Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity.
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions.
You have the right to shut up at any point but I don't believe you can shut up and then start talking and then shut up again. This was the point of debate in the IRS congressional hearing where the manager made a statement and then plead the 5th.
Oh, definitely. You always want to be very polite to the police, obey their lawful orders and never physically resist them in the lawful course of their duties (what's lawful? well, I suspect all you have to do is think about whether you'd like to end up in a court/hospital/coffin). Know your 4th and 5th Amendment rights (if you're in America) and how and when to use the phrases, "I do not consent to a search", "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" (again, if you're in America).
This isn't a bad thing. After all, if you're a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, anything else'd be wasting the cop's time on your own taxpayer dime.
But if you do ever happen to be in a casual conversation with an officer (I've known a few - good people), and you happen to tell them, "I have been advised by a police officer not to talk to the police," [1] and they say, "But that makes our job difficult!" you might reply, politely, "Sorry, blame the politicians and their endless tougher-on-crime-than-the-last-guy laws, putting more people in prison than Russia and China combined. That's what's making all our lives difficult." [2]
(but be careful about talking about any of those endless laws in particular, it could be a trap)
This all sounds very good but without oversight the police have a lot of power to abuse. Many of them are good guys but not all and the judges aren't necessarily better.
Three years ago I was arrested for 'reckless driving' (aka driving calmly 20 mph over the 65mph speed limit - with no traffic and in good weather but with a French driver's license) and the guy that arrested me was racist, stupid and quick to abuse his authority.
I behaved perfectly and politely and as a favor for not making me buy another airplane ticket to come back for court the judge eventually only raped me for 900 USD for this infraction. Note that the penalty for speeding 20mph over the limit in NH (yes NH live free or die my ass) is only 100 USD.
I can easily imagine saying "I do not consent to a search" and him saying "you don't have to consent because I see a package of cocaine in your backseat there" or some such bullshit, turning a relatively minor abuse of power into something even bigger.
Guess it means you have to be an asshole about your rights.
What this really means?
If the cops come up, tell them GO AWAY. Refuse to talk to them. Say "5th Amendment, go away" until they leave.
If they refuse to leave, tell them to leave your property as they have no right to be there.
If they refuse to leave still, and you're not in your own home, walk away. If they decide to detain you, it's on them.
Your answer to them at ALL TIMES, even if they ask your name, is "5th Amendment."
Sucks, but that's what the Supreme Court has given us. Either be an asshole about protecting your rights, or you'll lose your rights.
For this specific point I blame the supreme court, that should be defending the constitution and not destroying it, more than I blame the state of texas.
Q: Why would Saudi Arabia ban communication tools such as Viber, Whatsapp and Skype?
A: Because they have no control or access to the messages passed with these apps.
According to TFA, Viber was blocked for non-compliance, and that WhatsApp and Skype may be next on the list. What is most interesting is that the regulator issued a directive in March saying tools such as Viber, WhatsApp and Skype broke local laws, without specifying which laws.
What we do know is that in 2010, Blackberry was also banned by Saudi Arabia. The reason behind the ban was because BBM did not allow their customers' exchanges to be monitored by government. The ban was lifted after BB made a deal with the government to share user data.
Skype, Viber and WhatsApp AFAIK do not share their user data (for now).
Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.
Or it might be to kill free competition for STC (the incumbent telephone company owned by the government...the government being the Royal family).
When a regime begins using such methods as these in order to keep sitting in the saddle, its days are counted. After the demise of Saudi Arabia's current regime, within a foreseeable time now, the ensuing chaos will be unimaginable.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not 'beginning' to use such methods. Repression is the rule there and always has been.
The Kinect is required because they want to encourage game devs to use the Kinect. If it were optional, developers may skip using some features since they may not be available. I don't see how it won't work if cam is obstructed.
That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it.
No because then people would know they're being spied on and (a) contest it as a violation of the 4th amendment (or whatever is left of it) and/or (b) not actually communicate or store their secrets by phone / email / whatever.
Tracking whom you called and when, goes the story, doesn't impinge on expectations of privacy.
This is true under current 4th amendment interpretations, but severely curtailed by statutes that are still in force.
Much of the law on the subject was developed in the 1960s and 70s over the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, which would record a list of all incoming and outgoing calls (the numbers and times, but not the call contents). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that pen registers were not "searches" under the 4th amendment, because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone-call metadata (as opposed to recording the call itself via a wiretap, which was held in 1967 to require a warrant).
However, Congress added statutory restrictions on the use of pen registers and similar devices in 1986; the current statute can be found here.
It is still a violation of the 4th amendment even if the fucked up legal system says otherwise.
Someone who calls (legal) porn services or their secret lover has a right to keep that private.
I've lived 51 years, most of them O.K., and a few very well.
I'd be quite willing to die on my feet rather than live under tyrany on my knees. Somehow, either beats becoming infirm and dying of old age. On this issue, I thinks heads should roll. The responsible people (all, of them, Republican and Democrat alike), should be found out, tried for treason, and if found guilty, commensurately punished, to send a message to future politicians about who serves whom.
So, without further ado, and to certainly attract the attention at the good folks at the Secret Service:
What to do about a treasonous president
1. 218 (50%+1) of the 435 representative members of congress vote to imeach. 2. 67 (2/3) of the 100 Senators vote to convict. 3. 1 President is removed from office and is now subject to criminal prosecution. 4. 23 members of a grand jury indict him to stand trial for treason (Benghazi certainly qualifies: ordering troops to stand down when Americans are under attack?). 5. 12 members of a jury convict and sentence him for treason. 6. One disgraced, former president.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat with all the other traitors, and send a message to "politicians".
It's an easy process to remember: 218 67 1 23 12, almost like a phone number: (218)671-2312.
I am not afraid, of criticism, of torture, or of death.
It's never going to happen because too many of the people in (1) and (2) of your list are complicit.
It's definitely safer, rather than safe; but, barring significant advances in this area, most drugs that tickle your pleasure centers are usually messing with one or more other organ systems at the same time, so dosage problems can toast your brain and/or trigger cardiac problems, depress respiration, whatever.
(That said, you might wish you'd just had a nice, soothing, fatal heart attack if you manage to burn out your capacity to experience pleasure stimuli and are left to wander in an irreparable anhedonic hell-world, so there is that...)
How can you say it's safer? What do you know that no one else knows about the relative safety of DYI brain zapping and electrical failures?
What makes you think it would be limited to pleasure stimuli?
Have you never had an electrical or electronic component fail?
Sir, I politely call your attention to the 30 astronauts and cosmonauts who lost their lives in spaceflight and training, and to whom we owe the space program's continued successes around the globe. These men and women gladly risked their lives to advance science and technology and they are heroes, every one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters
And how many home DIY electronic brain zapping explorers that fail miserably do you think are going to be remembered by history?
The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general[...]
Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:
I'm just one more to say how saddened I am for the loss of Iain Banks. His novels have touched me as well, and I have not felt the loss of any author as painful since Isaac Asimov passed.
AlthoughI fear otherwise, I sincerely hope that some day our children's children will live in something like the culture.
Slashdot Mirror
The 4th amendment doesn't apply (as the 5th in this case doesn't)... because said right was waved through the actions of the person involved
Inalienable (Adj): - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".
If you convince someone to sell themselves into slavery to you, you can't enforce the contract because they can't "waive" their 13th amendment rights.
Sure they can - it's called Marriage
I don't believe that's true. To quote Findlaw.com
Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity.
But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions.
You have the right to shut up at any point but I don't believe you can shut up and then start talking and then shut up again. This was the point of debate in the IRS congressional hearing where the manager made a statement and then plead the 5th.
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I don't see any qualifications in there like "unless it's Thursday" or "unless he starts answering questions and then stops"
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice:
Oh, definitely. You always want to be very polite to the police, obey their lawful orders and never physically resist them in the lawful course of their duties (what's lawful? well, I suspect all you have to do is think about whether you'd like to end up in a court/hospital/coffin). Know your 4th and 5th Amendment rights (if you're in America) and how and when to use the phrases, "I do not consent to a search", "Am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" (again, if you're in America).
This isn't a bad thing. After all, if you're a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, anything else'd be wasting the cop's time on your own taxpayer dime.
But if you do ever happen to be in a casual conversation with an officer (I've known a few - good people), and you happen to tell them, "I have been advised by a police officer not to talk to the police," [1] and they say, "But that makes our job difficult!" you might reply, politely, "Sorry, blame the politicians and their endless tougher-on-crime-than-the-last-guy laws, putting more people in prison than Russia and China combined. That's what's making all our lives difficult." [2]
(but be careful about talking about any of those endless laws in particular, it could be a trap)
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
This all sounds very good but without oversight the police have a lot of power to abuse. Many of them are good guys but not all and the judges aren't necessarily better.
Three years ago I was arrested for 'reckless driving' (aka driving calmly 20 mph over the 65mph speed limit - with no traffic and in good weather but with a French driver's license) and the guy that arrested me was racist, stupid and quick to abuse his authority.
I behaved perfectly and politely and as a favor for not making me buy another airplane ticket to come back for court the judge eventually only raped me for 900 USD for this infraction. Note that the penalty for speeding 20mph over the limit in NH (yes NH live free or die my ass) is only 100 USD.
I can easily imagine saying "I do not consent to a search" and him saying "you don't have to consent because I see a package of cocaine in your backseat there" or some such bullshit, turning a relatively minor abuse of power into something even bigger.
Tex-ASSholes fucking our rights up again.
Guess it means you have to be an asshole about your rights.
What this really means?
If the cops come up, tell them GO AWAY. Refuse to talk to them. Say "5th Amendment, go away" until they leave.
If they refuse to leave, tell them to leave your property as they have no right to be there.
If they refuse to leave still, and you're not in your own home, walk away. If they decide to detain you, it's on them.
Your answer to them at ALL TIMES, even if they ask your name, is "5th Amendment."
Sucks, but that's what the Supreme Court has given us. Either be an asshole about protecting your rights, or you'll lose your rights.
For this specific point I blame the supreme court, that should be defending the constitution and not destroying it, more than I blame the state of texas.
Does this mean that if I don't affirm my right to free speech or a fair trial that I cannot speak freely or will not get a fair trial?
It does seem to be heading in this direction, yes.
Time for (more) Americans to start standing up and speaking up or all the rights we used to have will be gone forever.
Q: Why would Saudi Arabia ban communication tools such as Viber, Whatsapp and Skype?
A: Because they have no control or access to the messages passed with these apps.
According to TFA, Viber was blocked for non-compliance, and that WhatsApp and Skype may be next on the list. What is most interesting is that the regulator issued a directive in March saying tools such as Viber, WhatsApp and Skype broke local laws, without specifying which laws.
What we do know is that in 2010, Blackberry was also banned by Saudi Arabia. The reason behind the ban was because BBM did not allow their customers' exchanges to be monitored by government. The ban was lifted after BB made a deal with the government to share user data.
Skype, Viber and WhatsApp AFAIK do not share their user data (for now).
Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.
Or it might be to kill free competition for STC (the incumbent telephone company owned by the government...the government being the Royal family).
I don't see you yanks spreading freedom in the saudi?
That's because we're too busy suppressing freedom in our own country.
Ah, and because we like Saudi oil.
When a regime begins using such methods as these in order to keep sitting in the saddle, its days are counted. After the demise of Saudi Arabia's current regime, within a foreseeable time now, the ensuing chaos will be unimaginable.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not 'beginning' to use such methods. Repression is the rule there and always has been.
Citation needed about that.
The Kinect is required because they want to encourage game devs to use the Kinect. If it were optional, developers may skip using some features since they may not be available. I don't see how it won't work if cam is obstructed.
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156515-kinect-for-xbox-one-an-always-on-works-in-the-dark-camera-and-microphone-what-could-possibly-go-wrong
It may continue to work if you obstruct the camera - but should you have to bother?
"Officials Say"
You could have stopped writing right there.
That's not the problem. Just tell people what you're doing. Make sure that it's legal and ethical. Don't be shy of what you're doing. Then we might accept it.
No because then people would know they're being spied on and (a) contest it as a violation of the 4th amendment (or whatever is left of it) and/or (b) not actually communicate or store their secrets by phone / email / whatever.
This is true under current 4th amendment interpretations, but severely curtailed by statutes that are still in force.
Much of the law on the subject was developed in the 1960s and 70s over the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, which would record a list of all incoming and outgoing calls (the numbers and times, but not the call contents). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that pen registers were not "searches" under the 4th amendment, because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone-call metadata (as opposed to recording the call itself via a wiretap, which was held in 1967 to require a warrant).
However, Congress added statutory restrictions on the use of pen registers and similar devices in 1986; the current statute can be found here.
It is still a violation of the 4th amendment even if the fucked up legal system says otherwise.
Someone who calls (legal) porn services or their secret lover has a right to keep that private.
Yes.
I've lived 51 years, most of them O.K., and a few very well.
I'd be quite willing to die on my feet rather than live under tyrany on my knees. Somehow, either beats becoming infirm and dying of old age. On this issue, I thinks heads should roll. The responsible people (all, of them, Republican and Democrat alike), should be found out, tried for treason, and if found guilty, commensurately punished, to send a message to future politicians about who serves whom.
So, without further ado, and to certainly attract the attention at the good folks at the Secret Service:
What to do about a treasonous president
1. 218 (50%+1) of the 435 representative members of congress vote to imeach.
2. 67 (2/3) of the 100 Senators vote to convict.
3. 1 President is removed from office and is now subject to criminal prosecution.
4. 23 members of a grand jury indict him to stand trial for treason (Benghazi certainly qualifies: ordering troops to stand down when Americans are under attack?).
5. 12 members of a jury convict and sentence him for treason.
6. One disgraced, former president.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat with all the other traitors, and send a message to "politicians".
It's an easy process to remember: 218 67 1 23 12, almost like a phone number: (218)671-2312.
I am not afraid, of criticism, of torture, or of death.
It's never going to happen because too many of the people in (1) and (2) of your list are complicit.
It's definitely safer, rather than safe; but, barring significant advances in this area, most drugs that tickle your pleasure centers are usually messing with one or more other organ systems at the same time, so dosage problems can toast your brain and/or trigger cardiac problems, depress respiration, whatever.
(That said, you might wish you'd just had a nice, soothing, fatal heart attack if you manage to burn out your capacity to experience pleasure stimuli and are left to wander in an irreparable anhedonic hell-world, so there is that...)
How can you say it's safer? What do you know that no one else knows about the relative safety of DYI brain zapping and electrical failures?
What makes you think it would be limited to pleasure stimuli?
Have you never had an electrical or electronic component fail?
Zap pop?
This approach has killed the space program.
exploration is done by bold people who die
Sir, I politely call your attention to the 30 astronauts and cosmonauts who lost their lives in spaceflight and training, and to whom we owe the space program's continued successes around the globe. These men and women gladly risked their lives to advance science and technology and they are heroes, every one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters
And how many home DIY electronic brain zapping explorers that fail miserably do you think are going to be remembered by history?
Probably safer than the pharmacological approaches to achieving the same goal...
Yeah except when something goes wrong and you get an overcharge...
The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general[...]
Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
No, I'm not a Republican, I'm just sick of seeing shit slung at political groups without supporting evidence.
Or at least the GOP does not state that they have such views openly.
I'm not saying that's the case - just that it might be the case.
It won't be too much longer now before there is no one left who gets this joke.
What joke?
"62 percent of Americans say" means that all Americans have been polled.
I certainly have not been polled.
I doubt the validity of these statistics.
I'd buy one of these if it could tell me if what I'm buying is what I think I'm buying and not some counterfeit...
Would be nice if it worked for liquor as well given how much poison is out there on the market at this point.
I'm just one more to say how saddened I am for the loss of Iain Banks. His novels have touched me as well, and I have not felt the loss of any author as painful since Isaac Asimov passed.
AlthoughI fear otherwise, I sincerely hope that some day our children's children will live in something like the culture.
Really strange - the lefts HATRED of brothers promoting freedom with their own money.
For the record - did you know that the Koch Brothers support:
Decriminalizing drugs,
Legalizing gay marriage,
Repealing the Patriot Act,
Ending the police state,
Cutting defense spending.
They call this being way right wing?
And the Chinese are in favor of human rights.
Got any references to back up your claims?
Okay - thanks for the info -
Friend, the modifier was not just "remain in a given place". It was, "stay and fight" which does indeed fit your dictionary definition.
We weren't talk
after 4 years of obama... why would anyone be a first time obama voter in 12? not attacking seriously curious.
Lack of a better option?