Any time a Fourth Amendment rights violation occurs, any case, at any level, DIES on the spot and any evidence that stems from that violation must be discarded along with the case. Period.
It's just that you can't presume that the government has ANY requirements to observe the Bill of Rights restrictions on their activities- you have to assert these rights when they're applicable. Entirely too many people think that these rights are automatically activated. NO.
For example, in the decision of U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Judge Fee states:
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.
Your rights in this space are NOT automatic. You must insist upon them and they must actually apply. The reason why they "don't have teeth", etc. is because NOBODY seems to be willing to actually challenge each in every one of these when they encounter them for reasons of "you can't fight city hall", etc.
Within a couple of years, Amazon will probably never remove the DRM for me, so I will have to break any laws.
Fixed that for you.;-)
The truth of the matter is that if they ever DO remove DRM from the content they sell to you, it'll require you re-purchasing it to get the DRM out, much like with any of the other stories of that nature. IF they get to removing it. I don't see that for a while yet to come as they've had e-Books for years now and they've still not figured out that it's not the lack of a cheap reader (though that doesn't help...) but that it's more the fact that you don't own a license to the content like you do with the books in many cases. I won't DO an e-book with DRM in it- no matter how much I'd like to have the content. If I can't space shift it, can't use it in the various readers I have without jumping through flaming hoops or buying multiple licenses, it's less useful than a paper book for me.
Just like music, books will be sold without DRM. How quickly that happens depends on people (like me) who buy digital media, and migrate to the distibution channels that move in that direction.
Music's really the only medium that's starting to get a clue of any sort and it's more because Apple held a gun to their head- CD's and other media like it that aren't in Apple's store is still pretty DRMed (it's just that you can end-run around the CD DRM...). E-books are still sort of trying to figure out that DRM's a bad, bad idea for them. I think Baen's largely the only player doing without DRM of any kind in any of their e-books and Tor's the only other publisher that I know of handing out un-DRMed stuff. Anyone that's a publisher (not indie stuff, self-published...) is pretty much DRMed out the wazoo because they're terrified about the fact that it's simple and easy to duplicate the content. They're mired in the past, much as the labels are (and they still are...don't fool yourself... Apple's getting away with what they're doing because they're the 600# gorilla in the space right at the moment- if the labels could take that back from Jobs and Co. they would and slap DRM right back in there...) because they don't have the influence, control, or money making potential they used to in the new digital world. There's still room for middlemen/publishers- just not the same role and it doesn't make as much money as it would've with the old way of doing things.
Actually, they're somewhat limited in what they can/can't do by the Fourteenth Ammendment which applies much of the same laws in that selfsame "Congress shall make no law..." to THEM as well.
It still doesn't give him credible jurisdiction to issue orders impacting all of the out-of-state defendants.
Moreover, there was no claims of that sort of thing- they claim libel and copyright infringement in the filing, as best as I could tell,
Not quite the venue for this if the defendants are where they're living. I expect a motion to quash based on that alone, along with a motion to remove and remand to the Federal jurisdiction as this mess doesn't belong with the State system at this point.
Probably as soon as it's filed by the Defendants. And they'll probably make a motion to remove and remand to the Federal District Court level as I think there's not a single player in this mess on the defendants' side that's in-state. If so, the State clearly has no jurisdiction and there will be a motion to remove and remand to the Federal level- where the whole shebang would not survive very long as there's clearly not any controversy (and wouldn't have been at the State level if there wasn't a sympathetic Judge for Apex there...).
Considering that it was overall cheaper for Dell to slowly move their Customer Support operations to places like Oklahoma City instead of India, there should be a hint in that for all of you that keep spouting this BS line...:D
Because they're apparently in a venue that spurious charges are considered.
I mean, if there are any defendants out of state, for something of this nature, you're supposed to take this to the Federal Courts... What's with an NJ court issuing orders of this nature in the first place, hm? I didn't think there was jurisdiction for the Judge in this stuff at this point.
It's not just First Amendment violations we're talking about here.
The order impacts stuff completely out of his jurisdiction. Unfortunately, for the Judge, he's just issued an order that has National and International ramifications and at least one of the companies in question happens to be based in Scottsdale, Arizona (GoDaddy...).
HOW can a state judge issue such orders? This is actually quite outside of his jurisdiction as best as I can tell.
2) It's not that the people won't work- it's that it's not being offered in the first place and they're claiming a "shortage" of workers (even though there's not...) and getting the H1B's in here
In actuality, if you've got a PDA phone (i.e. a WinMo, BlackBerry, Palm, or Android...) you're required to get the PDA plan. That's a combined phone and data plan- that's typically unlimited.
As such, suppositions about the data part being a "bonus" are bogus.
I should know, I spend quite a bit of money on that specific plan- and if I had a BlackBerry, I'd be PO'ed at this point.
I know I'm not sure. Which is why I'd like to think we'd err on the side of caution with this sort of thing.
The biggest problem is that in recent times, we've been finding more and more incidents of honestly innocent people being convicted- and more and more disturbing examples thereof. And more disturbingly, in complete disregard of the Bill of Rights bars to action. It's to the point that DA's are wanting to have absolute immunity for fabricating lies against the Defendant.
As for your question...so far, it's survived some 233 years to date. It's got problems right at the moment, but it's not for wont of being cautious, but more for being uncautious like you propose.
Heh... You've been running with the wrong crowd then. Sounds more like you're running with the infringers that found that FOSS stuff could be "better" that adopted it and decided to rip off everything else that wasn't FOSS.
Anti-virus software HAS to have signatures, etc. of the malware to detect/remove it- if it's new, you're going to get zapped by it and it'll lurk for at least a while during the time they find out about it and sort out how to find and remove it safely (if possible...). It's more akin to closing the barn door after the horses have all gone out. It doesn't really make the machine more secure. Secure is not getting compromised in the first place.
The truth of the matter is that "ease of use" will always come at the cost of security. As long as you allow auto-execute, auto-launch, auto-whatever for the ease of use by someone, there's going to be a not-so-small positive risk of infection/compromise of a machine. Doesn't matter if it's Linux, MacOS, Windows, or whatever. One of the reasons Linux is slightly more resilient than MacOS in this regard is there's less of that sort of crap. Correspondingly, Windows is the least secure of the three for the aforementioned reason, coupled with poor security design (putting "robust" security (which it has some...) on top of something that wasn't really designed with it in mind isn't a good way of going about it...).
You apply the shotgun to the control mechanism- when you know what in the HELL you're shooting at. Shooting at it randomly (which is what they did there...) with a pistol (There'd be a lot less laptop if it was a shotgun they'd used...) is as liable as not to cause the explosive and possibly any other improvised weapons (i.e. biological or chemical...) to go off.
You don't DO what they apparently did for EOD. Seriously.
Unfortunately for them, the "old way" doesn't remove the requirements to think about the licensing.
Under no terms should ANY manager or exec be led to think they don't have to worry about license terms- period. Even with "buying" you have all sorts of landmines within the licensing that buying doesn't even avoid.
I don't know about you, but it was cogent and didn't do any inflamatory remarks intended to draw flames to him.
The truth of the matter is, the parent post here might just be closer to the truth than many would like to own up to. I don't wholly agree with the "bigots and warmongers" remark as I can't verify that- but there's been a shift not unlike what was described in the post towards something I wouldn't want to be a part of within the current makeup of the Republican party.
I'm pretty sure your assessment is on the money there- and there'd be quite a few people that would sign up as they're sick and tired of the flip sides of the coin we've been "enjoying" for the last handful of decades or so.
In many rural areas they have party-lines (not usable for DSL...) or lie at a distance from the CO that's well beyond anything other than iDSL rates if that. They'd have to spend a bit of extra money that the profit margins aren't "high enough" for them to bother with- there's a reason that the rural areas have Internet access problems in the first place. Nobody wants to serve the areas because they're less profitable.
If they're wanting to define Broadband as 768/200k, I'm almost okay with that as long as they don't dink with the pipes, keep things the way they currently are, and actually ROLL IT OUT TO PEOPLE at minimum. All this whining about users, etc. is more due to the fact that they way oversold the capacity they have and are unwilling to take a smidge of the profits they raked in doing so to upgrade a bit and offset the problem they made for themselves.
This is the now quite famous lecture given by Professor James Duanes and gives you a frank explanation of WHY you don't talk to the police unless you have to. IF they ask for consent, refuse. IF they ask for a voluntary statement or similar on something, refuse. You will breach your Fifth Amendment rights out of the gate almost every time. Once you do, you can and most likely will have your words twisted on you. Once you do, you open yourself up to all sorts of potential problems.
Oh, but they won't do per-message charges, but they WILL...
Gig you for data per megabyte.
If they don't do that, they'll typically cap just how much data you have at full speed and then cut you off or limit you to worse than average dialup when you exceed it.
It's still hypocritical, but it's less so than you're making it out to be.
Heh... The Java code is merely a launcher for the native code pieces- in the end, it's little different than the launcher scripts I've used in the past for Linux game ports. I'm about to make one of those gems here shortly and even maybe get it in the App Store for Eclair and later phones.
Slashdot Mirror
The Bill of Rights DOES have teeth.
Any time a Fourth Amendment rights violation occurs, any case, at any level, DIES on the spot and any evidence that stems from that violation must be discarded along with the case. Period.
It's just that you can't presume that the government has ANY requirements to observe the Bill of Rights restrictions on their activities- you have to assert these rights when they're applicable. Entirely too many people think that these rights are automatically activated. NO.
For example, in the decision of U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Judge Fee states:
Your rights in this space are NOT automatic. You must insist upon them and they must actually apply. The reason why they "don't have teeth", etc. is because NOBODY seems to be willing to actually challenge each in every one of these when they encounter them for reasons of "you can't fight city hall", etc.
Actually, there are people that CAN do such a revision or removal. It's just typically not worth their trouble to do it to YOUR books... ;-)
Fixed that for you. ;-)
The truth of the matter is that if they ever DO remove DRM from the content they sell to you, it'll require you re-purchasing it to get the DRM out, much like with any of the other stories of that nature. IF they get to removing it. I don't see that for a while yet to come as they've had e-Books for years now and they've still not figured out that it's not the lack of a cheap reader (though that doesn't help...) but that it's more the fact that you don't own a license to the content like you do with the books in many cases. I won't DO an e-book with DRM in it- no matter how much I'd like to have the content. If I can't space shift it, can't use it in the various readers I have without jumping through flaming hoops or buying multiple licenses, it's less useful than a paper book for me.
Music's really the only medium that's starting to get a clue of any sort and it's more because Apple held a gun to their head- CD's and other media like it that aren't in Apple's store is still pretty DRMed (it's just that you can end-run around the CD DRM...). E-books are still sort of trying to figure out that DRM's a bad, bad idea for them. I think Baen's largely the only player doing without DRM of any kind in any of their e-books and Tor's the only other publisher that I know of handing out un-DRMed stuff. Anyone that's a publisher (not indie stuff, self-published...) is pretty much DRMed out the wazoo because they're terrified about the fact that it's simple and easy to duplicate the content. They're mired in the past, much as the labels are (and they still are...don't fool yourself... Apple's getting away with what they're doing because they're the 600# gorilla in the space right at the moment- if the labels could take that back from Jobs and Co. they would and slap DRM right back in there...) because they don't have the influence, control, or money making potential they used to in the new digital world. There's still room for middlemen/publishers- just not the same role and it doesn't make as much money as it would've with the old way of doing things.
Actually, they're somewhat limited in what they can/can't do by the Fourteenth Ammendment which applies much of the same laws in that selfsame "Congress shall make no law..." to THEM as well.
It still doesn't give him credible jurisdiction to issue orders impacting all of the out-of-state defendants.
Moreover, there was no claims of that sort of thing- they claim libel and copyright infringement in the filing, as best as I could tell,
Not quite the venue for this if the defendants are where they're living. I expect a motion to quash based on that alone, along with a motion to remove and remand to the Federal jurisdiction as this mess doesn't belong with the State system at this point.
Probably as soon as it's filed by the Defendants. And they'll probably make a motion to remove and remand to the Federal District Court level as I think there's not a single player in this mess on the defendants' side that's in-state. If so, the State clearly has no jurisdiction and there will be a motion to remove and remand to the Federal level- where the whole shebang would not survive very long as there's clearly not any controversy (and wouldn't have been at the State level if there wasn't a sympathetic Judge for Apex there...).
Considering that it was overall cheaper for Dell to slowly move their Customer Support operations to places like Oklahoma City instead of India, there should be a hint in that for all of you that keep spouting this BS line... :D
Because they're apparently in a venue that spurious charges are considered.
I mean, if there are any defendants out of state, for something of this nature, you're supposed to take this to the Federal Courts... What's with an NJ court issuing orders of this nature in the first place, hm? I didn't think there was jurisdiction for the Judge in this stuff at this point.
It's not just First Amendment violations we're talking about here.
The order impacts stuff completely out of his jurisdiction. Unfortunately, for the Judge, he's just issued an order that has National and International ramifications and at least one of the companies in question happens to be based in Scottsdale, Arizona (GoDaddy...).
HOW can a state judge issue such orders? This is actually quite outside of his jurisdiction as best as I can tell.
1) The recession is partly DUE to this practice.
2) It's not that the people won't work- it's that it's not being offered in the first place and they're claiming a "shortage" of workers (even though there's not...) and getting the H1B's in here
Considering that he wants a critic put in jail over what appears to be a technicality at most...I don't think that he really stands upon principle.
In actuality, if you've got a PDA phone (i.e. a WinMo, BlackBerry, Palm, or Android...) you're required to get the PDA plan. That's a combined phone and data plan- that's typically unlimited.
As such, suppositions about the data part being a "bonus" are bogus.
I should know, I spend quite a bit of money on that specific plan- and if I had a BlackBerry, I'd be PO'ed at this point.
I know I'm not sure. Which is why I'd like to think we'd err on the side of caution with this sort of thing.
The biggest problem is that in recent times, we've been finding more and more incidents of honestly innocent people being convicted- and more and more disturbing examples thereof. And more disturbingly, in complete disregard of the Bill of Rights bars to action. It's to the point that DA's are wanting to have absolute immunity for fabricating lies against the Defendant.
As for your question...so far, it's survived some 233 years to date. It's got problems right at the moment, but it's not for wont of being cautious, but more for being uncautious like you propose.
Heh... You've been running with the wrong crowd then. Sounds more like you're running with the infringers that found that FOSS stuff could be "better" that adopted it and decided to rip off everything else that wasn't FOSS.
Actually... That's not a foregone conclusion.
Anti-virus software HAS to have signatures, etc. of the malware to detect/remove it- if it's new, you're going to get zapped by it and it'll lurk for at least a while during the time they find out about it and sort out how to find and remove it safely (if possible...). It's more akin to closing the barn door after the horses have all gone out. It doesn't really make the machine more secure. Secure is not getting compromised in the first place.
The truth of the matter is that "ease of use" will always come at the cost of security. As long as you allow auto-execute, auto-launch, auto-whatever for the ease of use by someone, there's going to be a not-so-small positive risk of infection/compromise of a machine. Doesn't matter if it's Linux, MacOS, Windows, or whatever. One of the reasons Linux is slightly more resilient than MacOS in this regard is there's less of that sort of crap. Correspondingly, Windows is the least secure of the three for the aforementioned reason, coupled with poor security design (putting "robust" security (which it has some...) on top of something that wasn't really designed with it in mind isn't a good way of going about it...).
You apply the shotgun to the control mechanism- when you know what in the HELL you're shooting at. Shooting at it randomly (which is what they did there...) with a pistol (There'd be a lot less laptop if it was a shotgun they'd used...) is as liable as not to cause the explosive and possibly any other improvised weapons (i.e. biological or chemical...) to go off.
You don't DO what they apparently did for EOD. Seriously.
Unfortunately for them, the "old way" doesn't remove the requirements to think about the licensing.
Under no terms should ANY manager or exec be led to think they don't have to worry about license terms- period. Even with "buying" you have all sorts of landmines within the licensing that buying doesn't even avoid.
It would...but then it wouldn't be art...
I don't know about you, but it was cogent and didn't do any inflamatory remarks intended to draw flames to him.
The truth of the matter is, the parent post here might just be closer to the truth than many would like to own up to. I don't wholly agree with the "bigots and warmongers" remark as I can't verify that- but there's been a shift not unlike what was described in the post towards something I wouldn't want to be a part of within the current makeup of the Republican party.
It is only a dream if you don't act upon it.
I'm pretty sure your assessment is on the money there- and there'd be quite a few people that would sign up as they're sick and tired of the flip sides of the coin we've been "enjoying" for the last handful of decades or so.
Actually...the Post Office is a poor analogy.
1) You can buy better service (Priority Mail, Express Mail...).
2) There IS a lower class of service than First Class (Parcel Post...).
Depends on the existing lines.
In many rural areas they have party-lines (not usable for DSL...) or lie at a distance from the CO that's well beyond anything other than iDSL rates if that. They'd have to spend a bit of extra money that the profit margins aren't "high enough" for them to bother with- there's a reason that the rural areas have Internet access problems in the first place. Nobody wants to serve the areas because they're less profitable.
If they're wanting to define Broadband as 768/200k, I'm almost okay with that as long as they don't dink with the pipes, keep things the way they currently are, and actually ROLL IT OUT TO PEOPLE at minimum. All this whining about users, etc. is more due to the fact that they way oversold the capacity they have and are unwilling to take a smidge of the profits they raked in doing so to upgrade a bit and offset the problem they made for themselves.
Repeat this over, and over, and OVER AGAIN until it soaks in.
If you think you've got nothing to hide, etc... I suggest you go and watch the following YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=related>Don't Talk to the Police
This is the now quite famous lecture given by Professor James Duanes and gives you a frank explanation of WHY you don't talk to the police unless you have to. IF they ask for consent, refuse. IF they ask for a voluntary statement or similar on something, refuse. You will breach your Fifth Amendment rights out of the gate almost every time. Once you do, you can and most likely will have your words twisted on you. Once you do, you open yourself up to all sorts of potential problems.
Oh, but they won't do per-message charges, but they WILL...
Gig you for data per megabyte.
If they don't do that, they'll typically cap just how much data you have at full speed and then cut you off or limit you to worse than average dialup when you exceed it.
It's still hypocritical, but it's less so than you're making it out to be.
Heh... The Java code is merely a launcher for the native code pieces- in the end, it's little different than the launcher scripts I've used in the past for Linux game ports. I'm about to make one of those gems here shortly and even maybe get it in the App Store for Eclair and later phones.