More than anything else, we need a government reset, not a constitution rewrite. I've been saying since the late 90s that the biggest thing we can do to save our nation from its government is to simply take the time, as a nation, to re-evaluate every part of the US Code and other governmental acts and throw most of them out on the grounds of either being discredited or outmoded based on its intent, or no longer performing its intended function for other reasons. What remains after such a process would definitely need to be rewritten and simplified.
If it takes a lawyer to know whether any laws are broken, it is too complex a legal system for a free society.
It's not the constitution that fails when the men who execute it are what broke it. The constitution itself is still fairly solid, our government's adherence to it not so much.
Sure, that's one concern, but to me, it's less of a concern than I'd have for firemen responding to a car fire or car accident. There's a lot of question-marks on what that would actually mean for both occupants and rescuers.
One of the best reasons to keep the battery packs in the bottom of a car is to keep them protected.
Portions maybe, but the convenient loophole these days is to refuse to hear cases by claiming the parties bringing suit lack standing. Especially when the claimants are actively prevented from gathering information to prove standing, though sometimes they just reject that outright in the first place.
Unelectable raving loonies like John McCain and Mitt Romney? I think we're already seeing a split between normal conservatives and unelectable raving loonies like that.
And that's not even getting into the various ways to potentially abuse them to discriminate like crazy against people from out of town/state. It would be extremely easy for a cop with a plate reader to target, for example, people with SoCal registration addresses who were unlikely to fight a ticket due to distance. Or rental cars. Or known members of political parties. Or women. Or people with names like Juan, Mohammad, or Tyrone. Or perfectly legal gun owners. The list goes on. Honestly, of the above listed technologies, the license plate readers are the ones that scare me the most.
Perhaps, but if they let people request things willy-nilly, they could at least figure out which ones were most requested as opposed to what was in people's top two. My wife uses Overdrive all the time, but I haven't tried it.
You are correct that it varies from library to library. It's just hard to know what each library does. I haven't physically checked out a book in a long time, but only because I have such a stack of books that I own at present and haven't read yet.
Clearly you don't understand my post. I see the point you're trying to convey, but it's not actually applicable to what I'm saying. I am making it clear that you cannot judge a plan by its intent but by its effect, and that understanding where the other person is coming from is key when discussing the matter with them specifically.
No, you're talking about a budget proposal. Those can come from anybody. The budget, as with any spending bill, originates in the House, and the House is free to completely reject anyone's proposal, including the President's and any congressmen's proposals. You're making an argument that does not actually work.
I actually tend to agree with you on that. I just don't use email for much of anything at this point other than resetting passwords to various accounts online when necessary. Back when I did use it more, I did the same, and encrypted when available (signed when not).
While that's true, I think the outrage is bigger than people realize. I just think it's not more actively and vocally made known because people believe they have no way to stop, slow, or change it at all.
It's not the court so much as legislators that need to be made aware of just how this is a bad thing. They actually write laws, while courts make them up as they go.
Traditional libraries have been, until the PATRIOT Act, fairly anonymous as far as surveillance is concerned. That was one of the advantages of them until recently. Now they are only anonymous if you hide your face from any cameras and read the whole book without checking it out.
I have a feeling Mr. Greenwald's articles will continue in The Guardian, but being external may help them avoid some of the legal hassles they are presently subjected to.
I'm convinced there are terrorists plotting out there. I'm just not convinced that the government, in their supposed efforts to stop them, is any better, and that in all likelihood they are just as bad if not worse.
Slashdot Mirror
More than anything else, we need a government reset, not a constitution rewrite. I've been saying since the late 90s that the biggest thing we can do to save our nation from its government is to simply take the time, as a nation, to re-evaluate every part of the US Code and other governmental acts and throw most of them out on the grounds of either being discredited or outmoded based on its intent, or no longer performing its intended function for other reasons. What remains after such a process would definitely need to be rewritten and simplified.
If it takes a lawyer to know whether any laws are broken, it is too complex a legal system for a free society.
It's not the constitution that fails when the men who execute it are what broke it. The constitution itself is still fairly solid, our government's adherence to it not so much.
That would be the common-sense version, but rarely doe that end up being the final answer.
Hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones - all basically the same, just in different geographical locations.
Sure, that's one concern, but to me, it's less of a concern than I'd have for firemen responding to a car fire or car accident. There's a lot of question-marks on what that would actually mean for both occupants and rescuers.
One of the best reasons to keep the battery packs in the bottom of a car is to keep them protected.
Portions maybe, but the convenient loophole these days is to refuse to hear cases by claiming the parties bringing suit lack standing. Especially when the claimants are actively prevented from gathering information to prove standing, though sometimes they just reject that outright in the first place.
Unelectable raving loonies like John McCain and Mitt Romney? I think we're already seeing a split between normal conservatives and unelectable raving loonies like that.
And that's not even getting into the various ways to potentially abuse them to discriminate like crazy against people from out of town/state. It would be extremely easy for a cop with a plate reader to target, for example, people with SoCal registration addresses who were unlikely to fight a ticket due to distance. Or rental cars. Or known members of political parties. Or women. Or people with names like Juan, Mohammad, or Tyrone. Or perfectly legal gun owners. The list goes on. Honestly, of the above listed technologies, the license plate readers are the ones that scare me the most.
I hate it when truth, rather than be stranger than fiction, makes fiction stop feeling so fictitious.
Bitte trinken Sie viel Gift.
It's law, it's just unconstitutional law. And you're right, exceeding their authority is a form of usurpation.
They were holding it politely.
It's really not more complicated, at least in this case.
I only wish so many governments weren't perfectly willing to help you with that.
Perhaps, but if they let people request things willy-nilly, they could at least figure out which ones were most requested as opposed to what was in people's top two. My wife uses Overdrive all the time, but I haven't tried it.
You are correct that it varies from library to library. It's just hard to know what each library does. I haven't physically checked out a book in a long time, but only because I have such a stack of books that I own at present and haven't read yet.
Clearly you don't understand my post. I see the point you're trying to convey, but it's not actually applicable to what I'm saying. I am making it clear that you cannot judge a plan by its intent but by its effect, and that understanding where the other person is coming from is key when discussing the matter with them specifically.
No, you're talking about a budget proposal. Those can come from anybody. The budget, as with any spending bill, originates in the House, and the House is free to completely reject anyone's proposal, including the President's and any congressmen's proposals. You're making an argument that does not actually work.
I actually tend to agree with you on that. I just don't use email for much of anything at this point other than resetting passwords to various accounts online when necessary. Back when I did use it more, I did the same, and encrypted when available (signed when not).
While that's true, I think the outrage is bigger than people realize. I just think it's not more actively and vocally made known because people believe they have no way to stop, slow, or change it at all.
It's not the court so much as legislators that need to be made aware of just how this is a bad thing. They actually write laws, while courts make them up as they go.
Exactly. Just like how all those myriad PC-compatible components one can choose from totally destroyed Windows.
Traditional libraries have been, until the PATRIOT Act, fairly anonymous as far as surveillance is concerned. That was one of the advantages of them until recently. Now they are only anonymous if you hide your face from any cameras and read the whole book without checking it out.
I have a feeling Mr. Greenwald's articles will continue in The Guardian, but being external may help them avoid some of the legal hassles they are presently subjected to.
I'm not convinced you read my post before responding.
I'm convinced there are terrorists plotting out there. I'm just not convinced that the government, in their supposed efforts to stop them, is any better, and that in all likelihood they are just as bad if not worse.