Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...)
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Yes and no.
For example, so wrote Justice White in the Supreme Court case that stated the release of the Pentagon Papers was protected speech:
"I do not say that in no circumstances would the First Amendment permit an injunction against publishing information about government plans or operations. Nor, after examining the materials the Government characterizes as the most sensitive and destructive, can I deny that revelation of these documents will do substantial harm to public interests. Indeed, I am confident that their disclosure will have that result. But I nevertheless agree that the United States has not satisfied the very heavy burden that it must meet to warrant an injunction against publication in these cases...."
Note that he agrees that the release of sensitive goverment information will hurt the government.
Now, this does not protect the whistle-blower -- but newspapers are protected far, far beyond the average protections. It isn't 100% protection (troop movements would probably be a fine exception, as you point out), but it is a far higher hurdle to stop a newspaper than it is to charge you or I with the same crime.
Re:1984? More of a Brave New World
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
More than that, even, is the fact that so many people are so damned quick to trade my rights away.
If I choose to trade my rights for a convenience, a pox on me. If you trade my rights for your convenience, prepare for a harsh reaction.
Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...)
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Meant to say..."You don't >like what is reported...
Ooops.
Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...)
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There is only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that is treason...
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
You don't what is reported, so you call it treason. Views like this are a threat to all of us.
I'm not a huge fan of the press, but they are hardly treasonous, and do act to protect our rights, if only for selfish reasons.
Am I the only one who thinks this is good?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps I'm overly naive, but I've worked for Uncle Sam, and I still have sufficient trust in my government that this will not trample my rights.
First off, there are checks and balances. No one part of the government can do this without another part agreeing. And the two parts are *not* answerable to each other - they are independent.
Secondly, this seems to be a logical, technical expansion of the concept that the government can wiretap personal calls *with a warrant*. Also, traffic that is international is no longer treated the same way - the CIA has full access to it. Your rights do not extend to international communications (well, not as strongly). Try telling the Coast Guard that your boat is "out of their jurisdiction" at 2.1 or 199 miles offshore and you'll see what I mean. (not exact analogy, but you get the idea - perhaps better is telling that nice border guard that he needs a warrant to look in your car trunk. good luck.)
I don't think I am giving up any privacy with this. That said, I agree that we must guard against the government doing things that will change our privacy. Some Republicans are saying that we need to trade rights and freedoms for safety. That is bunk, and I'm all with you in fighting those efforts. I just disagree that Carnivore, if used properly, is taking away my rights or privacy. Your sentiment is right on, though.
I just got back from donating my wonderful O- blood at the Peabody, Mass., Red Cross.
I arrived today directly from work, at 5:30ish. I and about 350-400 people donated at this small center (9 beds). The WONDERFUL people at the Red Cross kept going and going, finishing up between 1:30am and 2am. I donated around 1:25am.
I want to send a huge thanks out to all those doing the work, and the donating. No one may ever read this, but the work and patience of both staff and donors deserves kudos.
Continental Airlines, Chrysler (yes, acquired by germans, but long after a highly successful exit from C-11) Southland Corporation (7-Eleven), Seven-Up/RC Bottling Company, USG, and AM International. These are just large company success stories.
Yes, TWA was acquired for about 3/4 billion $, I think. This was after a second chapter 11, or was it. I don't remember for sure.
OTOH, after reading recent posts, it seems that in this case chapter 11 may just be a ploy to screw people over.
If you have poor business practices, Chapter 11 is a short-term solution. If you need to adjust to changes in the economy or industry, Chapter 11 can provide needed protection and time. TWA is still around, and they filed Chapter 11 seven years ago.
If this company is truly steamrolling gates & co. in court, they probably have a valid patent. They're not fighting Joe Public - they're up against a big litigation department.
Most of/. complain against patent abuse, not the idea of patents. (Most, not all. Some just complain anyways.) If these guys truly invented the plug-in, they deserve credit and fees.
Fine, a theater is a private location (arguments can of course be made about whether it consitututes a public place, but that digresses)...
A better point may in fact be the airport issue...
>> Heck, the airport checkpoint itself is a limitation on interstate commerce.
>Now, that is certainly interesting. Have any links where I can read up more on that?
Just looking at it on the surface, where
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Most people would rightly argue that searching the bags of someone who is engaged in a legal activity would be on the surface against the constitution. But the public safety is traded for this.
I found
this thesis that touches on the issue (search for the word airport), but am too busy to search for more. I'm certain there must be a case history on this topic, as someone has surely taken it to the Supreme Court by now.
I also think my better example is the fact that cities/towns can require permits for political rallies. This has certainly been held up as constitutional by the courts, and is a limit we exchange for safety. No one "owns" the internet, but the goverment has decided to extend the regulation of trademarks to it.
I'm not sure that you are right or wrong, but it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
But we do have restrictions on freedom of speech. In exchange for safety, it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a theater that is not actually on fire. You can't mention guns and bombs at the airport security checkpoint. Heck, the airport checkpoint itself is a limitation on interstate commerce.
We exchange some rights all the time for others, or because we choose to. You do sometimes need permission to voice your opinion. The Supreme Court has often upheld the rights of municipalities to restrict political protests via a reasonable permit process. In this case we again trade free speech with public safety.
Congress has tinkered with the consitution itself before. We passed an amendment that outlawed alcohol, then repealed it later on. We are not a libertarian state. Heck, we aren't even a democracry. We are a republic, with all the good and bad that comes with it.
If congress and the courts restrict speech, it is with the tacit support of the voters who elected their representatives and senators, and the president. They are held accountable every 2 to 6 years.
You may not like all the restrictions that have occured vis-a-vis speech, but life in a republic is not always fair.
Your opinions are best heard in the voting booth, and in letters to the President, your senators, and your rep. The sovereign people have spoken, and restricted your rights. Welcome to America.
2001 Darwin awards. I mean, really. Strapping yourself to a rocket that you built in your back yard, anticipating that with a successful launch you're going up 30 miles?
He's going right next the the guy who did tanning with the Microwave transmitter.
Except that the first targets of recent US military actions have been communications and electric grids. A few tomahawk missiles, and the detection system goes out the window.
Unless an enemy managed to get a mobile system together, the US would jam radar, drop missiles on the detection grid, and get out.
Yes and no. No, we don't need to promote MS any more. But schools are in the business of educating students in preparation for working in the real world, and MS is pervasive in the real world.
If you need to hire staff, and you office uses Windows and MS Office, what good is someone who uses Linux and Star? It's not worth the learning curve when someone else walks in with the needed skill set.
I don't disagree. It's a catch 22. But don't blame schools for wanting to teach students the skills the school thinks they'll need in the real world.
One other note-- giving free products to schools does not guarantee a stranglehold on the market. Just ask Apple.
I spent a few years teaching PC classes, including "Windows * for New Users".
To teach basic keyboarding and mouse use, we would work in documents in notepad or wordpad. Inevitably, at least one person in each of the new users classes would write "click" in the document.
Funny, but if you think about it, they have no frame of reference for "right clicking" in their "real" world.
On the other hand, this place is perfect for my mom, who I did in fact have in class. And no, she did not write "click".
I know this is a troll, but there is perhaps a cogent reply?
The judge is pointing out that the company did nothing to prove that the users' anonymity needed to be broken. They had no proof the anonymous users were anyone who could impact the lawsuit.
Basically, the judge did well in disallowing a fishing expedition that might reveal users for no good reason.
As others noted, anonymity will never protect you from breaking the law. But it might (if this stands) keep law enforcement and corporations from fishing expeditions that may, or may not, find guilt.
On a side note: Yay! My first published submission. Did I just off-topic my own submission?
While I agree with posts questioning whether this should be a federal mandate, people who scream about "censorship" here are missing a couple of points that are stacked in the favor of school districts choosing to use filters.
First off, is the threat of being sued. Kids don't have a right to browse freely. But, if a kid browses to, say, a Nazi site, and then shows it to a student who happens to be Jewish, the parents might very well sue the school district. The same if a black student with the klan, or any other such circumstance. (Please don't flame my examples. I'm not Jewish, and I'd be offended too. Its just that nazi's are so despicable that they came to mind first) So here a school has a monetary incentive to install the software, and no constitutional barrier since children are, well, chattel.
Also, they would be open to lawsuits, probably, because our nation is made up of a bunch of cheapskates who don't mind herding kids into classes of 30 or more. You try monitoring 30 8th graders while teaching them enough to pass a standardized exam. Riiight. So now a student goes to a porn site, and the teacher/principal/school committee and a parent sues because they are "negligent". You know it would happen.
Yes, the issue of federal mandates in this area needs to be discussed. But protesting the "censorship" of school computers? Keep in mind that we live in a Republic, and those computers were bought by tax dollars of people who may not have your opinion, and may be in the majority. If they want to filter student computers, it is their right to do so. The 1st amendment has limitations. No, it's not perfect, but they will argue that it is the "best possible answer" under the circumstances.
As for me, I'm not sure. I just think the issue needs to be aired with more forethought than "censorship sux!"
Next they'll code in a filter for cut/copy/paste to stop you evil people from pasting proprietary images to web pages, printed documents, and other revolutionary material.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, so wrote Justice White in the Supreme Court case that stated the release of the Pentagon Papers was protected speech:
"I do not say that in no circumstances would the First Amendment permit an injunction against publishing information about government plans or operations. Nor, after examining the materials the Government characterizes as the most sensitive and destructive, can I deny that revelation of these documents will do substantial harm to public interests. Indeed, I am confident that their disclosure will have that result. But I nevertheless agree that the United States has not satisfied the very heavy burden that it must meet to warrant an injunction against publication in these cases...."
Note that he agrees that the release of sensitive goverment information will hurt the government.
Now, this does not protect the whistle-blower -- but newspapers are protected far, far beyond the average protections. It isn't 100% protection (troop movements would probably be a fine exception, as you point out), but it is a far higher hurdle to stop a newspaper than it is to charge you or I with the same crime.
If I choose to trade my rights for a convenience, a pox on me. If you trade my rights for your convenience, prepare for a harsh reaction.
Meant to say ..."You don't >like what is reported...
Ooops.
There is only one crime defined in the US Constitution, and that is treason...
Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
You don't what is reported, so you call it treason. Views like this are a threat to all of us.
I'm not a huge fan of the press, but they are hardly treasonous, and do act to protect our rights, if only for selfish reasons.
Perhaps I'm overly naive, but I've worked for Uncle Sam, and I still have sufficient trust in my government that this will not trample my rights.
First off, there are checks and balances. No one part of the government can do this without another part agreeing. And the two parts are *not* answerable to each other - they are independent.
Secondly, this seems to be a logical, technical expansion of the concept that the government can wiretap personal calls *with a warrant*. Also, traffic that is international is no longer treated the same way - the CIA has full access to it. Your rights do not extend to international communications (well, not as strongly). Try telling the Coast Guard that your boat is "out of their jurisdiction" at 2.1 or 199 miles offshore and you'll see what I mean. (not exact analogy, but you get the idea - perhaps better is telling that nice border guard that he needs a warrant to look in your car trunk. good luck.)
I don't think I am giving up any privacy with this. That said, I agree that we must guard against the government doing things that will change our privacy. Some Republicans are saying that we need to trade rights and freedoms for safety. That is bunk, and I'm all with you in fighting those efforts. I just disagree that Carnivore, if used properly, is taking away my rights or privacy. Your sentiment is right on, though.
Ken *hoping I'm not overly optimistic* Curtis
I just got back from donating my wonderful O- blood at the Peabody, Mass., Red Cross.
I arrived today directly from work, at 5:30ish. I and about 350-400 people donated at this small center (9 beds). The WONDERFUL people at the Red Cross kept going and going, finishing up between 1:30am and 2am. I donated around 1:25am.
I want to send a huge thanks out to all those doing the work, and the donating. No one may ever read this, but the work and patience of both staff and donors deserves kudos.
Yes, TWA was acquired for about 3/4 billion $, I think. This was after a second chapter 11, or was it. I don't remember for sure.
OTOH, after reading recent posts, it seems that in this case chapter 11 may just be a ploy to screw people over.
If you have poor business practices, Chapter 11 is a short-term solution. If you need to adjust to changes in the economy or industry, Chapter 11 can provide needed protection and time. TWA is still around, and they filed Chapter 11 seven years ago.
If this company is truly steamrolling gates & co. in court, they probably have a valid patent. They're not fighting Joe Public - they're up against a big litigation department.
/. complain against patent abuse, not the idea of patents. (Most, not all. Some just complain anyways.) If these guys truly invented the plug-in, they deserve credit and fees.
Most of
Just IMHO.
Indeed, it is in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge.
A better point may in fact be the airport issue...
>> Heck, the airport checkpoint itself is a limitation on interstate commerce.
>Now, that is certainly interesting. Have any links where I can read up more on that?
Just looking at it on the surface, where
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Most people would rightly argue that searching the bags of someone who is engaged in a legal activity would be on the surface against the constitution. But the public safety is traded for this.
I found this thesis that touches on the issue (search for the word airport), but am too busy to search for more. I'm certain there must be a case history on this topic, as someone has surely taken it to the Supreme Court by now.
I also think my better example is the fact that cities/towns can require permits for political rallies. This has certainly been held up as constitutional by the courts, and is a limit we exchange for safety. No one "owns" the internet, but the goverment has decided to extend the regulation of trademarks to it.
I'm not sure that you are right or wrong, but it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
-K
But we do have restrictions on freedom of speech. In exchange for safety, it is illegal to yell "Fire" in a theater that is not actually on fire. You can't mention guns and bombs at the airport security checkpoint. Heck, the airport checkpoint itself is a limitation on interstate commerce.
We exchange some rights all the time for others, or because we choose to. You do sometimes need permission to voice your opinion. The Supreme Court has often upheld the rights of municipalities to restrict political protests via a reasonable permit process. In this case we again trade free speech with public safety.
Congress has tinkered with the consitution itself before. We passed an amendment that outlawed alcohol, then repealed it later on. We are not a libertarian state. Heck, we aren't even a democracry. We are a republic, with all the good and bad that comes with it.
If congress and the courts restrict speech, it is with the tacit support of the voters who elected their representatives and senators, and the president. They are held accountable every 2 to 6 years.
You may not like all the restrictions that have occured vis-a-vis speech, but life in a republic is not always fair.
Your opinions are best heard in the voting booth, and in letters to the President, your senators, and your rep. The sovereign people have spoken, and restricted your rights. Welcome to America.
2001 Darwin awards. I mean, really. Strapping yourself to a rocket that you built in your back yard, anticipating that with a successful launch you're going up 30 miles?
He's going right next the the guy who did tanning with the Microwave transmitter.
Except that the first targets of recent US military actions have been communications and electric grids. A few tomahawk missiles, and the detection system goes out the window.
Unless an enemy managed to get a mobile system together, the US would jam radar, drop missiles on the detection grid, and get out.
Yes and no. No, we don't need to promote MS any more. But schools are in the business of educating students in preparation for working in the real world, and MS is pervasive in the real world.
If you need to hire staff, and you office uses Windows and MS Office, what good is someone who uses Linux and Star? It's not worth the learning curve when someone else walks in with the needed skill set.
I don't disagree. It's a catch 22. But don't blame schools for wanting to teach students the skills the school thinks they'll need in the real world.
One other note-- giving free products to schools does not guarantee a stranglehold on the market. Just ask Apple.
I spent a few years teaching PC classes, including "Windows * for New Users".
To teach basic keyboarding and mouse use, we would work in documents in notepad or wordpad. Inevitably, at least one person in each of the new users classes would write "click" in the document.
Funny, but if you think about it, they have no frame of reference for "right clicking" in their "real" world.
On the other hand, this place is perfect for my mom, who I did in fact have in class. And no, she did not write "click".
-Ken
The judge is pointing out that the company did nothing to prove that the users' anonymity needed to be broken. They had no proof the anonymous users were anyone who could impact the lawsuit.
Basically, the judge did well in disallowing a fishing expedition that might reveal users for no good reason.
As others noted, anonymity will never protect you from breaking the law. But it might (if this stands) keep law enforcement and corporations from fishing expeditions that may, or may not, find guilt.
On a side note: Yay! My first published submission. Did I just off-topic my own submission?
No sig.
While I agree with posts questioning whether this should be a federal mandate, people who scream about "censorship" here are missing a couple of points that are stacked in the favor of school districts choosing to use filters.
First off, is the threat of being sued. Kids don't have a right to browse freely. But, if a kid browses to, say, a Nazi site, and then shows it to a student who happens to be Jewish, the parents might very well sue the school district. The same if a black student with the klan, or any other such circumstance. (Please don't flame my examples. I'm not Jewish, and I'd be offended too. Its just that nazi's are so despicable that they came to mind first) So here a school has a monetary incentive to install the software, and no constitutional barrier since children are, well, chattel.
Also, they would be open to lawsuits, probably, because our nation is made up of a bunch of cheapskates who don't mind herding kids into classes of 30 or more. You try monitoring 30 8th graders while teaching them enough to pass a standardized exam. Riiight. So now a student goes to a porn site, and the teacher/principal/school committee and a parent sues because they are "negligent". You know it would happen.
Yes, the issue of federal mandates in this area needs to be discussed. But protesting the "censorship" of school computers? Keep in mind that we live in a Republic, and those computers were bought by tax dollars of people who may not have your opinion, and may be in the majority. If they want to filter student computers, it is their right to do so. The 1st amendment has limitations. No, it's not perfect, but they will argue that it is the "best possible answer" under the circumstances.
As for me, I'm not sure. I just think the issue needs to be aired with more forethought than "censorship sux!"
Next they'll code in a filter for cut/copy/paste to stop you evil people from pasting proprietary images to web pages, printed documents, and other revolutionary material.