Indeed, people are going to be pissed off -- which is why I expect some ISPs to stay away from packet discrimination. People who care about it will simply flock there.
Damned Straight. If my ISP attempts to keep me from spamming, kickes me off for hacking into other people's computer, or tries to limit my massive downloading, I'll just jump to another ISP.
And I invite all of you to follow me. Just let me know when you arrive, so I can introduce myself.
Now, if only I had another ISP option....
(In all honesty, there are several ISP's who have dial-up POPs in my local area...)
If he were truely for a free market, then the cable companies could do whatever they wanted with their product.
Several fallicies here used by those opposed to network neutrality.
One is that that the free market should be given a chance to sort this out.
It is widely accepted that Free Market solutions do not work in the face of market distortions. Here, a major market distortion exists because bandwidth on the existing network resources is constrained, and because the barriers to entry for new market participants are prohibitively high.
Anyone who advocates a free market solution to provide speech over distance (that's tele - communications for you latin types) is being decietful.
Another is that the cable companies (or phone companies) own "their own" network.
Much of the network infrastructure which makes-up the "last mile" access connections was paid for, in part, through public funds or other grants of value. This is most clearly seen for end users who access the Internet through dial-up (Internet over POTS) or DSL over traditional telephony copper loops. The FCC has for years taxed all telephony users through the Universal Service Fund (and other less specific taxes) to fund the buildout of a national telecommunications system, and did so for the clear public benefit it brought.
Even in the case of cable companies, a franchise license from a local governmental authority has always been required, and was granted (along with the publicly sanctioned right to collect monopoly rents on the service provided) only in exchange for the cable company comittment to provice universal service on a non-discriminatory basis within the service coverage area.
And a third fallacy is that "The Internet" is somehow a single thing which belongs to a single entity. The carriers would like the public to believe that granting them the authority to tune their network for their own needs will somehow provide them a way to guarantee a certain QOS over parts of the Internet which they do not comtrol but which they internetwork with. Legislation cannot overcome the fundamental aspect of TCP/IP which does not guaarantee bandwidth through a network you do not control. Even if this legislation passes exactly the way the carriers would want it, end users (even those who can affort Tier 1 service) will still be subject to Terms of Service which disclaim responsibility for bandwidth issues encountered when conncting to off-(our)-network sites. You may be Tier 1, and Google may be Tier 1, but unless every network which makes-up the internetwork between the two of you is also Tier 1, your Tier 1 bandwidth will not be guaranteed.
Now, has anyone heard any other arguments in favore of a Tiered Internet I haven't yet debunked?
Even (theoretically) perfect software can be ruined by a buggy compiler.
As such, it seems to me any liability should be assigned to whomever compiled the software.
That would leave Open Source software developers liable only if they pre-compile their software. If they're just distributing source and allowing people to compile it themselves, they cannot be held liable for bugs the compiler puts in.
Shared source distributers would still assume full liability, since you can't compile that source sode. (Or, if you did, you assume the liability yourself.)
If I buy a car called "Toyota 85MPH Blue Car" it had damned well better not be goverened to 55MPH.
But when you purchased the "Toyota 85MPH Blue Car", did you also agree to a "Terms of Service" with language like:
Purchaser agrees that the Seller is allowed to substitute an equivalent Honda vehicle...
Purchaser agrees that the top cited speed is a theorhetical maximum, and actual delivery of this performance is not guaranteed.
Purchaser agrees that other colors than "blue" may be substituted at the sole discretion of the Seller...
Did you even read the TOS?
Also, remember that when you purchase Internet Access, all you're getting is access to the Internet. You cannot hold your ISP responsible for bottlenecks in internetworked networks. And because IP was never intended to work in a commercially-competitive environment all this talk about a Two Tier Internet and letting the market sort things out and Network Neutrality is pointless. The death we fear is a death that happened long ago. The free and neutral Internet we all dreamed-of and longed-for died when the Eternal_September began.
The solution to AIDS is obvious. Abstinence is guaranteed to be effective.
Not true. AIDS is also known to be commonly transmitted through shared hypodermic needle use. There are other vectors as well.
Unless you were speaking in the longer term (100 years) sense that the clildren of people who practice life-long abstinance are guaranteed not to die from AIDS.
But in the broader sense, I agree. Any solution which does not include education will be ineffective.
Or, as my mother used to say, "Give a man a fish, and you've satisfied him for but a single meal. Teach a man to fish, and you can get rid of him for the whole weekend."
I went to one of the best private high schools in my state, I also have 6+ years of college, yet I have only recently been learning about the Constitution and our government in my spare time. Of all of the required studies I took in school, I can't believe none of them taught me the Constitution, and very little history. The government makes these standards, right?
You might want to clarify that statement. "The government" does not make these standards for private high schools.
WE know what you mean, I hope. But it's still important to say it clearly.
Especially for those of us who suffered through public schools and do not have 6+ years of college.
Um, you're not? You are not a congressperson - there is no reason you should know about secure ops. The way this works is that you elect the president, and you elect congress to keep tabs on things.
Um. You missed my point. Allow me to try again.
So, I establish a system which says "I elect you guys. You can go off and do whatever secret stuff you need to do and...um..."figure out for me"... the things that I've decided I don't want people like me to know about. All that's fine. If I don't like you, I'll just vote you out of office, okay?"
"But let's get one thing straight: Before I grant you any power to govern over me, we both agree that the rights of the free press shall not be infringed. Okay? I'm gonna make you take an oath. Oh, and there's some other stuff you should know about, too, like not taking away my right to bear arms, not searching my private stuff, you know. I'll write it all down for you, if that helps, just so we can be sure we're on the same page, but you gotta understand that I'm gonna hold you to this, okay? I mean, if you're not willing to abide by these ground rules, then I really don't even want you wasting my time (or my federal matching funds) by applying for office, okay?"
Like I said, I thought we'd already been through that part of the process?
Or perhaps there is some other thread you were commenting on?
There are people who would disagree with you.;-) Please allow me to play Devil's Advocate and represent one of them.
We get in trouble when we speak of absolutes, and there are people on one side of the fence who say 100% 1st amendment right trumps. and people on the other side of the fence who say 100% National Security trumps. They are both wrong - it needs to be a depends.
When the final push comes to the final shove one is left with the choice of saying either National Security trumps the Constitution or the Constitution trumps National Security.
If National Security trumps the Constitution, then the final push will leave you with security for a nation which no longer exists. Your national security will be securing a Constitution which you have chosen to throw overboard.
If the Constitution trumps National Security, then the final push has your Nation survive, but it must rely on something other than national security to be secure, because you've tossed national security overboard.
Can a nation survive without national security? Maybe. Is there anything beyond national security which can keep a nation secure, or does every nation which has no national security immediately dissolve?
Can a nation survive without a Constitution? No. And that's a by definition, absolute kind of no.
We'd all like to believe that we're nowhere near that final push portion of the game, that we still have the luxury of making choices other than the final one. If we've built our laws and selected our leaders correctly, then it will be a "depends". In other words, it needs to be a depends if we're going to claim to have built our laws and selected our leaders correctly.
But it does strike me how often we've heard our leaders speaking in just such absolutes, even if they seem to just be speaking poetically. Words like "New World Order", and "This war may last indefinitely...", and "you're either with us or you're against us".
Should we really be translating these as "the old laws no longer apply" and "we may not be around to see what comes next" and "we're already making our final push, and we intend to defeat any counter shove."
Honestly, someone please explain to me how this is different.
If you want a good answer, you may need to start by asking a good question.
You haven't done so. You may need to clarify your question to get a good answer. But since you seem genuinely interested in getting an answer, I'll take a swing at one.
You seem to be asking why someone who violates the law should be afforded protection under the First Amendment. (If I've misunderstood your question, then I offer my apologies and accept that my answer will probably be useless to you.)
To violate a law (any law) in the US, the law must itself be lawful. Since it is not lawful to create a law which violates the Constitution (since all laws must derive their authority from the Constitution itself) it is understood that every law comes with an implied...except where such a law violates the Constitution....
So while you can make a law which says foo is illegal, if the constitution says making a law prohibiting foo is illegal then any law which says foo is illegal is either itself illegal (we call that "Unconstitutional") or legal but cannot be read to mean that foo is illegal and must therefore have been intended to mean something else.
In this specific case, we don't know which laws Council Gonzalez is referring to (he has been rather vague, if you ask me, for an attorney) but if he is referring to US laws it is understood that these laws are not in conflict with the US Constitution.
Perhaps these are not US laws he is referring to? Perhaps Council Gonzalez is under the belief that the US has already been conquored by a foreign power and that the US Constitution no longer applies? Perhaps he knows something we don't and all this talk about "unconstitutional" is only as valid as Saddam's rantings about how he can't be brought up on charges because he's President of Iraq.
Yup. Supreme Court is clear on this. Hopefully we all understand the reasons why.
Commit libel or slander
A
Boils down to "you can't knowingly tell falsehoods for the purpouse of causing harm to others". Hopefully we all understand why here, too.
Say something that creates a "hostile work environment" for others
This it not entirely correct. You can say something that creates a "hostile work environment" for others, what you can't do is maintain a hostile work environment by allowing others (or, I suppose, doing so yourself) to say things which create a hostile work environment. It's not the speech itself which is prohibited, but rather the circumstances of the speech.
Criticize a political candidate on television 60 days before an elections.
You can, but:
Don't expect to get federal funding or tax breaks to do so.
Don't expect to utilize the grant of a public monopoly (broadcast airwaves or publically regulated cable monopoly) to do so.
Don't like a particular secret, activity, or program?
So, just exactly how am I supposed to figure out if I like a particular "secret, activity, or program" if I'm not allowed to even know such secret, activity, or program exists?
Or, are you saying that if I don't like it when such secrets are kept in the first place, I should vote into power a set of representatives which support "no secrets" priorities?
Perhaps, if it's important enough to myself and a large enough number of my fellow supporters, I should propose a Constitutional Amendment? Maybe something that would prohibit Congress from making a law that prevents the Press from publishing as it sees fit?
Is that what you're proposing? Because I seem to remember something like that hapening in the past somewhere...
But overall I can see at being a valid security concern.
It's a valid security concern, but only to the point where using a computer at all is a valid security concern.
Anyone who knows a bit about hardware will quickly reach a simple consclusion: Never expect linear behavior out of a digital computer.
There is virtually no digital electronic component more complex than a single gate which cannot hide untrustable behavior. If you're functioning at the level of the CIA/NSA and facing an opponent as capable as the Chineese government, the risk is substantial.
...packets on the internet arn't a phone conversation between two people...
Two things wrong here, but one might be my own misunderstanding.
First, "packets on the internet" can very easily contain telephone conversations. I suspect you've heard of Voice over IP.
Second, but possibly a misunderstanding on my part, it's unclear whether we're discussing packets on the Internet or the specific packets which are to be found within an AT&T switching center. If the former, then many of those packets would be meaningless SPAM or similar and only a relative few contain either SIP/SIP-T call setup information. On the other hand, if we discussing those particular packets in a switching center, then the signal to noise ratio would be much different.
Quick, in 10 seconds, how do you say "Our operative in Munich was tailed, so we switched to our Spanish connection. Either Ahmed or Siddiq, I'm not sure, but he has to know that if the transfer happened less than a month ago to not try to clear the funds."
"There has been plenty of discussion about SB266 requiring all communication equipment to provide the plaintext to the government on demand. Well, I've decided if they want plaintext, give them plaintext. I've written a program that will convert any file into strings from a context-free grammar. The bits are recovered by parsing. To test it's viability, I created two grammars and a program to do the work."
"The first converts any file into the radio commentary of a baseball game between two teams, The Blogs and the Whappers. Could something as American as baseball be hiding something?..."
A very interesting read.
There's really no need. Please let me assure you, your point of view is as crystal clear to me as it must be to you in your own mind.
...any leaking of classified documents without proper authorization is a criminal act.
If the ground rules for this discussion are such that I am obligated to accept this assertion to be defined as true, then I am truly disarmed. There is no argument a reasonable man can make under those circumstances, and my best strategy is to gracefully admit my defeat and withdraw.
It ignores completely the fact that your statement is provably false, but if we define your statement to be true, as you are apparently doing, then, yes, I concede the argument.
Everything becomes simple and easy to understand, provided you narrow your thoughts enough. "Case closed" indeed. And if you intend you maintain a narrow mind, and have no interest in broadening your understanding then you needn't waste any more of your time reading further. I really have no intention or desire to destroy that cone of serenity you have so skillfully constructed for yourself.
However, other slashdot readers might wish to consider alternatives, and for them I offer the following;
At one time, or so the saying goes, the Official Secrets Act of the British Empire defined as "secret" even such mundane information as the specifics of the Royal Menu. Which means, to us commoners, that if Her Royal Majesty will be dining on banana pudding for lunch, disclosing such would be considered a criminal act. And, I suppose for the purposes of this dicussion, that means a crime was committed, regardless of how silly this might seem to some of us.
But does it really? Consider:
I am not a Subject of Her Royal Majesty. That means none of the laws to which She subjects the citizenry of her country do not apply to me. I can shout "banana pudding for lunch" without fear of arrest or prosecution as long as I remain within the United States. It might be an illegal act in England or for Royal Subjects, but it is perfectly legal for me. A simple "it's illegal" just doesn't cut it here.
Or consider this: Even if I am subject to British Law, I can legally speculate "the Queen will be eating banana pudding for lunch", even if the Queen will in fact be eating banana pudding for lunch, if I am not in a position to know that information to be correct. Now tracing the flow of knowledge is tricky stuff, since information is so "slippery". Which is why anonymous leaks can be so damaging.
Now neither of the two "banana pudding" instances I cite above has much direct relevance (that we know of) to the alleged leaking of classified information currently being discussed (or the broader issues related to it) so let me offer one further thought to consider.
There is, well known among those who study Law, a vulnerability of the U.S. legal system which can occur under certain circumstances. In a (much too brief) nutshell, it goes like this:
We have a long standing tradition respecting the idea that a defendent should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
We have a long standing legal principle that only the Courts are in a position to declare that proof has been provided.
These two principles form the bedrock of our justice system. They are not incompatible.
But, taken together, they could be read to mean that any act (including straightforward and common sense ones like murder) that we understand to be illegal only become illegal after the Court passes such a verdict.
So, okay, we don't like to admit it, but if a certain Football player does in-fact knock-off his wife, but that cannot be proven in Court, then legally we cannot punish him for the crime of murder.
The big difference, in these cases, Libby and Rove had the legal authorization to release the information they did, the CIA and NSA analysts did not.
With all due respect, you don't know that. Or at least I don't, and I strongly suspect you don't either.
We can confirm (according to the President) that Libby and Rove received his authorization to disclose. We can probably also assume that the "CIA and NSA analysts" did not have the President's authorization. But to then conclude that because they did not have his authorization their actions were illegal is to presume that disclosures could only have been legal with the President's authorization. And we know this is not the case.
To conclude that the actions of the "CIA and NSA analysts" were illegal would require an investigation into the full facts surrounding the circumstances of the disclosure. If what they were disclosing amounts. as they have alleged, to illegal activities on the part of the administration, then their disclosure actions become legal. If the activities they were disclosing were legal, and properly classified, then the disclosure could be deemed illegal, as you assert.
But to make that determination would require better knowledge of the specific circumstances than we currently possess. We can only speculate. But personally I find several things compelling:
The people in the best position to understand those specific circumstances, the people with access to that classified information, are the "CIA and NSA analysts" you cite. They are stating that their own actiona are legal, and they're risking prosecution and retaliation to assert that.
The President, while asserting that these disclosures are "damaging", has not yet (to the best of my knowledge) asserted that their actions are illegal. (Which, unless further allegations are proven, means he is still in compliance with those "whistleblower laws" you were citing in another post)
The only way to settle this issue is to investigate more fully, and attempts to start such an investigation are currently being blocked by the President (and other seemingly partisan supporters of his). This puts the President in the seemingly untenable position of implying that the disclosures were illegal while at the same time blocking the investigations which would prove himself correct.
You can debate the reasoning behind the President giving them the authorization but that's a partisan debate and NOT a legal one.
Agreed. The "were laws broken" question is a legal one. Questions of why someone did what they did, and whether it was to the political advantage of one party or another are just partisan spin around the real legal issues.
Now can you point to how in any of these instance the whistleblower laws were followed? And can you point out in the whistleblower procedures the step to talk to a NYT reporter.
I'll take a stab at this, although I'll admit up front that I don't really understand how you seem to be defining "whistleblower laws" in this case.
To my knowledge, the general set of laws commonly referred to as "whistleblower laws" do not seek to form a constraint on the actions of whistleblowers, but rather seek to form a constraint on the actions of those who would retaliate against a whistleblower.
It is presumed that there laws already on the books to constrain the actions of an individual (presumably a whistleblower) who is contemplating an act which would be considered illegal. (such as disclosing classified information under circumstances where doing so would be considered illegal)
So, to "point to how...whistleblower laws were followed" I'd have to be pointing-out how those who "blew the whistle" were not being retaliated against for their actions. Somehow I sense that's not the point you were trying to make.
Now if I've missed the mark as to what you were referring to as "whistleblower laws" in this case, I'll offer my apology in advance. But then I'd also ask that you cite a specific legal reference to the particular law or set of laws you were referring to, so we can have a more targeted and less meandering discussion.
...secret prisons that an independant EU investigation failed to find any evidence of whatsoever...
Believe what you will, but a lack of evidence does not automatically translate into an evidence of a lack.
The fact is most of these leaks seem to be performed with the primary intent to harm the image of the current administration or the particular organizations upper management and that is never an acceptable reason to leak classified information.
Never? What if the law demands it? The Constitution, and the laws enacted under it, do forsee conditions under which it is both acceptable and obligatory to disclose even classified information. That's why whistleblower laws exist.
And I love it when people combine "fact" (beyond dispute) with "seem" (personal interpretation). Okay, we all know where you're coming from now. You can go home, we can fill in the rest for ourselves.
"Under my supreme intellect I cannot think of any way in which a real-time social networking analysis could help in the WoT so it mustn't be useful."
It's not a question of whether it's useful, it's a question of whether it's legal.
When a nation puts the 'useful' ahead of the 'legal', one expects to see domestic spying, bribe taking, secret prisons, torture, imprisonment without trial, etc, etc, etc.
Is your memory so short that you forget just 6 years ago. In term of the intelligence programs run under Clinton, they were much more evasive than these two NSA programs (Echelon, warrentless physical searches, etc..) and yet were permitted to run without much complaining by the Republican members of the committees or for that matter the national press.
There were two parts to Echelon. The part which involved monitoring (spying on, if you prefer) U.S. citizens was aimed at monitoring their activities outside the United States, and the monitoring was done by and in the nation where the activity occurred. Some of the information obtained in this fashion was provided to the U. S. government, but the 'search' which the Fourth Amendment prohibits the U. S. government from conducting against U. S. citizens did not occur. And while many objected to the U. S. goverment knowing about the activities of U. S. citizens through this program, the Constitution does not prohibit the government from purchasing information about activities which occur on foreign soil, even if those activities involve Americans, because Americans are not protected by U. S. law while on foreign soil. The second part of Echelon, the part which was done by and in the U.S. was the recripricol portion whereby the U. S. monitored the activities of foreign
nationals within the United States.
I can't offer any insight into how those who objected to that intelligent gathering at the time are responding to the Bush administration actions today.
There were also physical searches targeting U. S. citizens and conducted within the U. S. under Clinton Administration authority and for which a warrant had not been issued at the time the search occurred. If these are the "warrantless physical searches" you are referring to, it is important to note that the law in force at the time allowed such searches to occur, provided the FISA court was approached within 72 hours and a warrant issued at that time. They were, and it did.
I suspect the lack of public outrage, by the Republicans or in the press, related to the 'clearly legal' (even if innovative, or underhanded) nature of the programs.
It's funny how people forget things just six years later.
Slashdot Mirror
Damned Straight. If my ISP attempts to keep me from spamming, kickes me off for hacking into other people's computer, or tries to limit my massive downloading, I'll just jump to another ISP.
And I invite all of you to follow me. Just let me know when you arrive, so I can introduce myself.
Now, if only I had another ISP option....
(In all honesty, there are several ISP's who have dial-up POPs in my local area...)
Several fallicies here used by those opposed to network neutrality.
One is that that the free market should be given a chance to sort this out.
It is widely accepted that Free Market solutions do not work in the face of market distortions. Here, a major market distortion exists because bandwidth on the existing network resources is constrained, and because the barriers to entry for new market participants are prohibitively high.
Anyone who advocates a free market solution to provide speech over distance (that's tele - communications for you latin types) is being decietful.
Another is that the cable companies (or phone companies) own "their own" network.
Much of the network infrastructure which makes-up the "last mile" access connections was paid for, in part, through public funds or other grants of value. This is most clearly seen for end users who access the Internet through dial-up (Internet over POTS) or DSL over traditional telephony copper loops. The FCC has for years taxed all telephony users through the Universal Service Fund (and other less specific taxes) to fund the buildout of a national telecommunications system, and did so for the clear public benefit it brought.
Even in the case of cable companies, a franchise license from a local governmental authority has always been required, and was granted (along with the publicly sanctioned right to collect monopoly rents on the service provided) only in exchange for the cable company comittment to provice universal service on a non-discriminatory basis within the service coverage area.
And a third fallacy is that "The Internet" is somehow a single thing which belongs to a single entity. The carriers would like the public to believe that granting them the authority to tune their network for their own needs will somehow provide them a way to guarantee a certain QOS over parts of the Internet which they do not comtrol but which they internetwork with. Legislation cannot overcome the fundamental aspect of TCP/IP which does not guaarantee bandwidth through a network you do not control. Even if this legislation passes exactly the way the carriers would want it, end users (even those who can affort Tier 1 service) will still be subject to Terms of Service which disclaim responsibility for bandwidth issues encountered when conncting to off-(our)-network sites. You may be Tier 1, and Google may be Tier 1, but unless every network which makes-up the internetwork between the two of you is also Tier 1, your Tier 1 bandwidth will not be guaranteed.
Now, has anyone heard any other arguments in favore of a Tiered Internet I haven't yet debunked?
That kinda depends on what your sefinition of is is, now doesn't it?
Even (theoretically) perfect software can be ruined by a buggy compiler.
As such, it seems to me any liability should be assigned to whomever compiled the software.
That would leave Open Source software developers liable only if they pre-compile their software. If they're just distributing source and allowing people to compile it themselves, they cannot be held liable for bugs the compiler puts in.
Shared source distributers would still assume full liability, since you can't compile that source sode. (Or, if you did, you assume the liability yourself.)
I think Stallman would love this.
But when you purchased the "Toyota 85MPH Blue Car", did you also agree to a "Terms of Service" with language like:
Did you even read the TOS?
Also, remember that when you purchase Internet Access, all you're getting is access to the Internet. You cannot hold your ISP responsible for bottlenecks in internetworked networks. And because IP was never intended to work in a commercially-competitive environment all this talk about a Two Tier Internet and letting the market sort things out and Network Neutrality is pointless. The death we fear is a death that happened long ago. The free and neutral Internet we all dreamed-of and longed-for died when the Eternal_September began.
Not true. AIDS is also known to be commonly transmitted through shared hypodermic needle use. There are other vectors as well.
Unless you were speaking in the longer term (100 years) sense that the clildren of people who practice life-long abstinance are guaranteed not to die from AIDS.
But in the broader sense, I agree. Any solution which does not include education will be ineffective.
Or, as my mother used to say, "Give a man a fish, and you've satisfied him for but a single meal. Teach a man to fish, and you can get rid of him for the whole weekend."
You might want to clarify that statement. "The government" does not make these standards for private high schools.
WE know what you mean, I hope. But it's still important to say it clearly.
Especially for those of us who suffered through public schools and do not have 6+ years of college.
Um. You missed my point. Allow me to try again.
So, I establish a system which says "I elect you guys. You can go off and do whatever secret stuff you need to do and...um..."figure out for me"... the things that I've decided I don't want people like me to know about. All that's fine. If I don't like you, I'll just vote you out of office, okay?"
"But let's get one thing straight: Before I grant you any power to govern over me, we both agree that the rights of the free press shall not be infringed. Okay? I'm gonna make you take an oath. Oh, and there's some other stuff you should know about, too, like not taking away my right to bear arms, not searching my private stuff, you know. I'll write it all down for you, if that helps, just so we can be sure we're on the same page, but you gotta understand that I'm gonna hold you to this, okay? I mean, if you're not willing to abide by these ground rules, then I really don't even want you wasting my time (or my federal matching funds) by applying for office, okay?"
Like I said, I thought we'd already been through that part of the process?
Or perhaps there is some other thread you were commenting on?
When the final push comes to the final shove one is left with the choice of saying either National Security trumps the Constitution or the Constitution trumps National Security.
If National Security trumps the Constitution, then the final push will leave you with security for a nation which no longer exists. Your national security will be securing a Constitution which you have chosen to throw overboard.
If the Constitution trumps National Security, then the final push has your Nation survive, but it must rely on something other than national security to be secure, because you've tossed national security overboard.
Can a nation survive without national security? Maybe. Is there anything beyond national security which can keep a nation secure, or does every nation which has no national security immediately dissolve?
Can a nation survive without a Constitution? No. And that's a by definition, absolute kind of no.
We'd all like to believe that we're nowhere near that final push portion of the game, that we still have the luxury of making choices other than the final one. If we've built our laws and selected our leaders correctly, then it will be a "depends". In other words, it needs to be a depends if we're going to claim to have built our laws and selected our leaders correctly.
But it does strike me how often we've heard our leaders speaking in just such absolutes, even if they seem to just be speaking poetically. Words like "New World Order", and "This war may last indefinitely...", and "you're either with us or you're against us".
Should we really be translating these as "the old laws no longer apply" and "we may not be around to see what comes next" and "we're already making our final push, and we intend to defeat any counter shove."
If you want a good answer, you may need to start by asking a good question.
You haven't done so. You may need to clarify your question to get a good answer. But since you seem genuinely interested in getting an answer, I'll take a swing at one.
You seem to be asking why someone who violates the law should be afforded protection under the First Amendment. (If I've misunderstood your question, then I offer my apologies and accept that my answer will probably be useless to you.)
To violate a law (any law) in the US, the law must itself be lawful. Since it is not lawful to create a law which violates the Constitution (since all laws must derive their authority from the Constitution itself) it is understood that every law comes with an implied ...except where such a law violates the Constitution....
So while you can make a law which says foo is illegal, if the constitution says making a law prohibiting foo is illegal then any law which says foo is illegal is either itself illegal (we call that "Unconstitutional") or legal but cannot be read to mean that foo is illegal and must therefore have been intended to mean something else.
In this specific case, we don't know which laws Council Gonzalez is referring to (he has been rather vague, if you ask me, for an attorney) but if he is referring to US laws it is understood that these laws are not in conflict with the US Constitution.
Perhaps these are not US laws he is referring to? Perhaps Council Gonzalez is under the belief that the US has already been conquored by a foreign power and that the US Constitution no longer applies? Perhaps he knows something we don't and all this talk about "unconstitutional" is only as valid as Saddam's rantings about how he can't be brought up on charges because he's President of Iraq.
Yup. Supreme Court is clear on this. Hopefully we all understand the reasons why.
A Boils down to "you can't knowingly tell falsehoods for the purpouse of causing harm to others". Hopefully we all understand why here, too.
This it not entirely correct. You can say something that creates a "hostile work environment" for others, what you can't do is maintain a hostile work environment by allowing others (or, I suppose, doing so yourself) to say things which create a hostile work environment. It's not the speech itself which is prohibited, but rather the circumstances of the speech.
You can, but:
In short, you need to be civil when you do so.
Not politically correct, just civil.
So, just exactly how am I supposed to figure out if I like a particular "secret, activity, or program" if I'm not allowed to even know such secret, activity, or program exists?
Or, are you saying that if I don't like it when such secrets are kept in the first place, I should vote into power a set of representatives which support "no secrets" priorities?
Perhaps, if it's important enough to myself and a large enough number of my fellow supporters, I should propose a Constitutional Amendment? Maybe something that would prohibit Congress from making a law that prevents the Press from publishing as it sees fit?
Is that what you're proposing? Because I seem to remember something like that hapening in the past somewhere...
It's a valid security concern, but only to the point where using a computer at all is a valid security concern.
Anyone who knows a bit about hardware will quickly reach a simple consclusion: Never expect linear behavior out of a digital computer.
There is virtually no digital electronic component more complex than a single gate which cannot hide untrustable behavior. If you're functioning at the level of the CIA/NSA and facing an opponent as capable as the Chineese government, the risk is substantial.
Two things wrong here, but one might be my own misunderstanding.
First, "packets on the internet" can very easily contain telephone conversations. I suspect you've heard of Voice over IP.
Second, but possibly a misunderstanding on my part, it's unclear whether we're discussing packets on the Internet or the specific packets which are to be found within an AT&T switching center. If the former, then many of those packets would be meaningless SPAM or similar and only a relative few contain either SIP/SIP-T call setup information. On the other hand, if we discussing those particular packets in a switching center, then the signal to noise ratio would be much different.
The question was not correctly asked. After all, suicide is 100% effective at preventing the spread of cancer.
The more appropriate question would be: Do you consider simply delaying attacts as cost-effective?
Admittedly a much more complex question.
This from the Risks forum, back in 1991:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2.1
From the article:
"There has been plenty of discussion about SB266 requiring all communication equipment to provide the plaintext to the government on demand. Well, I've decided if they want plaintext, give them plaintext. I've written a program that will convert any file into strings from a context-free grammar. The bits are recovered by parsing. To test it's viability, I created two grammars and a program to do the work."
"The first converts any file into the radio commentary of a baseball game between two teams, The Blogs and the Whappers. Could something as American as baseball be hiding something?..." A very interesting read.
There's really no need. Please let me assure you, your point of view is as crystal clear to me as it must be to you in your own mind.
If the ground rules for this discussion are such that I am obligated to accept this assertion to be defined as true, then I am truly disarmed. There is no argument a reasonable man can make under those circumstances, and my best strategy is to gracefully admit my defeat and withdraw.
It ignores completely the fact that your statement is provably false, but if we define your statement to be true, as you are apparently doing, then, yes, I concede the argument.
Everything becomes simple and easy to understand, provided you narrow your thoughts enough. "Case closed" indeed. And if you intend you maintain a narrow mind, and have no interest in broadening your understanding then you needn't waste any more of your time reading further. I really have no intention or desire to destroy that cone of serenity you have so skillfully constructed for yourself.
However, other slashdot readers might wish to consider alternatives, and for them I offer the following;
At one time, or so the saying goes, the Official Secrets Act of the British Empire defined as "secret" even such mundane information as the specifics of the Royal Menu. Which means, to us commoners, that if Her Royal Majesty will be dining on banana pudding for lunch, disclosing such would be considered a criminal act. And, I suppose for the purposes of this dicussion, that means a crime was committed, regardless of how silly this might seem to some of us.
But does it really? Consider:
I am not a Subject of Her Royal Majesty. That means none of the laws to which She subjects the citizenry of her country do not apply to me. I can shout "banana pudding for lunch" without fear of arrest or prosecution as long as I remain within the United States. It might be an illegal act in England or for Royal Subjects, but it is perfectly legal for me. A simple "it's illegal" just doesn't cut it here.
Or consider this: Even if I am subject to British Law, I can legally speculate "the Queen will be eating banana pudding for lunch", even if the Queen will in fact be eating banana pudding for lunch, if I am not in a position to know that information to be correct. Now tracing the flow of knowledge is tricky stuff, since information is so "slippery". Which is why anonymous leaks can be so damaging.
Now neither of the two "banana pudding" instances I cite above has much direct relevance (that we know of) to the alleged leaking of classified information currently being discussed (or the broader issues related to it) so let me offer one further thought to consider.
There is, well known among those who study Law, a vulnerability of the U.S. legal system which can occur under certain circumstances. In a (much too brief) nutshell, it goes like this:
These two principles form the bedrock of our justice system. They are not incompatible.
But, taken together, they could be read to mean that any act (including straightforward and common sense ones like murder) that we understand to be illegal only become illegal after the Court passes such a verdict.
So, okay, we don't like to admit it, but if a certain Football player does in-fact knock-off his wife, but that cannot be proven in Court, then legally we cannot punish him for the crime of murder.
But
And as long as you continue to believe it to be as you believe it to be, you will continue to be absolutely correct.
Under those conditions, how could I possibly hope to convince you that your knowledge is in any way imperfect?
No. Americans outside the US are (generally) neither protected-by nor bound-to US law. It's only after one re-enters the US that such laws apply.
Of couse none of that applies these days what with America's New War in full swing.
I seem to be having a difficult time remaining optimistic these days...
With all due respect, you don't know that. Or at least I don't, and I strongly suspect you don't either.
We can confirm (according to the President) that Libby and Rove received his authorization to disclose. We can probably also assume that the "CIA and NSA analysts" did not have the President's authorization. But to then conclude that because they did not have his authorization their actions were illegal is to presume that disclosures could only have been legal with the President's authorization. And we know this is not the case.
To conclude that the actions of the "CIA and NSA analysts" were illegal would require an investigation into the full facts surrounding the circumstances of the disclosure. If what they were disclosing amounts. as they have alleged, to illegal activities on the part of the administration, then their disclosure actions become legal. If the activities they were disclosing were legal, and properly classified, then the disclosure could be deemed illegal, as you assert.
But to make that determination would require better knowledge of the specific circumstances than we currently possess. We can only speculate. But personally I find several things compelling:
Agreed. The "were laws broken" question is a legal one. Questions of why someone did what they did, and whether it was to the political advantage of one party or another are just partisan spin around the real legal issues.
I'll take a stab at this, although I'll admit up front that I don't really understand how you seem to be defining "whistleblower laws" in this case.
To my knowledge, the general set of laws commonly referred to as "whistleblower laws" do not seek to form a constraint on the actions of whistleblowers, but rather seek to form a constraint on the actions of those who would retaliate against a whistleblower.
It is presumed that there laws already on the books to constrain the actions of an individual (presumably a whistleblower) who is contemplating an act which would be considered illegal. (such as disclosing classified information under circumstances where doing so would be considered illegal)
So, to "point to how...whistleblower laws were followed" I'd have to be pointing-out how those who "blew the whistle" were not being retaliated against for their actions. Somehow I sense that's not the point you were trying to make.
Now if I've missed the mark as to what you were referring to as "whistleblower laws" in this case, I'll offer my apology in advance. But then I'd also ask that you cite a specific legal reference to the particular law or set of laws you were referring to, so we can have a more targeted and less meandering discussion.
Believe what you will, but a lack of evidence does not automatically translate into an evidence of a lack.
Never? What if the law demands it? The Constitution, and the laws enacted under it, do forsee conditions under which it is both acceptable and obligatory to disclose even classified information. That's why whistleblower laws exist.
And I love it when people combine "fact" (beyond dispute) with "seem" (personal interpretation). Okay, we all know where you're coming from now. You can go home, we can fill in the rest for ourselves.
It's not a question of whether it's useful, it's a question of whether it's legal.
When a nation puts the 'useful' ahead of the 'legal', one expects to see domestic spying, bribe taking, secret prisons, torture, imprisonment without trial, etc, etc, etc.
"Dad, are we there yet?"
There were two parts to Echelon. The part which involved monitoring (spying on, if you prefer) U.S. citizens was aimed at monitoring their activities outside the United States, and the monitoring was done by and in the nation where the activity occurred. Some of the information obtained in this fashion was provided to the U. S. government, but the 'search' which the Fourth Amendment prohibits the U. S. government from conducting against U. S. citizens did not occur. And while many objected to the U. S. goverment knowing about the activities of U. S. citizens through this program, the Constitution does not prohibit the government from purchasing information about activities which occur on foreign soil, even if those activities involve Americans, because Americans are not protected by U. S. law while on foreign soil. The second part of Echelon, the part which was done by and in the U.S. was the recripricol portion whereby the U. S. monitored the activities of foreign nationals within the United States.
I can't offer any insight into how those who objected to that intelligent gathering at the time are responding to the Bush administration actions today.
There were also physical searches targeting U. S. citizens and conducted within the U. S. under Clinton Administration authority and for which a warrant had not been issued at the time the search occurred. If these are the "warrantless physical searches" you are referring to, it is important to note that the law in force at the time allowed such searches to occur, provided the FISA court was approached within 72 hours and a warrant issued at that time. They were, and it did.
I suspect the lack of public outrage, by the Republicans or in the press, related to the 'clearly legal' (even if innovative, or underhanded) nature of the programs.
It's funny how people forget things just six years later.