>The government is not obligated to protect you from exposure to someone else's religion, be it in a government meeting or not. You and I do not have a right to prayer-free zoning meetings, though we do have a right to campaign to replace those public officials who allow zoning meeting time to be wasted in that manner.
The government is specifically prohibited from preferentially supporting one religion over another. A government official standing up in an official capacity and preaching is doing exactly that. He is forcing you as a taxpayer to pay him to try and convert others.
>I consider prayer at official government functions to be at about the same level of badness as political pork projects.
Except that one is prohibited in the first amendment and the other isn't.
>It would be nice if it went away, but it's only a civil rights issue if somebody uses its religious nature as a reason to promote or oppose it.
How is praying *not* promoting a religion?
>...On the other hand, schools and theaters are often unused on Sunday mornings, and are not averse to extra rental income.
Schools can be used for church meetings as long as they are available to all the different religions.
>When discussing religion and government, rules and policies must be equitable and fair even when "lack of religion" is considered to be a religion. Government policies that oppose certain practices simply for being religious are bad because they favor the "lack of religion" religion over other religions.
Except that 'lack of religion' isn't religion by definition.
"In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
>Oops! Looks like this whole thing is covered under the Presidential WAR POWERS resolution. Yep, it's a WAR.
Pretty weak. That's like saying that anything that falls under the Patriot Act is patriotic. You can fumble around all you like, but can't change the fact that a war has not been declared in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter.
>The Iraq WAR (not "conflict") is covered under this resolution under section (a) above, as a state harboring terrorist groups.
Why post information that is already widely debunked? Iraq had far fewer terrorists before this conflict than it does now. In fact, it had fewer than most middle eastern countries because of that mean old Saddam not letting them get a foothold.
>Again, please stop speaking from a position of ignorance, you just make yourself look foolish.
You keep saying that, but I'm thinking you have no idea what you're saying.
Yeah, it was bitched about continuously on Slashdot when it was known.
>I don't recall a warrant being sought for each intercepted conversation.
A warrant was required for the target of the interceptions, though. While it's true that other conversations could be caught by it, they were to be ignored.
>The ACLU was upset about that, but did nothing against a Democrat in Clinton.
Maybe because the laws were still being followed instead of flagrantly ignored.
>But once a minor subset of this eavesdropping occures(you know, the one where one bad guy is on the other end) then the ACLU starts with the lawsuits.
Prove that a bad guy was on either end. Hell, show one shred of evidence of the truth of your statement outside of the administration making the claim. You can't.
>I can't think of anything more partizen than that hypocrisy. Well, maybe your stance, but that is another subject all together.
My stance is that the government shouldn't break its own laws. Clinton is nothing but a red herring in this regard.
>You are correct. The FISA court hasn't said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal. Of course, they haven't said it's ILLEGAL either
It is illegal under the original FISA law, the very thing that created those courts.
>As a matter of fact, the FISA court hasn't made any statements on the NSA program simply because it is NOT WITHIN THIER JURISDICTION. Why? Because the NSA Program is NOT domestic spying!
And you know this how? Does president Bush call you up and reassure you that it isn't?
>It is spying on enemy combatants attempting to communicate with thier agents inside our borders during a declared time of war.
First, there has been no congressional declaration of war since World War 2. We are not at war unless congress says so, and they haven't.
Notice especially the words "declare" and "war". They are important. No such declaration has been made about the Iraq conflict.
Second, you have no idea who they are really spying on because there has been zero oversight of their KGB like activities. (side note: KGB translates into 'Committee for State Security'. DOes that name remind anyone of a recently created department in the US?)
>Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution."
The president doesn't have the power to disregard the parts of the constitution he doesn't like. If he can't work within the laws, he's nothing but a criminal.
>A) The FISA court itself states that the actions of the NSA in this matter are legal
No, it does not. The FISA court has never said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal.
>B) If they are not, then you better get ready for lawsuits against Carter, Regan, and Clinton, as they acted in the exact same manner when they were in office.
No, they did not. They got the required warrants from the FISA court.
>You continued failed attemps to discredit Bush have always failed and will continue to fail.
What amazes me (not really) is people who are so blindly partisan that they will stand behind a man who is breaking actual laws and destroying the ideals of our country in the process. Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.
>Unless of course, it's the ability to carry out prayer or other religioius expression during meetings or on government property. Then the ACLU is indeed forcing government (courts) to take your rights away.
You have every right to pray on your own property, or anyone else's property who is cool with it. What you don't have the right to do is force everyone else to support your religion, so either government supports each religion equally, or not at all.
>Before I'm called some evil Christian, I am a pagan and ACLU does concern me, alot.
>The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Did you miss that bold part up there?
For anyone who thinks that there is any law allowing warrantless spying on US citizens, please name something that the president *cannot* justify using the same logic. He already thinks he can set up secret prisons, kidnap people, and hold them indefinitely without a trial or even access to a lawyer. What *can't* he do in this sham 'war or terror'?
There is a law that specifically forbids spying on American citizens without a court order, in this case an exceptionally easy to get court order. The fact that they didn't do so tells me that they were doing more than conducting surveillence on suspected terrorists and have moved on to spying on political enemies.
>Which is why I brought up the constitutional right of the government to search and seizure.
Yes, the government is given that right under very specific conditions.
>You seem to think that the government has no power at all.
It has *only* the powers spelled out to it.
>Nowhere does it say that citizens have a right to privacy
And? Nowhere is the government given the power to invade my privacy, so why would you think that it has that power?
>freedom is not the same as privacy, as the point has been made.
Privacy is a kind of freedom - the freedom to keep to ones self, a kind of freedom of association.
>The constitution gives the benefit of a doubt to citizens, but it also outlines many rights of citizens that NEED to be outlined.
They did not need to be outlined at all. There was quite a bit of arguing about that, as a matter of fact. They included the 9th and 10th (above) as a hedge against anyone making just the arguments you're making.
>The founding fathers knew better than to grant everybody a right to secrecy,
And you base this on what inside knowledge? The founders knew exactly the dangers of the government having too much power to intrude on our everyday lives, and covered the bases pretty well without a nauseatingly long list of everything they could think of.
>if they had intended that to be the case they would surely have included it in the bill of rights.
That's funny. My version of the constitution has the following in it:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
along with:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, unless the government is specifically given some power, say to intrude on your privacy, it doesn't have that right. We have the right to privacy by default, since the government has no constitutional right to restrict it.
All you really need is a device (RFID?) that is tied into the odometer that records how many miles you have travelled whenever you enter or leave the state. Then, when you renew your registration, you could also pay the tax on the number of miles travelled in state in the past year. No need (or ability) to know where you are at every moment.
"Titleserv moved for summary judgment on the basis of 17 U.S.C. 117(a)(1) (as well as on other grounds). Section 117(a)(1) provides an affirmative defense against copyright infringement for anyone who (i) owns a physical copy of a computer program, (ii) makes an adaptation "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine," and (iii) uses it "in no other manner." The district court, following the recommendation of Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary judgment in favor of Titleserv."
All you have to do is own a physical copy, and you are free to change it as you like. Just don't try and redistribute it.
Right now, at this very moment, there are 12 connections to my wireless access point. 2 of them are from inside my apartment, and 1 of them is from my next door neighbor. All the rest are random people in my apartment building. If I notice someone using up too much bandwidth (especially when I'm trying to play online games), I'll filter their mac address. I'd do the same thing to someone trying to send spam. Otherwise, I just don't care what they're doing. The more the merrier!
Calm down. If the guy wants to leave his wireless open for anyone to use, it's not going to hurt you one iota.
>Sure, the odds are that if I step off the curb without looking, I MIGHT not get flattened by a bus, but you know what? I look anyway.
Because being run over is like having someone possibly sending spam from your internet connection how?
>Internet security is everyone's problem. We wouldn't have a spam problem now if people knew what the fuck they were doing, and you're currently making it that much easier for the shit to get into my inbox. Knock it the fuck off and take responsibility for your actions.
God are you whiny! Quite a few of us choose to let anyone use our wireless connections and it has nothing to do with laziness.
> If you lend someone your car and they run someone over you are responsible.
No, you're not. At most, your insurance might have to cover the accident, but you are certainly not responsible for any criminal actions of the driver if you didn't know about them.
>I don't think I'll quit WoW over this, but I will take away some lessons.
If you are so upset over this, vote with you feet and wallet. There are plenty of MMORPGs out there, and I'm sure most of them won't have a problem with your name being 'Cmdr Taco'. If you're not willing to do the only thing you really can, it all comes off as whining.
>Look what happened with the "open standard" of Usenet. It is SO informative and so readily useful, isn't it?
Umm, Yes. Asking a technical question in the correct newsgroup is usually the fastest way to get your answer. That is if it hasn't already been answered somewhere in google's usenet archives.
A copy of a map is not a physical thing that is being used for some other purpose (like 10 Downing Street or government computers). It was made using public money to inform the public. It shouldn't fall under copyright at all.
>While it is publicly funded, it isn't free reign to do what you want. For instance in this case it's pretty clear that the subway company licenses the map to users who add a value ad (e.g. tourism guides, etc), and in return those republishers return some of their take to the subway.
Who cares? The map has already been paid for using public money. It already belongs to all of us, and should be available for anyone to use.
>You can't take the seats home for your living room because that conflicts with the interest of the group),
Because then you'd be depriving other people who have also paid for them the use of those seats. Not so in any way with these maps.
>If Joe User wants to republish the map in PDA form - make a business model, charge a token charge, and offset those taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
>The government is not obligated to protect you from exposure to someone else's religion, be it in a government meeting or not. You and I do not have a right to prayer-free zoning meetings, though we do have a right to campaign to replace those public officials who allow zoning meeting time to be wasted in that manner.
The government is specifically prohibited from preferentially supporting one religion over another. A government official standing up in an official capacity and preaching is doing exactly that. He is forcing you as a taxpayer to pay him to try and convert others.
>I consider prayer at official government functions to be at about the same level of badness as political pork projects.
Except that one is prohibited in the first amendment and the other isn't.
>It would be nice if it went away, but it's only a civil rights issue if somebody uses its religious nature as a reason to promote or oppose it.
How is praying *not* promoting a religion?
>...On the other hand, schools and theaters are often unused on Sunday mornings, and are not averse to extra rental income.
Schools can be used for church meetings as long as they are available to all the different religions.
>When discussing religion and government, rules and policies must be equitable and fair even when "lack of religion" is considered to be a religion. Government policies that oppose certain practices simply for being religious are bad because they favor the "lack of religion" religion over other religions.
Except that 'lack of religion' isn't religion by definition.
"In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
*cough*
The program is legal with regards to foreign powers, not US citizens.
>Oops! Looks like this whole thing is covered under the Presidential WAR POWERS resolution. Yep, it's a WAR.
Pretty weak. That's like saying that anything that falls under the Patriot Act is patriotic. You can fumble around all you like, but can't change the fact that a war has not been declared in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter.
>The Iraq WAR (not "conflict") is covered under this resolution under section (a) above, as a state harboring terrorist groups.
Why post information that is already widely debunked? Iraq had far fewer terrorists before this conflict than it does now. In fact, it had fewer than most middle eastern countries because of that mean old Saddam not letting them get a foothold.
>Again, please stop speaking from a position of ignorance, you just make yourself look foolish.
You keep saying that, but I'm thinking you have no idea what you're saying.
>Ever hear of ECHELON?
Yeah, it was bitched about continuously on Slashdot when it was known.
>I don't recall a warrant being sought for each intercepted conversation.
A warrant was required for the target of the interceptions, though. While it's true that other conversations could be caught by it, they were to be ignored.
>The ACLU was upset about that, but did nothing against a Democrat in Clinton.
Maybe because the laws were still being followed instead of flagrantly ignored.
>But once a minor subset of this eavesdropping occures(you know, the one where one bad guy is on the other end) then the ACLU starts with the lawsuits.
Prove that a bad guy was on either end. Hell, show one shred of evidence of the truth of your statement outside of the administration making the claim. You can't.
>I can't think of anything more partizen than that hypocrisy. Well, maybe your stance, but that is another subject all together.
My stance is that the government shouldn't break its own laws. Clinton is nothing but a red herring in this regard.
>You are correct. The FISA court hasn't said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal. Of course, they haven't said it's ILLEGAL either
It is illegal under the original FISA law, the very thing that created those courts.
>As a matter of fact, the FISA court hasn't made any statements on the NSA program simply because it is NOT WITHIN THIER JURISDICTION. Why? Because the NSA Program is NOT domestic spying!
And you know this how? Does president Bush call you up and reassure you that it isn't?
>It is spying on enemy combatants attempting to communicate with thier agents inside our borders during a declared time of war.
First, there has been no congressional declaration of war since World War 2. We are not at war unless congress says so, and they haven't.
See:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
and
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html
Notice especially the words "declare" and "war". They are important. No such declaration has been made about the Iraq conflict.
Second, you have no idea who they are really spying on because there has been zero oversight of their KGB like activities. (side note: KGB translates into 'Committee for State Security'. DOes that name remind anyone of a recently created department in the US?)
>Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution."
The president doesn't have the power to disregard the parts of the constitution he doesn't like. If he can't work within the laws, he's nothing but a criminal.
>Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty.
There is already a powerful organization dedicated to protecting that particular civil liberty, so why should the ACLU waste resources doing the same?
>A) The FISA court itself states that the actions of the NSA in this matter are legal
No, it does not. The FISA court has never said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal.
>B) If they are not, then you better get ready for lawsuits against Carter, Regan, and Clinton, as they acted in the exact same manner when they were in office.
No, they did not. They got the required warrants from the FISA court.
>You continued failed attemps to discredit Bush have always failed and will continue to fail.
What amazes me (not really) is people who are so blindly partisan that they will stand behind a man who is breaking actual laws and destroying the ideals of our country in the process. Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.
>Unless of course, it's the ability to carry out prayer or other religioius expression during meetings or on government property. Then the ACLU is indeed forcing government (courts) to take your rights away.
You have every right to pray on your own property, or anyone else's property who is cool with it. What you don't have the right to do is force everyone else to support your religion, so either government supports each religion equally, or not at all.
>Before I'm called some evil Christian, I am a pagan and ACLU does concern me, alot.
It doesn't even concern me alittle.
>The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Did you miss that bold part up there?
For anyone who thinks that there is any law allowing warrantless spying on US citizens, please name something that the president *cannot* justify using the same logic. He already thinks he can set up secret prisons, kidnap people, and hold them indefinitely without a trial or even access to a lawyer. What *can't* he do in this sham 'war or terror'?
When was this ever challenged in court?
There is a law that specifically forbids spying on American citizens without a court order, in this case an exceptionally easy to get court order. The fact that they didn't do so tells me that they were doing more than conducting surveillence on suspected terrorists and have moved on to spying on political enemies.
What other reason can you think of?
>Which is why I brought up the constitutional right of the government to search and seizure.
Yes, the government is given that right under very specific conditions.
>You seem to think that the government has no power at all.
It has *only* the powers spelled out to it.
>Nowhere does it say that citizens have a right to privacy
And? Nowhere is the government given the power to invade my privacy, so why would you think that it has that power?
>freedom is not the same as privacy, as the point has been made.
Privacy is a kind of freedom - the freedom to keep to ones self, a kind of freedom of association.
>The constitution gives the benefit of a doubt to citizens, but it also outlines many rights of citizens that NEED to be outlined.
They did not need to be outlined at all. There was quite a bit of arguing about that, as a matter of fact. They included the 9th and 10th (above) as a hedge against anyone making just the arguments you're making.
>The founding fathers knew better than to grant everybody a right to secrecy,
And you base this on what inside knowledge? The founders knew exactly the dangers of the government having too much power to intrude on our everyday lives, and covered the bases pretty well without a nauseatingly long list of everything they could think of.
>if they had intended that to be the case they would surely have included it in the bill of rights.
They did. You're just ignoring it.
That's funny. My version of the constitution has the following in it:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
along with:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, unless the government is specifically given some power, say to intrude on your privacy, it doesn't have that right. We have the right to privacy by default, since the government has no constitutional right to restrict it.
All you really need is a device (RFID?) that is tied into the odometer that records how many miles you have travelled whenever you enter or leave the state. Then, when you renew your registration, you could also pay the tax on the number of miles travelled in state in the past year. No need (or ability) to know where you are at every moment.
Wasn't someone talking about adding metadata to files just by treating them the same as directories? Maybe the ReiserFS people?
It would look something like this:
file.mp3
file.mp3/Artist
file.mp3/Year
So that all the usual tools would work as you would expect.
I think I agree with you. From the ruling:
"Titleserv moved for summary judgment on the basis of 17 U.S.C. 117(a)(1) (as well as on other grounds). Section 117(a)(1) provides an affirmative defense against copyright infringement for anyone who (i) owns a physical copy of a computer program, (ii) makes an adaptation "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine," and (iii) uses it "in no other manner." The district court, following the recommendation of Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary judgment in favor of Titleserv."
All you have to do is own a physical copy, and you are free to change it as you like. Just don't try and redistribute it.
Right now, at this very moment, there are 12 connections to my wireless access point. 2 of them are from inside my apartment, and 1 of them is from my next door neighbor. All the rest are random people in my apartment building. If I notice someone using up too much bandwidth (especially when I'm trying to play online games), I'll filter their mac address. I'd do the same thing to someone trying to send spam. Otherwise, I just don't care what they're doing. The more the merrier!
Calm down. If the guy wants to leave his wireless open for anyone to use, it's not going to hurt you one iota.
>Sure, the odds are that if I step off the curb without looking, I MIGHT not get flattened by a bus, but you know what? I look anyway.
Because being run over is like having someone possibly sending spam from your internet connection how?
>Internet security is everyone's problem. We wouldn't have a spam problem now if people knew what the fuck they were doing, and you're currently making it that much easier for the shit to get into my inbox. Knock it the fuck off and take responsibility for your actions.
God are you whiny! Quite a few of us choose to let anyone use our wireless connections and it has nothing to do with laziness.
> If you lend someone your car and they run someone over you are responsible.
No, you're not. At most, your insurance might have to cover the accident, but you are certainly not responsible for any criminal actions of the driver if you didn't know about them.
>I don't think I'll quit WoW over this, but I will take away some lessons.
If you are so upset over this, vote with you feet and wallet. There are plenty of MMORPGs out there, and I'm sure most of them won't have a problem with your name being 'Cmdr Taco'. If you're not willing to do the only thing you really can, it all comes off as whining.
>Look what happened with the "open standard" of Usenet. It is SO informative and so readily useful, isn't it?
Umm, Yes. Asking a technical question in the correct newsgroup is usually the fastest way to get your answer. That is if it hasn't already been answered somewhere in google's usenet archives.
Yes, but affecting them isn't the same as infringing on thier rights.
You are free to ignore what I say, but not free to keep me from saying it.
No, payment for creating the maps was the incentive.
A copy of a map is not a physical thing that is being used for some other purpose (like 10 Downing Street or government computers). It was made using public money to inform the public. It shouldn't fall under copyright at all.
Your logic is non-existent.
>While it is publicly funded, it isn't free reign to do what you want. For instance in this case it's pretty clear that the subway company licenses the map to users who add a value ad (e.g. tourism guides, etc), and in return those republishers return some of their take to the subway.
Who cares? The map has already been paid for using public money. It already belongs to all of us, and should be available for anyone to use.
>You can't take the seats home for your living room because that conflicts with the interest of the group),
Because then you'd be depriving other people who have also paid for them the use of those seats. Not so in any way with these maps.
>If Joe User wants to republish the map in PDA form - make a business model, charge a token charge, and offset those taxes.
Joe User ALREADY PAID for them!