I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.
Your loss.
But "intrusion" isn't the issue. The issue is the invasion of privacy.
Semantics.
It's not a tort for you to use a parabolic microphone hear what your neighbors are saying, but it would be for law enforcement to do so without probable cause.
If that's true (and I'm not sure if it is), then I disagree with it. What ruling was this, anyway?
Me: I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them.
Whether you said it or not, they do have that right. They can simply state that the person had come in contact with controlled nuclear materials and that he/she provided no explanation for same. Thus, the detention.
So it's reasonable to lock someone up for coming into contact with a controlled nuclear materials, but it's not reasonable to have a radiation detector detect that in the first place, with a minimum of invasion of privacy? In any case, the court has "never held that potential, as opposed to actual, invasions of privacy constitute searches for purposes of the Fourth Amendment" (US v. Karo). So the question is what is the actual in vasion of privacy of the detector, not what is the potential invasion.
For example, there is the Texas case of Tannahill v. Lockney where an entire student body is being targeted for drug testing.
That's a much different case. The ruling I mentioned was specifically written to only apply to students in extracurricular activities.
Me: I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.
Then why would you feel that radiation detectors pointed at innocent citizens were reasonable?
Because they can detect a dirty bomb, nuke, or other health dangers with a minimal of intrusion. I don't feel that using a radiation detector on my neighbor should be a tort, so I likewise don't believe that govenment use of one should be considered a search.
You think that someone has a lower expectation of privacy about the internal medical treatments they are receiving than does someone growing pot plants (Kyllo) in his home?
Radiation detectors don't determine internal medical treatments.
You are arguing semantics. Its use indirectly forces the patient to tell police officers why the detector went off. If no explanation is given, the person might be detained for hours, days, weeks, or even months as a suspected terrorist. I don't think that the police will let the person go unless he/she explains where they came in contact with nuclear materials.
Now you're the one being hypothetical. I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them. If you think that's reasonable, then I guess you understand why it's reasonable to search for it in the first place. I'm not about to argue about slippery slopes. The statement I made was that using the radiation detector was reasonable. I even admitted that the strip search may have been unreasonable (depends if there was other evidence that the article didn't mention). If you thought I was making any more broad of a statement, then you were mistaken.
Metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are clearly visible and there are even signs pointing out their use. People can choose to avoid them (by avoiding airline travel). The radiation detectors, as I understand from reading the articles, are neither visible nor is their use advertised.
Where did the articles say that there were no signs pointing out the use of radiation detectors? Not that it's relevant, as I think we'll both agree.
People can choose to avoid these radiation detectors by avoiding the subways, which once again I think we both agree is irrelevant.
I disagree that the other examples are reasonable searches.
Then don't bother bringing up Supreme Court rulings, because the Supreme Court has ruled that they are (except for the drug roadblock one, that's unreasonable in a 6-3 decision).
I side with the ACLU on those and some are still being fought through the court system.
Nope, they were all decided. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls. But I side with the ACLU on those cases as well, and I probably side with the ACLU on this question, of whether or not radiation detectors are reasonable.
So my concerns about a continued erosion of our Constitutional rights are "irrational" but your concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb are not? Why is that?
I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.
The Supreme Court, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that it ruled the way that it did because the device [an infrared imaging system] is not in general use by the public, so Kyllo had an expectation of privacy, and because the imaging provided by the camera revealed details about Kyllo's home "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."
This is a much different situation. For one thing, there is a much lower expectation of privacy. But even if it a search, which I admit it arguably is, it's a reasonable one.
I contend that, a cancer patient has reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their medical condition and treatmen regimen when they go out in public.
This detector does not detect tratement regimens, and certainly not medical conditions.
Radiation detectors are not in general use by the public and reveal information that would otherwise have been unknowable (to police). Thus, the use of said detectors is an unreasonable search.
No, you have not considered the governmental interest, so you have not shown whether or not the search is reasonable. For instance metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are reasonable, roadblocks to check for sobriety and even to search for drugs are reasonable, drug testing of students in extracurricular activities are reasonable, etc.
Me: Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person?
I said Constitutional rights, not civil rights.
Yes, and when a law enforcement official makes a search in violation of the 4th Amendment, they violate the person's civil rights.
I am easily your intellectual equal and I do not believe that the radiation detectors are a "good idea."
If indeed you are my intellectual equal then I can only conclude that you have some serious irrational fears.
They are an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches by law enforcement.
That's a most peculiar viewpoint. I'm not sure I would classify the use of a radiation detector as a search, let alone an unreasonable one. Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person? Or is it only dangerous forms of radiation which are unreasonable for a police officer to detect?
I do not believe in ceding Constitutional rights every time the Bush Administration cries "terrorist!"
Are you implying that I do?
I would appreciate it if you would debate not engage in pre-emptive ad-hominem attacks against anyone who does not share your opinions. Claiming that "anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea" implies that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid. That's no way to debate.
I think what we're asking is: what is a reasonable interpretation of this?
Isn't it reasonable to accept the term as it's defined in the fucking law?
Can you ROT13 something and claim DMCA protection?
Sure, why not?
That "effectively" looks like yet another example of lawyers (50% of both Houses are members of the American Bar Association) making more work for their own kind by introducing extraneous and nebulous terms
There's nothing nebulous whatsoever. They clearly define the term in the law.
For newspapers, maybe, but not for broadcast television or radio. The FCC routinely controls speech over these media, but they haven't been found unconstitional, since these media use the public airwaves under a license to promote the public interests.
You know if every slashdotter bought just 5 shares of Microsoft we could fire Bill Gates, GPL Windows, and break the company up into tiny little non-monopolistic pieces.
The tone comes from the top, dipshit. Do you think these little tinpots would be doing what they do if they didn't know they'd have backing from on high?
Take some anti-psychotic medications and get back to me. There's no "backing from on high" to engage in unconstitutional searches. Maybe to have radiation detectors in the first place, but anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea.
The use of a radiation detector can, effectively, force a cancer patient to admit their illness because, if they do not, they could face being locked up as suspected terrorists. Don't play semantics games.
I disagree that the use of a radiation detector can force a cancer patient to admit their illness. I'm sure if they passed the strip search they'd be free to go.
Quit acting so superior. I made an unsubstantiated claim and so did you.
I'm sorry. I don't agree. You made an unsubstantiated claim and I defended against it.
All depends whether or not you've been exposed to the Slashdot/EFF propaganda or the CBS/Disney propaganda. If you ask the average Joe if they think cracking tools should be illegal, they're probably going to tell you yes, they should. If you phrase it a little differently, and ask them if they should be allowed to listen to their CDs in their car, then they're going to answer differently.
Now if you're an honest politician, you're going to try to make a law which makes cracking tools illegal but still allows people to listen to their music in any place at any time they want. But it's in that nitty gritty lawyer stuff that the corporations have the most power.
Finally, look at it from the perspective of the average person. Most of us aren't selling or using software cracks, whether for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. And even those of us who only use cracks, and don't sell them, in reality there's about 0.000000% chance we're going to get caught.
If, as is suggested, other means of cracking these protected ebooks were used, will the authors of those programs be subject to arrest if they ever visit the US (assuming they are non-US residents)?
Nope, they weren't profiting off the distribution of the crack like Dmitry was, so they will never be caught (and their offense wasn't criminal anyway).
a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Kudos for actually reading the DMCA. But you have to read more than just the first paragraph.
fmaxwell: Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
anthony_dipierro: Yes.
So you stated that it was proper to force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers.
No, I implied that to use radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search. I never said anything about proper, and used the fact that a detector can't force anyone to do anything.
You stated that "Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this." Prove that claim.
Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution?
If it actually happened, probably not. But if it actually happened then the person should sue.
Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
Yes.
People need to open their eyes and see what kind of police state the Bush administration is creating -- before it's too late.
Actually Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was a search by the local police, not the federal government.
This betrays a lack of knowledge about the way IP addresses work... technically there is no reason why the same IP address could not be pointed to by a domain name both within kids.us and one outside it. Remember, domain names point to IP addresses, not the other way around.
Well, first of all, it's actually both ways. Think PTR records...
But more to the point, if the same IP address is pointed to by a domain name within and outside of.kids.us, that's not going to be a problem, because that server must necessarily be using the Host: field.
Getting around any restrictions (such as a web browser like you propose) would be trivially easy- as one example, you could set up your own DNS server, invent an alias kids.us address for any address you want to access, point your system at it and fly. Or you could simply spoof any reverse DNS queries back to your own system.
Simply spoof any reverse DNS queries? How exactly are you going to do that without some kind of administrator access on the machine? Actually, how are you going to set up your own DNS server using the IP address being used by the browser.
If you have administrator access, you can just download a new browser. But if you don't have administrator access, then your methods won't work. And if HTTP access is blocked except through a proxy, I'd like to see you spoof DNS queries being made by the proxy.
Slashdot Mirror
I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.
Your loss.
But "intrusion" isn't the issue. The issue is the invasion of privacy.
Semantics.
It's not a tort for you to use a parabolic microphone hear what your neighbors are saying, but it would be for law enforcement to do so without probable cause.
If that's true (and I'm not sure if it is), then I disagree with it. What ruling was this, anyway?
Me: I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them.
Whether you said it or not, they do have that right. They can simply state that the person had come in contact with controlled nuclear materials and that he/she provided no explanation for same. Thus, the detention.
So it's reasonable to lock someone up for coming into contact with a controlled nuclear materials, but it's not reasonable to have a radiation detector detect that in the first place, with a minimum of invasion of privacy? In any case, the court has "never held that potential, as opposed to actual, invasions of privacy constitute searches for purposes of the Fourth Amendment" (US v. Karo). So the question is what is the actual in vasion of privacy of the detector, not what is the potential invasion.
For example, there is the Texas case of Tannahill v. Lockney where an entire student body is being targeted for drug testing.
That's a much different case. The ruling I mentioned was specifically written to only apply to students in extracurricular activities.
Me: I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.
Then why would you feel that radiation detectors pointed at innocent citizens were reasonable?
Because they can detect a dirty bomb, nuke, or other health dangers with a minimal of intrusion. I don't feel that using a radiation detector on my neighbor should be a tort, so I likewise don't believe that govenment use of one should be considered a search.
You think that someone has a lower expectation of privacy about the internal medical treatments they are receiving than does someone growing pot plants (Kyllo) in his home?
Radiation detectors don't determine internal medical treatments.
You are arguing semantics. Its use indirectly forces the patient to tell police officers why the detector went off. If no explanation is given, the person might be detained for hours, days, weeks, or even months as a suspected terrorist. I don't think that the police will let the person go unless he/she explains where they came in contact with nuclear materials.
Now you're the one being hypothetical. I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them. If you think that's reasonable, then I guess you understand why it's reasonable to search for it in the first place. I'm not about to argue about slippery slopes. The statement I made was that using the radiation detector was reasonable. I even admitted that the strip search may have been unreasonable (depends if there was other evidence that the article didn't mention). If you thought I was making any more broad of a statement, then you were mistaken.
Metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are clearly visible and there are even signs pointing out their use. People can choose to avoid them (by avoiding airline travel). The radiation detectors, as I understand from reading the articles, are neither visible nor is their use advertised.
Where did the articles say that there were no signs pointing out the use of radiation detectors? Not that it's relevant, as I think we'll both agree.
People can choose to avoid these radiation detectors by avoiding the subways, which once again I think we both agree is irrelevant.
I disagree that the other examples are reasonable searches.
Then don't bother bringing up Supreme Court rulings, because the Supreme Court has ruled that they are (except for the drug roadblock one, that's unreasonable in a 6-3 decision).
I side with the ACLU on those and some are still being fought through the court system.
Nope, they were all decided. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls. But I side with the ACLU on those cases as well, and I probably side with the ACLU on this question, of whether or not radiation detectors are reasonable.
So my concerns about a continued erosion of our Constitutional rights are "irrational" but your concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb are not? Why is that?
I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.
The Supreme Court, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that it ruled the way that it did because the device [an infrared imaging system] is not in general use by the public, so Kyllo had an expectation of privacy, and because the imaging provided by the camera revealed details about Kyllo's home "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."
This is a much different situation. For one thing, there is a much lower expectation of privacy. But even if it a search, which I admit it arguably is, it's a reasonable one.
I contend that, a cancer patient has reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their medical condition and treatmen regimen when they go out in public.
This detector does not detect tratement regimens, and certainly not medical conditions.
Radiation detectors are not in general use by the public and reveal information that would otherwise have been unknowable (to police). Thus, the use of said detectors is an unreasonable search.
No, you have not considered the governmental interest, so you have not shown whether or not the search is reasonable. For instance metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are reasonable, roadblocks to check for sobriety and even to search for drugs are reasonable, drug testing of students in extracurricular activities are reasonable, etc.
Me: Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person?
I said Constitutional rights, not civil rights.
Yes, and when a law enforcement official makes a search in violation of the 4th Amendment, they violate the person's civil rights.
I am easily your intellectual equal and I do not believe that the radiation detectors are a "good idea."
If indeed you are my intellectual equal then I can only conclude that you have some serious irrational fears.
They are an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches by law enforcement.
That's a most peculiar viewpoint. I'm not sure I would classify the use of a radiation detector as a search, let alone an unreasonable one. Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person? Or is it only dangerous forms of radiation which are unreasonable for a police officer to detect?
I do not believe in ceding Constitutional rights every time the Bush Administration cries "terrorist!"
Are you implying that I do?
I would appreciate it if you would debate not engage in pre-emptive ad-hominem attacks against anyone who does not share your opinions. Claiming that "anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea" implies that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid. That's no way to debate.
Your request is noted.
Oops, you're right. I typed $300 million into my calculator when I calculated the 5 shares figure.
Sorry. Getting papers of incorporation is not a simple task.
Sure it is.
It is quite monitored and no one could set up such a 10,000 corporation block as you suggest.
I don't see why not.
I think what we're asking is: what is a reasonable interpretation of this?
Isn't it reasonable to accept the term as it's defined in the fucking law?
Can you ROT13 something and claim DMCA protection?
Sure, why not?
That "effectively" looks like yet another example of lawyers (50% of both Houses are members of the American Bar Association) making more work for their own kind by introducing extraneous and nebulous terms
There's nothing nebulous whatsoever. They clearly define the term in the law.
A clear violation of Free Speech.
For newspapers, maybe, but not for broadcast television or radio. The FCC routinely controls speech over these media, but they haven't been found unconstitional, since these media use the public airwaves under a license to promote the public interests.
You know if every slashdotter bought just 5 shares of Microsoft we could fire Bill Gates, GPL Windows, and break the company up into tiny little non-monopolistic pieces.
Aren't corporations supposed to, in law, have the rights of an individual? Shouldn't they be subject to that limit the same as an individual?
Absolutely not. That would render individual limits pointless as anyone could start up 10,000 corporations and donate $25K with each.
Eliminate political parties. Declare them as monopolies under anti-trust laws.
The tone comes from the top, dipshit. Do you think these little tinpots would be doing what they do if they didn't know they'd have backing from on high?
Take some anti-psychotic medications and get back to me. There's no "backing from on high" to engage in unconstitutional searches. Maybe to have radiation detectors in the first place, but anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea.
The use of a radiation detector can, effectively, force a cancer patient to admit their illness because, if they do not, they could face being locked up as suspected terrorists. Don't play semantics games.
I disagree that the use of a radiation detector can force a cancer patient to admit their illness. I'm sure if they passed the strip search they'd be free to go.
Quit acting so superior. I made an unsubstantiated claim and so did you.
I'm sorry. I don't agree. You made an unsubstantiated claim and I defended against it.
All depends whether or not you've been exposed to the Slashdot/EFF propaganda or the CBS/Disney propaganda. If you ask the average Joe if they think cracking tools should be illegal, they're probably going to tell you yes, they should. If you phrase it a little differently, and ask them if they should be allowed to listen to their CDs in their car, then they're going to answer differently.
Now if you're an honest politician, you're going to try to make a law which makes cracking tools illegal but still allows people to listen to their music in any place at any time they want. But it's in that nitty gritty lawyer stuff that the corporations have the most power.
Finally, look at it from the perspective of the average person. Most of us aren't selling or using software cracks, whether for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. And even those of us who only use cracks, and don't sell them, in reality there's about 0.000000% chance we're going to get caught.
If, as is suggested, other means of cracking these protected ebooks were used, will the authors of those programs be subject to arrest if they ever visit the US (assuming they are non-US residents)?
Nope, they weren't profiting off the distribution of the crack like Dmitry was, so they will never be caught (and their offense wasn't criminal anyway).
well its not been proven (and boy did they try) anyway, and last I checked the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecutor.
That would probably explain why the case hasn't been decided yet.
Could a defense against the DMCA be the second amendment?
Only if you're in a well-regulated militia.
Kudos for actually reading the DMCA. But you have to read more than just the first paragraph.
fmaxwell: Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
anthony_dipierro: Yes.
So you stated that it was proper to force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers.
No, I implied that to use radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search. I never said anything about proper, and used the fact that a detector can't force anyone to do anything.
You stated that "Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this." Prove that claim.
I'm not the one making the accusations.
Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor?
I didn't say that. I said that radiation detectors which detect the radiation they are emitting are a reasonable search.
Untrue. The radiation detectors were installed under the auspices of the Homeland Security laws passed in the wake of 9/11.
Are you implying that these detectors would not have been installed had it not been for the Homeland Security laws? Please back up that statement.
The detectors may even have been funded, partially or fully, with federal funds (I do not know).
If you don't know, then you should stop making accusations.
Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution?
If it actually happened, probably not. But if it actually happened then the person should sue.
Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
Yes.
People need to open their eyes and see what kind of police state the Bush administration is creating -- before it's too late.
Actually Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was a search by the local police, not the federal government.
The odds of that are about 1 in 1000. But since there's many more than 1000 slashdot posters, it doesn't surprise me at all.
It's just as confortable to wait in the airport as on the plane, and they don't delay departures to search the last few people who board.
Yeah, they remind you how they told you to be at least 10 minutes early, and send you home with no refund.
Can't we just detect the lead then?
This betrays a lack of knowledge about the way IP addresses work... technically there is no reason why the same IP address could not be pointed to by a domain name both within kids.us and one outside it. Remember, domain names point to IP addresses, not the other way around.
Well, first of all, it's actually both ways. Think PTR records...
But more to the point, if the same IP address is pointed to by a domain name within and outside of .kids.us, that's not going to be a problem, because that server must necessarily be using the Host: field.
Getting around any restrictions (such as a web browser like you propose) would be trivially easy- as one example, you could set up your own DNS server, invent an alias kids.us address for any address you want to access, point your system at it and fly. Or you could simply spoof any reverse DNS queries back to your own system.
Simply spoof any reverse DNS queries? How exactly are you going to do that without some kind of administrator access on the machine? Actually, how are you going to set up your own DNS server using the IP address being used by the browser.
If you have administrator access, you can just download a new browser. But if you don't have administrator access, then your methods won't work. And if HTTP access is blocked except through a proxy, I'd like to see you spoof DNS queries being made by the proxy.
Please, think before you post.