Right. But the allegation is that ALL successful FBI actions to thwart domestic terror activity were the result of the FBI planning the operation. That's a very high bar to get over.
Bzzzzrt. Go back and read the 10th Amendment. Do you see the word explicit anywhere? Nope. It's not there. It was much debated at the time of the ratification but didn't make it in.
This means the Constitution grants IMPLIED as well as EXPLICIT powers.
Oh poppycock. The ninth and tenth amendments obviously don't apply here.
9th. What right are you proposing that would prevent the installation of technologies that would permit searches under the terms of the 4th amendment?
10th. The Constitution clearly gives the Federal Government the power to enforce laws. Clearly that requires the ability to conduct investigations that would result in the issuance of Warrants to gather evidence.
There is also nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can't require that the technical means to execute a warrant be in place. The traditional public switched telephone network has had these mechanisms in place for a century, and has been updating them as time goes on.
The phrase "unreasonable search and seizure" just doesn't apply here because wiretaps require a warrant, which is in fact what the 4th Amendment allows as justification of a search.
The big issue is so-called warrantless wiretaps, which are the use of various loopholes (see FISA) and frog boiling type efforts by governmental organizations. The Supreme Court does in fact act as a balance against this stuff as was recently exemplified by their ruling against us of GPS tracking of automobiles.
Ultimately it would be nice to have judges with a more expansive idea of what an unreasonable search is. This is why voting is important.
That's a very tricky statement. Many terrorist cells are tracked by FBI informants, and of course said informants must take an active role as part of their undercover persona.
The key thing to ask is whether or not the terrorists would have acted without the FBI presence. It seems to me that in many cases the answer is clearly yes.
It's useless. Criminals will just set up their own offshore servers, use encryption, dark nets you name it.
Meanwhile it isn't so much the abuses of CALEA that are the problem, but the lack of security. These things are basically backdoors to the network you live on, and let any old person with the keys (say a Chinese intruder) in.
It's a choice Europe makes to keep political units that make sense when most people were serfs tied to the land. Sooner or later old divisions I'd think these will go away.
#1 I am not American. We do not have a "section on the American Constitution", we have a section on *our* constitution
So you are admitting you know nothing about the topic. Nice.
#2 I still apparently know your constitution/laws better than you since Freedom of Association is inherent in Freedom of Assembly ever since NAACP v. Alabama.
Evidently not since all NAACP v. Alabama ruled was that a private organization doesn't have to divulge it's membership list, and used the due process clause under the 14th amendment as it's justification, and invoked that due process as referring to the Right of Assembly which is tied to the right of Free Speech.
"General types of association unrelated to First Amendment rights are not protected by the Constitution. For instance, in City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 109 S. Ct. 1591, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1989), the Court held that a city ordinance limiting adult entrance into teenage dance halls did not violate the associational rights of either the adults or the minors. The association of adults and minors in a social setting does not fall within the purview of any rights protected by the First Amendment and therefore is not a constitutionally protected activity."
Notice the similarity of this to our topic.
So once AGAIN you FAIL on matters regarding the US Constitutional, and in fact your statement that this is clearly unconstitutional, which it is obviously not.
FYI My country's constitution has Freedom of Association written explicitly into it. So much for your constitution being divine/America being the shining city on the hill - your personal freedoms are at the mercy of your judicial branch.
You are making me roll on the floor with laughter. You guys didn't even have a Bill of Rights as part of your Constitution until 1982. You still can't run an national election properly that isn't severely in doubt of its validity. Fact: the US has had a Bill of Rights as part of it's Constitution some 200 years longer than you have.
I guess *you* didn't pass *your* section on the Constitution (assuming you're American - which judging by your automatic assumption that everyone else is, is probably a pretty safe assumption)
This web site is US based. The vast majority of its participants are Americans. This is a story which would normally have little or no international interest. Why the hell wouldn't I assume you were American? Except maybe by your ignorance of these matters?
Why should they be notified? So they could wipe it before the FBI got there?
Hey Mr. X we of the FBI are coming around to execute a search warrant later today. Be sure to not erase anything or destroy hide or move any physical evidence before we get there. Also be sure your entire staff is on premises should we need to cart off anyone to the hoosegow.
Of course as soon as they confiscate it I'm sure notification isn't needed - your NOC will call you up.
Actually the second example directly addresses this issue directly as it is a state regulating associations between an adult and a minor.
The first example is also quite apropos in that it gives an example where the right of association is overridden by the establishment of a protection for a certain class of individuals. US law is full of examples of this sort of legal structure.
Freedom of Association is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution. The right mentioned there is Freedom of Assembly.
The Supreme Court has ruled that such an implied right exists, however there are limits. For example you cannot refuse to sell beer to somebody because you don't like the color of their skin. On the other hand it is permissible for the state to make a law that you can't sell beer to someone who is below a certain age.
That's ridiculous. When Intel rolls out a new processor arc it puts a whole range of products on it, and adoption of the new cpus is very rapid. The Ivy Bridge cpus are absolutely mainstream designs with integrated GPUs and low power consumption rather than high end designs that sell in small volume.
Intel also introduced a new mobile design that looks extremely interesting - the first processor with vertical transistors. And the smaller feature size and power consumption is a huge win in this market.
It is very questionable whether jury nullification would be possible at all in our legal system in a civil trial like this.
Even if the jury would ignore instructions in a civil trial the judge would have the power to intercede and correct the decision as the final decision lies with the judge.
The fundamental justification for nullification is citizens acting to protect the accused from oppressive government action. That is not present in a civil case. Sometimes you can have an activist jury come to 'strange' decisions, but that normally happens in a product liability suit.
Unlike in a criminal trail where a not guilty verdict cannot be appealed, appeals are possible no matter what the decision in a civil trial.
The thing is you are taking the position than it is a national imperative that we focus on innovation and at the same time we weaken our IP rights.
That is not a recipe for success. It's fundamentally inconsistent as a policy aimed at maintaining a prosperous economy.
As far as some of your other statements - there seem to be some naivety. For example the period of exclusivity granted by a patent is 20 years. It doesn't give you a multigeneration hold on anything. Depending on the nature of the invention it may actually be to short to take advantage of. I've seen it on a personal basis - the company I worked for developed a technology for producing amorphous metal alloys which had novel magnetic properties and patented the invention. They then spent the next 20 years trying to find economic uses for it, and eventually found enough to recover about half their original R&D investment. Competitors however came into the market after the original patent expired and because of their lower costs including offshore labor and no need for a large R&D department drove the original inventors out of the market. Now they original company no longer has a cutting edge R&D organization.
As far as copyrights I'm sympathetic to those complaining about the current term. However if you are going to build an economy on the fruits of such a thing why not maximize it? The real truth of the matter is that it is quite unusual for an individual to own an important copyright - such things are generally owned by corporations who have invested a lot of development money into the property. The amount that they can invest in the future is solely dependent on past returns.
Finally, anti-capitalist ideas are distinctly out of place when you are talking about the economic success of a nation. They don't work, and will lead to failure of that society.
English common law has long precedent in recognizing rights of authors.
And your treatment of the Statute of Anne is rather unfair; it was a big advance in establishing the idea of public domain and eventually put an end to common law claims of perpetual ownership by authors.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. But the allegation is that ALL successful FBI actions to thwart domestic terror activity were the result of the FBI planning the operation. That's a very high bar to get over.
http://booksellersvsbestsellers.blogspot.com/2011/01/dumb-criminals-correlation-with-iq.html
The smart ones go in for activity where they can make a lot of money without getting rung up very often.
Like investment banking.
Bzzzzrt. Go back and read the 10th Amendment. Do you see the word explicit anywhere? Nope. It's not there. It was much debated at the time of the ratification but didn't make it in.
This means the Constitution grants IMPLIED as well as EXPLICIT powers.
Oh poppycock. The ninth and tenth amendments obviously don't apply here.
9th. What right are you proposing that would prevent the installation of technologies that would permit searches under the terms of the 4th amendment?
10th. The Constitution clearly gives the Federal Government the power to enforce laws. Clearly that requires the ability to conduct investigations that would result in the issuance of Warrants to gather evidence.
Funny thing is that works a lot of the time.
The fact is that there is a strong negative correlation between criminal activity and IQ.
There is also nothing in the Constitution that says that the government can't require that the technical means to execute a warrant be in place. The traditional public switched telephone network has had these mechanisms in place for a century, and has been updating them as time goes on.
The phrase "unreasonable search and seizure" just doesn't apply here because wiretaps require a warrant, which is in fact what the 4th Amendment allows as justification of a search.
The big issue is so-called warrantless wiretaps, which are the use of various loopholes (see FISA) and frog boiling type efforts by governmental organizations. The Supreme Court does in fact act as a balance against this stuff as was recently exemplified by their ruling against us of GPS tracking of automobiles.
Ultimately it would be nice to have judges with a more expansive idea of what an unreasonable search is. This is why voting is important.
That's a very tricky statement. Many terrorist cells are tracked by FBI informants, and of course said informants must take an active role as part of their undercover persona.
The key thing to ask is whether or not the terrorists would have acted without the FBI presence. It seems to me that in many cases the answer is clearly yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html
It's useless. Criminals will just set up their own offshore servers, use encryption, dark nets you name it.
Meanwhile it isn't so much the abuses of CALEA that are the problem, but the lack of security. These things are basically backdoors to the network you live on, and let any old person with the keys (say a Chinese intruder) in.
It's a choice Europe makes to keep political units that make sense when most people were serfs tied to the land. Sooner or later old divisions I'd think these will go away.
Probably later.
#1 I am not American. We do not have a "section on the American Constitution", we have a section on *our* constitution
So you are admitting you know nothing about the topic. Nice.
#2 I still apparently know your constitution/laws better than you since Freedom of Association is inherent in Freedom of Assembly ever since NAACP v. Alabama.
Evidently not since all NAACP v. Alabama ruled was that a private organization doesn't have to divulge it's membership list, and used the due process clause under the 14th amendment as it's justification, and invoked that due process as referring to the Right of Assembly which is tied to the right of Free Speech.
From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Association+and+Assembly
"General types of association unrelated to First Amendment rights are not protected by the Constitution. For instance, in City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 109 S. Ct. 1591, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1989), the Court held that a city ordinance limiting adult entrance into teenage dance halls did not violate the associational rights of either the adults or the minors. The association of adults and minors in a social setting does not fall within the purview of any rights protected by the First Amendment and therefore is not a constitutionally protected activity."
Notice the similarity of this to our topic.
So once AGAIN you FAIL on matters regarding the US Constitutional, and in fact your statement that this is clearly unconstitutional, which it is obviously not.
FYI My country's constitution has Freedom of Association written explicitly into it. So much for your constitution being divine/America being the shining city on the hill - your personal freedoms are at the mercy of your judicial branch.
You are making me roll on the floor with laughter. You guys didn't even have a Bill of Rights as part of your Constitution until 1982. You still can't run an national election properly that isn't severely in doubt of its validity. Fact: the US has had a Bill of Rights as part of it's Constitution some 200 years longer than you have.
I guess *you* didn't pass *your* section on the Constitution (assuming you're American - which judging by your automatic assumption that everyone else is, is probably a pretty safe assumption)
This web site is US based. The vast majority of its participants are Americans. This is a story which would normally have little or no international interest. Why the hell wouldn't I assume you were American? Except maybe by your ignorance of these matters?
Do they even need a warrant for that? After all, that's neither search nor seizure.
How do you know they didn't call up ECN and say "hey we are done with that server want it back, we'll drop it off at the colo for ya"?
Why should they be notified? So they could wipe it before the FBI got there?
Hey Mr. X we of the FBI are coming around to execute a search warrant later today. Be sure to not erase anything or destroy hide or move any physical evidence before we get there. Also be sure your entire staff is on premises should we need to cart off anyone to the hoosegow.
Of course as soon as they confiscate it I'm sure notification isn't needed - your NOC will call you up.
Crikey.
How do you know they didn't get permission from the owners of the datacenter? After all, the datacenter isn't the property of the RiseUp guys.
Actually the second example directly addresses this issue directly as it is a state regulating associations between an adult and a minor.
The first example is also quite apropos in that it gives an example where the right of association is overridden by the establishment of a protection for a certain class of individuals. US law is full of examples of this sort of legal structure.
Thanks for being a complete nekulturny on this.
I guess you didn't pass the section on the Constitution. "Freedom of Association" isn't mentioned there.
Freedom of Association is nowhere mentioned in the US Constitution. The right mentioned there is Freedom of Assembly.
The Supreme Court has ruled that such an implied right exists, however there are limits. For example you cannot refuse to sell beer to somebody because you don't like the color of their skin. On the other hand it is permissible for the state to make a law that you can't sell beer to someone who is below a certain age.
They would rather have you in bondage while they fsck you.
If it was a free market Comcast wouldn't have exclusive franchises with the municipalities it operates in and you'd have multiple ISPs to choose from.
That's ridiculous. When Intel rolls out a new processor arc it puts a whole range of products on it, and adoption of the new cpus is very rapid. The Ivy Bridge cpus are absolutely mainstream designs with integrated GPUs and low power consumption rather than high end designs that sell in small volume.
Intel also introduced a new mobile design that looks extremely interesting - the first processor with vertical transistors. And the smaller feature size and power consumption is a huge win in this market.
It is very questionable whether jury nullification would be possible at all in our legal system in a civil trial like this.
Even if the jury would ignore instructions in a civil trial the judge would have the power to intercede and correct the decision as the final decision lies with the judge.
The fundamental justification for nullification is citizens acting to protect the accused from oppressive government action. That is not present in a civil case. Sometimes you can have an activist jury come to 'strange' decisions, but that normally happens in a product liability suit.
Unlike in a criminal trail where a not guilty verdict cannot be appealed, appeals are possible no matter what the decision in a civil trial.
The thing is you are taking the position than it is a national imperative that we focus on innovation and at the same time we weaken our IP rights.
That is not a recipe for success. It's fundamentally inconsistent as a policy aimed at maintaining a prosperous economy.
As far as some of your other statements - there seem to be some naivety. For example the period of exclusivity granted by a patent is 20 years. It doesn't give you a multigeneration hold on anything. Depending on the nature of the invention it may actually be to short to take advantage of. I've seen it on a personal basis - the company I worked for developed a technology for producing amorphous metal alloys which had novel magnetic properties and patented the invention. They then spent the next 20 years trying to find economic uses for it, and eventually found enough to recover about half their original R&D investment. Competitors however came into the market after the original patent expired and because of their lower costs including offshore labor and no need for a large R&D department drove the original inventors out of the market. Now they original company no longer has a cutting edge R&D organization.
As far as copyrights I'm sympathetic to those complaining about the current term. However if you are going to build an economy on the fruits of such a thing why not maximize it? The real truth of the matter is that it is quite unusual for an individual to own an important copyright - such things are generally owned by corporations who have invested a lot of development money into the property. The amount that they can invest in the future is solely dependent on past returns.
Finally, anti-capitalist ideas are distinctly out of place when you are talking about the economic success of a nation. They don't work, and will lead to failure of that society.
> Looks like he was arguing for reasonable copyright laws.
He limited protection to expressions and ideas in tangible form, so anything that is in the form of data would not be protected.
That's pretty much the end of copyright.
The concept of copyright is far older. Ancient Jewish Talmudic law and Roman law contain ideas about the rights of an author to control his works.
The oldest legal case dates back to the 6th century in Ireland.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/copyright.html
English common law has long precedent in recognizing rights of authors.
And your treatment of the Statute of Anne is rather unfair; it was a big advance in establishing the idea of public domain and eventually put an end to common law claims of perpetual ownership by authors.
Considering the record of the previous incumbent that's still a vast improvement.