I don't know all the details of these drives but I would think that they would be able to produce some S.M.A.R.T. errors that could tell a diagnostics program of what shape it's in in terms of failed sectors (maybe needs a new revision for this feature).
I would like to quibble over one point on treaties vs. normal national laws. If you sign a treaty (assuming that it the whole treaty and not one broken into a thousand pieces, like some are) and then pass a law declaring one portion of that treaty to be illegal then the country is breaking the treaty and you could be held accountable by the other treaty members (this is all assuming that you don't also decide to pull out of the treaty). So in this sense the treaties would be a little more of a supreme law over the normal laws as you don't have this problem unless you're breaking the Constitution which is definitely a higher law.
Unless you sign something that says they can paw through your computer files at will, then no they don't have a right to go looking through your computer.
This needs to be appealed to a higher court because it sets a dangerous precedent. People who are well informed (Expert testimony) need to explain to the court how wide the implications are for decision such as this.
I would be nice to see some changes to it. I was using it for several months until they changed it to display only 50 messages at once. I couldn't stand pressing the "More" button 10 times per story so I stopped using it.
I really don't like the old system after using the new one but I can't stand the 50 message limit. They should make the "50" be adjustable to include 50,100,200,300,400,500,unlimited. While there was certainly problems with their Javascript timing out for big threads it wasn't too bad most of the time. They certainly still have work to do to optimize the code but the adjustable number of messages feature would certainly help in the mean time.
Hopefully the Taco will see this message and make the adjustment;-)
Copyright law is legitimate. The abuse of it isn't. We can legitimately attack the abuses and the abusers, and should. I don't believe we have the right to disobey the law when it is being used legitimately. I would argue we do have the right to disobey the law when it was changed by corporations that have an unfair influence on law making process. For copyrights in the last 30 years have been changed for the good of the corporations and to the detriment of the citizens/public. This breaks the fundamental balance that is at the base of copyright in the US as outlined by the Constitution.
The core idea of allowing copyrights is to encourage people to create creative and scientific ideas. The people who create these ideas are encouraged by a LIMITED monopoly on distribution of the ideas so that they can make some money. The ideas themselves belong to the PUBLIC not the ARTIST/CORPORATION. After the limited monopoly has expires it enters the public domain and enriches the base for future people to create more useful creative and scientific ideas.
Without the last point we don't have a functioning system and the whole machine begins to break down. This is the situation we have today. The massive copyright infringements are an economic balancing to the unlimited monopoly that has a stranglehold on the ideas that belong to the PUBLIC.*
*I do realize that that's not the only factor for the situation we have today but it's a key component.
It's not just the newspapers that this affects, it affects ALL the media in these major cities.
This means that, in theory, someone could buy up most/all the TV stations and radio stations in addition to the print media and have a virtual lock on entire cities and possibly entire regions.
I can't see how this could be a good thing. Then again, I like many different sources of information...
I think our only salvation is that online media is becoming the prime source for news.
One idea that's been floated around, seen it on Slashdot too, is that people would supply the energy. It would be something like motion capture, heat capture or directly tapping into our bodies (a la the Borg).
The Supreme Court also has a long history of inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution The Supreme Court can't invent any rights. The Constitution is a limit on the Government and defines to what extent they can abridge the rights that each individual is born with. Governments take away rights, they don't give them. You have all the rights in the world but are limited when the Government decides, with force--which is the only power they really have, that they will abridge your freedoms and take away those rights based on a societal contract (the Constitution in the case of the US).
One point is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the Warrantless Wiretapping program.
Second point, I don't see how this falls under Article II of the Constitution unless you are saying that it's part of the Presidents war powers. If it is part of his war powers then we actually need a declaration of war. This crap that has been pulled the last 60 years of getting us into "conflicts that aren't wars" is bullshit and an end run around the Constitution.
Last point, while I don't like the idea of wiretapping other people outside of the US (where all parties are outside the US). I don't see anyway for us to stop it Constitutionally, so it would be allowed.//Btw, I didn't read your link because I couldn't get to it through the corporate firewall here.
With regard to the "Agencies and many officers appear to believe that anyone who is not an agent are merely citizens, whose rights can be abused at will", I think this sort of thing starts at the top. "The president doesn't like to follow all the laws of the land so why should we, the enforcers"? While I'm not naive enough to think that this attitude hasn't been going on to a degree for decades, I think this President has certainly re-enforced the idea of "the ends justify the means at almost any cost".
I would love a comprehensive source for this too. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be one that is also non-partisan. The closest that I can come this is looking a popular news sites, fark.com and of course lots of Slashdot.
It would be nice if we could start one because I think it would help the average person who doesn't try or isn't able to keep up. This would allow for a better informed public so that they could see the direction we're heading as a country.
*I'm intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.* Friendly jab: But please get an editor to correct your spelling and grammatical mistakes.
I would like to make one comment that I don't see brought up often. Your example of a "permit for a demonstration". This is one that I'm not sure how it ever got approved nationwide but it pisses me off (this is not directed at you just an observation of a problem with the laws). You should never have to get a permit to demonstrate against your government. This is a fundamental right that should not ever be abridged (as pointed out in the Constitution).
The main points that people have used to justify it are: 1. You need to notify the government how many people are going to be there so that they can plan on the proper safety for the public. 2. You need to know if the group plans on violence (or has previous had violence erupt at one of their gatherings) 3. They don't want you disrupting normal traffic flow. 4. People don't want disruptions to their daily lives 5. (I'm sure there is more that I haven't listed)
While, I have no problem telling the government, "were going to be there on Saturday the 18th and there will be approximately 1000 people there", it should not be a requirement. And even if they don't like it they don't have a right to tell me I can't hold my demonstration. If violence does erupt then they can handle that accordingly (granted there are some bones to pick here but I won't go deep into that). Currently there isn't anything on the books against it but some violence does start from plain-clothed police officers and not unruly citizens. Lastly many things have grown up around the idea that people don't want disruptions to their normal lives. They just want "those damned hippies to get out of the way" so they can go back to sticking their head in the sand and not worry about the governmental problems that affect their daily lives.
I would like to see this sort of thing addressed more in the national media so it starts seeping into the "national consciousness".
While I certainly agree that it's not possible to do this today. In 20 - 50 years it may well be possible to track your every move from when you leave your home until you get back there.
I don't think there is anything wrong with steering our laws in the direction we want monitoring to end up. I'd rather deal with it shortly before it becomes reality (when we know what can and likely will be done) then wait 10 - 20 years for it to be abused and then decided all of a sudden that we need to do something about it.
I'll grant you that you can't possibly do this for everything in our world but this is one where I think we can already see the direction a lot of this is going and can make changes now so that it's not abused. Perhaps we can't block all the bad things yet but at least we could start moving in the right direction.
The "Napoleon" comment was referring to expelling someone because of a minor infraction.
If, for example, they intentionally release a virus that cripples all the schools machines for weeks then it would be reasonable to expel them. However, expelling them for installing a benign software package is asinine.
I work in a tightly controlled corporate environment and anyone that has admin rights, and knows it, has unapproved software installed on their machine. Most of it is very benign and doesn't cause a problem. If they are found to cause a problem then their admin rights can be taken away or in very rare cases they can be written up. But I've never seen anyone fired for it provided it wasn't something like a virus. However, under your rules all those people would have been fired. If that happened then we have almost no one left at the company. It's just an unreasonable response to a common IT problem.
BTW, if someone does screw something up then I'm usually the one that has to clean up the mess.
If you're that concerned about people installing unapproved software on your machines then you should disable admin rights for everyone except yourself. Expecting people to just know better will get you nowhere, even in a corporate environment where people could lose their jobs they still won't follow that policy.
And your idea of expelling a kid for installing unapproved software is so far out in left field that I'm getting the distinct feeling that you are one of those power-hungry-Napoleons that many schools are full of these days.
Imagine the equivalent paper situation. You write all your papers in some sort of cipher which makes them unreadable unless you crack the code. Those papers are then seized by the police for some reason... Can you then be compelled through threat of jail time to decipher the text for the police? IANAL...but I believe this has already been ruled on many times before. While you may have to turn over those papers to be analyzed, you don't have to do their policeman's job of deciphering them.
So let's say that each of the files were individually encrypted (instead of the whole drive, as is the case in the article). They could ask for each of the individual files they knew about but you wouldn't have to give them the "keys" to decode the documents. They have to figure that out on their own.
See sig for recommendations. Hint, the reason why we can't figure out what to do next is because we don't have any boxes left and we're wearily staring at that last box and asking ourselves if we really want to pick it up.
I really hope we find a way out but the evidence recently seems indicate that we may be on a road with no turns.
Slashdot Mirror
Great post! Mod parent up!
I don't know all the details of these drives but I would think that they would be able to produce some S.M.A.R.T. errors that could tell a diagnostics program of what shape it's in in terms of failed sectors (maybe needs a new revision for this feature).
I would like to quibble over one point on treaties vs. normal national laws. If you sign a treaty (assuming that it the whole treaty and not one broken into a thousand pieces, like some are) and then pass a law declaring one portion of that treaty to be illegal then the country is breaking the treaty and you could be held accountable by the other treaty members (this is all assuming that you don't also decide to pull out of the treaty). So in this sense the treaties would be a little more of a supreme law over the normal laws as you don't have this problem unless you're breaking the Constitution which is definitely a higher law.
Rights are not limited to You vs. The Government.
The police definitely did need a search warrant to confiscate and search his machine, as you said.
He does have grounds to sue the company for a breach of privacy, as you said.
I retract my earlier statement about appealing it as I did read that part incorrectly thinking that it referred to the police and not the PC techs.
My ultimate point was that the company should never have looked at what he had in the first place and that his rights were violated.
They passed a law a few years ago saying that you have to report it to police if you find CP on someone's machine.
Unless you sign something that says they can paw through your computer files at will, then no they don't have a right to go looking through your computer.
This needs to be appealed to a higher court because it sets a dangerous precedent. People who are well informed (Expert testimony) need to explain to the court how wide the implications are for decision such as this.
No, I honestly had never heard it before. I went to private school and did very well (3.95 GPA).
Maybe they forgot to cover it or something. I can tell you that I was never very fond of most poems though.
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" This was my favorite quote from Civilization IV. I didn't know where it came from until recently.
Thanks for the reminder.
I would be nice to see some changes to it. I was using it for several months until they changed it to display only 50 messages at once. I couldn't stand pressing the "More" button 10 times per story so I stopped using it.
;-)
I really don't like the old system after using the new one but I can't stand the 50 message limit. They should make the "50" be adjustable to include 50,100,200,300,400,500,unlimited. While there was certainly problems with their Javascript timing out for big threads it wasn't too bad most of the time. They certainly still have work to do to optimize the code but the adjustable number of messages feature would certainly help in the mean time.
Hopefully the Taco will see this message and make the adjustment
Plus you've got a great id to boot!
I wish I had signed up when I first started reading so I could have gotten one of those 5 digit IDs...Oh well.
The core idea of allowing copyrights is to encourage people to create creative and scientific ideas. The people who create these ideas are encouraged by a LIMITED monopoly on distribution of the ideas so that they can make some money. The ideas themselves belong to the PUBLIC not the ARTIST/CORPORATION. After the limited monopoly has expires it enters the public domain and enriches the base for future people to create more useful creative and scientific ideas.
Without the last point we don't have a functioning system and the whole machine begins to break down. This is the situation we have today. The massive copyright infringements are an economic balancing to the unlimited monopoly that has a stranglehold on the ideas that belong to the PUBLIC.*
*I do realize that that's not the only factor for the situation we have today but it's a key component.
It's not just the newspapers that this affects, it affects ALL the media in these major cities.
This means that, in theory, someone could buy up most/all the TV stations and radio stations in addition to the print media and have a virtual lock on entire cities and possibly entire regions.
I can't see how this could be a good thing. Then again, I like many different sources of information...
I think our only salvation is that online media is becoming the prime source for news.
That's pretty much the only reason I come to Slashdot.
I can get news anywhere. There isn't another community around that I enjoy reading the comments on the latest news story.
One idea that's been floated around, seen it on Slashdot too, is that people would supply the energy. It would be something like motion capture, heat capture or directly tapping into our bodies (a la the Borg).
One point is that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the Warrantless Wiretapping program.
//Btw, I didn't read your link because I couldn't get to it through the corporate firewall here.
Second point, I don't see how this falls under Article II of the Constitution unless you are saying that it's part of the Presidents war powers. If it is part of his war powers then we actually need a declaration of war. This crap that has been pulled the last 60 years of getting us into "conflicts that aren't wars" is bullshit and an end run around the Constitution.
Last point, while I don't like the idea of wiretapping other people outside of the US (where all parties are outside the US). I don't see anyway for us to stop it Constitutionally, so it would be allowed.
Thank you for the wonderfully insightful post!
With regard to the "Agencies and many officers appear to believe that anyone who is not an agent are merely citizens, whose rights can be abused at will", I think this sort of thing starts at the top. "The president doesn't like to follow all the laws of the land so why should we, the enforcers"? While I'm not naive enough to think that this attitude hasn't been going on to a degree for decades, I think this President has certainly re-enforced the idea of "the ends justify the means at almost any cost".
I would love a comprehensive source for this too. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be one that is also non-partisan. The closest that I can come this is looking a popular news sites, fark.com and of course lots of Slashdot.
It would be nice if we could start one because I think it would help the average person who doesn't try or isn't able to keep up. This would allow for a better informed public so that they could see the direction we're heading as a country.
*I'm intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.*
Friendly jab: But please get an editor to correct your spelling and grammatical mistakes.
I would like to make one comment that I don't see brought up often. Your example of a "permit for a demonstration". This is one that I'm not sure how it ever got approved nationwide but it pisses me off (this is not directed at you just an observation of a problem with the laws). You should never have to get a permit to demonstrate against your government. This is a fundamental right that should not ever be abridged (as pointed out in the Constitution).
The main points that people have used to justify it are:
1. You need to notify the government how many people are going to be there so that they can plan on the proper safety for the public.
2. You need to know if the group plans on violence (or has previous had violence erupt at one of their gatherings)
3. They don't want you disrupting normal traffic flow.
4. People don't want disruptions to their daily lives
5. (I'm sure there is more that I haven't listed)
While, I have no problem telling the government, "were going to be there on Saturday the 18th and there will be approximately 1000 people there", it should not be a requirement. And even if they don't like it they don't have a right to tell me I can't hold my demonstration. If violence does erupt then they can handle that accordingly (granted there are some bones to pick here but I won't go deep into that). Currently there isn't anything on the books against it but some violence does start from plain-clothed police officers and not unruly citizens. Lastly many things have grown up around the idea that people don't want disruptions to their normal lives. They just want "those damned hippies to get out of the way" so they can go back to sticking their head in the sand and not worry about the governmental problems that affect their daily lives.
I would like to see this sort of thing addressed more in the national media so it starts seeping into the "national consciousness".
*Steps off soap box*
While I certainly agree that it's not possible to do this today. In 20 - 50 years it may well be possible to track your every move from when you leave your home until you get back there.
I don't think there is anything wrong with steering our laws in the direction we want monitoring to end up. I'd rather deal with it shortly before it becomes reality (when we know what can and likely will be done) then wait 10 - 20 years for it to be abused and then decided all of a sudden that we need to do something about it.
I'll grant you that you can't possibly do this for everything in our world but this is one where I think we can already see the direction a lot of this is going and can make changes now so that it's not abused. Perhaps we can't block all the bad things yet but at least we could start moving in the right direction.
The "Napoleon" comment was referring to expelling someone because of a minor infraction.
If, for example, they intentionally release a virus that cripples all the schools machines for weeks then it would be reasonable to expel them. However, expelling them for installing a benign software package is asinine.
I work in a tightly controlled corporate environment and anyone that has admin rights, and knows it, has unapproved software installed on their machine. Most of it is very benign and doesn't cause a problem. If they are found to cause a problem then their admin rights can be taken away or in very rare cases they can be written up. But I've never seen anyone fired for it provided it wasn't something like a virus. However, under your rules all those people would have been fired. If that happened then we have almost no one left at the company. It's just an unreasonable response to a common IT problem.
BTW, if someone does screw something up then I'm usually the one that has to clean up the mess.
If you're that concerned about people installing unapproved software on your machines then you should disable admin rights for everyone except yourself. Expecting people to just know better will get you nowhere, even in a corporate environment where people could lose their jobs they still won't follow that policy.
And your idea of expelling a kid for installing unapproved software is so far out in left field that I'm getting the distinct feeling that you are one of those power-hungry-Napoleons that many schools are full of these days.
So let's say that each of the files were individually encrypted (instead of the whole drive, as is the case in the article). They could ask for each of the individual files they knew about but you wouldn't have to give them the "keys" to decode the documents. They have to figure that out on their own.
Do you have a link you can provide for these "practice raids"? I've not heard about these despite keeping up on the news.
See sig for recommendations. Hint, the reason why we can't figure out what to do next is because we don't have any boxes left and we're wearily staring at that last box and asking ourselves if we really want to pick it up.
I really hope we find a way out but the evidence recently seems indicate that we may be on a road with no turns.