Title II of H.R. 6304 is in substance the same as the original telecom immunity provisions of S. 2248, with only a few inconsequential changes. Most critically, it still prevents the court from ruling on the legality of the telecomsâ(TM) assistance in warrantless surveillance.
This may not be immediately evident on first read since the structure has changed considerably: the provisions for so-called "retroactive" immunity in the original billâ(TM)s Section 202 have been combined with the so-called "prospective" immunity from the original Section 203.
But the substance of this unconstitutional bill is still the same:
Cases Will Still Be Dismissed Based On A Permission Slip From The President.
As before, cases against telecoms that provided assistance "in connection with" (p. 89:20) the Presidentâ(TM)s warrantless surveillance program âoeshall be promptly dismissedâ (p. 89:2) so long as the AG certifies to the court that they got a piece of paper "indicating" (p.90:10) that the surveillance was "authorized by the President... and... determined to be lawful" (p. 90:12-13), i.e., the piece of paper that we already know they got, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report.
He supports it. He supposedly opposes retroactive immunity, and once last October even declared that he would filibuster a FISA bill with immunity, but he appears to have changed his mind at the last minute.
If he filibusters, perhaps I'll change my mind on donating to his campaign. But right now, he has signaled that he won't oppose this FISA bill - and further, he may even vote for it.
If you're OK with that, I suggest you campaign for him. I'm not OK with that.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. That's the point. By Justice deciding what is and what is not legal, the head of the Executive - the President of the United States - gets a say in what is rightly the parlance of both the legislative and judicial branches.
Also: nowhere did I write that the Justice Department was a part of the Judicial Branch in my prior comment. You read that in to my comment entirely on your own.
Paul and his minions can't do this on their own. You'll need to create a Libertarian / Liberal coalition to win this. IMO: Libertarians and Civil Rights activists have more in common than they have in opposition right now.
What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?
This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.
The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not. This has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the betrayal of rule of law by both political parties. They have eviscerated the fourth amendment without so much as a peep from the Supreme Court.
This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States. Otherwise, everything our founders stood for in the creation of the Bill of Rights will be diluted to nothing before our eyes. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian United States of America.
That the Democratic Party, after promising in 2006 to clean up House rules and never let another bill be shoved through like this, did just that. They gave less than 24 hours notice from the posting of the bill to the House website to the actual vote the next day. Which congresspersons do you believe actually read that bill?
This isn't even a pretense of responsible governance. It is an abrogation of their oaths of office. Every single congressperson who voted for this bill should be removed from office forthwith. At the next election, if we must wait that long.
On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.
I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.
I ask again if the children who were abused without profit also deserve the same consideration. If so, I would request that they are given the consideration to incorporate them into such statements.
This is an excellent point. You're absolutely right. I placed a qualifier on that statement that limits its applicability to a range of children who might not have been abused for profit, but were abused just the same.
Yeah, I got pissy. Not your fault. Anyway, I've read your comment, but I don't want to respond in depth line-by-line because I have my dinner in the oven and it's about to come out.
I think we're close to the same page. Where we differ is within a fairly narrow range of opinion. Though, on facts we agree. And that's just fine by me. I don't expect you to agree with my opinions on this matter.
Thanks for not blowing up due to my somewhat prickly response. And apologies if I offended as well. -M
He loved it. The only reason he quit was that his wife took a position in Boston and there was no comparable position for him at Apple over here. So he took another position, reluctantly.
He said it was the best job he'd ever had.
I've never worked for Apple, so... \*shrug\* that's all you get.
I would be open to this if the legislation placed control of whether software on a privately owned computer should be disabled in the hands of a court rather than in the hands of the software vendor. The problem with this legislation, and all DRM, is that it hands much too much control over to the vendor, which is a conflict of interest. Governments exist to protect property rights, not private corporations or individuals.
I haven't read this legislation. But UCITA most certainly did not do that; it placed control completely in the hands of the software vendor (copyright holder). I think this type of DRM could fly with a real adjudication process that's fair and fully public.
Oh yes. There is no end to the ways that people can steal, regardless of whether the item is a physical object or copyrighted content. That's why law enforcement exists.
Based upon this I will offer these answers to your questions, though with the caveat that I am not an astronomer.
Astronomers are looking for perturbations in a star's light output intensity or in its lateral movement relative to other known stars.
What does this mean?
If a planet crosses the boundary between the star and us it should dim the light output. If this happens repeatedly at predicted intervals, a planet has been discovered. Similarly, if the star "wobbles" in a predictable manner, the gravity of the planet can be said to be "tugging" at the star. In both cases, one can determine (with a large margin of error) the mass of the planet by noting either the drop in light intensity or by comparing the known mass of the star against it's relative gravitational shift (wobble).
So: your question is, why do the planets thus discovered have relatively short orbital periods? My speculation is that it's much easier to determine short periodicity than long periodicity, thus outer planets orbiting remote stars should take far longer to confirm due to the need for lots of redundant data collection to confirm a finding.
I don't have time to respond fully. I do take issue with your immediate claim that my post represented an "emotional argument" as if by it being "emotional" it is less of an argument that your rebuttal. I call bullshit.
I'll get to some of your individual points:
Issue: #1 Why the ISP in question chose to shut down access to alt.* (is it by reason of child pornography? If so - that is an invalid reason for it shuts down far more than the small list of newsgroups that engaged in this behavior)
Response: Verizon can shut down the service for any reason they choose. They can cut access to a few alt.* groups, or they can cut the entire alt.* hierarchy. They can even cut out all of the big seven and shut off their nntpd. And it won't matter one whit what rationale they choose to do this, for nowhere are they required to provide USENET news access as part of their offering.
Verizon could choose to shut off USENET for the stated reason that too many chucacabra sightings are reported there if they so wish. Or because chickens like to cluck. Perhaps they might choose to shut off USENET for the reason that it's not carbon-neutral. Whatever - it's their hardware and their service they sell. You don't like it? Cancel and find another ISP. Or buy the service from another USENET news provider.
So - whatever reason Verizon chose - you don't have standing to claim that these actions amount to any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Issue #2, censorship "Technically, Verizon is not censoring any speech, as it is only cutting a service. If they were engaging in censorship, not only would I question the propriety of a corporation doing the work of a government,[...]"
The district attorney's office in the State of New York has asked that Verizon and other ISPs cut access to a small number of USENET newsgroups where users are currently trading in child-pornography. The ISPs have agreed. Thus it is not the ISPs who are engaged in censorship, it is the State of New York which has requested that this material be censored. As is the right and responsibility of that district attorney.
Your argument that these actions amount to "save the children" fear mongering, I argue, is the real emotional argument that ought to be challenged. Those children being sexually abused for profit deserve someone in law enforcement to take on their cause.
So, let's recap some facts:
- For an ISP to shut off a server is not censorship, particularly when that venue is available from many alternate providers. Free speech does not imply a free venue to speak.
- To create, distribute or own child-pornography is a class B felony.
- In the process of creating that material, a child is irreparably harmed both by the original act itself, as well as the distribution of the outcome.
- Censorship of child pornography is intended to protect the child from the stigma of such abuse being public. Thus, it is implemented as a privacy right for the abused child in question. Adults are offered no such "privacy right" because it is assumed they acted with consent, which a child cannot give.
These are facts as defined in current US law. Verizon's choice to shut their equipment off is completely irrelevant to the closing of those twenty-two or so USENET forums where this activity is taking place. Both are neither mutually inclusive nor are they mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true. However, it ignores the fact that our republic does have checks and balances. Or, at least, it did.
The rest of your comment is spot on, both factually and in what you imply by those facts. I agree and thank you for those citations.
I prefer no spying on US citizens at all, without a signed warrant.
I simply refuse to be trapped by false dichotomies.
Are you dumb?
Text of the House bill, see section 802.f:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304
EFF analysis of the immunity portion of the bill:
http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf
I agree wholeheartedly.
Fair point. Thank you.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_i_would_support_dodds_filibuster.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
He supports it. He supposedly opposes retroactive immunity, and once last October even declared that he would filibuster a FISA bill with immunity, but he appears to have changed his mind at the last minute.
If he filibusters, perhaps I'll change my mind on donating to his campaign. But right now, he has signaled that he won't oppose this FISA bill - and further, he may even vote for it.
If you're OK with that, I suggest you campaign for him. I'm not OK with that.
The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. That's the point. By Justice deciding what is and what is not legal, the head of the Executive - the President of the United States - gets a say in what is rightly the parlance of both the legislative and judicial branches.
Also: nowhere did I write that the Justice Department was a part of the Judicial Branch in my prior comment. You read that in to my comment entirely on your own.
Paul and his minions can't do this on their own. You'll need to create a Libertarian / Liberal coalition to win this. IMO: Libertarians and Civil Rights activists have more in common than they have in opposition right now.
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/11689
ActBlue appears to be attempting this type of Libertine/Liberal coalition. I've donated.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml
What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?
This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.
The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not. This has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the betrayal of rule of law by both political parties. They have eviscerated the fourth amendment without so much as a peep from the Supreme Court.
This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States. Otherwise, everything our founders stood for in the creation of the Bill of Rights will be diluted to nothing before our eyes. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian United States of America.
That the Democratic Party, after promising in 2006 to clean up House rules and never let another bill be shoved through like this, did just that. They gave less than 24 hours notice from the posting of the bill to the House website to the actual vote the next day. Which congresspersons do you believe actually read that bill?
This isn't even a pretense of responsible governance. It is an abrogation of their oaths of office. Every single congressperson who voted for this bill should be removed from office forthwith. At the next election, if we must wait that long.
http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa
On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.
I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992LPICo.787...18K
This is an excellent point. You're absolutely right. I placed a qualifier on that statement that limits its applicability to a range of children who might not have been abused for profit, but were abused just the same.
Fully agreed.
Yeah, I got pissy. Not your fault. Anyway, I've read your comment, but I don't want to respond in depth line-by-line because I have my dinner in the oven and it's about to come out.
I think we're close to the same page. Where we differ is within a fairly narrow range of opinion. Though, on facts we agree. And that's just fine by me. I don't expect you to agree with my opinions on this matter.
Thanks for not blowing up due to my somewhat prickly response. And apologies if I offended as well. -M
He loved it. The only reason he quit was that his wife took a position in Boston and there was no comparable position for him at Apple over here. So he took another position, reluctantly.
... \*shrug\* that's all you get.
He said it was the best job he'd ever had.
I've never worked for Apple, so
I would be open to this if the legislation placed control of whether software on a privately owned computer should be disabled in the hands of a court rather than in the hands of the software vendor. The problem with this legislation, and all DRM, is that it hands much too much control over to the vendor, which is a conflict of interest. Governments exist to protect property rights, not private corporations or individuals.
I haven't read this legislation. But UCITA most certainly did not do that; it placed control completely in the hands of the software vendor (copyright holder). I think this type of DRM could fly with a real adjudication process that's fair and fully public.
Oh yes. There is no end to the ways that people can steal, regardless of whether the item is a physical object or copyrighted content. That's why law enforcement exists.
Here is what JPL says of the about the techniques used to find planets:
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/library/exnps/ch04_1.html#4.4
Based upon this I will offer these answers to your questions, though with the caveat that I am not an astronomer.
Astronomers are looking for perturbations in a star's light output intensity or in its lateral movement relative to other known stars.
What does this mean?
If a planet crosses the boundary between the star and us it should dim the light output. If this happens repeatedly at predicted intervals, a planet has been discovered. Similarly, if the star "wobbles" in a predictable manner, the gravity of the planet can be said to be "tugging" at the star. In both cases, one can determine (with a large margin of error) the mass of the planet by noting either the drop in light intensity or by comparing the known mass of the star against it's relative gravitational shift (wobble).
So: your question is, why do the planets thus discovered have relatively short orbital periods? My speculation is that it's much easier to determine short periodicity than long periodicity, thus outer planets orbiting remote stars should take far longer to confirm due to the need for lots of redundant data collection to confirm a finding.
I don't have time to respond fully. I do take issue with your immediate claim that my post represented an "emotional argument" as if by it being "emotional" it is less of an argument that your rebuttal. I call bullshit.
I'll get to some of your individual points:
Issue: #1 Why the ISP in question chose to shut down access to alt.* (is it by reason of child pornography? If so - that is an invalid reason for it shuts down far more than the small list of newsgroups that engaged in this behavior)
Response: Verizon can shut down the service for any reason they choose. They can cut access to a few alt.* groups, or they can cut the entire alt.* hierarchy. They can even cut out all of the big seven and shut off their nntpd. And it won't matter one whit what rationale they choose to do this, for nowhere are they required to provide USENET news access as part of their offering.
Verizon could choose to shut off USENET for the stated reason that too many chucacabra sightings are reported there if they so wish. Or because chickens like to cluck. Perhaps they might choose to shut off USENET for the reason that it's not carbon-neutral. Whatever - it's their hardware and their service they sell. You don't like it? Cancel and find another ISP. Or buy the service from another USENET news provider.
So - whatever reason Verizon chose - you don't have standing to claim that these actions amount to any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Issue #2, censorship "Technically, Verizon is not censoring any speech, as it is only cutting a service. If they were engaging in censorship, not only would I question the propriety of a corporation doing the work of a government,[...]"
The district attorney's office in the State of New York has asked that Verizon and other ISPs cut access to a small number of USENET newsgroups where users are currently trading in child-pornography. The ISPs have agreed. Thus it is not the ISPs who are engaged in censorship, it is the State of New York which has requested that this material be censored. As is the right and responsibility of that district attorney.
Your argument that these actions amount to "save the children" fear mongering, I argue, is the real emotional argument that ought to be challenged. Those children being sexually abused for profit deserve someone in law enforcement to take on their cause.
So, let's recap some facts:
- For an ISP to shut off a server is not censorship, particularly when that venue is available from many alternate providers. Free speech does not imply a free venue to speak.
- To create, distribute or own child-pornography is a class B felony.
- In the process of creating that material, a child is irreparably harmed both by the original act itself, as well as the distribution of the outcome.
- Censorship of child pornography is intended to protect the child from the stigma of such abuse being public. Thus, it is implemented as a privacy right for the abused child in question. Adults are offered no such "privacy right" because it is assumed they acted with consent, which a child cannot give.
These are facts as defined in current US law. Verizon's choice to shut their equipment off is completely irrelevant to the closing of those twenty-two or so USENET forums where this activity is taking place. Both are neither mutually inclusive nor are they mutually exclusive.
You never had that "right". If you're a US citizen, your rights are delineated in exquisite detail here:
Bill of Rights
Also note that there is a history of legal rulings which shape how delineated rights are to be implemented and secured by government.
You never had a "right" to USENET to begin with.
So one needn't "abuse children" in order to lose a right one never had. This is a very important distinction and is not said to patronize.