... but the FDA is still finding something to complain about.
This is after preeminent scientists argue that bioethics needs to get out of the way of modern research.
An interesting parallel, by the way, was John Nestor. Here was a guy that intentionally (and even with good intention) drove 55MPH in the fast lane of DC traffic. He was, at best, misguided, since speed differential is more dangeous than speed and his actions were likely safety-reducing. He was also an FDA bureaucrat that never approved a drug and was ultimately fired for his "caution" that probably cost more lives and more lifesaving drugs than it ever saved.
This is what I've never quite understood: why does it seem that zoning laws are allowed to ignore constitutional freedoms? Banning research and development, "including software coding" would seem to ignore the right to free speech, free assembly and the right to privacy
Sometimes speech is also conduct, and conduct can be regulated. For instance, if I call you up and say "give me a million BTC or else I'm going to kill your family", surely that's speech but it's also criminal conduct (e.g. 18 USC 875 for Americans, YMMV elsewhere). Similarly, if two coffeehouse owners in a small town meet over lattes and one says "Let's raise prices a quarter" and the other says "Sure, we'll change ours next week", surely that's speech, they are just talking, but it's also criminal conduct (15 USC 1). Or urging a specific person to commit suicide. The fact that all of these crimes are accomplished by talking doesn't magically throw First Amendment protection over conspiracy to fix consumer prices.
The same is true in civil, as opposed to criminal, law. Libel, defamation, and slander are tortious, even though they are obviously speech. So are tax fraud, misleading investors and filing false business reports, even if you use a printed medium to convey them. Publishing your company's trade secrets as a book (or a newspaper) won't get you off the hook, neither will failing to pay generally-owed taxes or follow generally-applicable laws (like zoning) for your magazine. I mean, no one (I think?) believes that the NYT or/. can just ignore the zoning laws and set up whatever, wherever any more than they can violate labor law or building codes or tax law (right?).
Eugene Volokh did a fairly thorough review of the boundary between speech and conduct.
I estimate the cost of goods sold per Epi-pen is about $2 to $3 each. Any figures beyond that are profit. Any higher CGS presented by Mylan, should they choose to do so, are likely accounting techniques where they move ongoing R&D costs onto old and fully paid for products. The retail price of Mylan's Epi-pen is legalized theft such that Al Capone would be proud.
Al Capone and his bootleggers were largely in favor of prohibition ($$$) and opposed to its repeal. They were also (violently) opposed to their competitors trying to move alcohol outside their protection racket. You want to fuck Mylan over, stop making it difficult for their competitors to compete with them
Last year Sanofi withdrew an EpiPen rival called Auvi-Q that was introduced in 2013, after merely 26 cases in which the device malfunctioned and delivered an inaccurate dose. Though the recall was voluntary and the FDA process is not transparent, such extraordinary actions are never done without agency involvement. This suggests a regulatory motive other than patient safety.
Then in February the FDA rejected Teva's generic EpiPen application. In June the FDA required a San Diego-based company called Adamis to expand patient trials and reliability studies for still another auto-injector rival.
The only shocking thing is that the price didn't go up more when a field of three competitors was narrowed to only one that's given a legal monopoly over the whole market.
My eyes aren't great and my fingers are fat, can we please have text readable at approximately the same apparent size and links that have reasonable bounding boxes across all devices?
... all without generating false positives and removing the posts or accounts of anyone besides the actual terrorist ISIS....and never have false positives...
Where in the world did you get the requirement that there have to be exactly zero false positives?
Surely false positives are bad and should be avoided. But I venture that most people would find it an acceptable tradeoff if one in a million legitimate tweets gets rejected by filter. Systems don't have to be perfect to be usable. Heck, I bet that random network errors and other gremlins cause just as many failures anyway.
Even/. has a automatic spam filter that will trigger if you try to post a message with too few words and links to spammy domains. One time, it falsely flagged a legitimate message I was posting. The world didn't end, I reposted it to look less spammy, all is well in the world.
Seriously, does this bozo think that there is any security benefit if an attacker doesn't know your internal domain names? What in the world does that buy?
PS. Editors: reconnaissance != recognizance. Holy hell what a train wreck.
Quite the contrary. The closer adversaries are in their capabilities, the more likely they are to fight. This was the case in Europe for a few hundred years before WWI. Heck, from 1803 to 1871 (a lifetime!) there less than 10 years of peace.
Meanwhile every year now we are racking up a longer unprecedent period of peace -- one that has silently saved millions of lives without us noticing. And that's including both the idiotic ventures of the US into Vietnam and Iraq II (and some more-worthy interventions such as the Balkans, Iraq I) and the upswing of violent terrorism and the ensuing low-level conflict. These are bad, but they are nowhere near the horrors that were routine prior to the Long Peace.
So yeah, I think there's a lot of American bravado (and cost) in being decades ahead of the rest of the world. And surely it's not all coming from a benevolent heart (JFK's excellent speeches notwithstanding). But the empiricist in me is strongly leaning towards the idea that it's far superior to the kind of multi-lateral system that existed prior.
OTOH, given the inability to guarantee the erasure of all data on any drive, unencrypted data should never hit the drives at all, and the key should of course also never be stored on the same media (unencrypted).
FTFY.
You are absolutely correct though -- you should never rely on making data inaccessible via erasure instead of via encryption.
Incidentally, the ST8000DM002s that we are talking about here support for OPAL which makes it trivial to "throw away the key" by sending the drive a reset-DEK command.
I get that they think the CFAA is overbroad and this is a prosecutorial pile-on. And maybe it is.
At the same time (and to be fair), this may have a negative impact on privacy.
Consider a scenario where an individual (say, a police dispatcher) has authorization to use a computer system (say, court records, warrants, DMV records) for legitimate purpose (in dispatching the police). Now she goes and uses her access to that computer beyond the bounds of that authorization: to help a friend that is a PI, to stalk her ex, to get juicy leads so she can paparazzo some douchy D-list actor when he gets out of his DUI.
Once you think about it this way -- how many people need access to systems with personal information to do their jobs but for which it's not feasible to have technical solutions -- you wonder how to create a workable legal solution that doesn't need to be re-done for every possible use-case. CFAA may be a poorly drafted attempt, but the goal of criminalizing exceeding your authorization (if not your access) to a computer system makes sense and, I would argue, is privacy protecting.
Dart is a Google thing. TypeScript is a Microsoft thing. Neither is ever going to be supported across all browsers except by transpiling to JavaScript.
I'd pin my hopes on either WebAssembly or static typing actually getting added to JavaScript.
But that's point! If it compiles into bog-standard JS then there's no actual "support" to be added anywhere.
Both TS and DART compile into JS that is compatible with the big 4 browser JS engines.
Not even remotely true. The information that can be obtained with a reader does not contain the actual keys (!) that would be used to sign a transaction.
You could actually read about EMV, the specification is public. It's fairly clear you haven't.
You're right that the only sane option is to use a language that 'compiles' into Javascript. TypeScript supports static typing and might fit your bill.
If I make a widget, and I know I can get people to pay $400 for it, I don't go "Well, it costs me 100 to make, so 150+tax = 180 is what I'll charge". I say "It costs 100 to make, people will pay 400, so my profit is 400-(tax+100). That's how I make the most profit. If tax goes up, people will still only pay 400 for it, so my profits may go down. If they go up high enough, it may make sense for me to charge more and sell fewer widgets, but the base price is set by what I know I can sell the item for.
No no no no no no. If it costs you 100 to make a widget then, at most, it costs your competitor 150 to make. In modern hardware a 1.5x comparative cost advantage is absolutely enormous actually -- real advantages are a few percentage points here and there.
So we'll be generous and assume you've got a huge head start on tooling, process -- you've got the whole supply chain set up and the QA working and everything. That buys you maybe 6 months, maybe a year, in which you can charge $400 (or whatever the market will bear) before your competitor undercuts at $200. You enjoy the good times immensely, you're making 400% margin, everything is peachy. But eventually it ends and you have to match the competitor's pricing or move on to the next thing.
Not a bad example. And likewise, if I wanted to send someone to the bank to retrieve or add to the contents of the safety deposit box, that would be my prerogative.
I agree and I don't agree. You have the power delegate authority to add or remove items from the box. That is surely your prerogative. So if you fall ill or move to another country, surely you can delegate your rights over the box itself to Bob.
The part where I don't agree is the idea that your authorization to Bob in any way impacts whether he is allows to use the bank lobby to access the box. Under no feasible reading of the safe-deposit-box-owner-protocol did you ever possess any authority over the bank lobby. As a consequence of not possessing those rights, you cannot delegate them to anyone.
For instance, if Bob was previously a nuisance at the bank lobby (say, he leafleted customers with Hare Krishna materials) and they served him official trespass notice, then he cannot set foot in the bank again. You can delegate to him rights over the box all you want, he still can't use the lobby.
Where the law varies significantly from people's expectations is where conflict arises, and the law is usually wrong or ultimately unenforceable, because society en masse simply ignores the law.
Really? I'm wondering how this could be true. Most people expect cantilever bridges to be stronger than suspension bridges because they intuitively (and incorrectly) believe that materials are stronger under shear than under tension. But surely material science is not something that society has the right to "simply ignore" because it violates their expectations.
If we let social expectations dictate bridge design (or medical practice, or....), people would die. Instead, we have democratically accountable leaders that delegate technical decision making to people with subject domain expertise.
But does that principle automatically apply here? Does a normal person *consider* their Twitter account their own property or the property of twiiter.
No one is talking about ownership of the account, if that's even a well-formed concept. It doesn't matter either way, because what we are talking about is Twitter's actual physical servers.
Twitter has authorized everyone to connect to their servers to do certain operations (like read all tweets) Twitter has authorized person A to use their physical servers to do other operations (like write a tweet or a DM). To enforce this authorization, Twitter and A agree an authentication token (password, whatever). Twitter has not authorized person A to authorize new users to those protected operations on those servers.
They'll say it's 'my account'; they'll complain 'my account was hacked'... everything surrounding it is framed in that sense of ownership.
Indeed. And perhaps we can say that you have some ownership interest in the data present in the account and it's social status. But that ownership interest obviously doesn't extend to any sort of ownership in the server that hosts it.
By comparison, I might own all the items in my safe deposit box at the bank. But clearly I don't own the bank, or even the bank lobby. And yet I cannot access my owned items except by using the bank's property.
The notion that I would be delegating access to twitter's server infrastructure in a way analogous to Bob letting Jill use your pool...? That would NOT be a consideration at all. No normal person thinks of their twitter account in that sense. (even if technically and legally that's what it is.)
Well, OK. Then legally a legal court of law will come to a different legal conclusion than a person with no technical or legal expertise might come to. Also, civil engineer might build a bridge differently than a normal person would. News at 11!
This is not stupid at all. It mirrors the obvious principle that everyone here knows, which is that authorization to use a system does not necessarily confer authorization to authorize additional users. This has been a principle in UNIX since before most of us were born, and it continues to be a principle of every multi-user operating system since. There are distinct privilege levels between user and some form of super-user that has the right to authorize additional users.
Moreover, it's a principle of our daily lives that's so obvious we don't even mention it. I let my neighbor Bob use my pool whenever he wants, but I would be shocked if Jill was using it and just said "Oh yeah, Bob said I could".
There is no reason that the principle of non-delegation (that is to say, without explicit authority granted to delegate) shouldn't apply to the virtual world just as much as it applies everywhere else.
Routine searches of items as they travel across the international border into the US have never been basedon on reasonable suspicion. That was the custom at the time when the Fourth Amendment was ratified and continues in unbroken tradition today.
I specifically say 'routine' to mean things like xray of baggage or vehicles, inspection of cargo, provision of payment for customs/tariffs, verification of visas/passports and the like. No one has ever suggested that a country should allow people and goods to enter without being checked for compliance. Nor would most of the useful parts of the regulatory state (e.g. the requirement for pharmaceuticals to be safe/pure) be possible if anyone could bring suitcases of the knockoff Chinese medicine through the airport without fear of a search.
Of course, neither extreme position ('the border police can do anything/nothing') is tenable. What I was trying to document is the limits on either end. So you have the sort of short interview on the one hand and the 48 hour hard limit that requires judicial authorization on the other.
Josh Wolf served 226 days for failure to comply with a subpoena issued by a district court judge pursuant to a court ordered entered into during a grand jury investigation. His case in no way involved a border search. And right or wrong, it has no bearing on this topic.
What we were discussing here was border searches and what sort of searches and seizures agents can carry out without any judicial hearing. Like what sort of searches can be carried out and what sort of limits on the duration of said searches might be before the agent needs to go to a judge.
So either you don't know that the two have nothing at all to do with one another (except in the sense that 'both involves the US legal system', which also relates my speeding tickets to OJ's murder trial) or you did figure that out but are posting off topic nonsense anyway.
Incorrect. Prolonged (non-routine) detentions must be based on reasonable suspicion. Even then, the duration of the detention must be limited to the time necessary to confirm or dispel that suspicion. And even if there is reasonable suspicion, under no circumstances can the duration exceed 48 hours without a judicial hearing.
See this handy guide [PDF] for more details and lots of citations. Or here's a quote for the lazy:
There appear to be no âoehard-and-fast time limitsâ that automatically transform what would otherwise be a routine search into a non-routine search, nor render a non-routine search conducted under the reasonable suspicion standard unconstitutional. Rather, courts consider âoewhether the detention of [the traveler] was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified it initially.â In order to provide perspective, the 16-hour detention in Montoya de Hernandez was considered a non-routine search (justifiable by reasonable suspicions), while a one-hour vehicular search did not require reasonable suspicion. The Second Circuit has characterized four- to six-hour-long detentions of individuals suspected of having terrorist ties as routine.
However, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Adekunle concluded that the government must, within a reasonable time (generally within 48 hours), seek a judicial determination that reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect for an extended period of time.
The entire field of economics is predicated upon the idea of 'endless growth', the implementation of which is trashing the planet. It would be good if we could do something about that first.
Actually, growth leads to the sort of prosperity that is conducive to environmentalism. It is really only after people can afford food, shelter, power, heat and medicine that they chose to stop trashing the planet. Until that point, worrying about the planet is a luxury they cannot afford. If you want to save the planet, your strategic aim should be to ensure that your protections allow sufficient economic growth to make the third world comfortably middle class enough that they actually care about it and are willing to shoulder the additional expense and brake on growth inherent in the environmental tradeoff.
There's a reason India is building 100s of coal fired power plants and mocking the US and Europe when we tell them to switch to more expensive sources even when they already have 30% on hydro/solar.There are still 250 million Indians without power -- why would a democratically accountable government put more priority on reducing emissions than on providing a basic need to them? And given this is a basic need that westerners have for decades taken for granted, what right do we have to lecture them?
I don't mean to say that I don't believe in environmentalism. I do, even though I think it has significant tradeoffs (and is sometimes executed inefficiently, in the sense that I believe we could have more protection at less cost, making everyone happier all at once). But it does have to be placed in the right spot in the list of priorities.
Slashdot Mirror
... but the FDA is still finding something to complain about.
This is after preeminent scientists argue that bioethics needs to get out of the way of modern research.
An interesting parallel, by the way, was John Nestor. Here was a guy that intentionally (and even with good intention) drove 55MPH in the fast lane of DC traffic. He was, at best, misguided, since speed differential is more dangeous than speed and his actions were likely safety-reducing. He was also an FDA bureaucrat that never approved a drug and was ultimately fired for his "caution" that probably cost more lives and more lifesaving drugs than it ever saved.
This is what I've never quite understood: why does it seem that zoning laws are allowed to ignore constitutional freedoms? Banning research and development, "including software coding" would seem to ignore the right to free speech, free assembly and the right to privacy
Sometimes speech is also conduct, and conduct can be regulated. For instance, if I call you up and say "give me a million BTC or else I'm going to kill your family", surely that's speech but it's also criminal conduct (e.g. 18 USC 875 for Americans, YMMV elsewhere). Similarly, if two coffeehouse owners in a small town meet over lattes and one says "Let's raise prices a quarter" and the other says "Sure, we'll change ours next week", surely that's speech, they are just talking, but it's also criminal conduct (15 USC 1). Or urging a specific person to commit suicide. The fact that all of these crimes are accomplished by talking doesn't magically throw First Amendment protection over conspiracy to fix consumer prices.
The same is true in civil, as opposed to criminal, law. Libel, defamation, and slander are tortious, even though they are obviously speech. So are tax fraud, misleading investors and filing false business reports, even if you use a printed medium to convey them. Publishing your company's trade secrets as a book (or a newspaper) won't get you off the hook, neither will failing to pay generally-owed taxes or follow generally-applicable laws (like zoning) for your magazine. I mean, no one (I think?) believes that the NYT or /. can just ignore the zoning laws and set up whatever, wherever any more than they can violate labor law or building codes or tax law (right?).
Eugene Volokh did a fairly thorough review of the boundary between speech and conduct.
Al Capone and his bootleggers were largely in favor of prohibition ($$$) and opposed to its repeal. They were also (violently) opposed to their competitors trying to move alcohol outside their protection racket. You want to fuck Mylan over, stop making it difficult for their competitors to compete with them
The only shocking thing is that the price didn't go up more when a field of three competitors was narrowed to only one that's given a legal monopoly over the whole market.
Maybe distance from birth and proximity to death are strongly correlated for humans above age 20?
My eyes aren't great and my fingers are fat, can we please have text readable at approximately the same apparent size and links that have reasonable bounding boxes across all devices?
... all without generating false positives and removing the posts or accounts of anyone besides the actual terrorist ISIS. ...and never have false positives...
Where in the world did you get the requirement that there have to be exactly zero false positives?
Surely false positives are bad and should be avoided. But I venture that most people would find it an acceptable tradeoff if one in a million legitimate tweets gets rejected by filter. Systems don't have to be perfect to be usable. Heck, I bet that random network errors and other gremlins cause just as many failures anyway.
Even /. has a automatic spam filter that will trigger if you try to post a message with too few words and links to spammy domains. One time, it falsely flagged a legitimate message I was posting. The world didn't end, I reposted it to look less spammy, all is well in the world.
Seriously, does this bozo think that there is any security benefit if an attacker doesn't know your internal domain names? What in the world does that buy?
PS. Editors: reconnaissance != recognizance. Holy hell what a train wreck.
Quite the contrary. The closer adversaries are in their capabilities, the more likely they are to fight. This was the case in Europe for a few hundred years before WWI. Heck, from 1803 to 1871 (a lifetime!) there less than 10 years of peace.
Meanwhile every year now we are racking up a longer unprecedent period of peace -- one that has silently saved millions of lives without us noticing. And that's including both the idiotic ventures of the US into Vietnam and Iraq II (and some more-worthy interventions such as the Balkans, Iraq I) and the upswing of violent terrorism and the ensuing low-level conflict. These are bad, but they are nowhere near the horrors that were routine prior to the Long Peace.
So yeah, I think there's a lot of American bravado (and cost) in being decades ahead of the rest of the world. And surely it's not all coming from a benevolent heart (JFK's excellent speeches notwithstanding). But the empiricist in me is strongly leaning towards the idea that it's far superior to the kind of multi-lateral system that existed prior.
OTOH, given the inability to guarantee the erasure of all data on any drive, unencrypted data should never hit the drives at all, and the key should of course also never be stored on the same media (unencrypted).
FTFY.
You are absolutely correct though -- you should never rely on making data inaccessible via erasure instead of via encryption.
Incidentally, the ST8000DM002s that we are talking about here support for OPAL which makes it trivial to "throw away the key" by sending the drive a reset-DEK command.
I get that they think the CFAA is overbroad and this is a prosecutorial pile-on. And maybe it is.
At the same time (and to be fair), this may have a negative impact on privacy.
Consider a scenario where an individual (say, a police dispatcher) has authorization to use a computer system (say, court records, warrants, DMV records) for legitimate purpose (in dispatching the police). Now she goes and uses her access to that computer beyond the bounds of that authorization: to help a friend that is a PI, to stalk her ex, to get juicy leads so she can paparazzo some douchy D-list actor when he gets out of his DUI.
Once you think about it this way -- how many people need access to systems with personal information to do their jobs but for which it's not feasible to have technical solutions -- you wonder how to create a workable legal solution that doesn't need to be re-done for every possible use-case. CFAA may be a poorly drafted attempt, but the goal of criminalizing exceeding your authorization (if not your access) to a computer system makes sense and, I would argue, is privacy protecting.
Dart is a Google thing. TypeScript is a Microsoft thing. Neither is ever going to be supported across all browsers except by transpiling to JavaScript.
I'd pin my hopes on either WebAssembly or static typing actually getting added to JavaScript.
But that's point! If it compiles into bog-standard JS then there's no actual "support" to be added anywhere.
Both TS and DART compile into JS that is compatible with the big 4 browser JS engines.
Not even remotely true. The information that can be obtained with a reader does not contain the actual keys (!) that would be used to sign a transaction.
You could actually read about EMV, the specification is public. It's fairly clear you haven't.
You're right that the only sane option is to use a language that 'compiles' into Javascript. TypeScript supports static typing and might fit your bill.
Hopefully DART will get off the ground soon.
If I make a widget, and I know I can get people to pay $400 for it, I don't go "Well, it costs me 100 to make, so 150+tax = 180 is what I'll charge". I say "It costs 100 to make, people will pay 400, so my profit is 400-(tax+100). That's how I make the most profit. If tax goes up, people will still only pay 400 for it, so my profits may go down. If they go up high enough, it may make sense for me to charge more and sell fewer widgets, but the base price is set by what I know I can sell the item for.
No no no no no no. If it costs you 100 to make a widget then, at most, it costs your competitor 150 to make. In modern hardware a 1.5x comparative cost advantage is absolutely enormous actually -- real advantages are a few percentage points here and there.
So we'll be generous and assume you've got a huge head start on tooling, process -- you've got the whole supply chain set up and the QA working and everything. That buys you maybe 6 months, maybe a year, in which you can charge $400 (or whatever the market will bear) before your competitor undercuts at $200. You enjoy the good times immensely, you're making 400% margin, everything is peachy. But eventually it ends and you have to match the competitor's pricing or move on to the next thing.
Not a bad example. And likewise, if I wanted to send someone to the bank to retrieve or add to the contents of the safety deposit box, that would be my prerogative.
I agree and I don't agree. You have the power delegate authority to add or remove items from the box. That is surely your prerogative. So if you fall ill or move to another country, surely you can delegate your rights over the box itself to Bob.
The part where I don't agree is the idea that your authorization to Bob in any way impacts whether he is allows to use the bank lobby to access the box. Under no feasible reading of the safe-deposit-box-owner-protocol did you ever possess any authority over the bank lobby. As a consequence of not possessing those rights, you cannot delegate them to anyone.
For instance, if Bob was previously a nuisance at the bank lobby (say, he leafleted customers with Hare Krishna materials) and they served him official trespass notice, then he cannot set foot in the bank again. You can delegate to him rights over the box all you want, he still can't use the lobby.
Where the law varies significantly from people's expectations is where conflict arises, and the law is usually wrong or ultimately unenforceable, because society en masse simply ignores the law.
Really? I'm wondering how this could be true. Most people expect cantilever bridges to be stronger than suspension bridges because they intuitively (and incorrectly) believe that materials are stronger under shear than under tension. But surely material science is not something that society has the right to "simply ignore" because it violates their expectations.
If we let social expectations dictate bridge design (or medical practice, or ....), people would die. Instead, we have democratically accountable leaders that delegate technical decision making to people with subject domain expertise.
But does that principle automatically apply here? Does a normal person *consider* their Twitter account their own property or the property of twiiter.
No one is talking about ownership of the account, if that's even a well-formed concept. It doesn't matter either way, because what we are talking about is Twitter's actual physical servers.
Twitter has authorized everyone to connect to their servers to do certain operations (like read all tweets)
Twitter has authorized person A to use their physical servers to do other operations (like write a tweet or a DM). To enforce this authorization, Twitter and A agree an authentication token (password, whatever).
Twitter has not authorized person A to authorize new users to those protected operations on those servers.
They'll say it's 'my account'; they'll complain 'my account was hacked'... everything surrounding it is framed in that sense of ownership.
Indeed. And perhaps we can say that you have some ownership interest in the data present in the account and it's social status. But that ownership interest obviously doesn't extend to any sort of ownership in the server that hosts it.
By comparison, I might own all the items in my safe deposit box at the bank. But clearly I don't own the bank, or even the bank lobby. And yet I cannot access my owned items except by using the bank's property.
The notion that I would be delegating access to twitter's server infrastructure in a way analogous to Bob letting Jill use your pool...? That would NOT be a consideration at all. No normal person thinks of their twitter account in that sense. (even if technically and legally that's what it is.)
Well, OK. Then legally a legal court of law will come to a different legal conclusion than a person with no technical or legal expertise might come to. Also, civil engineer might build a bridge differently than a normal person would. News at 11!
This is not stupid at all. It mirrors the obvious principle that everyone here knows, which is that authorization to use a system does not necessarily confer authorization to authorize additional users. This has been a principle in UNIX since before most of us were born, and it continues to be a principle of every multi-user operating system since. There are distinct privilege levels between user and some form of super-user that has the right to authorize additional users.
Moreover, it's a principle of our daily lives that's so obvious we don't even mention it. I let my neighbor Bob use my pool whenever he wants, but I would be shocked if Jill was using it and just said "Oh yeah, Bob said I could".
There is no reason that the principle of non-delegation (that is to say, without explicit authority granted to delegate) shouldn't apply to the virtual world just as much as it applies everywhere else.
You realize we're talking about the CBP, not the TSA?
Routine searches of items as they travel across the international border into the US have never been basedon on reasonable suspicion. That was the custom at the time when the Fourth Amendment was ratified and continues in unbroken tradition today.
I specifically say 'routine' to mean things like xray of baggage or vehicles, inspection of cargo,
provision of payment for customs/tariffs, verification of visas/passports and the like. No one has ever suggested that a country should allow people and goods to enter without being checked for compliance. Nor would most of the useful parts of the regulatory state (e.g. the requirement for pharmaceuticals to be safe/pure) be possible if anyone could bring suitcases of the knockoff Chinese medicine through the airport without fear of a search.
Of course, neither extreme position ('the border police can do anything/nothing') is tenable. What I was trying to document is the limits on either end. So you have the sort of short interview on the one hand and the 48 hour hard limit that requires judicial authorization on the other.
You know we were talking about the CBP, not the TSA, right?
Josh Wolf served 226 days for failure to comply with a subpoena issued by a district court judge pursuant to a court ordered entered into during a grand jury investigation. His case in no way involved a border search. And right or wrong, it has no bearing on this topic.
What we were discussing here was border searches and what sort of searches and seizures agents can carry out without any judicial hearing. Like what sort of searches can be carried out and what sort of limits on the duration of said searches might be before the agent needs to go to a judge.
So either you don't know that the two have nothing at all to do with one another (except in the sense that 'both involves the US legal system', which also relates my speeding tickets to OJ's murder trial) or you did figure that out but are posting off topic nonsense anyway.
And therefore, your honor, my client should be let off the hook because he used the old "save draft" trickaroo.
Incorrect. Prolonged (non-routine) detentions must be based on reasonable suspicion. Even then, the duration of the detention must be limited to the time necessary to confirm or dispel that suspicion. And even if there is reasonable suspicion, under no circumstances can the duration exceed 48 hours without a judicial hearing.
See this handy guide [PDF] for more details and lots of citations. Or here's a quote for the lazy:
The entire field of economics is predicated upon the idea of 'endless growth', the implementation of which is trashing the planet. It would be good if we could do something about that first.
Actually, growth leads to the sort of prosperity that is conducive to environmentalism. It is really only after people can afford food, shelter, power, heat and medicine that they chose to stop trashing the planet. Until that point, worrying about the planet is a luxury they cannot afford. If you want to save the planet, your strategic aim should be to ensure that your protections allow sufficient economic growth to make the third world comfortably middle class enough that they actually care about it and are willing to shoulder the additional expense and brake on growth inherent in the environmental tradeoff.
There's a reason India is building 100s of coal fired power plants and mocking the US and Europe when we tell them to switch to more expensive sources even when they already have 30% on hydro/solar.There are still 250 million Indians without power -- why would a democratically accountable government put more priority on reducing emissions than on providing a basic need to them? And given this is a basic need that westerners have for decades taken for granted, what right do we have to lecture them?
I don't mean to say that I don't believe in environmentalism. I do, even though I think it has significant tradeoffs (and is sometimes executed inefficiently, in the sense that I believe we could have more protection at less cost, making everyone happier all at once). But it does have to be placed in the right spot in the list of priorities.