Why was the fourth ammendment introduced in the first place?
For the same reason the First, Second,... , and Tenth Amendments were introduced -- the Founders of the American Republic knew that government will abuse its powers unless kept on a short tight leash.
The existance of wiretap orders for other people who have given law enforcement enough justification to get a warrent, has nothing to do with your 4th ammendment rights, because they aren't searching and seizing you!
The Fourth Amendment specifically lists one's "papers" in its guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, this includes e-mail, unless you are going to take the position that the Bill of Rights only applies technologies known in 1790. /.
It's also a matter of principle that criminals need to be stopped
Oh, I absolutely agree! The FBI proposes to commit a crime (violation of the Fourth Amendment), and in fact has thereby already committed a crime (conspiracy to deprive citizens of civil rights under color of law). They must be stopped. QED. /.
I was assuming licensing that respects the interest of the public.
Your odd notion that the government will actually represent the "interest of the public" rather than the interest of the loudest and most obnoxious special interest reminds me of the joke about the quarterback, the acrobat, and the economist stuck on a desert island.
They found a coconut tree, and tried various ways to get the coconuts down. The quarterback slammed into the tree to shake some loose, but none of them fell. The acrobat tried to climb the tree, but the tall branchless trunk defeated him.
The economist watched this for a while, then burst out laughing. "The solution is so simple! First, assume a ladder...." /.
I've been waiting for some government, somewhere to finally realize the obvious fact that prohibition doesn't work.
It doesn't work for its stated purpose (of preventing people from abusing drugs). It works just fine for its actual purposes (justifying government power grabs and bureaucratic accretions). /.
Secondly, the search law is in no way unconstitutional. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . ..."
In no way does this state that you must be informed of a search, all it really requires is that there be just cause.
That is, a search warrant supported by just cause is still required, but that the police never have to actually show it.
Perhaps we can extend this concept to education (the academic standards will remain the same, but the students won't be required to take any tests), finance (banking still have to manage your money properly, but we won't let the depositors pester them with disclosure requirements), and taxes (you still have to pay, but we won't do audits any more).
Besides, what real detriment could this have to a law-abiding citizen (I can only think of benefits!)?
You haven't thought it through then. Obviously, removing the requirement that the police prove that they got a warrant is an open-ended invitation to abuse. /.
So what are they thinking? That maybe if they try enough times the Supreme Court will accidentally let one slip by?
What they are thinking is that they can make themselves look Tough On Drugs[tm] twice -- once when they pass the bill, and once it is struck down -- without really doing anything (even the average Congresscritter knows that a law like this is un-Constitutional on its face and will be routinely laughed out of court).
If you or I decided to routinely crank out crap at work on the theory that somebody down the line would catch and correct it, so no harm is done, we'd be fired. The rules are different for Congress. /.
Confusing though, he helped build and pass DMCA, one of the worst offenders in copyright use and abuse
Maybe he's concluded that the recording industry deceived and used him to get DCMA, and now he wants to 1)repair some of the damage he was tricked into doing, 2)show the industry executives that he won't be fooled again, and/or 3)send a message that you pull such scams on him at your own risk. /.
Could it possibly be that copying someone else's work without there permission is actually WRONG while at the same time recognizing that the RIAA are in fact scum?
Copying work without permission is illegal and wrong in many cases -- but there are certain legitimate types of fair-use copying such as archival backup, translation of purchased work to another data format, sampling for review, study, and parody, etc.
The law should enforce access to these particular exceptions every bit as strongly as it enforces copyright; and the penalties for cutting off the former should be no less severe than the penalties for infringing upon the latter. The purpose of legitimate law is to protect the rights of all concerned parties -- when someone is made an outlaw in the traditional sense (a person excluded from the protection of the law), he has every reason to become an outlaw in the modern colloquial sense (someone who regards the law with contempt and commits crimes whenever he thinks he can profit from it and get away with it). /.
This is a straw man. Contract enforcement is one of the few government functions generally accepted as proper by libertarians. Toysmart promised not to sell their data -- if they try to do it anyway, nail 'em. /.
When you think about it, there's nothing wrong with this, in itself. Firstly, it's not illegal.... They aren't hacking your computer and installing tracking software.
Perhaps what they actually do isn't illegal, but look at the article's quote from eWatch advertising:
How does it work? Partly, eWatch says, through a little info-cleansing. "We can neutralize the information appearing online, identifying the perpetrators behind uncomplimentary postings and rogue Web sites," the company's online promo material says. Then, eWatch can "remove offending messages from where they appear in cyberspace."
This looks very much like an attempt to convince PHBs that eWatch will hack the "rogue Web sites" and remove "uncomplimentary postings". If this quote is as represented, it is another unethical act at the very least, and perhaps illegal (either as a solicitation to perform a crime, or as a form of false advertising). /.
They tried a primitive version of this sort of thing in Vietnam, using chemical and vibration sensors on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The sensors were defeated by hanging buckets of urine next to chemical ones and driving cattle past the vibration ones. Methods of jamming modern versions are left as an excersize for the student. /.
They 'have access' by virtue of the fact that Verio is currently within FBI jurisdiction. That does not necessarily imply that they have had physical access at any point prior to this. It's a question of maintaining jurisdiction.
Aren't a corporation's business dealings and physical infrastructure within the US subject to relevant US law in any case? How would the Verio deal affect FBI jurisdiction? /.
Don't the get around that by "laundering" the surveillance -- they'll cut a deal with some foreign government to spy on Americans and in return spy on citizens of that country for them, thus circumventing each country's privacy laws? /.
This tends to support my position that (JonKatz's blather about the "Corporate Republic" notwithstanding), the tension between Megacorp and State is likely to have the same beneficial effect as the medieval tension between Church and Crown. The fact that neither side has a particularly appealing agenda is less important than the existence of two (or more) great powers making life difficult for one another. /.
If I was going to trying to hide my involvement in an orginization I wouldn't give them a web address off of my company's homepage or an email address pointing straight back to me.
Maybe that just means that your're smarter than Microsoft's PR department. /.
Look at the more-libertarian-than-now industrial American economy of the mid-to-late 1800s and early 1900s. Free market as far as the eye can see.
If that's what your eyes see, maybe you should consider having them upgraded. In fact, the government in the Gilded Age was constantly meddling in the economy, on the side of big business (e.g. strikebreaking either directly or by turning a selective blind eye to crimes committed by the Pinkerton gang). Not a free market by any reasonable definition.
But everybody ended up getting screwed except for either the really smart, clever, ruthless people, the really rich people, or the really rich, smart, clever, and ruthless people.
More accurately, the politically connected were able to screw everybody else, which is what happens when the extent of government exceeds a certain critical threshold.
To drag the thread back onto the topic, the fundamental issue here is the definition of "fraud". There is a vast mushy grey area between putting one's best foot forward and outright lying. It is a legitimate function of government to draw some sort of line in the grey area and enforce it. The main concern I see with the FTC action is that it seems to be trying to do the former (a legislative prerogative) when its mandate is limited to the latter. /.
Re:A long slippery slope down to Hell
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 2
Should I respond to a religious troll or not?
The original post wasn't a clearcut troll. Some of Jon Erikson's later posts did cross that line, and presumably will find their natural level (-1: Troll) before much longer. /.
Re:A long slippery slope down to Hell
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
And this new and dangerous technology will give them the power to "create" new forms of life in a foul mockery of God's place as Creator
Oh, puh-leeze -- humans have been doing that for millenia. (Perhaps the reason chihuahuas have such foul dispositions is that they know they are descended from wolves and humans did this to them.)
there are things which just aren't meant for people to understand, let along attempt to tamper with
Either the Universe was created by some intelligent entity (in which case, the fact that it proceeds according to understandable natural laws implies that its creatures were meant to understand it) or not (in which case, your assertion is a meaningless string of syntactically correct words, a la "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously").
Yet these "scientists", having already condemned decent Christian morality as being "backward" or "superstitious"
This is a silly stereotype. Scientists (and pretty much everybody else, including contemporary Christians) condemn certain elements of old-style "Christian morality", such as witch-burnings and forced conversion, as backward and superstitious -- because these practices are backward and superstitious. The reasonable portions of traditional Christian morality are similar to those of any viable culture's morality, and as such are universally respected among civilized people. /.
You need to work on that guilt complex, so that you could either act rationally on your beliefs (i.e. sell the computer you used to post this and give the money to some humanitarian outfit) or at least stop acting irrationally (by trolling/.). /.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody has to, and they're in a better position than most.
/.
Maybe they can use it to recover all that "lost" White House e-mail....
/.
For the same reason the First, Second, ... , and Tenth Amendments were introduced -- the Founders of the American Republic knew that government will abuse its powers unless kept on a short tight leash.
The existance of wiretap orders for other people who have given law enforcement enough justification to get a warrent, has nothing to do with your 4th ammendment rights, because they aren't searching and seizing you!
The Fourth Amendment specifically lists one's "papers" in its guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously, this includes e-mail, unless you are going to take the position that the Bill of Rights only applies technologies known in 1790.
/.
Oh, I absolutely agree! The FBI proposes to commit a crime (violation of the Fourth Amendment), and in fact has thereby already committed a crime (conspiracy to deprive citizens of civil rights under color of law). They must be stopped. QED.
/.
As long as you continue to post, you are adding hypocrisy to your other sins.
/.
Your odd notion that the government will actually represent the "interest of the public" rather than the interest of the loudest and most obnoxious special interest reminds me of the joke about the quarterback, the acrobat, and the economist stuck on a desert island.
They found a coconut tree, and tried various ways to get the coconuts down. The quarterback slammed into the tree to shake some loose, but none of them fell. The acrobat tried to climb the tree, but the tall branchless trunk defeated him.
The economist watched this for a while, then burst out laughing. "The solution is so simple! First, assume a ladder...."
/.
It doesn't work for its stated purpose (of preventing people from abusing drugs). It works just fine for its actual purposes (justifying government power grabs and bureaucratic accretions).
/.
I guess the Mystery Writers of America are in trouble then.
/.
In no way does this state that you must be informed of a search, all it really requires is that there be just cause.
That is, a search warrant supported by just cause is still required, but that the police never have to actually show it.
Perhaps we can extend this concept to education (the academic standards will remain the same, but the students won't be required to take any tests), finance (banking still have to manage your money properly, but we won't let the depositors pester them with disclosure requirements), and taxes (you still have to pay, but we won't do audits any more).
Besides, what real detriment could this have to a law-abiding citizen (I can only think of benefits!)?
You haven't thought it through then. Obviously, removing the requirement that the police prove that they got a warrant is an open-ended invitation to abuse.
/.
What they are thinking is that they can make themselves look Tough On Drugs[tm] twice -- once when they pass the bill, and once it is struck down -- without really doing anything (even the average Congresscritter knows that a law like this is un-Constitutional on its face and will be routinely laughed out of court).
If you or I decided to routinely crank out crap at work on the theory that somebody down the line would catch and correct it, so no harm is done, we'd be fired. The rules are different for Congress.
/.
You need to check your connection; a bunch of extraneous characters dropped into the middle of your message.
/.
Maybe he's concluded that the recording industry deceived and used him to get DCMA, and now he wants to 1)repair some of the damage he was tricked into doing, 2)show the industry executives that he won't be fooled again, and/or 3)send a message that you pull such scams on him at your own risk.
/.
Copying work without permission is illegal and wrong in many cases -- but there are certain legitimate types of fair-use copying such as archival backup, translation of purchased work to another data format, sampling for review, study, and parody, etc.
The law should enforce access to these particular exceptions every bit as strongly as it enforces copyright; and the penalties for cutting off the former should be no less severe than the penalties for infringing upon the latter. The purpose of legitimate law is to protect the rights of all concerned parties -- when someone is made an outlaw in the traditional sense (a person excluded from the protection of the law), he has every reason to become an outlaw in the modern colloquial sense (someone who regards the law with contempt and commits crimes whenever he thinks he can profit from it and get away with it).
/.
This is a straw man. Contract enforcement is one of the few government functions generally accepted as proper by libertarians. Toysmart promised not to sell their data -- if they try to do it anyway, nail 'em.
/.
Perhaps what they actually do isn't illegal, but look at the article's quote from eWatch advertising:
This looks very much like an attempt to convince PHBs that eWatch will hack the "rogue Web sites" and remove "uncomplimentary postings". If this quote is as represented, it is another unethical act at the very least, and perhaps illegal (either as a solicitation to perform a crime, or as a form of false advertising)./.
They tried a primitive version of this sort of thing in Vietnam, using chemical and vibration sensors on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The sensors were defeated by hanging buckets of urine next to chemical ones and driving cattle past the vibration ones. Methods of jamming modern versions are left as an excersize for the student.
/.
How did they get there then?
/.
Aren't a corporation's business dealings and physical infrastructure within the US subject to relevant US law in any case? How would the Verio deal affect FBI jurisdiction?
/.
Don't the get around that by "laundering" the surveillance -- they'll cut a deal with some foreign government to spy on Americans and in return spy on citizens of that country for them, thus circumventing each country's privacy laws?
/.
This tends to support my position that (JonKatz's blather about the "Corporate Republic" notwithstanding), the tension between Megacorp and State is likely to have the same beneficial effect as the medieval tension between Church and Crown. The fact that neither side has a particularly appealing agenda is less important than the existence of two (or more) great powers making life difficult for one another.
/.
Maybe that just means that your're smarter than Microsoft's PR department.
/.
If that's what your eyes see, maybe you should consider having them upgraded. In fact, the government in the Gilded Age was constantly meddling in the economy, on the side of big business (e.g. strikebreaking either directly or by turning a selective blind eye to crimes committed by the Pinkerton gang). Not a free market by any reasonable definition.
But everybody ended up getting screwed except for either the really smart, clever, ruthless people, the really rich people, or the really rich, smart, clever, and ruthless people.
More accurately, the politically connected were able to screw everybody else, which is what happens when the extent of government exceeds a certain critical threshold.
To drag the thread back onto the topic, the fundamental issue here is the definition of "fraud". There is a vast mushy grey area between putting one's best foot forward and outright lying. It is a legitimate function of government to draw some sort of line in the grey area and enforce it. The main concern I see with the FTC action is that it seems to be trying to do the former (a legislative prerogative) when its mandate is limited to the latter.
/.
The original post wasn't a clearcut troll. Some of Jon Erikson's later posts did cross that line, and presumably will find their natural level (-1: Troll) before much longer.
/.
Oh, puh-leeze -- humans have been doing that for millenia. (Perhaps the reason chihuahuas have such foul dispositions is that they know they are descended from wolves and humans did this to them.)
there are things which just aren't meant for people to understand, let along attempt to tamper with
Either the Universe was created by some intelligent entity (in which case, the fact that it proceeds according to understandable natural laws implies that its creatures were meant to understand it) or not (in which case, your assertion is a meaningless string of syntactically correct words, a la "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously").
Yet these "scientists", having already condemned decent Christian morality as being "backward" or "superstitious"
This is a silly stereotype. Scientists (and pretty much everybody else, including contemporary Christians) condemn certain elements of old-style "Christian morality", such as witch-burnings and forced conversion, as backward and superstitious -- because these practices are backward and superstitious. The reasonable portions of traditional Christian morality are similar to those of any viable culture's morality, and as such are universally respected among civilized people.
/.
You need to work on that guilt complex, so that you could either act rationally on your beliefs (i.e. sell the computer you used to post this and give the money to some humanitarian outfit) or at least stop acting irrationally (by trolling /.).
/.