In California, there is a trade secrets law, which some Apple employee under NDA obviously violated for these Web sites to find out. Apparently your idea of justice allows a reporter to willfully assist in breaking this law, with impunity. I realize that/. seems to think that there should be no patent or copyright, but not even trade secrets? This from the tinfoil hat types who don't want the government listening in on their conversations and tracking their phone calls and library books? I guess privacy and secrecy isn't so important if you are Apple Computer, DRM Enemy #1.
As an AAPL stockholder, I'd prefer to let Steve Jobs decide the timing of announcing new products, not some Web site trying to sell banner ads, claiming free speech.
Funny how the same/. crowd that though it was OK to have bloggers register with the US Government now become First Amendment absolutists when the law negatively impacts the intellectual property of the patent holder on AAC.
Now, go ahead and mod down that with which you disagree...
It's amazing how the lefty/. crowd, afraid of the slightest inconvenience or intrusion in the War on Terror, gladly allow the government to come into their homes when it is a cause they approve of. Please stay out of my home, bureaucrats.
Treaties must be ratified to have the force of law. The ABM treaty was not. Therefore, it was never a treaty.
Very true, Hillary can't be trusted
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Hillary was moving to the right to secure her national security cred, then the War became unpopular, and now she is running to the left. She is so disingenuous that SNL - no conservative bastion - parodied the crap out of her last week.
I'd also warn everyone that the founder of Hillarycare - the mandatory socialized medicine boondoggle that would have banned private payer insurance - doesn't sound all that right-to-privacy to me (the right to privacy, not enumerated in the Constitution, was based on liberty). And let's remember that it was her hubby who authorized Echelon and searching Aldrich Ames without a warrant.
until they find an exercise thereof that they disagree with. Just because SCOTUS got McCain Feingold wrong doesn't mean our framers (like Hamilton, who wrote Federalist articles pseudonymously)aren't rolling in their graves. Because we know SCOTUS always gets it right.
And anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment - see Talley v California:
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have
played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted
groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able
to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not
at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also
enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that
exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would
lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The
old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which
government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that
were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried
and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence
to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books
in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were
sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing,
printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War
colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or
distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on
them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that
time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their
author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written
in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under
fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been
assumed for the most constructive purposes.
I wonder, when some lefty group launches one of their "spontaneous" demonstrations with paid protesters, should they register too?
You "Bush is tearing up the Constitution" lefties are such fucking hypocrites. And you non-lawyers really expose yourselves as insipid when you discuss the law.
All of you who thought the Democrats were going to save YROs, think again. First this, then the resurrection of "fairness doctrine," demanding that liberals get equal time with Rush Limbaugh, since Air America couldn't survive in the marketplace of ideas. Boy, them Dems really love free speech!
I say THANK GOD some bloggers make money. Seems to me that it will encourage more speech. Otherwise, we'd only have guys on welfare in their PJs.
When did making money become a bad thing? We can't all be on government relief!
If you think McCain-Feingold was a good law, then this won't make sense to you. But money is a form of free speech just as much as burning a flag or sliding down a stripper pole is.
I thought of going further for people who live next to a lake or the ocean, like Bill Gates. Then you could go sub-ambient. And yes, you would need insulation to prevent condensation. Server farms should locate next to large bodies of water to do this to save money and energy.
The video doesn't start until well after the incident has begun. I very very very much doubt the poster you quoted was a real cop.
Reality: Cop gives lawful order 20+ times; 2) Spoiled brat, never told "no" in his life, refuses; 3) Tazed, as he should have been.
This guy is an 18-year veteran following policy. THis little "victim" created the whole incident. How many times does a police officer have to ask someone to follow a lawful order before using force? 1,000?
RE-READ THE CASE. The court ruled in Miller (overturning the circuit court): Since we find that respondent had no protectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed documents, we reverse the decision below. Can't make it any clearer than that; there is no Fourth Amendment protection for bank records.
Note the presence of a subpeona. This is indicates due process and is exactly what the Bush administration is NOT doing in the case of this financial records database.
I think you need to go look up the word "subpoena." Any lawyer can send a subpoena, including me, including an US Attorney working for President Bush's Justice Department, and it does not require any judicial approval. There is no due process in a subpoena, unless it is challenged in court (which is what happened in Miller, and Miller - the depositor - lost).
Remember FISA courts have been in place since the late 70's to handle situations like this, only now FISA isn't good enough for Bush and he doesn't care to work with Congress to retool it for our new post 9/11 era.
Assuming for sake of argument that FISA is even constitutional, no court needs to look into a program not involving any expectation of privacy, which financial transcations do not, per Miller. I think there is a strong argument to be made that FISA intrudes into the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, and that FISA would be found unconstitutional, at least in part, by the Supreme Court. The Court might hold that enacting such a court would require a constitutional amendment. Congress just can't pass laws changing the executive branch's powers.
Wow, so the 4th amendment isn't strong enough to stand on it's own for you? The details of the case you sighted above make it appear that it wouldn't apply to the situation we're discussing.
Go back and read the case. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to situations wherein there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. For 30 years the law has been well-settled that there is no privacy interest in financial transcations. This is why people get Swiss bank accounts.
Enough free legal analysis for you. I must go to work!
I don't have time to do all of your research for you, but here's the current law:
April 21, 1976, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Miller, holding that the bank depositor had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of checks and deposit slips since the documents were not confidential communications, but rather were negotiable instruments voluntarily conveyed to the bank. Moreover, the Court ruled that the fourth amendment does not prohibit a third party from obtaining information and conveying it to the government.
Again, it would be nice if not only/. posters would research the relevant law before they accuse the President of trampling civil rights, but it would also be nice if the NY Times, the Post, and all the other liberal MSM's would do some legal research as well.
Someone may wish to inform congress of this fact because several congressmen, including one quoted in the fair and ballanced (tm) Fox News article you link to below.
If you are going to be such a smartass that you won't even read a byline, I can't help you. The article was an AP story carried by Fox. AP is of course left-leaning (by American political standards). The reality is that several congressmen who are on their respective intel committees did call the newspapers asking them not to run the story (I actually saw this on a news report). Remember that these congressmen are sworn not to divulge what they have been briefed on, so they can't just come out and confirm the stories!
There is not just a conern about "your money's privacy" there is a concern about your and my privacy in total. Levying a tax is not the same as snooping through your financial transactions and it's very prejudicial to suggest otherwise. These two things are apples and oranges.
Again, if you can't see the irony in placing a privacy right (nowhere articulated in the Constitution) above the very property right the privacy concerns (clearly articulated in the Constitution) then I can't help you. That the left distrusts the government completely, except to take away and redistribute my property is another irony that you may fail to grasp.
And I seriously think that there is a large segment of conservative America that honestly thinks that Bush has to trample our civil rights to defend us. Bush was give temporary emergency powers in the wake of 9/11. They've had FIVE YEARS to put the legal structures in place to carry out these kinds of investigations legally. Hell, there was even a special court setup for this sot of thing PRIOR to 9/11 that rarely ever turned down warrant requests. Why is it that court warrants and REAL congressional oversight were acceptable and effective for every president we've elected prior to this one
You assume that everyone agrees with you about the "trampling" of our civil rights. What exact program are you referring to that didn't exist in some shape or form prior to 9/11? I think if you look at Echelon (which CBS News and all the MSM have conveniently forgotten about now that Bush is President) you'll see that the government was doing this back when it was Governor Bush. As for the Patriot Act, that merely took existing tools that law enforcement has used for decades and applied it to intelligence.
As far as warrants go, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say all searchs have to have warrants, just that searches not be unreasonable. I'll bet the framers would be all for intercepting the international calls of enemies of the Republic without warrants (the Clinton adminstration actually did searches without warrants, in the FBI spy case). Perhaps liberals believe that we would need a warrant to listen to a call Adolf Hitler made to agents in America in 1944? This is a war, not a law enforcemn
It is well-settled in constitutional law that a warrant is not required to obtain bank records. Your post is completely ignorant to this fact.
Funny how the anti-Bush left has no problems with my tax dollars being taken away by the government and redistributed. It's just my money's privacy that they care about? So my privacy interest in my finances is more important than my property interest therein? What nonsense.
And it has been reported that Congress did, in fact, have oversight of this program. AP reports that Congress was briefed. In fact, several members of Congress called newspapers to plead with them not to publish it (do a simple Google news search for crissakes). Seems the members of Congress aren't too quick to stand up and admit to being briefed until they do some polling on it. - Victory is born of 1000 fathers; defeat is but an orphan.
I seriously think some of you either 1) want to lose this struggle against terror or 2) are incredibly naive about the fact that al Qaeda wants to nuke your asses (all of your asses, even the appeasers, as Canada learned). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
It's hard enough to beat these guys; how sad that we have to fight the left every step of the way.
One thing nobody here is mentioning - US tax rates are lower! It's not like the first European settlers landed here and found a bunch of leprechauns with pots of gold. America established a business-friendly environment, which allowed it to be the richest economic power in a mere 200 years, leapfrogging all other countries that had been around for millenia.
That's one reason why venture capital finds its way to America.
No, the DDR2 is not faster than the DDR because it runs at much higher timings! Learn something before you post.
Conroe destroys FX. Read some freaking enthusiast sites like xtremesystems.
I strongly suggest you check out xtremesystems.org forums, where the benchmarks have even AMD fanboys like yourself are ready to switch to Intel. These conroes have already run SuperPi 1M @ 10.xx seconds. Out of the box they will do 1M 15 seconds. An FX couldn't do that on LN2.
A $316 Conroe can blast a $900 FX, and Conroes have been overclocking to 3.8+GHz on air.
AMD is doomed, unfortunately, which means Intel will rest on its laurels again.
Professors (at least those with the academic freedom to chose, like myself) would be smart to just make up their own notes and self-publish them for half the cost (or less) of commercially-published books. Skip the middleman. The professors can make money, and the students pay less. Win-win. That would also be comuppance for the publishers charging more in America.
Oh, and this idea that selling revew copies raises prices? Nice try publishers (cheaper alternatives should lower prices, not raise them). Don't send out unsolicited review copies and then tell me how to use them if you don't like what it does to your profits. Because I will sell them at a big discount online.
I have ZERO interest in Linux, other than the ocassional fooling with a live CD for file recovery or Windows password "reset."
I am intellectually curious, and also ADD, which is why, between/., Digg, and other tech news sites, I often have 25 Firefox windows open for days at a time.
Nonsense! Like these unskilled people would have health insurance otherwise? Were the Mom and Pop's that Wal-Mart supposedly ran out of town providing it? Not.
Why should the employer pay for health insurance? Where is this written? Should he pay your car insurance too?
Look people, Wal-Mart provides poor people with low prices, so they don't need as much money to live on. So Wal-Mart also "subsidizes" society by making the cost of living lower.
Wal Mart drives prices lower and lower, forcing suppliers to move their production offshore. This means that we're losing manufacturing capability in this country, and we're losing the manufacturing jobs.
Good, if other countries can do it cheaper, better for all involved. Besides, the US should be moving to a service-providing country - they have the highest per-capita incomes anyway.
Why is/. so socialist?
Netflix throttles more than just new movies. Overall claimed receipt days and turnaround has dropped dramatically for me, and I generally have 30 movies in my queue, many of which are classic titles.
Netflix sucks now.
Slashdot Mirror
As an AAPL stockholder, I'd prefer to let Steve Jobs decide the timing of announcing new products, not some Web site trying to sell banner ads, claiming free speech.
Funny how the same /. crowd that though it was OK to have bloggers register with the US Government now become First Amendment absolutists when the law negatively impacts the intellectual property of the patent holder on AAC.
Now, go ahead and mod down that with which you disagree...
Welcome to America, home of The Bureaucrat in Your Shower.
/. crowd, afraid of the slightest inconvenience or intrusion in the War on Terror, gladly allow the government to come into their homes when it is a cause they approve of. Please stay out of my home, bureaucrats.
It's amazing how the lefty
Treaties must be ratified to have the force of law. The ABM treaty was not. Therefore, it was never a treaty.
I'd also warn everyone that the founder of Hillarycare - the mandatory socialized medicine boondoggle that would have banned private payer insurance - doesn't sound all that right-to-privacy to me (the right to privacy, not enumerated in the Constitution, was based on liberty). And let's remember that it was her hubby who authorized Echelon and searching Aldrich Ames without a warrant.
And anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment - see Talley v California :
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
I wonder, when some lefty group launches one of their "spontaneous" demonstrations with paid protesters, should they register too?
You "Bush is tearing up the Constitution" lefties are such fucking hypocrites. And you non-lawyers really expose yourselves as insipid when you discuss the law.
And when does the war end? WHEN THE ENEMY SURRENDERS. If they don't that's their tough luck.
with the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. Might be harder than ever to get them to do it, since they could face prison time for violating the act.
I say THANK GOD some bloggers make money. Seems to me that it will encourage more speech. Otherwise, we'd only have guys on welfare in their PJs.
When did making money become a bad thing? We can't all be on government relief!
If you think McCain-Feingold was a good law, then this won't make sense to you. But money is a form of free speech just as much as burning a flag or sliding down a stripper pole is.
I thought of going further for people who live next to a lake or the ocean, like Bill Gates. Then you could go sub-ambient. And yes, you would need insulation to prevent condensation. Server farms should locate next to large bodies of water to do this to save money and energy.
The video doesn't start until well after the incident has begun. I very very very much doubt the poster you quoted was a real cop. Reality: Cop gives lawful order 20+ times; 2) Spoiled brat, never told "no" in his life, refuses; 3) Tazed, as he should have been. This guy is an 18-year veteran following policy. THis little "victim" created the whole incident. How many times does a police officer have to ask someone to follow a lawful order before using force? 1,000?
And Merom works in Yonah Dells.
RE-READ THE CASE. The court ruled in Miller (overturning the circuit court): Since we find that respondent had no protectable Fourth Amendment interest in the subpoenaed documents, we reverse the decision below . Can't make it any clearer than that; there is no Fourth Amendment protection for bank records.
Note the presence of a subpeona. This is indicates due process and is exactly what the Bush administration is NOT doing in the case of this financial records database.
I think you need to go look up the word "subpoena." Any lawyer can send a subpoena, including me, including an US Attorney working for President Bush's Justice Department, and it does not require any judicial approval. There is no due process in a subpoena, unless it is challenged in court (which is what happened in Miller, and Miller - the depositor - lost).
Remember FISA courts have been in place since the late 70's to handle situations like this, only now FISA isn't good enough for Bush and he doesn't care to work with Congress to retool it for our new post 9/11 era.
Assuming for sake of argument that FISA is even constitutional, no court needs to look into a program not involving any expectation of privacy, which financial transcations do not, per Miller. I think there is a strong argument to be made that FISA intrudes into the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, and that FISA would be found unconstitutional, at least in part, by the Supreme Court. The Court might hold that enacting such a court would require a constitutional amendment. Congress just can't pass laws changing the executive branch's powers.
Wow, so the 4th amendment isn't strong enough to stand on it's own for you? The details of the case you sighted above make it appear that it wouldn't apply to the situation we're discussing.
Go back and read the case. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to situations wherein there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. For 30 years the law has been well-settled that there is no privacy interest in financial transcations. This is why people get Swiss bank accounts.
Enough free legal analysis for you. I must go to work!
Again, it would be nice if not only /. posters would research the relevant law before they accuse the President of trampling civil rights, but it would also be nice if the NY Times, the Post, and all the other liberal MSM's would do some legal research as well.
Someone may wish to inform congress of this fact because several congressmen, including one quoted in the fair and ballanced (tm) Fox News article you link to below.
If you are going to be such a smartass that you won't even read a byline, I can't help you. The article was an AP story carried by Fox. AP is of course left-leaning (by American political standards). The reality is that several congressmen who are on their respective intel committees did call the newspapers asking them not to run the story (I actually saw this on a news report). Remember that these congressmen are sworn not to divulge what they have been briefed on, so they can't just come out and confirm the stories!
There is not just a conern about "your money's privacy" there is a concern about your and my privacy in total. Levying a tax is not the same as snooping through your financial transactions and it's very prejudicial to suggest otherwise. These two things are apples and oranges.
Again, if you can't see the irony in placing a privacy right (nowhere articulated in the Constitution) above the very property right the privacy concerns (clearly articulated in the Constitution) then I can't help you. That the left distrusts the government completely, except to take away and redistribute my property is another irony that you may fail to grasp.
And I seriously think that there is a large segment of conservative America that honestly thinks that Bush has to trample our civil rights to defend us. Bush was give temporary emergency powers in the wake of 9/11. They've had FIVE YEARS to put the legal structures in place to carry out these kinds of investigations legally. Hell, there was even a special court setup for this sot of thing PRIOR to 9/11 that rarely ever turned down warrant requests. Why is it that court warrants and REAL congressional oversight were acceptable and effective for every president we've elected prior to this one
You assume that everyone agrees with you about the "trampling" of our civil rights. What exact program are you referring to that didn't exist in some shape or form prior to 9/11? I think if you look at Echelon (which CBS News and all the MSM have conveniently forgotten about now that Bush is President) you'll see that the government was doing this back when it was Governor Bush. As for the Patriot Act, that merely took existing tools that law enforcement has used for decades and applied it to intelligence.
As far as warrants go, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say all searchs have to have warrants, just that searches not be unreasonable. I'll bet the framers would be all for intercepting the international calls of enemies of the Republic without warrants (the Clinton adminstration actually did searches without warrants, in the FBI spy case). Perhaps liberals believe that we would need a warrant to listen to a call Adolf Hitler made to agents in America in 1944? This is a war, not a law enforcemn
It is well-settled in constitutional law that a warrant is not required to obtain bank records. Your post is completely ignorant to this fact.
Funny how the anti-Bush left has no problems with my tax dollars being taken away by the government and redistributed. It's just my money's privacy that they care about? So my privacy interest in my finances is more important than my property interest therein? What nonsense.
And it has been reported that Congress did, in fact, have oversight of this program. AP reports that Congress was briefed. In fact, several members of Congress called newspapers to plead with them not to publish it (do a simple Google news search for crissakes). Seems the members of Congress aren't too quick to stand up and admit to being briefed until they do some polling on it. - Victory is born of 1000 fathers; defeat is but an orphan.
I seriously think some of you either 1) want to lose this struggle against terror or 2) are incredibly naive about the fact that al Qaeda wants to nuke your asses (all of your asses, even the appeasers, as Canada learned). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
It's hard enough to beat these guys; how sad that we have to fight the left every step of the way.
That's one reason why venture capital finds its way to America.
No, the DDR2 is not faster than the DDR because it runs at much higher timings! Learn something before you post. Conroe destroys FX. Read some freaking enthusiast sites like xtremesystems.
I strongly suggest you check out xtremesystems.org forums, where the benchmarks have even AMD fanboys like yourself are ready to switch to Intel. These conroes have already run SuperPi 1M @ 10.xx seconds. Out of the box they will do 1M 15 seconds. An FX couldn't do that on LN2.
A $316 Conroe can blast a $900 FX, and Conroes have been overclocking to 3.8+GHz on air.
AMD is doomed, unfortunately, which means Intel will rest on its laurels again.
Sansa(TM) e270 MP3 Player 6GB: $279.99.
APPLE iPod Black 30GB: $279.99
Baaahhhh!
Oh, and this idea that selling revew copies raises prices? Nice try publishers (cheaper alternatives should lower prices, not raise them). Don't send out unsolicited review copies and then tell me how to use them if you don't like what it does to your profits. Because I will sell them at a big discount online.
I am intellectually curious, and also ADD, which is why, between /., Digg, and other tech news sites, I often have 25 Firefox windows open for days at a time.
Why should the employer pay for health insurance? Where is this written? Should he pay your car insurance too?
Look people, Wal-Mart provides poor people with low prices, so they don't need as much money to live on. So Wal-Mart also "subsidizes" society by making the cost of living lower.
Wal Mart drives prices lower and lower, forcing suppliers to move their production offshore. This means that we're losing manufacturing capability in this country, and we're losing the manufacturing jobs.
Good, if other countries can do it cheaper, better for all involved. Besides, the US should be moving to a service-providing country - they have the highest per-capita incomes anyway. Why is /. so socialist?
I did; I just cancelled Neflix this month, and I am sure I'm not the only one.
Netflix throttles more than just new movies. Overall claimed receipt days and turnaround has dropped dramatically for me, and I generally have 30 movies in my queue, many of which are classic titles. Netflix sucks now.
And this is exactly why I dropped Netflix this week, and stayed with blockbuster.com. Blockbuster includes four in-store free rentals per month too.
I hope Netflix succeeds, just to keep competition alive and prices down, but they will be doing it without me, a frequent ripper, er, renter.