unless there is something life threatening a judge would not issue a warrant on something like here-say
Ok, first of all, it is spelled "hearsay" — as in "I heard him say, that...". I corrected your mistake earlier — and gave you a link describing the term. Yet you keep using it even though it is not even applicable, strictly speaking, anywhere other than in court...
And, no, it is perfectly fine for a judge to issue a warrant (for arrest or search) based solely on the officer's repeating, what somebody told them. That somebody would have to repeat the same thing in court during trial (if any) — otherwise it would, indeed, be "hearsay" — but it is sufficient for issuance of a warrant for an officer to quote a third party.
Imagine yourself calling police to report, say, a neighbor raping his goat. Your tip, even though made without oath, and not to the judge himself — thus "hearsay" — would not be enough to convict the man of zoophilia or cruelty to animals, but it would be enough for police to go to a judge and getting a warrant to search his premises.
"If you want a warrant for searching for drugs you need more than here-say."
Sure. A judge can deny a warrant request, if he disagrees with police, that probable cause exists. But it is entirely up to him and, however flimsy police's arguments may be, if the judge agreed with them, then the 4th Amendment's requirement is satisfied. Police still need to find something, but they can now legally proceed with the searching...
Assuming the suspect has a lawyer, and the only evidence presented is from either Google or Microsoft, I would tell the client not to plea and demand a trial
Sure! But in these two cases police did manage to obtain more evidence (legally), so that's now moot...
The government would get screwed in the deal. The most effective exploits would somehow be left out of the deal.
Worse. The proposed program would encourage the software vendors to deliberately place bugs into their code — so as to sell them to government later. It would not even be illegal for them to do so, it seems, not under the current laws.
Law enforcement should surely investigate, but unless there is something life threatening a judge would be foolish to give a warrant for here-say accusation.
The requirements for a issuing a warrant are much less stringent, than for a court conviction — they have to be. A warrant is issued over a mere probable cause, whereas a conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt". In other words, while hearsay is not enough for a trial, the term does not even apply in a non-court setting. Consider the circumstances: whereas your landlord may have planted the drugs in your bedroom to get rid of an inconvenient tenant, there is no incentive for Google (or Microsoft) to falsely implicate one of their users, so if they do report them to police anyway, it is probable, there is something behind the accusation.
But in either case — be it landlord or e-mail service provider — a judge may issue a warrant if he agrees with the police, that probable cause exists, even if they all remain reasonably doubtful.
Obviously a kidnapping (as well as other crimes)
For better or worse, it is generally agreed in this country (and most others), that child pornography is both as vile and urgent, as anything else you can think of.
issue a warrant without an investigation
In the US "investigation" is not something the judge (or the jury) does. Police investigate and then present whatever they found.
certainly rare because they may not hold up in court as Constitutional
Once a judge has issued a warrant, the Constitutional requirements are satisfied. Because, as I said, it does not matter, what arguments were used to convince him to issue it. The 4th Amendment is only there to ensure Judicial oversight of police. And that's enough for decent living because, after all, a search warrant itself does not mean conviction (or even further prosecution) — the ensuing search still has to find something.
I'll need to read more on these proceedings because there is surely a mismatch between your statement and the headline.
Oh, but they are consistent. The e-mail provider finds (what appears to be) criminal material and forwards it to police — the "tip" mentioned in the headline. Police take the material to a judge, who issues a warrant for a search (in Google's case) or arrest (in Microsoft's case). Police arrest the subject and get him to incriminate himself (in Microsoft case) or search the suspect's possessions and find more criminal material. While the originating tips themselves couldn't be used to convict, each was enough to begin an investigation which uncovered more evidence — as is very often happens in criminal prosecutions.
Now, because police could (and did) abuse their powers with malicious prosecutions, an officer's own "hunch" can no longer justify initiation of an investigation — nor even asking for your ID. But an anonymous tip about a "suspicious person" in the neighborhood is still sufficient for them to have a reasonable suspicion and harass such person over nothing more than a glance at some soccer mom's precious daughter.
if third party is in the custody chain of evidence the evidence becomes inadmissible in court
I see, that's good to know. However, in these cases, the third party-provided evidence was used not in court, but to get a warrant to search elsewhere.
Your landlord with keys to your apartment, calls the cops and claims he found drugs in your apartment, opens the door for the cops and shows them where the drugs are.
That's right. However, if the cops use the landlord's testimony to get a warrant to search your office — and find drugs there — then that would be perfectly admissible evidence...
Whether Google or Microsoft have a EULA that claims they can snoop through your data as often as they want is not relevant.
Well, it is relevant to your earlier claim: "They are not a Law enforcement agency and have no right to read through customer data on their own accord". I suspect, they do have such a right — even if the results of their "reading through" are not usable at a trial.
They are not a Law enforcement agency and have no right to read through customer data on their own accord.
Are you aware of a law prohibiting it? I am not, but IANAL... Without such a law, their access to the subscribers' email is controlled only by their own Terms of Service. Which are, of course, subject to change at their discretion.
Because MPAA/RIAA are way more important than children!
A remarkably stupid statement. And with an exclamation mark too!
Google and others are doing this for two reasons
Genuine and sincere disapproval of child pornography, which remains one of the very few things, that are still considered wrong by (almost) everybody;
Fear of bad publicity, which would surely ensue, when a CP-ring is discovered by other means later and the mail-providers get asked the uncomfortable questions over why they've tolerated it despite having the technology to do exactly, what they are doing now.
Neither consideration is applicable to the plight of content-creators. Unfortunately...
In my opinion, education is not about how to do something immediately useful, but primarily about learning to learn. Vocational schools may be different, but that's why they are generally frowned upon — I wish, universities weren't teaching with Java exactly because it is in such wide use in the industry today.
While studying, learn to use a language (or two), which you aren't likely to encounter at any future workplace. Pascal. Lisp. Fortran — whatever. That will still teach you to learn things and force you to learn again, when you are hired. Not only will you be more adaptable to future changes in fashion, you'll also have the awareness of how various problems are solved in different languages — making you a better programmer every day.
Sorry, but no. The onus is on you — one making the claim — to offer links supporting it.
You Google it, you pick the links you deem most suitable, you embed them in your posting.
Making the reader do it is not only impolite, it also makes it easier to attack your argument (that FreeBSD is superior) — the Google search could very well offer a link to some blog saying "FreeBSD networking sucks"...
Check your/usr/include/X11/extensions/fontcachstr.h for example. Or, to put us back on topic of FreeBSD networking, the <netinet/igmp.h>, <netinet/if_ether.h>, and <net/ethernet.h>...
People, you do not have to rebuild your ports just because you updated.
And why would it be such a bad thing, even if you had to? I maintain a handful of ports myself and people's complaining about rebuilding them always irks me — what am I missing?
There are, of course, precompiled binary packages for almost all the ports (where licensing allows redistribution of such binaries). But I don't use them myself — building everything from source. Why not?
Somewhere somehow someone slowly turned travel to be a privilege, which the Executive can withdraw at a whim. It ought to be explicitly declared a right, which only the Judiciary can suspend — after a trial.
Reminds me of Asimov's "psychohistory" from the Foundation series as invented the character Hari Seldon.
Three follow-ups all brought up Asimov. Close, but not quite. Asimov speculated, that in the future it will be possible to predict not just behavior, but history of entire civilizations. Maybe. What I'm talking about today is today's possibility to plan and study ongoing behavior of masses of people.
Skillful politicians have been doing it for centuries (nay, millennia!) — there is no need for science fiction to talk about it...
Solar panel production can only have environmental disadvantages in third world countries without environmental regulations.
Perhaps. Would not that explain, why China's share of the panels produced in the world has been steadily climbing and reached 45% in 2010? Making the devices in countries with effective regulations is cost-prohibitive.
But that's changing. With better batteries, electric cars plugged into the grid can act as a large storage system.
We are a long way from when a portable battery can compete with a tank full of diesel fuel in power density. It is vaporware at best...
The batteries can be both filled and drained by the grid, meaning that energy can be stored and pulled from the network of cars that are sitting idle
Sure. And the liquid fuel can be transfered from one gas-tank to another — and with less of it lost due to spillage.
So, as Morgan Stanley suggests, the age of the centralized power source may soon be over.
I wish it were true, but I doubt it — and suspect, MS is either engaging in wishful thinking or simply trolling the rest of us, while keeping their stocks of power-producers (and buying more).
By comparison, solar power is still the clear winner, according to ecology.com
That sites like "ecology.com" declare solar to be a winner is not surprising. That they even ask a question, however, is a sign, that things aren't as obvious and clear-cut, as some would like the rest of us to believe.
Just twenty years ago we were lead to believe, growing more corn for conversion to ethanol would save the Earth and otherwise make the world a better place. That turned out to be a lie, but you wouldn't find a mention of it on ecology.com. Or, maybe, you would nowadays, but it is hardly trumpeted the way "progressive" politicians were praised for pushing ethanol and the "kkkonservative" ones — lambasted for opposing it.
The energy needed to power vehicles used to come from oil-derivatives (gasoline, diesel fuel). In a way, each car was its own little power plant.
With more and more cars becoming electric — for better or worse — the need for somebody to turn fuel into electricity will increase. That somebody can only be a power company, really... Solar panels remain joke — you need too many of them and making them is rather harmful to Earth. And disposing is a problem too.
So, even if they lose some business to the consumers' ability to generate some share of their own electricity, they'll gain from our increasing total demand for electricity.
While each of us is as unpredictable as a molecule, once you put enough humans together, the crowd becomes as predictable as gas. Google, Facebook, Twitter, (/.?) and other companies with massive user bases can do some pretty interesting things with their users.
Whether it is ethical or not is another story, but it is certainly interesting.
"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst." -Larry Flynt
Sure... I just wish, the Second Amendment was interpreted as widely as the First.
If the First was read as narrowly as the Second is currently, the freedom of speech — which, among other things, once meant Larry's freedom to sell porn — would've been limited to petitioning the government. And only for redress of grievances...
Huh? No, they don't. They want to protect us against enemies — and are willing to sacrifice our freedoms to that end. Most (all?) people in government get rather cavalier about the subjects' freedoms and rights — as well as monies. In their arrogance, they — both politicians and bureaucrats — quickly develop the opinion, that "they know better"...
But there is no malicious intent to throw everyone into prison.
I'm glad you acknowledged seeing the light, but reject your accusations of "rudeness". Neither a claim for a human right, nor its rejection can be considered "rude". It is either valid or not, but it can not be "rude" any more than a volcano can be...
Name one organization, that's campaigning to stop anybody from marrying one person of the opposite gender, who is an adult and not too closely related.
Slashdot Mirror
Though the GP should've included a link or two, finding them for such a famous case is not at all difficult. Here is the Wikipedia's write-up, and the source they are citing.
Ok, first of all, it is spelled "hearsay" — as in "I heard him say, that ...". I corrected your mistake earlier — and gave you a link describing the term. Yet you keep using it even though it is not even applicable, strictly speaking, anywhere other than in court...
And, no, it is perfectly fine for a judge to issue a warrant (for arrest or search) based solely on the officer's repeating, what somebody told them. That somebody would have to repeat the same thing in court during trial (if any) — otherwise it would, indeed, be "hearsay" — but it is sufficient for issuance of a warrant for an officer to quote a third party.
Imagine yourself calling police to report, say, a neighbor raping his goat. Your tip, even though made without oath, and not to the judge himself — thus "hearsay" — would not be enough to convict the man of zoophilia or cruelty to animals, but it would be enough for police to go to a judge and getting a warrant to search his premises.
Sure. A judge can deny a warrant request, if he disagrees with police, that probable cause exists. But it is entirely up to him and, however flimsy police's arguments may be, if the judge agreed with them, then the 4th Amendment's requirement is satisfied. Police still need to find something, but they can now legally proceed with the searching...
Sure! But in these two cases police did manage to obtain more evidence (legally), so that's now moot...
Worse. The proposed program would encourage the software vendors to deliberately place bugs into their code — so as to sell them to government later. It would not even be illegal for them to do so, it seems, not under the current laws.
The requirements for a issuing a warrant are much less stringent, than for a court conviction — they have to be. A warrant is issued over a mere probable cause, whereas a conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt". In other words, while hearsay is not enough for a trial, the term does not even apply in a non-court setting. Consider the circumstances: whereas your landlord may have planted the drugs in your bedroom to get rid of an inconvenient tenant, there is no incentive for Google (or Microsoft) to falsely implicate one of their users, so if they do report them to police anyway, it is probable, there is something behind the accusation.
But in either case — be it landlord or e-mail service provider — a judge may issue a warrant if he agrees with the police, that probable cause exists, even if they all remain reasonably doubtful.
For better or worse, it is generally agreed in this country (and most others), that child pornography is both as vile and urgent, as anything else you can think of.
In the US "investigation" is not something the judge (or the jury) does. Police investigate and then present whatever they found.
Once a judge has issued a warrant, the Constitutional requirements are satisfied. Because, as I said, it does not matter, what arguments were used to convince him to issue it. The 4th Amendment is only there to ensure Judicial oversight of police. And that's enough for decent living because, after all, a search warrant itself does not mean conviction (or even further prosecution) — the ensuing search still has to find something.
Oh, but they are consistent. The e-mail provider finds (what appears to be) criminal material and forwards it to police — the "tip" mentioned in the headline. Police take the material to a judge, who issues a warrant for a search (in Google's case) or arrest (in Microsoft's case). Police arrest the subject and get him to incriminate himself (in Microsoft case) or search the suspect's possessions and find more criminal material. While the originating tips themselves couldn't be used to convict, each was enough to begin an investigation which uncovered more evidence — as is very often happens in criminal prosecutions.
Now, because police could (and did) abuse their powers with malicious prosecutions, an officer's own "hunch" can no longer justify initiation of an investigation — nor even asking for your ID. But an anonymous tip about a "suspicious person" in the neighborhood is still sufficient for them to have a reasonable suspicion and harass such person over nothing more than a glance at some soccer mom's precious daughter.
I see, that's good to know. However, in these cases, the third party-provided evidence was used not in court, but to get a warrant to search elsewhere.
That's right. However, if the cops use the landlord's testimony to get a warrant to search your office — and find drugs there — then that would be perfectly admissible evidence...
Well, it is relevant to your earlier claim: "They are not a Law enforcement agency and have no right to read through customer data on their own accord". I suspect, they do have such a right — even if the results of their "reading through" are not usable at a trial.
Are you aware of a law prohibiting it? I am not, but IANAL... Without such a law, their access to the subscribers' email is controlled only by their own Terms of Service. Which are, of course, subject to change at their discretion.
A remarkably stupid statement. And with an exclamation mark too!
Google and others are doing this for two reasons
Neither consideration is applicable to the plight of content-creators. Unfortunately...
In my opinion, education is not about how to do something immediately useful, but primarily about learning to learn. Vocational schools may be different, but that's why they are generally frowned upon — I wish, universities weren't teaching with Java exactly because it is in such wide use in the industry today.
While studying, learn to use a language (or two), which you aren't likely to encounter at any future workplace. Pascal. Lisp. Fortran — whatever. That will still teach you to learn things and force you to learn again, when you are hired. Not only will you be more adaptable to future changes in fashion, you'll also have the awareness of how various problems are solved in different languages — making you a better programmer every day.
Sorry, but no. The onus is on you — one making the claim — to offer links supporting it.
You Google it, you pick the links you deem most suitable, you embed them in your posting.
Making the reader do it is not only impolite, it also makes it easier to attack your argument (that FreeBSD is superior) — the Google search could very well offer a link to some blog saying "FreeBSD networking sucks"...
Check your /usr/include/X11/extensions/fontcachstr.h for example. Or, to put us back on topic of FreeBSD networking, the <netinet/igmp.h>, <netinet/if_ether.h>, and <net/ethernet.h>...
And why would it be such a bad thing, even if you had to? I maintain a handful of ports myself and people's complaining about rebuilding them always irks me — what am I missing?
There are, of course, precompiled binary packages for almost all the ports (where licensing allows redistribution of such binaries). But I don't use them myself — building everything from source. Why not?
Somewhere somehow someone slowly turned travel to be a privilege, which the Executive can withdraw at a whim. It ought to be explicitly declared a right, which only the Judiciary can suspend — after a trial.
And it is not just airtravel — under Obama, Bush-created TSA are expanding their "jurisdiction" over all other mass transit, nor can you drive a personal car without the government's permission (driver's license). And having somebody else drive you without a government's permission is troublesome too.
Three follow-ups all brought up Asimov. Close, but not quite. Asimov speculated, that in the future it will be possible to predict not just behavior, but history of entire civilizations. Maybe. What I'm talking about today is today's possibility to plan and study ongoing behavior of masses of people.
Skillful politicians have been doing it for centuries (nay, millennia!) — there is no need for science fiction to talk about it...
Maybe — with government subsidies, tax-credits, and cheap solar panels made in China...
"In some places" you hardly need a car too...
Perhaps. Would not that explain, why China's share of the panels produced in the world has been steadily climbing and reached 45% in 2010? Making the devices in countries with effective regulations is cost-prohibitive.
We are a long way from when a portable battery can compete with a tank full of diesel fuel in power density. It is vaporware at best...
Sure. And the liquid fuel can be transfered from one gas-tank to another — and with less of it lost due to spillage.
I wish it were true, but I doubt it — and suspect, MS is either engaging in wishful thinking or simply trolling the rest of us, while keeping their stocks of power-producers (and buying more).
That sites like "ecology.com" declare solar to be a winner is not surprising. That they even ask a question, however, is a sign, that things aren't as obvious and clear-cut, as some would like the rest of us to believe.
Just twenty years ago we were lead to believe, growing more corn for conversion to ethanol would save the Earth and otherwise make the world a better place. That turned out to be a lie, but you wouldn't find a mention of it on ecology.com. Or, maybe, you would nowadays, but it is hardly trumpeted the way "progressive" politicians were praised for pushing ethanol and the "kkkonservative" ones — lambasted for opposing it.
What about those, who repent — and denounce their (ex-)fellow RethugliKKKunts to the local people's commissars?
Are their days just as numbered, or will they be allowed to survive on rations of beets, potatoes, and vodka?
The energy needed to power vehicles used to come from oil-derivatives (gasoline, diesel fuel). In a way, each car was its own little power plant.
With more and more cars becoming electric — for better or worse — the need for somebody to turn fuel into electricity will increase. That somebody can only be a power company, really... Solar panels remain joke — you need too many of them and making them is rather harmful to Earth. And disposing is a problem too.
So, even if they lose some business to the consumers' ability to generate some share of their own electricity, they'll gain from our increasing total demand for electricity.
While each of us is as unpredictable as a molecule, once you put enough humans together, the crowd becomes as predictable as gas. Google, Facebook, Twitter, (/.?) and other companies with massive user bases can do some pretty interesting things with their users.
Whether it is ethical or not is another story, but it is certainly interesting.
Sure... I just wish, the Second Amendment was interpreted as widely as the First.
If the First was read as narrowly as the Second is currently, the freedom of speech — which, among other things, once meant Larry's freedom to sell porn — would've been limited to petitioning the government. And only for redress of grievances...
Huh? No, they don't. They want to protect us against enemies — and are willing to sacrifice our freedoms to that end. Most (all?) people in government get rather cavalier about the subjects' freedoms and rights — as well as monies. In their arrogance, they — both politicians and bureaucrats — quickly develop the opinion, that "they know better"...
But there is no malicious intent to throw everyone into prison.
Exactly! Because — unlike the homeless — the CEOs aren't good for anything else, are they?
I'm glad you acknowledged seeing the light, but reject your accusations of "rudeness". Neither a claim for a human right, nor its rejection can be considered "rude". It is either valid or not, but it can not be "rude" any more than a volcano can be...
Name one organization, that's campaigning to stop anybody from marrying one person of the opposite gender, who is an adult and not too closely related.