warrant; the most you can do is to get the information obtained excluded from evidence.
You know, its ok to admit you were wrong. Stop trying to stretch things out of a reasonable discussion.
I have zero problem admitting when I'm wrong, which happens often. In this particular case, I'm not.
Yes, SOME case must be in progress, but it can be any case for which any reason can be constructed to ask for the information. That's a VERY different situation from a warrant, which has to pass a probable cause test.
In the common case, where the system hasn't been manually tweaked much, it just works. The only real downside is that some of your 3rd-party packages will get automatically removed and you'll have to reinstall them. For the average user, there's almost zero risk in upgrading -- and the only reason I toss the "almost" in is because I can't stand being absolutist.
In my case, I make lots of modifications to my system, and so there is some risk of breakage, but I also have the knowledge required to fix it. On the other hand, I know that if I installed from scratch it would take me a long time to get the new system configured the way I like it. It's easier to upgrade and then fix whatever tweaks got broken.
But the judge doesn't have to decide if there is probable cause to warrant violation of someone's 4th amendment rights. The judge rarely even asks what information the party requesting the subpoena wants to get. If you're involved in a lawsuit, you pretty much just go get a stack of blank subpoenas, fill them in and serve them.
Also, a warrant gives police the authority to go take the information, by force, whereas a subpoena is a legal request for information, and the recipient of the subpoena has the choice of either complying or explaining to the court why the subpoena should not be allowed.
He says that Gmail uses agree to google disclosing the information in response to a lawful request (ie, a subpoena) and somehow reads from this that users dont have any expectation of privacy. Personally, I would think that expecting disclosure to require a warrant was pretty much an expectation or privacy.
Warrant != subpoena. A warrant must be signed by a judge. Anyone can issue a subpoena.
>>Soviets couldn't pre-emptively blow up missiles that were always on the move and hard to locate.
"Always on the move" is a bit overly optimistic, wouldn't you say?
That was the plan, at one point. Later, they got a little more realistic and decided to just move them periodically. Then they realized that even that wouldn't work very well, and gave up.
Three words, Third party repositories. Your upgrade should go fine and dandy when you've only used official repos, but when extra repos are in the mix it's best to not even try it.
Bah.
I ALWAYS have third-party repositories in the mix, and custom-installed packages (usually from DEBs I built myself). It's really not an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
But the practical implementation could provide a way to prove that they voted for someone. My cynical suspicion is that by the second or third election, they'll use mass-produced ballots ballots that only have three or four different sets of codes on them to reduce the cost of ballot printing.
See section 4.9 of the paper (actually, read the whole thing). Auditing is done both by candidates and by independent auditors.
How exactly do we verify that the choices we didn't pick on the form don't have the same set of verification characters as the candidate we did choose?
That's handled by pre-election auditing. There's more information on how at http://scantegrity.org./
Or, go straight to the research paper at http://www.scantegrity.org/papers/ScantegrityII-EVT.pdf
This system assumes three things:
Per TFA, only about 5% of participants have to validate their vote afterward to assure the election's integrity to within normal margins. Also, exit polls in the Maryland town showed that about 30% of voters copied down their validation info. If a third of them bother to go online to check their ballots, that will be double the required participation.
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.
Individuals will always have suspicions, but unless there is a widespread pattern of "errors", rational voters will be able to have greater confidence than they do in any other system. Unlike any other system, this one actually provide a way where lost or altered ballots have a chance of being discovered.
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.
Again, isolated cases will occur, but that happens regardless. In the absence of significant numbers of reports from generally honest and reliable people, then we'll have more confidence in the accuracy of the vote than any other system can provide.
Basically, your objections boil down to "Nothing is perfect". Well, duh. But it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better. And it is.
One would hope there are no web logs kept, because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.
Reveal your identity and.... what? The ballot you check on-line just has some random letters on it that should match what you wrote down in the voting booth. It says nothing about who you voted for. So if someone identifies you from the web log, all they've verified is that (a) you voted and (b) you verified your ballot.
It does what many people would have said is impossible: It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly, but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for. An audit trail, without opening the door to coercion. This is a major improvement over traditional voting technologies.
An executive agreement can fund a spaceship
It can't even do that, unless Congress authorizes the funds. The executive branch has some latitude in how it spends the money that Congress appropriates, but without the appropriation it can do nothing.
On the other hand, the megawatt laser would make a fine replacement for a rifle even without the computer.
All correct, with one small caveat: I'd say you shouldn't be shooting someone you aren't willing to kill, rather than someone you aren't intending to kill. There are very few situations in which a law-abiding person should be shooting with intent to kill. Self-defense and defense of others is about attempting to stop the target, not attempting to kill the target. Generally, the best possible outcome is that the target is prevented from doing harm, but makes a complete recovery from the injury sustained.
That said, the best way to stop the target is to stop his brain from working, either from direct trauma to the central nervous system or by inducing massive, rapid blood loss that deprives the brain of blood and causes blackout. So the sorts of injuries that stop most effectively are usually fatal, but that's an unfortunate (but acceptable) side effect, not the intent.
Off-topic hair splitting, sorry. The rest of your post was completely accurate.
A safe deposit box is not the same as financial records. They can't open the box without you, so your point is moot.
Yes, they can open it without me. And they will if presented with a search warrant.
Please, show me where it says anyone has the right to refuse to provide the information until the 3rd party is notified. That's what this case is about.. there is no legal requirement to notify anyone, and such a response will likely piss of the judge.
There's no legal requirement, but there certainly is a legal option. Refusal of a subpoena requires a justification, and providing an inadequate justification is grounds for being held in contempt, but "Your Honor, we hold this information on behalf of Mr. Plague3106, and we prefer not to provide it without giving him an opportunity to respond to the request" is a perfectly valid justification, and no judge is going to have a problem with it. At *worst* the judge is going to say "I understand your position, but notwithstanding your duty to Mr. Plague3106, I'm ordering you to provide the information now." At that point it's not just a subpoena, but a court order.
Its not a matter of fact. He told you that's what happens, that doesn't make it true, even if you believe it. Add to the fact that you could be making the whole thing up, we're back at square one. How you claim things work is not relevent unless you can show some other source.
Ah, so your argument is that either I'm lying or the lawyer lied to me. I already pointed out that you could believe I'm lying, but that you might think and experienced attorney might lie about such a thing is laugh-out-loud funny.
Anyway, I don't respond to people who call me a liar, so I'm done here. If you'd like, you might want to check the Wikipedia article on subpoenas, which also describes how the writs are often issued in blank. But you'll probably just say I wrote that there.
:-)
Nice try. A failed program to attach computerized grenade launchers to rifles doesn't constitute computerization of the rifles.
And even if computers were added to rifles, it still doesn't make computers a replacement for rifles.
You miss the point; banks will respond to subpoenas the same way.
They will not. If you serve a subpoena to my bank for the contents of my safe deposit box, the bank will refer you to me. Your bank will do exactly the same. Don't believe me? Read the contract for your safe deposit box. It details these matters.
I seriously doubt ANY ISP will fight a subpoena unless the cost of fighting is less than the cost of fulfilling the subpoena.
They don't have to fight it, just refuse to provide the information pending notification of the user. It's by far the cheapest option.
Anecdote isn't evidence, nor is one lawyers opinion relevent.
Bah. This isn't a question of opinion, it's a question of fact, and the factual experience of one attorney who's been getting stacks of signed, blank subpoenas for 20 years is absolutely convincing evidence, at least for the courts in my state (he's never practiced in other states). Of course, you may choose not to believe my secondhand report of this fact. If there's a weakness in my response it isn't the anecdotal nature nor the source of the information, it's that from your perspective it's hearsay.
Well, without computers the US military would just be a bunch of people armed with knives and handguns.
I must have missed where the military has computerized their rifles.
All the major modern weapons systems require all sorts of computer systems to design, build, and operate them
I would say that all the modern weapons systems make use of computer systems, because computers exist. Without computers, nearly all of the weapons would still exist, though they'd be less effective. The loss in effectiveness would be in accuracy and communications, though, not in destructive power.
Computers are very useful tools, but they're hardly a replacement for firearms.
Apparently you've never seen AP or teflon(illgeal in 90% of places) coated rounds.
Teflon has nothing to do with bullets' armor piercing capabilities or lack thereof. The reason some AP bullets are coated in Teflon is because they have very hard jackets and the Teflon reduces wear on the gun barrel.
Teflon coatings are not illegal under federal law; the federal anti-AP ammunition statutes focus on the jacket and core composition, not on coatings. There are a handful of states which ban the coatings.
for awhile the talons were very popular until they were outlawed as well.
The Winchester Black Talons are not and were not armor piercing. They were pretty normal jacketed hollowpoints, coated with Lubalox (not Teflon) which gave them the black color. Black Talons were voluntarily removed from the market by Winchester, but have never been banned in any jurisdiction. Winchester replaced them with the very similar Ranger SXT round, which doesn't include the Lubalox coating. Winchester does use the coating on some rifle rounds.
However, your statement:
Now if the crime is actually committed, you can't be guilty of knowing about a future crime and not reporting it, since the crime itself is now past and no longer future.
makes no sense. If there were a duty to report, you could indeed be found guilty of knowing and failing to report.
Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack, killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage, every year if that's what's required to retain our basic freedoms? Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks?
Without a doubt, and with no hesitation, I am willing. Even though you raised the ante substantially past what was reality. It does not matter; liberty or death and I won't die without a fight.
As would any true patriot. And I agree that an annual 9/11 attack is unrealistic. I'm skeptical that these warrantless wiretaps accomplished any reduction at all in terrorist activity, personally.
Yes, and we're only discussing criminal law here, since the judge is commenting on a criminal case.
Doesn't matter. The point under discussion is whether or not Gmail users have an expectation of privacy. The fact that Google will routinely respond to subpoenas (civil or criminal) means that they have a lower expectation than they might have. The other approach Google could take is to refuse compliance until the user had been notified and given an opportunity to fight it. Good ISPs take that approach.
As you said though, the judge still must determine its relevant. As for your assertion that its a matter of routine that they sign blank papers, please provide some evidence of that.
Personal experience from a civil suit I was peripherally involved in a few years ago. The attorney thought it was routine.
So when theres a line that says, 'stand here to respect our constitution', and you see the people at the front of the line getting beheaded, are you going to get in it? Based purely on your blanket statement?
Depends. Does it also say that after X number of heads are lopped off, constitutional protections will be given their full effect for the next 100 years? If so, I guarantee there will be people willing to give their own lives in order to protect the freedom of generations to come, assuming there's a reason to believe the promise.
I prefer to pose the question more concretely, though: Are you willing to accept another 9/11-scale terrorist attack, killing thousands of people and doing billions in property damage, every year if that's what's required to retain our basic freedoms? Are you willing to accept that it may be you or members of your family who are killed in those attacks?
Copyright is constitutional. Unlimited retroactive extensions is questionable, and the scope of copyright might be an issue, but the basic idea is explicitly supported by the US constitution.
No, they can't issue a subpena that's not related to the case at hand. So you're notion that any case can be stretched to ask for unrelated information is nonsense.
Let's backtrack a bit. The discussion was whether or not Gmail users have any expectation of privacy in light of Google's policy that they'll provide information in response to a subpoena. The comment was made that because Google must honor warrants, Google's decision to also respond to subpoenas doesn't reduce users' privacy.
I responded that warrants and subpoenas are different, and they are.
See, Google does have a choice about how they handle subpoenas. They do not have a choice about how they handle warrants. Google does not have to simply hand over information in response to a subpoena, they can instead go to court and argue that they should not have to provide said information. They don't even have to have a consistent policy about this. The can in some cases choose to fight and in other cases choose not to. Their stated policy is to ALWAYS comply with a subpoena. That is a reduction in privacy from what is required by law, which implies that there is grounds to believe that Gmail users have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Also, many states have grand juries to determine if a case should proceed. Meaning an average citizen has to be convienced that there's probable cause.
That's only for criminal law. Subpoenas are also used in civil cases, which is why "anyone can issue a subpoena", as I said. You file a civil suit against someone and then you can issue all the subpoenas you want as part of discovery.
Warrants are only used in criminal cases.
In neither civil nor criminal cases does the judge determine in advance whether the information requested by a subpoena is justified on any sort of probable cause basis. The standard of review is relevance only. If the information requested appears that it would provide facts relevant to the case at hand, it is granted. That's the theory. In practice, judges usually rely on attorneys' ethical behavior and don't review subpoena requests at all. They sign a stack of blank subpoenas and hand them over.
The reason for the lower standard of review is that the target of the subpoena has the option of fighting it. If they can show that the information is not relevant, or if they can show some other reason why the harm caused by responding would outweigh the harm caused by not responding, then the judge will quash the subpoena. You can't quash a search warrant; the most you can do is to get the information obtained excluded from evidence.
You know, its ok to admit you were wrong. Stop trying to stretch things out of a reasonable discussion.
I have zero problem admitting when I'm wrong, which happens often. In this particular case, I'm not.
Yes, SOME case must be in progress, but it can be any case for which any reason can be constructed to ask for the information. That's a VERY different situation from a warrant, which has to pass a probable cause test.
In the common case, where the system hasn't been manually tweaked much, it just works. The only real downside is that some of your 3rd-party packages will get automatically removed and you'll have to reinstall them. For the average user, there's almost zero risk in upgrading -- and the only reason I toss the "almost" in is because I can't stand being absolutist.
In my case, I make lots of modifications to my system, and so there is some risk of breakage, but I also have the knowledge required to fix it. On the other hand, I know that if I installed from scratch it would take me a long time to get the new system configured the way I like it. It's easier to upgrade and then fix whatever tweaks got broken.
But the judge doesn't have to decide if there is probable cause to warrant violation of someone's 4th amendment rights. The judge rarely even asks what information the party requesting the subpoena wants to get. If you're involved in a lawsuit, you pretty much just go get a stack of blank subpoenas, fill them in and serve them.
Also, a warrant gives police the authority to go take the information, by force, whereas a subpoena is a legal request for information, and the recipient of the subpoena has the choice of either complying or explaining to the court why the subpoena should not be allowed.
He says that Gmail uses agree to google disclosing the information in response to a lawful request (ie, a subpoena) and somehow reads from this that users dont have any expectation of privacy. Personally, I would think that expecting disclosure to require a warrant was pretty much an expectation or privacy.
Warrant != subpoena. A warrant must be signed by a judge. Anyone can issue a subpoena.
>>Soviets couldn't pre-emptively blow up missiles that were always on the move and hard to locate.
"Always on the move" is a bit overly optimistic, wouldn't you say?
That was the plan, at one point. Later, they got a little more realistic and decided to just move them periodically. Then they realized that even that wouldn't work very well, and gave up.
Three words, Third party repositories. Your upgrade should go fine and dandy when you've only used official repos, but when extra repos are in the mix it's best to not even try it.
Bah.
I ALWAYS have third-party repositories in the mix, and custom-installed packages (usually from DEBs I built myself). It's really not an issue.