So when our survival relies on rebooting computers daily, we avoid the inverse question of whether human mental complexity is all that weighs against the convenience to some of murder.
On the other hand, when computers become intelligent enough to threaten our survival (however slightly), we'll start considering it.
science in general is always focused on definition
You're confusing science with linguisics. Science is focused on finding truth, not inventing words. Words are helpful in communicating truth, but words are not themselves truth.
You are only required to show your driver's license to law enforcement when you are suspected of a traffic infraction or crime (speeding, running a stoplight, DWI, etc.).
Actually, you are required to show your driver's license regardless of suspicion when the police set up an "informational roadblock".
But that's hardly analogous: You don't have to show your license and announce your destination when you drive your car. [....] If the feds wanted me to get a biometric "license to fly" that I only had to produce when I was under suspicion of having committed a crime, I'd have far less objection.
Yes, you don't have to show you license and announce your destination every time you drive your car. But that's more due to the unreasonableness of the intrusion weighed against any benefit such as keeping unfit drivers off the road. In any case, it wasn't an analogy.
You asked "How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?" Now I should have stopped you right there, and asked you what the relevance of your question was. But I answered instead, saying that "they've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained." I was referring to the requirement that one provide a photo ID in order to board a plane. Now, I know the airlines have been requiring this for years, with some exceptions (I think people under a certain age, for instance). Whether or not it's an actual federal law doesn't really matter for the purpose of our discussion, because regardless of whether it's the government or the airline requiring it people find it to be perfectly reasonable. Now, you said I'm "stretching the definition", so really we need to go back to what you mean by your original question. Specifically, are you saying that this law being considered by Congress is going to extend this in some way? [In terms of this question I've assumed we're asking it from the view of whether or not it "should" be Unconstitutional, not whether or not there is precedent that it is. If you'd prefer to focus on the question of precedent, I can do that, but I think precedent is even more clearly in favor of this being Constiutional. Either way you really need to be more specific. What law or proposed law are you referring to?]
How would you interpret that exchange?
I interpret the exchange as a meaningless quibble. Going back to the initial statement, you said that "The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions." Now, without looking at the actual law in question, since you haven't provided it, I'd presume that it's saying that airlines which engage in interstate or international commerce must verify the identity of their passengers by checking a photo ID. Yes, in my initial answer I didn't think about international flights or flights connecting to DC, but Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate international commerce, to regulate pretty much everything in DC, and to make all laws necessary to use that power.
I do not believe that predominently liberal members of the ACLU really wanted Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL in 1978, but they fought for the right of the Nazis to do so. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as they come.
They're not partisan with respect to different groups of people, but they're quite partisan when it comes to which side of an issue their going to be on (favoring more or less government restriction over speech, for instance, more relevantly, favoring more or less restrictions on government searches). When the ACLU sees a case in which it feels the government is perfectly within its rights to limit speech or make a search, the ACLU isn't going to argue that case for the government, they're going to remain silent on the issue, and 9 times out of 10 they're going to take the position that the go
Much more interesting, and tractable, is the "what is 'intelligence'?" question. After I've built up weeks of complex state in my computer's RAM, is it ethical to powercycle it?
But this is exactly the distinction I think we should avoid. Is it unethical to destroy a computer's built up complex state? It depends on your purpose, not on some universal concept of "intelligence" and whether or not the computer falls under it. In fact, I don't even think the words "ethical" and "unethical" exist as a strict dichotomy. With both concepts we can answer certain obvious questions like "is a rock more or less intelligent than George W. Bush" (OK maybe that one's not so obvious;)) or "is it more ethical to murder innocent people without their permission or to protect them", but when it comes to drawing a strict line in the sand I don't think it can be done.
If the Earth was seeded with RNA 3.5B years ago, which evolved to us, and the exochemical processes from which that RNA derived also contained matter distributed in a humanoid shape, is that god?
God is one of the least well defined terms of all. Perhaps a more meaningful question is whether or not the originator of the Universe cares about you. But then again, how could we define "cares about". Maybe "god" is just shorthand for a bunch of smaller questions which people ask and answer. Not having experienced much of religions outside Christianity it's hard for me to define God outside of Moses and Jesus and Heaven and Hell. I mean, does anyone really believe that "the Earth...humanoid shape"?
Has anybody around here really looked at what the Libertarian party stands for?
I have, and while I think they take just about every issue too far to the extreme, I find myself essentially a moderate Libertarian.
And I've never voted for a Republican, have voted for a number of Democrats (including Hillary Clinton), and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.
I know the World's Dumbest Political Quiz likes to put the Democrats and Republicans into groups based on bigger/smaller government in Economic and Personal freedom, but there's really very little truth to that particular distinction. Republicans and Democrats both want to spend about as much money, Democrats just want more progressive taxation, and Republicans want a flatter taxation. I'm not in favor of income taxes, but if we're going to have them, they shouldn't kick in until you're making at least $50,000 or so. Maybe Reagan ran on a platform of cutting government spending (and there were a lot of so called "Reagan Democrats"), but I haven't seen a real push toward this since Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
I don't care very much about gun laws, at least not to where I think it matters who's President (the vast majority of gun laws are state, not federal). Get rid of that, and why do people vote for Bush? Because he'll kick ass in Iraq? Not exactly a Libertarian value. Because he's in favor of a law banning partial birth abortion? Sure, the Libertarians are neutral on the abortion issue, but they're still against federal laws banning it. Because he wants a flag burning Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act and a stronger PATRIOT Act and prayer during high school football games and a war on drugs and corporate welfare and tort reform? The Libertarian Party is against him on all these issues.
I'm sorry, if the Republicans stuck to their original principles, maybe I'd be willing to vote for them once in a while. Maybe I'd even join the party. But vote for Bush just so people making more than $200,000 a year pay less in taxes? It's just not worth giving up all those much more important issues.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
It's very simple: To keep the government out of the personal lives of law-abiding citizens.
But that would also keep the government out of the public lives of law-breaking citizens.
All of the situations I described only required the recording of a simple phonecall or the monitoring of a private discussion in a public area, which according to you is A-OK for the government to monitor even if they don't have a good reason.
I never said that was A-OK. You are putting words into my mouth.
If there's no reason to suspect me of doing anything illegal, why do they need to collect information about me to begin with?
What makes you think they're collecting information about you to begin with?
You're pointing to the rarest of cases and claiming it warrents an overhaul of the whole system.
You seem to be reading too much into what I've said. Where have I suggested that we should overhaul the whole system?
I have no idea. I think the whole question of what is/isn't a lifeform is a rather pointless one. Life is whatever we define it to be. Is an ant farm one life or many? Is the Earth one life or a lot? Is a mother and her fetus one life or two? I don't think there's an empirical answer to these questions. You can define life however you want.
That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.
I don't see how it's stretching the definition. There's nothing wrong with requiring biometric data on your driver's license, that's the point. But furthermore, the government isn't planning on including any additional biometric data on your driver's license anyway.
I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.
I know all about the case, and I also know that the EFF are on the losing side of an awful lot of them. They'll sue over just about anything, like trying to get a law declared Unconstitutional just because someone sent someone else a nasty letter mentioning it. An EFF lawsuit means nothing.
England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state."
A nation is a state. State: "A body politic, especially one constituting a nation".
Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.
I never said travelling to England was interstate commerce. Congress also has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, though, as well as the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", such as DC.
What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"
We'll see who wins that case, I guess. While I respect the legal opinions of most of those you've listed (though not the opinions of the EFF), you have to realize they are all partisan, so they're not exactly looking at the law from a purely legal point of view. They're taking the answer they want to get and trying to figure out an interpretation which supports that answer.
Your sig is Fact, that's what he said, but it is so far out of context and missing so much information that it might as well be a fairy tail.
It's meant to be a funny/stupid Bushism, not insightful political commentary. It could lead to a discussion about the absurdity of letting Bush determine which lives are kept and which are destroyed, but really it's just meant to be funny.
That's why I never liked biology. Too much of it seems focused on definitions, rather than real substance. "Organism" is a word, nothing more. There is nothing fundamental about it.
Under this concept, the only simple organisms would be bacterial, because even eukaryotic cells could be seen as 'superorganisms', harboring components of bacterial origins (mitochondrions) we can't live without.
Mitochondria are certainly not generally considered organisms. I assume this would be because they are not capable of independent reproduction (like virii, which were mentioned incorrectly in the summary as organisms). I'm fairly sure eukaryotic cells aren't considered organisms either.
And I guess, under this point of view, that even Earth itself could be seen as a very large, living and breathing 'superorganism'... not unlike environmentalists see it, actually.
Google for "Gaia". This is exactly what ssome environmentalists say.
What's new is that someone has recognized that this fits the definition of a superorganism and pointed it out. I think it's somewhat interesting, but it's kind of obvious to anyone who hasn't taken their biology classes too seriously.
True, but "privacy", especially in the context of the Constitution, doesn't mean the same as "not allowing the government to track your whereabouts and travel". The Fourth Amendment, for instance, says that "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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." These qualifications imply that one has a much lower expectation of privacy when travelling using public transportation.
I didn't say that privacy wasn't a right. It is. I wouldn't call it a freedom, since it's more a restriction on the freedom of others. But a "law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel". That's not a fundamental right or a freedom.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
Do you really not see the problem with this? That information just doesn't disappear once they realize you're doing nothing illegal. It gets sent to some file or saved on a computer hard drive.
I don't see how that's any justification for probable cause to be necessary to gather any information.
Ever done anything you're embarrassed about--wouldn't want your loved ones to know?
Sure, I guess. And the kind of searching the government would have to do to get that information should certainly require a court order. But you asked if the government should require reasonable cause to gather information, implying that this would be for any information, including that which is already publically available, or that which you have already given to someone else without having them promise not to redistribute it.
If the government has unfettered access to the private lives of LAW-ABIDING citizens, what's to stop a little (hell.. A LOT) malfeasance or blackmail from occurring?
If the government is going to break the law by malfeasance or blackmail, what's to stop them from breaking the law on gathering information? In any case, I never said the government shouldn't have unfettered access to the private lives of citizens. Some searches, most searches even, should require probable cause and a search warrant. But you asked me if the government should need probable cause to gather information, without any qualification whatsoever.
A question I've heard no proponent of the PATRIOT act answer is how can this portion of the bill be realistically checked?
I'm not about to defend the PATRIOT Act carte blanche. I'm sure there are parts of it that went to far. But you're trying to say that it should be illegal for one branch of government to voluntarily give information about the library books checked out by someone to another branch of government, even though that person gave that information to the library freely without promise that it wouldn't be transferred. I don't think you've got a point there.
The only real solution is to add judicial oversight into who does and doesn't get scrutinized, but of course, this is EXACTLY the check the law removed.
In certain extremely narrow cases. If you're going to go further with this, please at least refer me to the actual law.
Actually, the court is being asked to figure out what is true before the proceedings in this case. That's what a temporary injunction is, and reading the details I think they've got a good chance of getting one. Arizona certainly funds Arizona State University, and Arizona State University is clearly spending money on the debates.
So only interstate travel? So if I take a bus from Port Authority to Newark (about 20 miles) I have to show ID but if I go from Port Authority to Buffalo (about 400 miles) I don't? Does that make any sense? Are terrorists more likely to strike that bus because it crosses a magical line that doesn't mean anything if you aren't an American?
I think the point is to make it difficult for the terrorists to get around the country, not to stop them from blowing up busses.
Might I also point out that all of the 9/11 hijackers had valid forms of id.
Sure, go ahead. It doesn't matter, though, because 9/11 isn't going to happen again.
Why does being forced to have my ID scanned (and more likely then not a record of my trip recorded into a Government or Commercial database) make us any safer?
Because it makes it more likely that we're going to catch people who are illegally in the country.
And perhaps you've not been out from under your rock lately, but there is an ongoing lawsuit about just requiring any ID for air or ground transport.
You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.
In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
One is a state, the other is located within a state.
I know far more about Constitional law than you do -- as you have so clearly demonstrated.
Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong. You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.
The debate is being run by a taxpayer funded school, and the state constitution explicitly forbids tax money to go to be used to benefit a political party. So federal law has little to do with it, it's a state constitutional issue, and he's likely to win.
Slashdot Mirror
So when our survival relies on rebooting computers daily, we avoid the inverse question of whether human mental complexity is all that weighs against the convenience to some of murder.
On the other hand, when computers become intelligent enough to threaten our survival (however slightly), we'll start considering it.
science in general is always focused on definition
You're confusing science with linguisics. Science is focused on finding truth, not inventing words. Words are helpful in communicating truth, but words are not themselves truth.
Glad to see it's not just SCO that can artificially inflate the worth of software.
You are only required to show your driver's license to law enforcement when you are suspected of a traffic infraction or crime (speeding, running a stoplight, DWI, etc.).
Actually, you are required to show your driver's license regardless of suspicion when the police set up an "informational roadblock".
But that's hardly analogous: You don't have to show your license and announce your destination when you drive your car. [....] If the feds wanted me to get a biometric "license to fly" that I only had to produce when I was under suspicion of having committed a crime, I'd have far less objection.
Yes, you don't have to show you license and announce your destination every time you drive your car. But that's more due to the unreasonableness of the intrusion weighed against any benefit such as keeping unfit drivers off the road. In any case, it wasn't an analogy.
You asked "How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?" Now I should have stopped you right there, and asked you what the relevance of your question was. But I answered instead, saying that "they've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained." I was referring to the requirement that one provide a photo ID in order to board a plane. Now, I know the airlines have been requiring this for years, with some exceptions (I think people under a certain age, for instance). Whether or not it's an actual federal law doesn't really matter for the purpose of our discussion, because regardless of whether it's the government or the airline requiring it people find it to be perfectly reasonable. Now, you said I'm "stretching the definition", so really we need to go back to what you mean by your original question. Specifically, are you saying that this law being considered by Congress is going to extend this in some way? [In terms of this question I've assumed we're asking it from the view of whether or not it "should" be Unconstitutional, not whether or not there is precedent that it is. If you'd prefer to focus on the question of precedent, I can do that, but I think precedent is even more clearly in favor of this being Constiutional. Either way you really need to be more specific. What law or proposed law are you referring to?]
How would you interpret that exchange?
I interpret the exchange as a meaningless quibble. Going back to the initial statement, you said that "The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions." Now, without looking at the actual law in question, since you haven't provided it, I'd presume that it's saying that airlines which engage in interstate or international commerce must verify the identity of their passengers by checking a photo ID. Yes, in my initial answer I didn't think about international flights or flights connecting to DC, but Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate international commerce, to regulate pretty much everything in DC, and to make all laws necessary to use that power.
I do not believe that predominently liberal members of the ACLU really wanted Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL in 1978, but they fought for the right of the Nazis to do so. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as they come.
They're not partisan with respect to different groups of people, but they're quite partisan when it comes to which side of an issue their going to be on (favoring more or less government restriction over speech, for instance, more relevantly, favoring more or less restrictions on government searches). When the ACLU sees a case in which it feels the government is perfectly within its rights to limit speech or make a search, the ACLU isn't going to argue that case for the government, they're going to remain silent on the issue, and 9 times out of 10 they're going to take the position that the go
Much more interesting, and tractable, is the "what is 'intelligence'?" question. After I've built up weeks of complex state in my computer's RAM, is it ethical to powercycle it?
But this is exactly the distinction I think we should avoid. Is it unethical to destroy a computer's built up complex state? It depends on your purpose, not on some universal concept of "intelligence" and whether or not the computer falls under it. In fact, I don't even think the words "ethical" and "unethical" exist as a strict dichotomy. With both concepts we can answer certain obvious questions like "is a rock more or less intelligent than George W. Bush" (OK maybe that one's not so obvious ;)) or "is it more ethical to murder innocent people without their permission or to protect them", but when it comes to drawing a strict line in the sand I don't think it can be done.
If the Earth was seeded with RNA 3.5B years ago, which evolved to us, and the exochemical processes from which that RNA derived also contained matter distributed in a humanoid shape, is that god?
God is one of the least well defined terms of all. Perhaps a more meaningful question is whether or not the originator of the Universe cares about you. But then again, how could we define "cares about". Maybe "god" is just shorthand for a bunch of smaller questions which people ask and answer. Not having experienced much of religions outside Christianity it's hard for me to define God outside of Moses and Jesus and Heaven and Hell. I mean, does anyone really believe that "the Earth...humanoid shape"?
Has anybody around here really looked at what the Libertarian party stands for?
I have, and while I think they take just about every issue too far to the extreme, I find myself essentially a moderate Libertarian.
And I've never voted for a Republican, have voted for a number of Democrats (including Hillary Clinton), and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.
I know the World's Dumbest Political Quiz likes to put the Democrats and Republicans into groups based on bigger/smaller government in Economic and Personal freedom, but there's really very little truth to that particular distinction. Republicans and Democrats both want to spend about as much money, Democrats just want more progressive taxation, and Republicans want a flatter taxation. I'm not in favor of income taxes, but if we're going to have them, they shouldn't kick in until you're making at least $50,000 or so. Maybe Reagan ran on a platform of cutting government spending (and there were a lot of so called "Reagan Democrats"), but I haven't seen a real push toward this since Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
I don't care very much about gun laws, at least not to where I think it matters who's President (the vast majority of gun laws are state, not federal). Get rid of that, and why do people vote for Bush? Because he'll kick ass in Iraq? Not exactly a Libertarian value. Because he's in favor of a law banning partial birth abortion? Sure, the Libertarians are neutral on the abortion issue, but they're still against federal laws banning it. Because he wants a flag burning Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act and a stronger PATRIOT Act and prayer during high school football games and a war on drugs and corporate welfare and tort reform? The Libertarian Party is against him on all these issues.
I'm sorry, if the Republicans stuck to their original principles, maybe I'd be willing to vote for them once in a while. Maybe I'd even join the party. But vote for Bush just so people making more than $200,000 a year pay less in taxes? It's just not worth giving up all those much more important issues.
I don't like the current copyright law, but the solution is to change the law, not make it unenforceable.
Eh, that's your opinion. Mine is that I don't like copyright law, and the solution is to make the law unenforcible.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
It's very simple: To keep the government out of the personal lives of law-abiding citizens.
But that would also keep the government out of the public lives of law-breaking citizens.
All of the situations I described only required the recording of a simple phonecall or the monitoring of a private discussion in a public area, which according to you is A-OK for the government to monitor even if they don't have a good reason.
I never said that was A-OK. You are putting words into my mouth.
If there's no reason to suspect me of doing anything illegal, why do they need to collect information about me to begin with?
What makes you think they're collecting information about you to begin with?
You're pointing to the rarest of cases and claiming it warrents an overhaul of the whole system.
You seem to be reading too much into what I've said. Where have I suggested that we should overhaul the whole system?
At least I didn't say "mitochondrions" :).
I have no idea. I think the whole question of what is/isn't a lifeform is a rather pointless one. Life is whatever we define it to be. Is an ant farm one life or many? Is the Earth one life or a lot? Is a mother and her fetus one life or two? I don't think there's an empirical answer to these questions. You can define life however you want.
A photo ID is biometric data.
That's really stretching the definition, but I did not used to have to provide a photo ID in years past.
I don't see how it's stretching the definition. There's nothing wrong with requiring biometric data on your driver's license, that's the point. But furthermore, the government isn't planning on including any additional biometric data on your driver's license anyway.
I suggest that you read actual information instead of wasting your time and mine with smart-assed answers.
I know all about the case, and I also know that the EFF are on the losing side of an awful lot of them. They'll sue over just about anything, like trying to get a law declared Unconstitutional just because someone sent someone else a nasty letter mentioning it. An EFF lawsuit means nothing.
England is a sovereign nation, not a state (those fireworks on July 4 are there for a reason) and Washington, D.C. is not "within a state."
A nation is a state. State: "A body politic, especially one constituting a nation".
Traveling to England is not "interstate commerce," so admit that your argument was flawed and move on.
I never said travelling to England was interstate commerce. Congress also has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, though, as well as the power "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", such as DC.
What a crock. I smacked you down hard before and I just did so again. Unlike you, I provided specific information about multiple Supreme Court decisions and pending cases. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Privacy Activism, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John Gilmore all have far more knowledge of the law than you. They maintain that the government-mandated requirement to present a photo-ID is unconstitutional. That carries a lot more weight than your virtual jumping up and down yelling "is not, is not, is not!"
We'll see who wins that case, I guess. While I respect the legal opinions of most of those you've listed (though not the opinions of the EFF), you have to realize they are all partisan, so they're not exactly looking at the law from a purely legal point of view. They're taking the answer they want to get and trying to figure out an interpretation which supports that answer.
Your sig is Fact, that's what he said, but it is so far out of context and missing so much information that it might as well be a fairy tail.
It's meant to be a funny/stupid Bushism, not insightful political commentary. It could lead to a discussion about the absurdity of letting Bush determine which lives are kept and which are destroyed, but really it's just meant to be funny.
That's why I never liked biology. Too much of it seems focused on definitions, rather than real substance. "Organism" is a word, nothing more. There is nothing fundamental about it.
Under this concept, the only simple organisms would be bacterial, because even eukaryotic cells could be seen as 'superorganisms', harboring components of bacterial origins (mitochondrions) we can't live without.
Mitochondria are certainly not generally considered organisms. I assume this would be because they are not capable of independent reproduction (like virii, which were mentioned incorrectly in the summary as organisms). I'm fairly sure eukaryotic cells aren't considered organisms either.
And I guess, under this point of view, that even Earth itself could be seen as a very large, living and breathing 'superorganism'... not unlike environmentalists see it, actually.
Google for "Gaia". This is exactly what ssome environmentalists say.
Not exactly. A "superorganism is an organism consisting of organisms."
What's new is that someone has recognized that this fits the definition of a superorganism and pointed it out. I think it's somewhat interesting, but it's kind of obvious to anyone who hasn't taken their biology classes too seriously.
Privacy is FUNDAMENTAL to a free society.
True, but "privacy", especially in the context of the Constitution, doesn't mean the same as "not allowing the government to track your whereabouts and travel". The Fourth Amendment, for instance, says that "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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." These qualifications imply that one has a much lower expectation of privacy when travelling using public transportation.
I didn't say that privacy wasn't a right. It is. I wouldn't call it a freedom, since it's more a restriction on the freedom of others. But a "law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel". That's not a fundamental right or a freedom.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
Do you really not see the problem with this? That information just doesn't disappear once they realize you're doing nothing illegal. It gets sent to some file or saved on a computer hard drive.
I don't see how that's any justification for probable cause to be necessary to gather any information.
Ever done anything you're embarrassed about--wouldn't want your loved ones to know?
Sure, I guess. And the kind of searching the government would have to do to get that information should certainly require a court order. But you asked if the government should require reasonable cause to gather information, implying that this would be for any information, including that which is already publically available, or that which you have already given to someone else without having them promise not to redistribute it.
If the government has unfettered access to the private lives of LAW-ABIDING citizens, what's to stop a little (hell.. A LOT) malfeasance or blackmail from occurring?
If the government is going to break the law by malfeasance or blackmail, what's to stop them from breaking the law on gathering information? In any case, I never said the government shouldn't have unfettered access to the private lives of citizens. Some searches, most searches even, should require probable cause and a search warrant. But you asked me if the government should need probable cause to gather information, without any qualification whatsoever.
A question I've heard no proponent of the PATRIOT act answer is how can this portion of the bill be realistically checked?
I'm not about to defend the PATRIOT Act carte blanche. I'm sure there are parts of it that went to far. But you're trying to say that it should be illegal for one branch of government to voluntarily give information about the library books checked out by someone to another branch of government, even though that person gave that information to the library freely without promise that it wouldn't be transferred. I don't think you've got a point there.
The only real solution is to add judicial oversight into who does and doesn't get scrutinized, but of course, this is EXACTLY the check the law removed.
In certain extremely narrow cases. If you're going to go further with this, please at least refer me to the actual law.
Actually, the court is being asked to figure out what is true before the proceedings in this case. That's what a temporary injunction is, and reading the details I think they've got a good chance of getting one. Arizona certainly funds Arizona State University, and Arizona State University is clearly spending money on the debates.
Here's an idea. Buy a clue, and then get back to me.
So only interstate travel? So if I take a bus from Port Authority to Newark (about 20 miles) I have to show ID but if I go from Port Authority to Buffalo (about 400 miles) I don't? Does that make any sense? Are terrorists more likely to strike that bus because it crosses a magical line that doesn't mean anything if you aren't an American?
I think the point is to make it difficult for the terrorists to get around the country, not to stop them from blowing up busses.
Might I also point out that all of the 9/11 hijackers had valid forms of id.
Sure, go ahead. It doesn't matter, though, because 9/11 isn't going to happen again.
Why does being forced to have my ID scanned (and more likely then not a record of my trip recorded into a Government or Commercial database) make us any safer?
Because it makes it more likely that we're going to catch people who are illegally in the country.
The state of Arizona is spending exactly 0 dollars in this whole operation.
Somehow I doubt this case would have been brought to court if that were true. But we'll see whether or not the court buys this argument.
No, they have not required biometric data to fly.
A photo ID is biometric data.
And perhaps you've not been out from under your rock lately, but there is an ongoing lawsuit about just requiring any ID for air or ground transport.
You can find a lawsuit about just about anything.
In fact, you have to produce ID when travelling from Washington, D.C. to England, neither of which is a state.
One is a state, the other is located within a state.
I know far more about Constitional law than you do -- as you have so clearly demonstrated.
Your answer to the clear point that something is not unconstitutional is to say that the Supreme Court is wrong. You're the one who has demonstrated no knowledge of the law.
The debate is being run by a taxpayer funded school, and the state constitution explicitly forbids tax money to go to be used to benefit a political party. So federal law has little to do with it, it's a state constitutional issue, and he's likely to win.
It's a request for a temporary injunction, and it's scheduled for the day before the debate.