They don't. All they have are the keys that protect the metadata. However that information is quite valuable in the process of tracking the progress of the mail through the network.
Yes, I know very well that FOUO documents are not classified. In fact one of the requirements for FOUO designation is that it must be unclassified.
However a lot of documents are marked FOUO because of privacy law requirements. For example applications for security clearance contain a lot of personal information and are marked FOUO because of this. Unauthorized distribution of this type of FOUO is absolutely a crime. It says so quite clearly in the reference I gave you.
Whoever gives out this FOUO / LES to unauthorized people commits a crime. 32 CFR 290, Appendix C to Part 290 - For Official Use Only. So this stuff could be evidence.
Of course the mechanics of plain view is an issue here. And the whole thing stinks of suppression of the press.
Improved compression algorithms and quad layer BD should be sufficient to give you the space you need for 4K.
You might need a new BD player and of course TV. But with the new larger LED and maybe OLEDs in the future I think this technology will be a long term winner.
I want to see competition in the market place first. The idea that I can't pick between providers who offer plans on a competitive basis is unacceptable.
Once you allow competition then go ahead and offer this kind of service and we will be able to see what wins in the market.
Search warrants are issued without the target knowing about the process. Clearly the idea of issuing a warrant with the target knowing aforehand would be silly as it would allow moving or destroying the evidence.
The target gets a chance to contest the warrant before or during trial.
Very shaky process the court used to determine cause, but the basic Constitutional requirements were followed.
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A good lawyer would go after the warrant and get it quashed based on the crappy determination of probable cause.
So no, the 4th Amendment is not being violated here.
Huh? 'Not completely false' ? Is this some new definition of truth? A budget is either required or it's not. Well, where does anything like this requirement show up in the Constitution? Or in the actual practice of Congress?
Hint. ONE PLACE. Laws passed by Congress. In 1921 requiring the President to submit his budget, and in 1974 requiring a budget process because Nixon was pulling shenanigans with the budget including not sending allocated money. Prior to 1974 there was no comprehensive real budget process in the US. Prior to 1921 there was NOTHING. The 1974 process has been pretty much ignored over the past 20 years while the President still more or less follows the 1921 law.
The idea the US has historically had a yearly budget according to a Constitutional requirement is simple flat out hooey.
"I think most constitutional scholars and most courts would disagree with her."
There is always SOMEBODY willing to take an opposing view. So you cannot say ALL constitutional scholars and ALL courts would disagree with her.
It's quite clear there is no Constitutional Requirement that the Congress produce a budget.
And as far as partisan shit, since when are actual facts like the actual wording of the Constitution and the law of the United States partisan?
I do agree with your sentiment that we will not be able to address the real issues with the US government debt without dropping partisan bickering.
It's also going to require a hell of a lot of reeducation on both sides to get it right. There are too many low information voters and Congressmen (consequence of the former).
The idea that Congress is constitutionally mandated to prepare a budget is one of many tea party memes that is easily debunked. The fact is the word budget doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Here's what factcheck.org has to say about it:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
In addition, as John McCain recently pointed out, Congress has not followed a basic budgeting process for 20 years. Your attempt to stick this on Obama and Reid is moronic and unjustified by any reference in the Constitution.
The answer is to find a better model for how government operates. 17 trillion is a problem for more than just science. And shutting down government in order to make a political statement is flat out deranged.
Holding out healthcare.gov as a meme for a failure of the ACA has got to backfire, and probably pretty soon.
It's only a freaking website. The government clearly has the ability to run lots of websites that work quite well. So the only reasonable conclusion it that it's going to start working well, and pretty soon given the no doubt massive resources that are going into fixing it.
I've used it a few times, and the progress towards that is quite obvious. Week 1 was a complete disaster. Week 3 I was able to get myself and my wife registered and looking at coverage options with no trouble.
So what seems inevitable is the FOXs and Limbaughs are going to be screaming 'it doesn't work' at the same time people are finding out it does.
And then of course there are the state exchanges. Some of work fine. Some of which have 100's of thousands of people who are getting coverage agreements through them already.
Mark my words. By the next election this thing is going to blow up in Republicans faces big time. Millions of Americans who did not have health care coverage (including many desperate cases that were previously refused because of pre-existing conditions) are going to have coverage. And Democrats are going to beat up Republican intransigents over the head with it. Mercilessly.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't. All they have are the keys that protect the metadata. However that information is quite valuable in the process of tracking the progress of the mail through the network.
We have something like that in the US. It's called Boston.
Actually it's worse that what you described. There are streets in Boston that are too narrow for even one car.
So anyway I'll be buying my self-driving car after these things are successful in Boston.
You can get that from any cell phone now. Self-driving car is an optional accessory.
Yes, I know very well that FOUO documents are not classified. In fact one of the requirements for FOUO designation is that it must be unclassified.
However a lot of documents are marked FOUO because of privacy law requirements. For example applications for security clearance contain a lot of personal information and are marked FOUO because of this. Unauthorized distribution of this type of FOUO is absolutely a crime. It says so quite clearly in the reference I gave you.
Whoever gives out this FOUO / LES to unauthorized people commits a crime. 32 CFR 290, Appendix C to Part 290 - For Official Use Only. So this stuff could be evidence.
Of course the mechanics of plain view is an issue here. And the whole thing stinks of suppression of the press.
They have authority to seize FOUO documents that are in plain view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine
The problem is that warrants have to list what they are searching for. In this case it didn't include the notes.
Nobody is stopping other people from building their own services.
If you don't like the state of affairs whining about it isn't going to fix it.
You can decide not to submit. That is not true of a warrant.
People like this grew up during the Great Depression and lived through a time when America achieved greatness.
No wonder they have a low BS tolerance.
Improved compression algorithms and quad layer BD should be sufficient to give you the space you need for 4K.
You might need a new BD player and of course TV. But with the new larger LED and maybe OLEDs in the future I think this technology will be a long term winner.
I want to see competition in the market place first. The idea that I can't pick between providers who offer plans on a competitive basis is unacceptable.
Once you allow competition then go ahead and offer this kind of service and we will be able to see what wins in the market.
Search warrants are issued without the target knowing about the process. Clearly the idea of issuing a warrant with the target knowing aforehand would be silly as it would allow moving or destroying the evidence.
The target gets a chance to contest the warrant before or during trial.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html
I have a Brother HL-4570CDT - not small but it seems to be pretty well made and quite fast.
Not much? It's MORE than the GDP of the US.
Very shaky process the court used to determine cause, but the basic Constitutional requirements were followed.
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A good lawyer would go after the warrant and get it quashed based on the crappy determination of probable cause.
So no, the 4th Amendment is not being violated here.
I've flown often enough to have experienced a couple of non-scheduled landings due to mechanical issues.
The story is of course baloney.
Facebook should be an expert at reputation management.
Maybe that's why their income is surging.
Huh? 'Not completely false' ? Is this some new definition of truth? A budget is either required or it's not. Well, where does anything like this requirement show up in the Constitution? Or in the actual practice of Congress?
Hint. ONE PLACE. Laws passed by Congress. In 1921 requiring the President to submit his budget, and in 1974 requiring a budget process because Nixon was pulling shenanigans with the budget including not sending allocated money. Prior to 1974 there was no comprehensive real budget process in the US. Prior to 1921 there was NOTHING. The 1974 process has been pretty much ignored over the past 20 years while the President still more or less follows the 1921 law.
The idea the US has historically had a yearly budget according to a Constitutional requirement is simple flat out hooey.
"I think most constitutional scholars and most courts would disagree with her."
There is always SOMEBODY willing to take an opposing view. So you cannot say ALL constitutional scholars and ALL courts would disagree with her.
It's quite clear there is no Constitutional Requirement that the Congress produce a budget.
And as far as partisan shit, since when are actual facts like the actual wording of the Constitution and the law of the United States partisan?
I do agree with your sentiment that we will not be able to address the real issues with the US government debt without dropping partisan bickering.
It's also going to require a hell of a lot of reeducation on both sides to get it right. There are too many low information voters and Congressmen (consequence of the former).
I guess you haven't read the Fugitive Slave Act. Or the 18th Amendment. Or the Kansas Nebraska Act.
That last one was a doozy and is my favorite for worst US Law ever.
If Forbes (or anyone else) is saying that they are incompetent boobs.
Healthcare.gov provides a way to browse the plans without creating an account.
https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/
Oops.
> CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED BUDGET
The idea that Congress is constitutionally mandated to prepare a budget is one of many tea party memes that is easily debunked. The fact is the word budget doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Here's what factcheck.org has to say about it:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/palins-constitutional-stretch/
Here is what the Constitution says about it:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
In addition, as John McCain recently pointed out, Congress has not followed a basic budgeting process for 20 years. Your attempt to stick this on Obama and Reid is moronic and unjustified by any reference in the Constitution.
The answer is to find a better model for how government operates. 17 trillion is a problem for more than just science. And shutting down government in order to make a political statement is flat out deranged.
Holding out healthcare.gov as a meme for a failure of the ACA has got to backfire, and probably pretty soon.
It's only a freaking website. The government clearly has the ability to run lots of websites that work quite well. So the only reasonable conclusion it that it's going to start working well, and pretty soon given the no doubt massive resources that are going into fixing it.
I've used it a few times, and the progress towards that is quite obvious. Week 1 was a complete disaster. Week 3 I was able to get myself and my wife registered and looking at coverage options with no trouble.
So what seems inevitable is the FOXs and Limbaughs are going to be screaming 'it doesn't work' at the same time people are finding out it does.
And then of course there are the state exchanges. Some of work fine. Some of which have 100's of thousands of people who are getting coverage agreements through them already.
Mark my words. By the next election this thing is going to blow up in Republicans faces big time. Millions of Americans who did not have health care coverage (including many desperate cases that were previously refused because of pre-existing conditions) are going to have coverage. And Democrats are going to beat up Republican intransigents over the head with it. Mercilessly.
I'm sorry, but the use of a CR to act as a carrier for legislative changes has ALWAYS been rejected with extreme prejudice.
What the TP tried was completely nonconstructive.
They should have, and DID get their head handed to them for these shenanigans.