I would. It would be fun if the public gets access to the video recordings.
I'd set up a website offering a £1000 prize for the first beating [by police] caught on video.
So, why would you have a problem with a drone recording a beating by whoever? Presumably, the recording will increase the likelihood of the perpetrators (police or not) being brought to justice...
Oh, yes, no question — Microsoft could have used i386's features earlier, but, by that time, they already had Windows-3.1 (and 3.11 "for Workgroups). It took them years to come up with Win95 — an OS capable of memory protections and pre-emptive multi-tasking.
And then they wanted (or had) to provide backwards compatibility with Win-3.1... If Linux — or any OS — had to provide compatibility with that, they would all have sucked...:-)
I'm not excusing Microsoft — and dislike them strongly — but no Unix would run on 286, while Windows did.
In fairness to Microsoft, the above only became possible with the i386. Earlier Intel processors didn't offer the capabilities necessary for these two features. No idea, what Apple's problems were...
Apple's products are well designed and work. That, apparently, is the key to their popularity.
On contrast, Microsoft's offerings were crappy — and that fact, rather than their being "closed" or anti-competitive, is why we hated them and the company.
BTW, nowadays Windows seems to suck much less and so newer generations have much hostility towards Microsoft — despite their remaining just as closed and anti-competitive as they were before.
using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered "material falsification" under federal law.
The cited part of the law:
registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message...to identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message..."
I'm afraid, some day this may be applied to people, who have nothing to do with actual spam...
Does not anybody see parallels with terrorism here?
We can't afford to give protections of the real trial by a civilian court to terrorists!
We don't know, whether they are terrorists, until a trial concludes, that they are!
While it is relatively easy for the President to get millions of followers
Indeed... Even Sarah Palin — a private citizen, with one book to her name (and a lousy one at that, according to the enlightened people) — has 224,248 Facebook fans at the time of this writing.
He should apologize to Rush when Rush apologizes for stating that it sounded likely on-air while not actually knowing if there was any truth to it.
It may sound likely without being true at all. Rush, in general, words himself carefully and has very little to apologize for. This fact, of course, adds a lot to the hatred of certain people against him, who are, in general, a lot less refined. This thread is another example:-)
I say the people should sue for failing to provide contractual obligations
Which contractual obligations? What contract are you talking about? The Telecomunications act of 1996 is not a contract...
and we file a lien on their entire infrastructure and provide everyone with free service until they deliver on their obligations?
Do you really want to nationalize a piece of infrastructure? Who will run it? Who will pay the workers to maintain the cables? You? The bank-accounts you are planning on seizing will get depleted very quickly, and even if you start charging for the service again, you will not have the business know-how to replenish them.
Sheesh, I know, you were joking, but I suspect, you were only half-joking. It is like Socialism — government-ownership of economy — has not fallen on its face everywhere it was tried. Your friend in Zimbabwe confiscated the farms to "restore justice" and his country — formerly an exporter of food — now needs vast international help to avoid famine. Your friend in Venezuela ran his country into the ground to the point of the bridges crumbling and electricity blackouts. It only took both heroes several years to ruin their respective economies...
However bad things may be, letting the government (or "community") run them will only make them worse.
I don't [agree]: constitutional issues trump majority rule in the US
You stated, that police inability to stop pot-growing using legal methods is, in itself, evidence, that pot-growing ought to become legal. This was and remains non-sense: police ought to keep trying to find legal methods to fight the crime until they prevail (or it stops being a crime).
But your idea — that law-enforcement's imperfections ought to mean, the things they fight aren't really crimes — is ridiculous on its own. For obvious examples, consider murder. Or rape. Or theft/burglary. All of these have been illegal for centuries and millenniums, but keep occurring — despite police fighting them and using un-Constitutional (and otherwise really bad) methods for that on occasion.
Do you propose, we just give up and legalize those things?
The link quotes 53% in favor vs. 43% opposing legalization. Well, if true, then what's the problem in Congress?... Are they too busy nationalizing health-care (despite far fewer people favoring that)? Whatever — if Americans want it legalized, it will happen eventually — but until then, police ought to treat it as a crime it is and keep looking for ways to fight it (legally).
You can rephrase this to support a nearly opposite point of view: the pot growing is so evil, that it not only......, but also endangers our Constitution. Depends on the cause, that you rhetoric is trying to help.
Fourth Amendment issues are one of the major arguments for putting an end to the war on drugs.
No. The one and only argument is (or ought to be), that the people don't want pot-growing to be illegal. This is not, however, the case. Until it is, police absolutely must use everything legally available to them to fight it.
couldn't China just declare the work to be in the public domain as far as they're concerned?
It could — in China. But the claimant can still go after whatever interests and assets the targets of the lawsuit have in the USA... And that is, what the claimant is doing — by filing the suit in the Los Angeles federal court.
Are you telling us that China doesn't have this out clause?
It does not have this clause in China, because in countries like that suing the government is as bizarre and unimaginable as, say, defecating on the Moon (without spacesuit).
It does not have this clause in the US either — for entirely different reasons... If you were to RTFA, you would've known, that the suit was filed in the Los Angeles federal court.
you still can't use headlights to peer into someone's house THROUGH THE WALL or ROOF.
Of course not. But what if the cops begin using night vision goggles to better see at night? That technology is in wide use by the military, which means, it may soon find civilian law-enforcement market — and legitimately so, for it will be quite helpful to the police at night. Walking or driving by a marijuana-growing lab, the cops can find the surprising heat to be in plain view — and there is nothing wrong with that, really...
Basically, if it isn't grossly obvious that you're doing something illegal, the Police should leave you the hell alone
Mmm, "grossly obvious" is too high a standard — that's what is needed to convict. "Probably" is what's specified by the Constitution as required to perform a search.
Wiretapping equipment is cheap so it should it be available to the local police without a warrant
Being cheap is not the only requirement — it should also be in routine use for other, routine, purposes. For example, infra-red equipment can be (indeed, is) used to better see at night. If the cops notice a surprisingly hot wall, the discovery could be (part of a) probable cause for a search warrant...
To take the argument to its absurdity, crowbars are cheap so the police should be able to bust into your house without a warrant?
No, because action (of busting in) would required to do so — not merely observation. They obviously can't just walk-in, even if door were unlocked...
Cops used to use infrared cameras in heli's to fly over houses looking for hotspots associated with people growing Marijuana.
This was found unconstitutional for the reasons described in the article — and acknowledged by me: the equipment used was not "ordinary".
Once the cops begin routine patrols with helicopters and routinely use infra-red equipment to better see things (like the use electrical headlights now), whatever they find may be treated as found in plain view and thus admissible in court even without a warrant. That's what TFA is about, actually, and there is nothing wrong with that aspect of the progress.
As I say, we should be worrying about anyone using this technology to look at things hitherto out of reach. Police are the least of our problems here, for they — almost universally — look for crimes (or building code violations). Your neighbor, on the other hand, could just want to see, what you are wearing underneath that kilt...
military-industrial complex that is the US government
Actually, anybody familiar with the budget allocations knows, the US government is a giant annuity (Social Security, 21%), health insurance (Medicare 23%) and charity complex, with some military (21%) on a side. If you don't want off-topic responses, don't use off-topic flamebaits, Ok?
US government could easily start up a company to make eg. these or these and sell them well below their actual value to anyone who wants (say $20 or $50) and subsequently use them everywhere to make a real-time map of anyone's location.
Yes. If indeed, the idea catches on and everyone starts carrying them, they could be used for police work without warrants. And this will happen with time, even if the government does not speed-up the adoption. Think of electricity — and the headlights. 100 years ago cops couldn't see into your yard at night and needed a warrant to look. Today your yard is in plain view, when the cruiser drives by...
Of course, to prevent the government from speeding up the scenario you are describing, it should not have so much money — which means, the government's share of the GDP should be decreasing, rather than increasing... Oh, and, of course, the government should never be able to "start a company" — nor a co-op, for that matter. But that's off-topic again...
I thought that it was more about the expectation of privacy that people have inside their own homes and not just the ability to peer inside it.
You thought wrong... If something is "in plain view", then police needs no warrant to follow-up. For an obvious example, if a cop hears a shot inside a house, he needs no warrant to start investigating. Further, if the window/curtains are open and he can see a crime, his observations can (and should!) be used in court.
Similarly, if we the humans were equipped to detect infra-red light, the police wouldn't have had no problem that's described in the write-up. Arguably, the humans are so equipped now — and that's, what the article is about...
For example, 100 years ago we didn't really have electric lights and thus could barely see at night — without street lights. So, to notice something in your yard at night back then, the cops needed a warrant (for they had to drag some serious lightning equipment). Today they'll see it in their cruiser's headlights driving by and it is thus "in plain view".
Slashdot Mirror
So, why would you have a problem with a drone recording a beating by whoever? Presumably, the recording will increase the likelihood of the perpetrators (police or not) being brought to justice...
Oh, yes, no question — Microsoft could have used i386's features earlier, but, by that time, they already had Windows-3.1 (and 3.11 "for Workgroups). It took them years to come up with Win95 — an OS capable of memory protections and pre-emptive multi-tasking.
And then they wanted (or had) to provide backwards compatibility with Win-3.1... If Linux — or any OS — had to provide compatibility with that, they would all have sucked... :-)
I'm not excusing Microsoft — and dislike them strongly — but no Unix would run on 286, while Windows did.
In fairness to Microsoft, the above only became possible with the i386. Earlier Intel processors didn't offer the capabilities necessary for these two features. No idea, what Apple's problems were...
much less hostility. Darn...
Apple's products are well designed and work. That, apparently, is the key to their popularity.
On contrast, Microsoft's offerings were crappy — and that fact, rather than their being "closed" or anti-competitive, is why we hated them and the company.
BTW, nowadays Windows seems to suck much less and so newer generations have much hostility towards Microsoft — despite their remaining just as closed and anti-competitive as they were before.
The court's decision:
The cited part of the law:
I'm afraid, some day this may be applied to people, who have nothing to do with actual spam...
Does not anybody see parallels with terrorism here?
Indeed... Even Sarah Palin — a private citizen, with one book to her name (and a lousy one at that, according to the enlightened people) — has 224,248 Facebook fans at the time of this writing.
It may sound likely without being true at all. Rush, in general, words himself carefully and has very little to apologize for. This fact, of course, adds a lot to the hatred of certain people against him, who are, in general, a lot less refined. This thread is another example :-)
Government officials warning against private companies. Who is surprised?
So, will you apologize to Rush now, or do you despise him so much, we may as well expect you to apologize to the Devil?
I wonder, what it is now... "Angelina Jolie"? "Bruce Willis"?
Which contractual obligations? What contract are you talking about? The Telecomunications act of 1996 is not a contract...
Do you really want to nationalize a piece of infrastructure? Who will run it? Who will pay the workers to maintain the cables? You? The bank-accounts you are planning on seizing will get depleted very quickly, and even if you start charging for the service again, you will not have the business know-how to replenish them.
Sheesh, I know, you were joking, but I suspect, you were only half-joking. It is like Socialism — government-ownership of economy — has not fallen on its face everywhere it was tried. Your friend in Zimbabwe confiscated the farms to "restore justice" and his country — formerly an exporter of food — now needs vast international help to avoid famine. Your friend in Venezuela ran his country into the ground to the point of the bridges crumbling and electricity blackouts. It only took both heroes several years to ruin their respective economies...
However bad things may be, letting the government (or "community") run them will only make them worse.
Scientists change a woody into a boner. Khmm...
You stated, that police inability to stop pot-growing using legal methods is, in itself, evidence, that pot-growing ought to become legal. This was and remains non-sense: police ought to keep trying to find legal methods to fight the crime until they prevail (or it stops being a crime).
But your idea — that law-enforcement's imperfections ought to mean, the things they fight aren't really crimes — is ridiculous on its own. For obvious examples, consider murder. Or rape. Or theft/burglary. All of these have been illegal for centuries and millenniums, but keep occurring — despite police fighting them and using un-Constitutional (and otherwise really bad) methods for that on occasion.
Do you propose, we just give up and legalize those things?
The link quotes 53% in favor vs. 43% opposing legalization. Well, if true, then what's the problem in Congress?... Are they too busy nationalizing health-care (despite far fewer people favoring that )? Whatever — if Americans want it legalized, it will happen eventually — but until then, police ought to treat it as a crime it is and keep looking for ways to fight it (legally).
Let's hope, our Judiciary is duly independent from the Executive and thus unconcerned about matters of foreign policy...
You can rephrase this to support a nearly opposite point of view: the pot growing is so evil, that it not only ......, but also endangers our Constitution. Depends on the cause, that you rhetoric is trying to help.
No. The one and only argument is (or ought to be), that the people don't want pot-growing to be illegal. This is not, however, the case. Until it is, police absolutely must use everything legally available to them to fight it.
China has plenty of assets in the US, which can be ceased, if the judge says so...
It could — in China. But the claimant can still go after whatever interests and assets the targets of the lawsuit have in the USA... And that is, what the claimant is doing — by filing the suit in the Los Angeles federal court.
It does not have this clause in China, because in countries like that suing the government is as bizarre and unimaginable as, say, defecating on the Moon (without spacesuit).
It does not have this clause in the US either — for entirely different reasons... If you were to RTFA, you would've known, that the suit was filed in the Los Angeles federal court.
Of course not. But what if the cops begin using night vision goggles to better see at night? That technology is in wide use by the military, which means, it may soon find civilian law-enforcement market — and legitimately so, for it will be quite helpful to the police at night. Walking or driving by a marijuana-growing lab, the cops can find the surprising heat to be in plain view — and there is nothing wrong with that, really...
Mmm, "grossly obvious" is too high a standard — that's what is needed to convict. "Probably" is what's specified by the Constitution as required to perform a search.
Being cheap is not the only requirement — it should also be in routine use for other, routine, purposes. For example, infra-red equipment can be (indeed, is) used to better see at night. If the cops notice a surprisingly hot wall, the discovery could be (part of a) probable cause for a search warrant...
No, because action (of busting in) would required to do so — not merely observation. They obviously can't just walk-in, even if door were unlocked...
This was found unconstitutional for the reasons described in the article — and acknowledged by me: the equipment used was not "ordinary".
Once the cops begin routine patrols with helicopters and routinely use infra-red equipment to better see things (like the use electrical headlights now), whatever they find may be treated as found in plain view and thus admissible in court even without a warrant. That's what TFA is about, actually, and there is nothing wrong with that aspect of the progress.
As I say, we should be worrying about anyone using this technology to look at things hitherto out of reach. Police are the least of our problems here, for they — almost universally — look for crimes (or building code violations). Your neighbor, on the other hand, could just want to see, what you are wearing underneath that kilt...
Actually, anybody familiar with the budget allocations knows, the US government is a giant annuity (Social Security, 21%), health insurance (Medicare 23%) and charity complex, with some military (21%) on a side. If you don't want off-topic responses, don't use off-topic flamebaits, Ok?
Yes. If indeed, the idea catches on and everyone starts carrying them, they could be used for police work without warrants. And this will happen with time, even if the government does not speed-up the adoption. Think of electricity — and the headlights. 100 years ago cops couldn't see into your yard at night and needed a warrant to look. Today your yard is in plain view, when the cruiser drives by...
Of course, to prevent the government from speeding up the scenario you are describing, it should not have so much money — which means, the government's share of the GDP should be decreasing, rather than increasing... Oh, and, of course, the government should never be able to "start a company" — nor a co-op, for that matter. But that's off-topic again...
Here is the link, that describes how to make such a bomb — and the joys of deploying it...
You thought wrong... If something is "in plain view", then police needs no warrant to follow-up. For an obvious example, if a cop hears a shot inside a house, he needs no warrant to start investigating. Further, if the window/curtains are open and he can see a crime, his observations can (and should!) be used in court.
Similarly, if we the humans were equipped to detect infra-red light, the police wouldn't have had no problem that's described in the write-up. Arguably, the humans are so equipped now — and that's, what the article is about...
For example, 100 years ago we didn't really have electric lights and thus could barely see at night — without street lights. So, to notice something in your yard at night back then, the cops needed a warrant (for they had to drag some serious lightning equipment). Today they'll see it in their cruiser's headlights driving by and it is thus "in plain view".