I'm not sure you understand the term "probable cause" if that's your contention. The existence of a mathematical "probability" (which could easily be 1:1,000,000,000 and still be called such) does not demonstrate "probable cause".
This whole operation falls apart at the words "TSA Regulations." There's no acceptable justification for routine searches of these cars under the fourth amendment. They're not getting on the planes, therefore the (already questionable) reasoning being used to have passengers searched doesn't apply here at all.
It's not dishonest if I haven't bothered to research the case. Merely ill-informed. In this case, I read about it several months ago, and am simply going off what bits and pieces I remember.
But, as you said, my point is still valid generally speaking.
And I always assume being two hops from a terrorist is one "like" on something random (i.e. "hiking" or "tacos" or some such nonsense) on Facebook away.
Which is exactly why I support a complete combing through of our laws that have built up over the years to examine whether each one is valid, obsolete, broken, or contradictory, and throw out, simplify, rewrite, or (in probably rare cases) preserve them as makes actual sense. you've made an outstanding point when you describe what this law was intended to actually do. It was never meant to be easy to use, or even heavily used. It was meant to specifically target very hard to catch (but already identified) people. Which ironically meets the terns of the fourth amendment quite plainly. You know the persons or places to be targeted, and what is being sought, and can back it with probable cause. The NSA, on the other hand, gives us none of these constitutionally required criteria. Whether it works has FA to do with it when it's flat out illegal to do anyway.
There were a lot of problems with the whole Swartz case. In particular, that his actions were considered grounds for harsher punishment than many murderers and rapists. I don't care about the documents half as much as I care about the fact that our system is so broken that copying data is so disproportionately punished.
It doesn't even matter if Aaron was right or wrong when the fundamental laws, rules and regulations of the case were so flawed in the first place.
I know exactly how they process that one. Hold sign with name nad numbers, photo from the front, photo from the side, fingerprints, get in your orange jumpsuit.
I'm surrounded by technology day in and day out. I have a smartphone and tablet, and I'm currently sitting in a room with four servers, two desktops, and three laptops around me (most of the non-server systems are prepping for redeployment). When I get away from the office, I want less digital contact with anything at all, not more. Add this into the excessive tracking of any and all digital footprint, and I'm constantly contemplating shutting off my phone any time I'm not specifically using it.
Sure, the product will get used. That was never a doubt that I had. However, whether it ought to be or not. Now that's a more interesting one. Bring into play more standard anonymization and encryption by default and maybe I'll come around. But I'll still be a skeptic.
A law on its own isn't really a solution here. What is needed is a constitutional amendment appending specific protections against this kind of thing to the Constitution.
The way I see it, there are two fundamental problems with applying the Fourth Amendment to this in our current legal system:
First, the records are not ours. They belong to the telecoms. Therefore, they can give them to any bloody person they choose. In fact, a citizen challenging this in court may even be told they have no standing to challenge it on fourth amendment grounds because it is not their own records, but the records of the telecoms.
Second, and more troubling, is that the law mentioned in TFA is certainly in violation of the intent of the Fourth Amendment, but not necessarily the letter of it. The unfortunate reality is that under the current system, law enforcement officials are probably correct to argue the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" point, legally speaking.
However, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that your whereabouts be stored by public or private entities in a way useful for tracking you. In fact, we have laws against that already. If not universally, certainly in most places, that would be considered stalking.
We have to realize that piling laws on top of laws isn't a solution when the law already violates our basic civil rights as intended by the Bill of Rights.
The only solution I can think of is clarifying amendments to the constitution that make clear our rights in a technologically saturated age. Without electing the right people, though, we stand no chance.
is in primaries and at the ballot box. And even then, we need to be far more careful about who we put in office. Most of the people we can actually count on will not come with D or R next to their name, and you can pretty well bet that they won't be incumbents in over 90% of races.
I can barely keep track of the cars around me in some traffic patterns, much less take the time to read each license plate. And seriously, a tan Lexus? Here in Texas, it's inevitably "white Ford Explorer" or "Blue black Chevy pickup" or some other horribly common vehicle. Maybe if kidnappers start driving more distinct cars, like an old VW painted like a ladybug or something, I'll be a little more alert to it.
can somebody please pick another letter of the alphabet? e- wore itself out years ago, i- seems to be getting old. Time to move on to the next vowel? oKnife? Might be big in Ireland...
as long as they open their standard. If I can choose an open-source implementation written by someone else, I'm much more interested and inclined to really use the service.
If you are motivated more by money than by whether people are enjoying or appreciating what you've created, I don't want to listen to your music. Thank you for making it easier not to help money get into your pocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, my friend. But to get here, we went through 2001-2005 with television providing us with our two minutes of hate every evening following 9/11.
I'm not sure you understand the term "probable cause" if that's your contention. The existence of a mathematical "probability" (which could easily be 1:1,000,000,000 and still be called such) does not demonstrate "probable cause".
This whole operation falls apart at the words "TSA Regulations." There's no acceptable justification for routine searches of these cars under the fourth amendment. They're not getting on the planes, therefore the (already questionable) reasoning being used to have passengers searched doesn't apply here at all.
I was wondering why I keep checking Slashdot and then I found this comment section. Bravo, my good chaps!
It's not dishonest if I haven't bothered to research the case. Merely ill-informed. In this case, I read about it several months ago, and am simply going off what bits and pieces I remember.
But, as you said, my point is still valid generally speaking.
And I always assume being two hops from a terrorist is one "like" on something random (i.e. "hiking" or "tacos" or some such nonsense) on Facebook away.
That means they're going to have a huge contest where almost everyone who enters wins one, right?
Which is exactly why I support a complete combing through of our laws that have built up over the years to examine whether each one is valid, obsolete, broken, or contradictory, and throw out, simplify, rewrite, or (in probably rare cases) preserve them as makes actual sense. you've made an outstanding point when you describe what this law was intended to actually do. It was never meant to be easy to use, or even heavily used. It was meant to specifically target very hard to catch (but already identified) people. Which ironically meets the terns of the fourth amendment quite plainly. You know the persons or places to be targeted, and what is being sought, and can back it with probable cause. The NSA, on the other hand, gives us none of these constitutionally required criteria. Whether it works has FA to do with it when it's flat out illegal to do anyway.
Anyone who believed at any point that this was not the case is a fool.
There were a lot of problems with the whole Swartz case. In particular, that his actions were considered grounds for harsher punishment than many murderers and rapists. I don't care about the documents half as much as I care about the fact that our system is so broken that copying data is so disproportionately punished.
It doesn't even matter if Aaron was right or wrong when the fundamental laws, rules and regulations of the case were so flawed in the first place.
At this revelation, it doesn't take a libertarian to point out that this isn't based on probable cause.
I know exactly how they process that one. Hold sign with name nad numbers, photo from the front, photo from the side, fingerprints, get in your orange jumpsuit.
I don't see how that applies here. You seem to be treating a general statement as if it were an absolute one.
I'm surrounded by technology day in and day out. I have a smartphone and tablet, and I'm currently sitting in a room with four servers, two desktops, and three laptops around me (most of the non-server systems are prepping for redeployment). When I get away from the office, I want less digital contact with anything at all, not more. Add this into the excessive tracking of any and all digital footprint, and I'm constantly contemplating shutting off my phone any time I'm not specifically using it.
Sure, the product will get used. That was never a doubt that I had. However, whether it ought to be or not. Now that's a more interesting one. Bring into play more standard anonymization and encryption by default and maybe I'll come around. But I'll still be a skeptic.
Technology is no longer just a crutch. It's a yoke.
I hate agreeing with Carter.
A law on its own isn't really a solution here. What is needed is a constitutional amendment appending specific protections against this kind of thing to the Constitution.
The way I see it, there are two fundamental problems with applying the Fourth Amendment to this in our current legal system:
First, the records are not ours. They belong to the telecoms. Therefore, they can give them to any bloody person they choose. In fact, a citizen challenging this in court may even be told they have no standing to challenge it on fourth amendment grounds because it is not their own records, but the records of the telecoms.
Second, and more troubling, is that the law mentioned in TFA is certainly in violation of the intent of the Fourth Amendment, but not necessarily the letter of it. The unfortunate reality is that under the current system, law enforcement officials are probably correct to argue the "no reasonable expectation of privacy" point, legally speaking.
However, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that your whereabouts be stored by public or private entities in a way useful for tracking you. In fact, we have laws against that already. If not universally, certainly in most places, that would be considered stalking.
We have to realize that piling laws on top of laws isn't a solution when the law already violates our basic civil rights as intended by the Bill of Rights.
The only solution I can think of is clarifying amendments to the constitution that make clear our rights in a technologically saturated age. Without electing the right people, though, we stand no chance.
is in primaries and at the ballot box. And even then, we need to be far more careful about who we put in office. Most of the people we can actually count on will not come with D or R next to their name, and you can pretty well bet that they won't be incumbents in over 90% of races.
The cool thing about this is inevitably somebody would hack CUPS into Windows...
I can barely keep track of the cars around me in some traffic patterns, much less take the time to read each license plate. And seriously, a tan Lexus? Here in Texas, it's inevitably "white Ford Explorer" or "Blue black Chevy pickup" or some other horribly common vehicle. Maybe if kidnappers start driving more distinct cars, like an old VW painted like a ladybug or something, I'll be a little more alert to it.
can somebody please pick another letter of the alphabet? e- wore itself out years ago, i- seems to be getting old. Time to move on to the next vowel? oKnife? Might be big in Ireland...
I expect that this will probably be about as frequently enforced at the USA's National Do Not Call List.
as long as they open their standard. If I can choose an open-source implementation written by someone else, I'm much more interested and inclined to really use the service.
Awesome idea. My hat is off to you, sir!
If you are motivated more by money than by whether people are enjoying or appreciating what you've created, I don't want to listen to your music. Thank you for making it easier not to help money get into your pocket.