The answer as usual is in history. The Fifth Amendment's roots are in common law as a protection from authorities compelling people from confessing through torture and other intimidation. The assertion that protection against this is a separate right is not historically accurate.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Dropbox are now all denying providing direct access to PRISM surveillance program.
Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling flatly adding, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."
Google: "From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door."
Microsoft: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis.
Maybe this crap is really needed or maybe it's an over-reach. Personally I'm betting on over-reach but I'm willing to listen to counter arguments.
HOWEVER IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT MASS SURVEILLANCE ORDERS BE KEPT SECRET
Keeping this sort of stuff secret is a betrayal of the Founders and everything I hold dear about the ideals that were the basis for the founding of this country.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
> modifying plant DNA so that one year's crop cannot be used to plant next year's crop
Uh no, they are not doing that. What you describe is a GURT technology, which has never been commercialized, and it's highly doubtful that it ever will be.
Umm you forget that Watergate is tied to prolonging the Vietnam war. In 1968 Nixon's campaign intentionally sabotaged Johnson's efforts Vietnam peace talks, an act that President Johnson later referred to as treason.
As a result of the longer war thousands of Americans died. This was a far more direct action with horrific consequences by Nixon than what happened in Benghazi or in F&F. By a factor of a thousand at least.
And Iran Contra, well, let me know when 14 White House officials including the Secretary of Defense are indicted (11 convicted) for selling TOW anti-tank and surface to air missiles to Iranian muslim fanatics.
That's an incredibly naive fantasy. How old are you? 12?
How are you going to do basic management tasks such as personnel administration under those conditions? And medical claims or tax enforcement actions? Or SEC enforcement efforts? How about military planning? National security issues? Process tax returns?
No organization dealing with real life can function under the conditions you propose.
All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of all of the Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana) since Reconstruction
Why is this shady? I bet every senior executive in industry has a public facing email that their staff handles, and then a restricted email address that is disclosed only to people who he works closely with.
It seems to me this smells like the usual partisan bullshit.
The dichotomy between the Democratic party of Kennedy and that of Wallace is well documented. The transformation of America and the civil rights movement (opposed by conservatives like Goldwater) led to the change of party adherence by MLK and his followers from Republican to Democrat. This change drove the southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmond is a good exemplar of this transition.
Since then Republicans have represented the classical conservative viewpoint in America.
Scalia is not a type-castable conservative. He has often voted with the liberal judges when it comes to defense of the Bill of Rights.
Breyer is really the only exception here. To be honest I've never liked the stuff he's written.
There are plenty of conservative governors who have supported expanded DNA testing. Your example of O'Malley only suggests he is not as liberal as you seem to think.
For example the law in that liberal bastion of the state of Arizona:
K. If a person is arrested for any offense listed in subsection O, paragraph 3 of this section and is transferred by the arresting authority to a state, county or local law enforcement agency or jail, the arresting authority or its designee shall secure a sufficient sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for deoxyribonucleic acid testing and extraction from the person for the purpose of determining identification characteristics. The arresting authority or its designee shall transmit the sample to the department of public safety.
Likewise that deep blue(?) state of Alabama:
The Department of Public Safety shall collect for inclusion into the DNA registration system a blood sample, oral sample, or both, from:
(6) a person arrested for a crime against a person or a felony under AS 11 or AS 28.35, or a law or ordinance with elements similar to a crime against a person or a felony under AS 11 or AS 28.35.
The fact is that DNA testing of arrestees is not a liberal position.
Sorry but conflating Marxism to American liberalism is complete baloney.
The roots of liberalism are (from the Wikipedia article on the same topic) in the Enlightenment.
"Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with democracy and/or republicanism and the rule of law.
The revolutionaries of the American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of liberalism was classical conservatism.
Later 20th century liberalism evolved into social liberalism where social justice and a mixed economy are needed to limit the gap between the rich and the poor. The trust busting of the early 20th century and the formation of labor unions are typical modern liberal activities.
Marxism is based on the idea of complete collectivism, no private ownership of capital, and no right of property, which are very different from any form of liberalism.
Slashdot Mirror
The Patriot Act would not have been renewed if the House had a Democratic majority in 2006.
So storage access is already 5x faster than 1GbE.
Sounds to me like 10GbE is already overdue.
For the cluster I develop for at work we have a 40GB infiniband LAN. For serious IT I'd skip 10GbE now and go to IB.
If you had read the website I provided a link to you would find that all the tin has been secured by the Masons and that tin foil hats are banned.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/tin.html
The answer as usual is in history. The Fifth Amendment's roots are in common law as a protection from authorities compelling people from confessing through torture and other intimidation. The assertion that protection against this is a separate right is not historically accurate.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/993/
That is the general pattern.
Here is the classified information non-disclosure agreement.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Dropbox are now all denying providing direct access to PRISM surveillance program.
Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling flatly adding, "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."
Google: "From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door."
Microsoft: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4404112/nsa-prism-surveillance-apple-facebook-google-respond
This is the canonical source of information regarding tinfoil hats:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
But secret? No, I don't think so. Surveillance on this scale should be the subject of public debate.
Otherwise they don't have consent of the governed.
And this is what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_D.C.
The names and addresses are mostly public information. They can also call the number and see who answers.
Maybe this crap is really needed or maybe it's an over-reach. Personally I'm betting on over-reach but I'm willing to listen to counter arguments.
HOWEVER IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT MASS SURVEILLANCE ORDERS BE KEPT SECRET
Keeping this sort of stuff secret is a betrayal of the Founders and everything I hold dear about the ideals that were the basis for the founding of this country.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
How can we the governed consent to this?
Well, there is data that would give a basis for this prediction.
http://www.houseoffoust.com/edano/Scribble_Japan_Earthquake/pdfs/tceer.pdf
> modifying plant DNA so that one year's crop cannot be used to plant next year's crop
Uh no, they are not doing that. What you describe is a GURT technology, which has never been commercialized, and it's highly doubtful that it ever will be.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.aspx
Umm you forget that Watergate is tied to prolonging the Vietnam war. In 1968 Nixon's campaign intentionally sabotaged Johnson's efforts Vietnam peace talks, an act that President Johnson later referred to as treason.
As a result of the longer war thousands of Americans died. This was a far more direct action with horrific consequences by Nixon than what happened in Benghazi or in F&F. By a factor of a thousand at least.
And Iran Contra, well, let me know when 14 White House officials including the Secretary of Defense are indicted (11 convicted) for selling TOW anti-tank and surface to air missiles to Iranian muslim fanatics.
That's an incredibly naive fantasy. How old are you? 12?
How are you going to do basic management tasks such as personnel administration under those conditions? And medical claims or tax enforcement actions? Or SEC enforcement efforts? How about military planning? National security issues? Process tax returns?
No organization dealing with real life can function under the conditions you propose.
I lived through the Nixon era. Calling what is going on in Washington more corrupt than what was happening under Nixon is ridiculous.
The stuff going on now doesn't even rise to the level of the Iran-Contra affair.
Ugh. You are right.
What a disappointment.
Thank you.
The smell of partisan bullshit gets stronger every day.
Nice cherry pick, but to left out the rest,
All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of all of the Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana) since Reconstruction
Why is this shady? I bet every senior executive in industry has a public facing email that their staff handles, and then a restricted email address that is disclosed only to people who he works closely with.
It seems to me this smells like the usual partisan bullshit.
Yes, the mistake Obama made was not just ignoring FOIA requests like the previous administration did.
Not to mention doing things like outing the wives of reporters writing critical articles.
The dichotomy between the Democratic party of Kennedy and that of Wallace is well documented. The transformation of America and the civil rights movement (opposed by conservatives like Goldwater) led to the change of party adherence by MLK and his followers from Republican to Democrat. This change drove the southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmond is a good exemplar of this transition.
Since then Republicans have represented the classical conservative viewpoint in America.
Scalia is not a type-castable conservative. He has often voted with the liberal judges when it comes to defense of the Bill of Rights.
Breyer is really the only exception here. To be honest I've never liked the stuff he's written.
There are plenty of conservative governors who have supported expanded DNA testing. Your example of O'Malley only suggests he is not as liberal as you seem to think.
For example the law in that liberal bastion of the state of Arizona:
K. If a person is arrested for any offense listed in subsection O, paragraph 3 of this section and is transferred by the arresting authority to a state, county or local law enforcement agency or jail, the arresting authority or its designee shall secure a sufficient sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for deoxyribonucleic acid testing and extraction from the person for the purpose of determining identification characteristics. The arresting authority or its designee shall transmit the sample to the department of public safety.
Likewise that deep blue(?) state of Alabama:
The Department of Public Safety shall collect for inclusion into the DNA registration system a blood sample, oral sample, or both, from:
(6) a person arrested for a crime against a person or a felony under AS 11 or AS 28.35, or a law or ordinance with elements similar to a crime against a person or a felony under AS 11 or AS 28.35.
The fact is that DNA testing of arrestees is not a liberal position.
Sorry but conflating Marxism to American liberalism is complete baloney.
The roots of liberalism are (from the Wikipedia article on the same topic) in the Enlightenment.
"Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with democracy and/or republicanism and the rule of law.
The revolutionaries of the American Revolution, segments of the French Revolution, and other liberal revolutionaries from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of liberalism was classical conservatism.
Later 20th century liberalism evolved into social liberalism where social justice and a mixed economy are needed to limit the gap between the rich and the poor. The trust busting of the early 20th century and the formation of labor unions are typical modern liberal activities.
Marxism is based on the idea of complete collectivism, no private ownership of capital, and no right of property, which are very different from any form of liberalism.
ALL of the conservative Supreme Court judges voted for this, and all of the liberal judges voted against this.
To try to frame this as part of a typical liberal agenda is distortive at BEST.