It is not a wire tap on your phone. These are cameras, not microwave, directional microphonones. And if they were used to record what is said in a private conversation, I can guaranty that the Supreme Court would toss it in an instant. Being subject to monitoring in a public place? Ever heard of surveilence? Guys with badges discreetly follow you around? If they want to track you, they can track you. Do you assume that because the FBI could be following you around, they are? As for deploying it without our knowledge, that is unlikely. It would require a massive budget to put cameras in every public place, or even quite a few. It would likely neccesitate the creation of a new governmental agency. Those things tend to show up on the federal budget.
It will make it possible to track those who go out in public, but two points. The first being, they won't. They don't have the resources to do it, nor do they care. What this will most likely be used for is searching public places for people with arrest warrants out on them, or missing children. Second, from a purely constitutional point of view, you have no expectation of privacy in a public area. so, legally speaking, it wouldn't matter if they did track you,
No insult taken. The difference to me is very slight (not meaning it isn't eveident), but I know some true audiophiles. These are the kind of people that would gladly spend $3000 on a CD player, and $6000 on a pre amp/power amp combo. These are VERY picky people. So from that point of view, there is a major quality difference.
I really don't mean to be insulting but... There really is a difference, if you're using a nice stereo. If you're just listening while you code, or read Slashdot, then the difference isn't terribly noticeable. If you sit down and just listen, as the normal (an odd choice of word) readers of Sound and Vision do, then the quality difference is rather evident.
The cops screwed up big time there. That has no relevance to this however. This law will not make it any easier for screwups like that to happend, nor will it make them any worse if they do. This will not affect seizure in any way. Also, this is one isolated case. One screw up like this happens, and its remembered for years. This disregards the thousands of legitamite search warrants issued and served every year. Mistakes do happen. Amputating law enforcements ability to do their job will not alleviate the problem, it will only make it easier for real criminals to break the law. The answer to incidents like Steve Jackson Games is to fire, or perhaps even prosecute the people involved.
One half ass search will not get a search warrant signed from any judge in the country. Do you people even listen to the other side? Conservatives spend half their time bitching about how hard it is to get a search warrant. The constitution, search and seizure wise, is the strongest it has ever been.
The entire point of a wiretap is that you don't know. And no, they cannot, legally tap everyone in america. I hate to scream this again, but "probable cause" and warrant. This words have meanings, and I suggest you look them up before the paranoia reaches fever pitch.
No, it does not fall under illegal search and seizure. Illegal search and seizure is search and seizure (or wiretapping) without probable cause, i.e. a warrant. The courts have ruled this again and again. With this law enforcement is not trying to create a utopia, or even stay miles ahead of crime, they are simply trying to keep up with it.
The concern over this puzzles me. They still need a warrant to do any of this. Are you concerned that the FBI may burst through your door at any moment and search your belongings? If that is a possibility for you, then this concerns you. The standard of probable cause is still applicable. Anyone who knows a little about the criminal justice system knows that this is a pretty high standard. This is simply high tech wiretapping. This is not a further invasion into our private lives, it is simply the law enforcement community trying to keep up with progressing technology. Even if they do get the capability to tap internet phone calls, so what? Again, they still need a warrant, and this is still just a technology driven update of what is already legal and accepted, that being wiretapping of standard phones.
I will admit that the genre of science fictions is a bit filled with crud, to say, offhand, that there are no sci fi authors who qualify as great is simply not true. Leaving aside masters such as Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke, who's era is, unfortunately over, there are those such as Susan R. Matthews and William Barton. There is also Orson Scott Card, who's Ender series ranks up there as some of the best fiction I have ever read. There are plenty of good SF authors, and a few who will qualify as great even outside their genre, so give credit where credit is due.
Beware anything in New Scientist. Much of it is there because it would not pass the scrutiny of a thorough scientific examination. This is not to say it is not true, just that I wouldn't simply take their word for it.
You still don't get it. The woman should have the right to walk into a pool hall in that short skirt and expect to be treated with respect. The problem is a cultural one. We live in a society where if a woman does eomething like that she should have know better. What we need to do is try to change the society so that there is no need for her to know that, because the majority of our society respects women. The same without nerds, geeks and outcasts. If they are different they shouldn't have to choose between hiding who they are and being verbally abused for showing who they are. I'm not saying they should be invited to parties or included, but they shouldn't have to expect anything worse than just being left alone.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a wire tap on your phone. These are cameras, not microwave, directional microphonones. And if they were used to record what is said in a private conversation, I can guaranty that the Supreme Court would toss it in an instant. Being subject to monitoring in a public place? Ever heard of surveilence? Guys with badges discreetly follow you around? If they want to track you, they can track you. Do you assume that because the FBI could be following you around, they are?
As for deploying it without our knowledge, that is unlikely. It would require a massive budget to put cameras in every public place, or even quite a few. It would likely neccesitate the creation of a new governmental agency. Those things tend to show up on the federal budget.
It will make it possible to track those who go out in public, but two points. The first being, they won't. They don't have the resources to do it, nor do they care. What this will most likely be used for is searching public places for people with arrest warrants out on them, or missing children. Second, from a purely constitutional point of view, you have no expectation of privacy in a public area. so, legally speaking, it wouldn't matter if they did track you,
No insult taken. The difference to me is very slight (not meaning it isn't eveident), but I know some true audiophiles. These are the kind of people that would gladly spend $3000 on a CD player, and $6000 on a pre amp/power amp combo. These are VERY picky people. So from that point of view, there is a major quality difference.
I really don't mean to be insulting but...
There really is a difference, if you're using a nice stereo. If you're just listening while you code, or read Slashdot, then the difference isn't terribly noticeable. If you sit down and just listen, as the normal (an odd choice of word) readers of Sound and Vision do, then the quality difference is rather evident.
The cops screwed up big time there. That has no relevance to this however. This law will not make it any easier for screwups like that to happend, nor will it make them any worse if they do. This will not affect seizure in any way. Also, this is one isolated case. One screw up like this happens, and its remembered for years. This disregards the thousands of legitamite search warrants issued and served every year. Mistakes do happen. Amputating law enforcements ability to do their job will not alleviate the problem, it will only make it easier for real criminals to break the law. The answer to incidents like Steve Jackson Games is to fire, or perhaps even prosecute the people involved.
One half ass search will not get a search warrant signed from any judge in the country. Do you people even listen to the other side? Conservatives spend half their time bitching about how hard it is to get a search warrant. The constitution, search and seizure wise, is the strongest it has ever been.
Nixon tapped everyone and their mother. Then the Supreme Court stepped in, told the FBI that they needed a warrant.
The entire point of a wiretap is that you don't know. And no, they cannot, legally tap everyone in america. I hate to scream this again, but "probable cause" and warrant. This words have meanings, and I suggest you look them up before the paranoia reaches fever pitch.
No, it does not fall under illegal search and seizure. Illegal search and seizure is search and seizure (or wiretapping) without probable cause, i.e. a warrant. The courts have ruled this again and again.
With this law enforcement is not trying to create a utopia, or even stay miles ahead of crime, they are simply trying to keep up with it.
The concern over this puzzles me. They still need a warrant to do any of this. Are you concerned that the FBI may burst through your door at any moment and search your belongings? If that is a possibility for you, then this concerns you. The standard of probable cause is still applicable. Anyone who knows a little about the criminal justice system knows that this is a pretty high standard. This is simply high tech wiretapping. This is not a further invasion into our private lives, it is simply the law enforcement community trying to keep up with progressing technology. Even if they do get the capability to tap internet phone calls, so what? Again, they still need a warrant, and this is still just a technology driven update of what is already legal and accepted, that being wiretapping of standard phones.
I will admit that the genre of science fictions is a bit filled with crud, to say, offhand, that there are no sci fi authors who qualify as great is simply not true. Leaving aside masters such as Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke, who's era is, unfortunately over, there are those such as Susan R. Matthews and William Barton. There is also Orson Scott Card, who's Ender series ranks up there as some of the best fiction I have ever read. There are plenty of good SF authors, and a few who will qualify as great even outside their genre, so give credit where credit is due.
Beware anything in New Scientist. Much of it is there because it would not pass the scrutiny of a thorough scientific examination. This is not to say it is not true, just that I wouldn't simply take their word for it.
You still don't get it. The woman should have the right to walk into a pool hall in that short skirt and expect to be treated with respect. The problem is a cultural one. We live in a society where if a woman does eomething like that she should have know better. What we need to do is try to change the society so that there is no need for her to know that, because the majority of our society respects women. The same without nerds, geeks and outcasts. If they are different they shouldn't have to choose between hiding who they are and being verbally abused for showing who they are. I'm not saying they should be invited to parties or included, but they shouldn't have to expect anything worse than just being left alone.