The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.
Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population. It's the training that GPS, phones and Glass users aren't getting and so are using things in stupid ways.
It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety; and that is regulation.
Unreasonable in the case of the 4th means without due process, and as you've noted, subpoena's are part of due process. Hence, their simple existence doesn't make them unreasonable. Most times the court pays reasonable fees to the corporation/business to provide the records, because imposing the costs on them 'would' be unreasonable.
Anywho, you're doing a fine job of trolling so I'll leave you to yourself.
Not according to modern changed meanings of words or phrases
So you believe then that 'digital' documents have absolutely no constitutional protections?...since the founders clearly couldn't have meant what they couldn't imagine. You're 'papers' are secure, but don't type them in?
Show me anything that says that the government may demand testimony from someone regarding my position at any time, without a warrant?
You asked for 'anything' that said compelling testimony without a warrant and I gave it to you.
Now you ask how you get to warrantless 'legal' wiretapping? Um, because they're using subpoenas which as we've discovered today are NOT search warrants.
It ain't right or what I'd like the world to be, but that IS the world we live in. Subpoena's are perfectly valid tools for the legal system, but they've been expanded to allow everything under the sun and that's the problem. Not that they can compel you to testify about my location or anything else the court deems you need to speak to them about. That's rock solid basic justice system functioning. This of course assumes they aren't prosecutingj/investigating 'you' - at that time the other amendments come into play.
Google 'subpoena' but here's the definition from Wikipedia in case you'd rather just keep trolling along:
A subpoena is a writ by a government agency, most often a court, that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoena:
subpoena 'ad testificandum' orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.
subpoena 'duces tecum' orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.
you say it's 'your data'. How so? I agree it *should* be, but it isn't in the current legal system.
Because your personal data (the information which may indicate the position of your PERSON at a particular time and place) is constitutionally unprotected when it's possessed by a non-person entity?
Uh, show me anything that says you can't be identified to a position at a specific time? It's simply not there.
It's suddenly impersonal data?
Nope. Not suddenly...the rest, as currently defined yes.
My right to be secure in my person (which extends to every time and place of my being, past, present and future)
Entirely agree with the 'spirit' of the law, but that's both the bane of the vague Constitution and it's best feature (living document).
What the law currently doesn't differentiate between is 'business records' kept for operating a business and data that a user's actions caused to be created such as location histories (as opposed actual user generated content which is protected). That's the crux of the problem.
And you need to brush up on the legal system. No 'warrant' is needed, only a subpoena - very different things. Warrants are for subjects of investigation. Verizon is not the subject of the investigation, you are, hence they get a subpoena to produce *their* data.
You still haven't answered the question, how is the data that Verizon creates and stores somehow legally 'my' data?
Our legal system is based on harm and jeopardy and if it isn't 'your' data you aren't in jeopardy. If it isn't Verizon's data, they aren't in jeopardy so have no grounds to object to it's subpoena.
The point is the type of 'records' doesn't matter except in very very specific cases. If it's held by a 3rd party, you don't have grounds to invoke the 4th Amendment.
Actually, lots of the Patriot Act and such recent legislation is making them do exactly that. They don't have grounds to oppose a subpoena since it isn't incriminating of 'them'.
While the ruling is troubling on a number of levels the concept itself is fine.
A 'business record' whether held by an individual or a corporation (person or otherwise) is a '3rd party' record and as such isn't protected by YOUR 4th Amendment rights. It would be no different if you paid your neighbor to record your movements and they asked them for your data.
That said, the troubling aspects are we've made the jump from business records (how the business runs its operations) to user generated records housed and recorded by the business. The law makes no distinction, but the latter has massive privacy implications.
I suppose if there were truly a free market (I hate that word btw) we'd have entries into the mobile wireless business doing what VPNs have for a while. I.e. no logging 'at all'.
If the gov't in any way compels a business to keep records (and there lots of valid reasons for this) then those records are not considered 'business records' and need applicable warrants, etc.
well to be fair, Sprint had ridiculously bad coverage BEFORE WiMax. And you know what? the WiMax debacle only proves his point. Why didn't Verizon do WiMax? Or did they, but didn't really advertise it because it wasn't market ready?
Seems like Sprint jumped on WiMax because they needed *something* to offset the lack of coverage...and got burned by advancing tech. That still screams bad planning since they had to bet the farm on WiMax and are continually playing catchup.
Most people didn't know about pre-paid yet either. There are lots of other options now and when you can look at it costing half as much, it really starts to make you question why?
Doesn't happen overnight, but believe me, it happens.
I'm on my way out. 2 yr contract is up and unlimited data is nicely 'limited' by crappy data service. I live in VA right outside DC. Absolutely NO LTE service but if you look at the map, Baltimore has it, Fredricksburg (south) and the I-81 corridor have LTE, but not DC and it's suburbs. It's an amazing hole in coverage for what is supposed to be the best service.
It's absolutely ridiculous that they are upgrading multiple markets around the country and the nations capital is still getting a pittance. Even plain 4G service is quite spotty.
And all this at equivalent Verizon pricing. simply amazing
Certainly an interesting material/chemical engineering problem. Another key difference is the duration of exposure. If you have something with a sufficiently high resistance but low durability it may still be adequate since it's job is done quickly. If I remember, the shuttle tiles were a problem because they were both fragile and had to be stable for multiple minutes in plasma conditions.
I also don't know if you could 'shape' the payload. If the centrifuge would make you have to shoot roundish objects versus a pointed nose cone. That alone would make a huge difference in the requirements.
Certainly a constraint, but one key difference. It gets less resistive as you go, the opposite of coming in. At 6 kilometers/sec, you're out of the really dense atmosphere pretty quickly.
They specifically say it isn't for delicate things. The concept they're using is putting bulk building materials in space cheaply and saving the 'delicate' stuff like people for the expensive and less taxing delivery of rockets.
As has been noted, weaponizing seems the first likely destination.
Yes we are. However, the technology in place today would make all three have multiple orgasms. We can run much much much faster down the slope than you perhaps care to admit.
You mean the deficit that's been reduced from 30-50% in the last 4 years depending on your numbers? It's going in the right direction, but lack of serious investment is going to cut short the recovery. That investment has to come from the government because infrastructure isn't paid for by private firms.
Slashdot Mirror
We should ban stupid people from driving
We already do. It's called a driver's test. Sadly in the US it's a complete joke. But the process is in place.
You know, maybe Google Glass is just a plot to get Google Car jump started!
The real point being that if you want to introduce 'new' technology to a functional environment, it should be mandatory to be TRAINED on the new technology.
Cops in the US have radios, cell phones and laptop computers going at basically all times. Yet they don't seem to have they same issues as the general population. It's the training that GPS, phones and Glass users aren't getting and so are using things in stupid ways.
It's human nature to use things. We need to adapt our behaviors to counteract that nature when it threatens safety; and that is regulation.
Unreasonable in the case of the 4th means without due process, and as you've noted, subpoena's are part of due process. Hence, their simple existence doesn't make them unreasonable. Most times the court pays reasonable fees to the corporation/business to provide the records, because imposing the costs on them 'would' be unreasonable.
Anywho, you're doing a fine job of trolling so I'll leave you to yourself.
Not according to modern changed meanings of words or phrases
So you believe then that 'digital' documents have absolutely no constitutional protections?...since the founders clearly couldn't have meant what they couldn't imagine. You're 'papers' are secure, but don't type them in?
Show me anything that says that the government may demand testimony from someone regarding my position at any time, without a warrant?
You asked for 'anything' that said compelling testimony without a warrant and I gave it to you.
Now you ask how you get to warrantless 'legal' wiretapping? Um, because they're using subpoenas which as we've discovered today are NOT search warrants.
It ain't right or what I'd like the world to be, but that IS the world we live in. Subpoena's are perfectly valid tools for the legal system, but they've been expanded to allow everything under the sun and that's the problem. Not that they can compel you to testify about my location or anything else the court deems you need to speak to them about. That's rock solid basic justice system functioning. This of course assumes they aren't prosecutingj/investigating 'you' - at that time the other amendments come into play.
I don't care about the legal aspects
Duly noted, we're done here then.
Google 'subpoena' but here's the definition from Wikipedia in case you'd rather just keep trolling along:
A subpoena is a writ by a government agency, most often a court, that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoena:
subpoena 'ad testificandum' orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.
subpoena 'duces tecum' orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.
Read slowly so's you understand. I'll wait.
Because your personal data (the information which may indicate the position of your PERSON at a particular time and place) is constitutionally unprotected when it's possessed by a non-person entity?
Uh, show me anything that says you can't be identified to a position at a specific time? It's simply not there.
It's suddenly impersonal data?
Nope. Not suddenly...the rest, as currently defined yes.
My right to be secure in my person (which extends to every time and place of my being, past, present and future)
Entirely agree with the 'spirit' of the law, but that's both the bane of the vague Constitution and it's best feature (living document).
What the law currently doesn't differentiate between is 'business records' kept for operating a business and data that a user's actions caused to be created such as location histories (as opposed actual user generated content which is protected). That's the crux of the problem.
And you need to brush up on the legal system. No 'warrant' is needed, only a subpoena - very different things. Warrants are for subjects of investigation. Verizon is not the subject of the investigation, you are, hence they get a subpoena to produce *their* data.
You still haven't answered the question, how is the data that Verizon creates and stores somehow legally 'my' data?
Our legal system is based on harm and jeopardy and if it isn't 'your' data you aren't in jeopardy. If it isn't Verizon's data, they aren't in jeopardy so have no grounds to object to it's subpoena.
Except for one problem. How do you classify data created and stored by Verizon as 'your' papers?
The Constitution is vague on purpose...it's a feature not a bug.
The point is the type of 'records' doesn't matter except in very very specific cases. If it's held by a 3rd party, you don't have grounds to invoke the 4th Amendment.
nothing says they have to
Actually, lots of the Patriot Act and such recent legislation is making them do exactly that. They don't have grounds to oppose a subpoena since it isn't incriminating of 'them'.
While the ruling is troubling on a number of levels the concept itself is fine.
A 'business record' whether held by an individual or a corporation (person or otherwise) is a '3rd party' record and as such isn't protected by YOUR 4th Amendment rights. It would be no different if you paid your neighbor to record your movements and they asked them for your data.
That said, the troubling aspects are we've made the jump from business records (how the business runs its operations) to user generated records housed and recorded by the business. The law makes no distinction, but the latter has massive privacy implications.
I suppose if there were truly a free market (I hate that word btw) we'd have entries into the mobile wireless business doing what VPNs have for a while. I.e. no logging 'at all'.
If the gov't in any way compels a business to keep records (and there lots of valid reasons for this) then those records are not considered 'business records' and need applicable warrants, etc.
well to be fair, Sprint had ridiculously bad coverage BEFORE WiMax. And you know what? the WiMax debacle only proves his point. Why didn't Verizon do WiMax? Or did they, but didn't really advertise it because it wasn't market ready?
Seems like Sprint jumped on WiMax because they needed *something* to offset the lack of coverage...and got burned by advancing tech. That still screams bad planning since they had to bet the farm on WiMax and are continually playing catchup.
Most people didn't know about pre-paid yet either. There are lots of other options now and when you can look at it costing half as much, it really starts to make you question why?
Doesn't happen overnight, but believe me, it happens.
I'm on my way out. 2 yr contract is up and unlimited data is nicely 'limited' by crappy data service. I live in VA right outside DC. Absolutely NO LTE service but if you look at the map, Baltimore has it, Fredricksburg (south) and the I-81 corridor have LTE, but not DC and it's suburbs. It's an amazing hole in coverage for what is supposed to be the best service.
It's absolutely ridiculous that they are upgrading multiple markets around the country and the nations capital is still getting a pittance. Even plain 4G service is quite spotty.
And all this at equivalent Verizon pricing. simply amazing
Shuttle heat shield tiles may work. Lightweight and they had to withstand similar energy for a longer duration of time.
Not saying it's easy or cheap, but it's a concrete knowable problem that has had lots of similar problems solved previously.
Certainly an interesting material/chemical engineering problem. Another key difference is the duration of exposure. If you have something with a sufficiently high resistance but low durability it may still be adequate since it's job is done quickly. If I remember, the shuttle tiles were a problem because they were both fragile and had to be stable for multiple minutes in plasma conditions.
I also don't know if you could 'shape' the payload. If the centrifuge would make you have to shoot roundish objects versus a pointed nose cone. That alone would make a huge difference in the requirements.
Certainly a constraint, but one key difference. It gets less resistive as you go, the opposite of coming in. At 6 kilometers/sec, you're out of the really dense atmosphere pretty quickly.
They specifically say it isn't for delicate things. The concept they're using is putting bulk building materials in space cheaply and saving the 'delicate' stuff like people for the expensive and less taxing delivery of rockets.
As has been noted, weaponizing seems the first likely destination.
I believe there's a facility in Utah that specializes in cloud data storage...
Yes we are. However, the technology in place today would make all three have multiple orgasms. We can run much much much faster down the slope than you perhaps care to admit.
You mean the deficit that's been reduced from 30-50% in the last 4 years depending on your numbers? It's going in the right direction, but lack of serious investment is going to cut short the recovery. That investment has to come from the government because infrastructure isn't paid for by private firms.