All this anti-Iran propaganda seems to be coming out at the same time Iran is switching from Dollars to Euros for its oil transactions. Strangely enough, Iraq previously tried this too, just before the 2003 invasion. [citation needed]
Seriously, I tried finding something to support your contention but couldn't aside from speculation from 2005. What has happened in the last two weeks on this front, if anything?
Go to reason.com and check out the vast numbers of stories compiled by Radley Balko (or go straight to his blog, http://www.theagitator.com/). The Cato Institute also has an interactive map available that shows all of the botched raids that have happened (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/).
Or just do a simple Google search for "swat raids wrong house". It turns up 103,000 pages. Even if the same event is reported ten times, that means there have been over 10,000 of these events. So yeah, that qualifies as "all the time".
Close. It would be like having a package mailed to your home, without your knowledge, that's full of drugs, then the SWAT team kicks down your door, kills your dog, and arrests everyone in the house.
Oh, wait, that happens all the time. "Land of the free" my ass. I officially hate the land of my birth now.
Well when the act was illegal at the time, and equally illegal later, then nothing has changed and that's not ex post facto. The fact that there was a brief period after the illegal act was committed where it was legal makes no difference. The telcos did not commit these acts during that period. It was not legal when they did it. It was a crime.
Very well said. I'm still not convinced that going after the telcos over this would be productive (I feel much like you stated you do later in your comment), but this argument makes me rethink my earlier statement regarding the legality of revoking immunity. I still think it's a bad idea (explored more fully in another post), but your argument has a lot of merit.
If we go down this route, the precedent will be set that immunity from prosecution means nothing, that it can be revoked at any time. What are some of the possible consequences of this?
* Anyone who is approached by a government agent to give testimony in exchange for immunity will have to wonder if that immunity will be taken away, leaving them open to prosecution all over again. * If a governor or other executive grants clemency, there's nothing stopping further prosecution for the same offense. After all, if double jeopardy doesn't apply to this case, it wouldn't apply to those others.
In short, you'd be opening a can of worms that would threaten to consume the rule of law in this country. Sometimes you have to let the bad guy get away with something, because the alternative is far worse.
Granting immunity after the fact is not ex post facto. Ex post facto means to make something illegal after the act has been done. Whichever theory is correct in this instance (that the acts were legal at the time, or the acts were made legal later), making them illegal now would be a violation of the ex post facto provision and should not be pursued.
Congress told the telecoms it was all good and they could go about their business. It would be the height of tyranny for Congress to change its collective mind now and go after them. Whether you agree with what happened or not (and for the record, I do not, I think the telecoms should've just said "No" to the requests), the moment has passed and there's nothing to be done. Any actions taken against the telcos now would be far, far worse for us all.
Your employer measures the utility of a program by how many lines are in it. That's all that's needed to know that your management are clueless and are proud of pushing crap out the door.
Which is exactly what is wrong with software. Software should be about creating a useful tool.
A truly useful tool either makes or saves money. If you build a hammer that has perfect balance and pounds in a nail with one hit every time, someone will pay you money to have one like it.
No wonder Linux is less insecure than Windows. Linux programmers are about making tools, Windows programmers are about making money.
More like: no wonder Windows is more popular than Windows. Linux programmers are about making cool hacks they like, Windows programmers are about making tools people actually use, and thereby make money for their efforts.
Let's examine this scenario: a shipping container arrives in the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles. All of the paperwork is in order, the weight matches the manifest, the locks are all in place and don't appear to be tampered with. In short, there is nothing about this container, labeled "household goods", that raises an eye. You're arguing that ICE should not have the ability to scan and/or open that container?
Because if that's the case, what's to stop someone from shipping "household goods" worth $1 million, and listing their value on the manifest as $100k to pay only 10% of the tax? Or stuffing a car in there that hasn't met auto safety standards? Or putting some illegal aliens inside it (never mind they might not survive the journey in the first place)?
I'm not arguing that ICE should be able to look at the contents of a hard drive, that's not only pointless it's a waste of time (how long would it take to look through the entire contents of a 1TB USB drive? and why bother when anything incriminating can be transferred over the Internet?). Nor am I arguing that these powers should be extended beyond the initial point of entry (an actual border, the customs area of an airport, or a port's warehouse). But to say that customs officers can't examine anything coming into the country to enforce tariffs and keep out contraband is just ridiculous.
That being the case, searches should only be conducted when there's probable cause to believe that a law is being violated, and the officer applying for the warrant is willing to swear to it.
Let's examine this scenario: a shipping container arrives in the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles. All of the paperwork is in order, the weight matches the manifest, the locks are all in place and don't appear to be tampered with. In short, there is nothing about this container, labeled "household goods", that raises an eye. You're arguing that ICE should not have the ability to scan and/or open that container?
Because if that's the case, what's to stop someone from shipping "household goods" worth $1 million, and listing their value on the manifest as $100k to pay only 10% of the tax? Or stuffing a car in there that hasn't met auto safety standards? Or putting some illegal aliens inside it (never mind they might not survive the journey in the first place)?
I'm not arguing that ICE should be able to look at the contents of a hard drive, that's not only pointless it's a waste of time (how long would it take to look through the entire contents of a 1TB USB drive? and why bother when anything incriminating can be transferred over the Internet?). Nor am I arguing that these powers should be extended beyond the initial point of entry (an actual border, the customs area of an airport, or a port's warehouse). But to say that customs officers can't examine anything coming into the country to enforce tariffs and keep out contraband is just ridiculous.
So people should be put in jail or fined for following a law that has not yet been found to be unconstitutional? Do you understand the anarchy that would result from that stand?
In my experience, the only gateway effect of marijuana is when someone finally tries it and doesn't die of an overdose or go mad, they start to think "Hmmm, if the cops and politicians lied about the effects of pot, maybe they lied about all the other stuff, too? Might as well try some meth, what's the worst that could happen?"
This is how my younger brother got hooked on speed and barbiturates, which led directly to his death of an overdose. He tried pot in high school, nothing bad happened, so he figured the other stuff couldn't be that bad, either. The idiocy fueled by the War on Drugs killed my brother.
I didn't give any advice. I merely said there were limits and that the constitution would have some legal standing for US citizens entering the US.
Again, you're 100% wrong. There are no such protections at the border. Whether there should be or not is a completely different discussion, but as things stand ICE can paw through your belongings with impunity when you try to cross.
Good points all, and I agree in principle with much of what you wrote. But you seem to be missing an important point here: the country as a whole, and hence the government as the protector of the country, has a duty to keep out illegal and dangerous substances, and to extract tariffs on otherwise legal substances. The ability of ICE to perform those functions requires it to be able to search through any and all containers that cross the border. Requiring warrants for all of those searches would not only take up a huge amount of time, it would shut down international commerce, especially of perishable items. And I like being able to buy cherries from Chile or oranges from Australia in December.
Personally, I'd like to see DHS respect the sanctity of the data in a phone, laptop, or other electronic device. There's no reason for them to power things up and browse through data to check that there's no contraband hidden in any compartments.
The actions the telecoms took were legal under the PATRIOT act, which was the law of the land at the time. You can't just go back and make them illegal now, that's blatantly unconstitutional (and a much graver assault on all of our liberties than unwarranted wiretaps). Take out the provision now and chalk it up to another lesson learned: be more careful about what gets passed into law in the future (not that there's any hope that any politicians will learn that lesson).
Should've told them you were there to avoid being shipped to Iraq. They would've put you up in a four star hotel and given you a debit card with $5000 on it.
You are 100% wrong. There are no laws against search and seizure at the border. Look up some case law on the subject before you give someone piss poor advice that they end up trying to live by.
They can impound your laptop, without a warrant, for up to a month. If that's not enough time to search it completely, they can get a warrant and keep it longer.
Oh, and if it's encrypted, you have to turn over the keys or passphrase. Failure to do so could result in permanent loss of the equipment and possible jail time for "smuggling".
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, if my grandfather's bouts with dementia are any indication, if you wait long enough everything will be new again.
All this anti-Iran propaganda seems to be coming out at the same time Iran is switching from Dollars to Euros for its oil transactions. Strangely enough, Iraq previously tried this too, just before the 2003 invasion. [citation needed]
Seriously, I tried finding something to support your contention but couldn't aside from speculation from 2005. What has happened in the last two weeks on this front, if anything?
Slashdot doesn't require Javascript. If it's turned off, you get sent to the classic POST form of yesteryear.
Hey, no one ever said God was a very intelligent designer.
Go to reason.com and check out the vast numbers of stories compiled by Radley Balko (or go straight to his blog, http://www.theagitator.com/). The Cato Institute also has an interactive map available that shows all of the botched raids that have happened (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/).
Or just do a simple Google search for "swat raids wrong house". It turns up 103,000 pages. Even if the same event is reported ten times, that means there have been over 10,000 of these events. So yeah, that qualifies as "all the time".
Yes it has, many times. Try doing some research before spouting off about things about which you are painfully unaware.
Close. It would be like having a package mailed to your home, without your knowledge, that's full of drugs, then the SWAT team kicks down your door, kills your dog, and arrests everyone in the house.
Oh, wait, that happens all the time. "Land of the free" my ass. I officially hate the land of my birth now.
Well when the act was illegal at the time, and equally illegal later, then nothing has changed and that's not ex post facto. The fact that there was a brief period after the illegal act was committed where it was legal makes no difference. The telcos did not commit these acts during that period. It was not legal when they did it. It was a crime.
Very well said. I'm still not convinced that going after the telcos over this would be productive (I feel much like you stated you do later in your comment), but this argument makes me rethink my earlier statement regarding the legality of revoking immunity. I still think it's a bad idea (explored more fully in another post), but your argument has a lot of merit.
Ugh. Me not proofread good. Hopefully the gist of my statement wasn't lost in my atrocious writing.
If we go down this route, the precedent will be set that immunity from prosecution means nothing, that it can be revoked at any time. What are some of the possible consequences of this?
* Anyone who is approached by a government agent to give testimony in exchange for immunity will have to wonder if that immunity will be taken away, leaving them open to prosecution all over again.
* If a governor or other executive grants clemency, there's nothing stopping further prosecution for the same offense. After all, if double jeopardy doesn't apply to this case, it wouldn't apply to those others.
In short, you'd be opening a can of worms that would threaten to consume the rule of law in this country. Sometimes you have to let the bad guy get away with something, because the alternative is far worse.
Granting immunity after the fact is not ex post facto. Ex post facto means to make something illegal after the act has been done. Whichever theory is correct in this instance (that the acts were legal at the time, or the acts were made legal later), making them illegal now would be a violation of the ex post facto provision and should not be pursued.
Congress told the telecoms it was all good and they could go about their business. It would be the height of tyranny for Congress to change its collective mind now and go after them. Whether you agree with what happened or not (and for the record, I do not, I think the telecoms should've just said "No" to the requests), the moment has passed and there's nothing to be done. Any actions taken against the telcos now would be far, far worse for us all.
Your employer measures the utility of a program by how many lines are in it. That's all that's needed to know that your management are clueless and are proud of pushing crap out the door.
Which is exactly what is wrong with software. Software should be about creating a useful tool.
A truly useful tool either makes or saves money. If you build a hammer that has perfect balance and pounds in a nail with one hit every time, someone will pay you money to have one like it.
No wonder Linux is less insecure than Windows. Linux programmers are about making tools, Windows programmers are about making money.
More like: no wonder Windows is more popular than Windows. Linux programmers are about making cool hacks they like, Windows programmers are about making tools people actually use, and thereby make money for their efforts.
Let's examine this scenario: a shipping container arrives in the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles. All of the paperwork is in order, the weight matches the manifest, the locks are all in place and don't appear to be tampered with. In short, there is nothing about this container, labeled "household goods", that raises an eye. You're arguing that ICE should not have the ability to scan and/or open that container?
Because if that's the case, what's to stop someone from shipping "household goods" worth $1 million, and listing their value on the manifest as $100k to pay only 10% of the tax? Or stuffing a car in there that hasn't met auto safety standards? Or putting some illegal aliens inside it (never mind they might not survive the journey in the first place)?
I'm not arguing that ICE should be able to look at the contents of a hard drive, that's not only pointless it's a waste of time (how long would it take to look through the entire contents of a 1TB USB drive? and why bother when anything incriminating can be transferred over the Internet?). Nor am I arguing that these powers should be extended beyond the initial point of entry (an actual border, the customs area of an airport, or a port's warehouse). But to say that customs officers can't examine anything coming into the country to enforce tariffs and keep out contraband is just ridiculous.
That being the case, searches should only be conducted when there's probable cause to believe that a law is being violated, and the officer applying for the warrant is willing to swear to it.
Let's examine this scenario: a shipping container arrives in the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles. All of the paperwork is in order, the weight matches the manifest, the locks are all in place and don't appear to be tampered with. In short, there is nothing about this container, labeled "household goods", that raises an eye. You're arguing that ICE should not have the ability to scan and/or open that container?
Because if that's the case, what's to stop someone from shipping "household goods" worth $1 million, and listing their value on the manifest as $100k to pay only 10% of the tax? Or stuffing a car in there that hasn't met auto safety standards? Or putting some illegal aliens inside it (never mind they might not survive the journey in the first place)?
I'm not arguing that ICE should be able to look at the contents of a hard drive, that's not only pointless it's a waste of time (how long would it take to look through the entire contents of a 1TB USB drive? and why bother when anything incriminating can be transferred over the Internet?). Nor am I arguing that these powers should be extended beyond the initial point of entry (an actual border, the customs area of an airport, or a port's warehouse). But to say that customs officers can't examine anything coming into the country to enforce tariffs and keep out contraband is just ridiculous.
So people should be put in jail or fined for following a law that has not yet been found to be unconstitutional? Do you understand the anarchy that would result from that stand?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! You think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's too rich.
In my experience, the only gateway effect of marijuana is when someone finally tries it and doesn't die of an overdose or go mad, they start to think "Hmmm, if the cops and politicians lied about the effects of pot, maybe they lied about all the other stuff, too? Might as well try some meth, what's the worst that could happen?"
This is how my younger brother got hooked on speed and barbiturates, which led directly to his death of an overdose. He tried pot in high school, nothing bad happened, so he figured the other stuff couldn't be that bad, either. The idiocy fueled by the War on Drugs killed my brother.
I didn't give any advice. I merely said there were limits and that the constitution would have some legal standing for US citizens entering the US.
Again, you're 100% wrong. There are no such protections at the border. Whether there should be or not is a completely different discussion, but as things stand ICE can paw through your belongings with impunity when you try to cross.
Those reports are frightening, to say the least.
Good points all, and I agree in principle with much of what you wrote. But you seem to be missing an important point here: the country as a whole, and hence the government as the protector of the country, has a duty to keep out illegal and dangerous substances, and to extract tariffs on otherwise legal substances. The ability of ICE to perform those functions requires it to be able to search through any and all containers that cross the border. Requiring warrants for all of those searches would not only take up a huge amount of time, it would shut down international commerce, especially of perishable items. And I like being able to buy cherries from Chile or oranges from Australia in December.
Personally, I'd like to see DHS respect the sanctity of the data in a phone, laptop, or other electronic device. There's no reason for them to power things up and browse through data to check that there's no contraband hidden in any compartments.
The actions the telecoms took were legal under the PATRIOT act, which was the law of the land at the time. You can't just go back and make them illegal now, that's blatantly unconstitutional (and a much graver assault on all of our liberties than unwarranted wiretaps). Take out the provision now and chalk it up to another lesson learned: be more careful about what gets passed into law in the future (not that there's any hope that any politicians will learn that lesson).
Should've told them you were there to avoid being shipped to Iraq. They would've put you up in a four star hotel and given you a debit card with $5000 on it.
You are 100% wrong. There are no laws against search and seizure at the border. Look up some case law on the subject before you give someone piss poor advice that they end up trying to live by.
They can impound your laptop, without a warrant, for up to a month. If that's not enough time to search it completely, they can get a warrant and keep it longer.
Oh, and if it's encrypted, you have to turn over the keys or passphrase. Failure to do so could result in permanent loss of the equipment and possible jail time for "smuggling".