We can argue about the language all you like. However most legal experts will tell you that the constitution protects all persons who are in the USA, the only point for debate right now is how much the constitution protects non-us citizens, outside the usa, when acted upon by agents of the us government.
The main revealed by google searching is the crazies who confuse somebody who hasn't been granted the right to reside in the US with somebody who isn't protected by the constitution.
I still don't know why you think it's my problem to find the cites to back up your claim. All I asked for was the citation that led to your claim that it's undisputed that the constitution only applies to US Citizens.
The argument is kind of backwards really - because the constitution lays out the powers of the government and not the rights of the people. All people are guaranteed equal protection under the law - that seems to prohibit selective application.
You can argue all you want but the courts have already said that the constitution, bill of right and everything else in it only apply to citizens unless a law extends it to non-citizens.
[Citation Needed]
I don't think the courts have said any such thing.
The problem I'm finding is this... if such a law were passed in my state (WA) I would need a private investigators license to perform certain kinds of work for clients. In order to obtain the PI license I would need to either work for a PI agency or form my own. In order to get a PI agency license I must provide proof of 3 years work as a PI.
If you only offer your permanent resident card they ask for your passport. I assume they want the passport so they have something to use their date stamp on.
Yes - I see laws all the time where the definition provided in the statute runs completely counter to the plain language meaning of the word. Its a legislative device intended to make a law seem reasonable unless you really read it I think.
For example, In washington state the gambling codes specifically exempt "players" from prosecution for participating in an unlicensed game of any kind. The code then goes on to say that anybody who pays any kind of fee to participate is not a player. This clearly makes the exemption completely useless in most circumstances.
Note this is due to assinine interpretation of rules by the hospital.
The NHS said the hospital shouldn't be taking money from NHS patients. The hospital interpreted that as meaning that if it did take money from the patient it would have to stop providing NHS care to that patient.
Right, Assuming thats what happens then it makes sense but I'd hate to see somebody prosecuted solely on the evidence that some tech found child porn (which he could have loaded) on your computer.
There seems to be a chain of custody problem with evidence gathered in this way... who knows what the third party did before they gave it to the police.
Thats what I got from it too... but hey my discovery comments are all pretty similar and seem to have been modded flamebait, funny, or informative depending on which one you read.
The other thing to consider, though, is that the "device" does not need to be nuclear. It in fact does not even need to be explosive with access to an Ares scale rocket. If you can get a large enough mass up in a high orbit, and send it down with decent accuracy, the place where it impacts is going to suffer some major damage. If one targets cities with this, it could be an effective kinetic energy weapon.
Maybe it would work if it was a solid chunk of iron... but dropping a spacecraft on somebody from a great height would likely just shower them with tiny pieces - if that.
That's quite a bit different from normal discovery rules too. If you don't keep a record of something you can not be required to start keeping a record for discovery purposes. Now I've also heard it alleged that they were logging IPs and stopped and the judge merely ordered them to un-stop. That would be different.
The point is this... discovery orders only go as far as records you currently have... you cannot be ordered to create new records for the purposes of discovery. Therefore I don't think i mischaracterized the order to preserve ram - which is the only way to do what the judge ordered without forcing the creation of new records which isn't authorized by law.
There were no IP logs - hence the preserve the IP's in ram order. The forum is theirs... can it be proven that we're not talking about normal moderation here ?
Litigation discovery relates to records that currently exist - nothing in any law requires you to make a record that you currently don't just because it would help to prove somebody's case.
There would never be a need for a warrant for a pen register or wiretap if that were true. The telco's may own their own records but they don't have the right to give up your constitutional rights on your behalf.
Slashdot Mirror
Not since the 80's anyway.
We can argue about the language all you like. However most legal experts will tell you that the constitution protects all persons who are in the USA, the only point for debate right now is how much the constitution protects non-us citizens, outside the usa, when acted upon by agents of the us government.
The main revealed by google searching is the crazies who confuse somebody who hasn't been granted the right to reside in the US with somebody who isn't protected by the constitution.
I still don't know why you think it's my problem to find the cites to back up your claim. All I asked for was the citation that led to your claim that it's undisputed that the constitution only applies to US Citizens.
It was you that made the claim, you back it up.
The argument is kind of backwards really - because the constitution lays out the powers of the government and not the rights of the people. All people are guaranteed equal protection under the law - that seems to prohibit selective application.
You can argue all you want but the courts have already said that the constitution, bill of right and everything else in it only apply to citizens unless a law extends it to non-citizens.
[Citation Needed]
I don't think the courts have said any such thing.
Where are the lines? let's say I'm investigating a break in on their server from the internet.
The problem I'm finding is this ... if such a law were passed in my state (WA) I would need a private investigators license to perform certain kinds of work for clients. In order to obtain the PI license I would need to either work for a PI agency or form my own. In order to get a PI agency license I must provide proof of 3 years work as a PI.
If you only offer your permanent resident card they ask for your passport. I assume they want the passport so they have something to use their date stamp on.
I've had a British passport with RFID for over a year now .... so I don't think RFID will be unique to Americans.
Oddly enough the British Embassy in the USA was the first British passport office to issue them, which is why I have it.
Yes - I see laws all the time where the definition provided in the statute runs completely counter to the plain language meaning of the word. Its a legislative device intended to make a law seem reasonable unless you really read it I think.
For example, In washington state the gambling codes specifically exempt "players" from prosecution for participating in an unlicensed game of any kind. The code then goes on to say that anybody who pays any kind of fee to participate is not a player. This clearly makes the exemption completely useless in most circumstances.
Well how do you propose that they pick it up ?
Too easy ... the TSA prefers the use the measure "Equivalent lithium content" which they back calculate from the capacity of the battery :-)
Note this is due to assinine interpretation of rules by the hospital.
The NHS said the hospital shouldn't be taking money from NHS patients. The hospital interpreted that as meaning that if it did take money from the patient it would have to stop providing NHS care to that patient.
As I told a doctor that I didn't sue: The real problem is the fscking malpractice in the first place not the lawyers.
It's a lot easier to lose your law license for malpractice than to lose a medical license for malpractice.
They'd probably reject it for being non-notable, original research or some other such reason.
Right, Assuming thats what happens then it makes sense but I'd hate to see somebody prosecuted solely on the evidence that some tech found child porn (which he could have loaded) on your computer.
There seems to be a chain of custody problem with evidence gathered in this way ... who knows what the third party did before they gave it to the police.
Thats what I got from it too ... but hey my discovery comments are all pretty similar and seem to have been modded flamebait, funny, or informative depending on which one you read.
The other thing to consider, though, is that the "device" does not need to be nuclear. It in fact does not even need to be explosive with access to an Ares scale rocket. If you can get a large enough mass up in a high orbit, and send it down with decent accuracy, the place where it impacts is going to suffer some major damage. If one targets cities with this, it could be an effective kinetic energy weapon.
... but dropping a spacecraft on somebody from a great height would likely just shower them with tiny pieces - if that.
Maybe it would work if it was a solid chunk of iron
That's quite a bit different from normal discovery rules too. If you don't keep a record of something you can not be required to start keeping a record for discovery purposes. Now I've also heard it alleged that they were logging IPs and stopped and the judge merely ordered them to un-stop. That would be different.
The point is this ... discovery orders only go as far as records you currently have ... you cannot be ordered to create new records for the purposes of discovery. Therefore I don't think i mischaracterized the order to preserve ram - which is the only way to do what the judge ordered without forcing the creation of new records which isn't authorized by law.
There were no IP logs - hence the preserve the IP's in ram order. The forum is theirs ... can it be proven that we're not talking about normal moderation here ?
Litigation discovery relates to records that currently exist - nothing in any law requires you to make a record that you currently don't just because it would help to prove somebody's case.
It clearly shows somebody to be a poor judge of what destroying evidence is. If something was never evidence you can't destroy it.
They were also ordered to preserve the ram of their servers in real time.
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
This is crap and you know it.
There would never be a need for a warrant for a pen register or wiretap if that were true. The telco's may own their own records but they don't have the right to give up your constitutional rights on your behalf.
Canards
French ducks ? What a strange name for something.