Then the anti-spam crusaders are even stupider than I thought. The major ISPs could stop spam very easily, if they really wanted to. The reason they don't is that they profit off spam, indirectly.
You have the right to not provide testimony against yourself.
"in any criminal case"
If you are convicted of a crime and complete your sentence, you have paid your debt to society and (in most all cases) regain all of your rights.
"in most all cases"
Your past convictions should not thwart your attempts to make a better life for yourself.
That's your opinion, which I do not share.
BUT if you do something wrong or are involved in a collision or other incident without a cert, you could be sentenced more harshly if you where convicted of neglegence or wrongdoing as a cause of the incident.
The problem with that is that corporations have perpetual lives, and can be started at will. If a corporate plane crashes into a large building you can't put anyone (but the dead pilot) in jail. I don't think the threat of civil lawsuits against the corporation is enough to discourage the practice.
Those willing to risk a seasoned by non-cert pilot would pay a lesser fare.
And I would be willing to accept this if the only people taking the risk were the pilot and the passengers. But as we've seen over and over again, the pilot and the passengers are not the only ones at risk. From a pure property standpoint, the air above my house is either owned by me, my state, or the federal government. So either the airline has to get my permission, the permission of the state, or the permission of the federal government to use that airspace. I think the federal government would be the most efficient entity to take control of that, at least for an interstate flight.
So I agree with you with regard to automobile drivers, and I agree with you with regard to pilots who aren't making money for corporatations, but unless you want to make the CEO personally responsible for negligently allowing his/her airplane to be crashed into a building and put him/her in jail, then I don't buy that argument for corporate aviation.
Background checks may lead to discrimination for what people believe in or think.
Guns may lead to people killing each other, what's your point?
You might be denied a job because you wrote a paper that supported reinstatement of slavery and involuntary servitude several years ago.
What's wrong with that? Don't you believe in a free market?
You don't own any slaves and you don't in any way practice your belief, but you would be denied access because of it.
So? What does this have to do with government background checks for pilots?
And yes, I know there are negatives to all of my opinions.
Yeah, I was surprised, I should have been even more ridiculous. We need some kind of political indicator next to people's names so we can adjust our arguments accordingly.
In any case, I agree with you on the drunk driving one, and I think the hazmat one is generally up to the states unless it poses a major threat to the entire nation (transferring nuclear materials or something). As for the airline ones, if it's within the government's power to require certification, then it's within the government's power to require rules to be followed in order to keep that certification. And as for the court room one, that is allowed under the same clause as the airlines.
But there is one big positive: freedom. And as I recall, Freedom was the core principle the United States was founded on.
Freedom of choice. Freedom of action. Freedom of markets. Freedom from govermnent intrusion.
Freedom to print my own money? Freedom to make copies of copyrighted works without permission? Freedom to start a bank? Freedom to swim in other people's pools? I don't have a problem with freedom of markets, but that means I'm free to create my own currency and ignore the one created by the federal government. Eliminate corporations, eliminate federal money, and divide up the land and natural resources of this country equally and I'm fine with leaving the rest to the markets.
It was the intention of the founders that the government be used to protect our freedoms, not to slowly erode them in the name of fighting terrorism, or any other purpose.
It was certainly not the intention of the founders to protect freedom at all costs.
But regardless of which phrase that modifies, the sentence still says "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..."
Even if the sentence means "the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated but upon probable cause" it still doesn't mean "the right to be secure against reasonable searches shall not be violated but upon probable cause."
It's my interpretation that "but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath or affirmation, and PARTICULARLY describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the persons or things to be siezed" modifies "no warrants shall issue".
Where exactly do you draw the line in potential death toll where the government can tell us who can access a method of transportation?
I don't think the government can ever tell us who can access a method of transportation. However, when thousands of lives are at risk and those people are not voluntarily taking on that risk I think it is reasonable for the government to require a minimum of cooperation by citizens. Asking passengers on an interstate flight to present identification before boarding is one example of something which I consider reasonable. I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can tell you that this is something I consider on the reasonable side of the line.
Where do you draw the line? Can someone drive drunk as long as they don't hit anyone? How about fly a plane drunk? Is it within the government's power to require pilots to pass certifications? How about background checks? Could we give random breathalyzer tests to pilots? Is it OK to have metal detectors at federal courtrooms? Should we require background checks to drive vehicles containing hazardous materials?
Yes they can break in, and search for the person presumed to be in danger. But, if they happen to see some contraband while inside, it is not admissable evidence.
No. That's exactly what happened in the O.J. Simpson case, for example. "A potential emergency might exist and under such urgent circumstances, real or perceived, the police were permitted to enter a property without a search warrant." "As these blood spots and the glove were found in 'plain view,' it was certified as evidence that could be collected without a search warrant." http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics4/oj/3.htm
Right to search without a warrant is usually limited to probable cause or consent. In the air travel case, they have none of the three.
That's just not true. For instance, the Supreme Court has recently upheld random drug testing for students who participate in after-school activities. I'll let you do the google for that one. It was on one of the last days of the latest court semester.
You don't need a State issued ID to be a passenger in a car, on a bus, a boat, or any other form of transportation.
That's because hijacking a car, bus, boat, or other transport vehicle likely can't take down a huge building. If it was just the other passengers on the plane we were talking about, I'd agree that it should be up to the airlines to make the rules. But this is about the danger to innocent victims in different states. Therefore I think the federal government is justified in setting reasonable regulations.
I am debating the meaning of that word. Unreasonable. Being searched without cause is unreasonable. Being searched for exercising a right (to travel) is unreasonable.
I disagree, and I believe that the courts will disagree as well. The meaning of "unreasonable" in my opinion takes into consideration the government interest as well as the type of search. This is why police are able to break into a house without obtaining a warrant if they have reason to believe that someone is in imminent danger.
Also note that it specifically demands specificity in searching - ie - you cant simply put out a "dragnet". You must detail the person/things to be seized and searched.
No, warrants must describe these things. If the search is reasonable, you don't have to have a warrant, and therefore you don't have to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That's my interpretation, anyway, the courts have been divided on that issue:
As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause. 11 This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. 12 While the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter. - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/01.html#1
There is no "safety amendment" to the Constituton; and no exception to the 4th for it. If we want to allow congress to regulate this, FINE. Than lets pass an amendment and do it right.
Hmm... Let's look at the 4th amendment.
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.
It seems to me that searching someone before boarding an airplane is perfectly reasonable. That's where the "safety amendment" comes in. That pesky word "unreasonable".
I think that for a one month period, sometime this year, all anti-spammers and ISP's around the globe should suspend any activities that they are currently undertaking to supress spam.
If we could get all anti-spammers and ISPs around the globe to work together, we'd have implemented a new protocol which eliminates spam by now.
What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.
Sales calls to wireless phones are legal -- except for calls that are recorded messages or are placed with automatic dialers.
Yeah, it's always been that way. In my experience very few companies call and those that do will let you go as soon as you tell them you're on a cell phone. I've only gotten three phone soliticitations in two years on my cell phone. Two from credit card companies (exempt for the first call due to preexisting business relationship) and one from some place that I put my number on an information card.
Does anyone know if this includes cell phone providers?
I don't see why not. This ruling is about whether or not the phone companies can sell the data about where and when you call, not about whether or not those who receive that data can call you.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the anti-spam crusaders are even stupider than I thought. The major ISPs could stop spam very easily, if they really wanted to. The reason they don't is that they profit off spam, indirectly.
It could, but cannot now, and that is with the security settings that were in place on 9/11, as the events on the 4th airliner showed.
Which included checking the IDs of the passengers.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
Show me a binding federal document which says so.
You have the right to not provide testimony against yourself.
"in any criminal case"
If you are convicted of a crime and complete your sentence, you have paid your debt to society and (in most all cases) regain all of your rights.
"in most all cases"
Your past convictions should not thwart your attempts to make a better life for yourself.
That's your opinion, which I do not share.
BUT if you do something wrong or are involved in a collision or other incident without a cert, you could be sentenced more harshly if you where convicted of neglegence or wrongdoing as a cause of the incident.
The problem with that is that corporations have perpetual lives, and can be started at will. If a corporate plane crashes into a large building you can't put anyone (but the dead pilot) in jail. I don't think the threat of civil lawsuits against the corporation is enough to discourage the practice.
Those willing to risk a seasoned by non-cert pilot would pay a lesser fare.
And I would be willing to accept this if the only people taking the risk were the pilot and the passengers. But as we've seen over and over again, the pilot and the passengers are not the only ones at risk. From a pure property standpoint, the air above my house is either owned by me, my state, or the federal government. So either the airline has to get my permission, the permission of the state, or the permission of the federal government to use that airspace. I think the federal government would be the most efficient entity to take control of that, at least for an interstate flight.
So I agree with you with regard to automobile drivers, and I agree with you with regard to pilots who aren't making money for corporatations, but unless you want to make the CEO personally responsible for negligently allowing his/her airplane to be crashed into a building and put him/her in jail, then I don't buy that argument for corporate aviation.
Background checks may lead to discrimination for what people believe in or think.
Guns may lead to people killing each other, what's your point?
You might be denied a job because you wrote a paper that supported reinstatement of slavery and involuntary servitude several years ago.
What's wrong with that? Don't you believe in a free market?
You don't own any slaves and you don't in any way practice your belief, but you would be denied access because of it.
So? What does this have to do with government background checks for pilots?
And yes, I know there are negatives to all of my opinions.
Yeah, I was surprised, I should have been even more ridiculous. We need some kind of political indicator next to people's names so we can adjust our arguments accordingly.
In any case, I agree with you on the drunk driving one, and I think the hazmat one is generally up to the states unless it poses a major threat to the entire nation (transferring nuclear materials or something). As for the airline ones, if it's within the government's power to require certification, then it's within the government's power to require rules to be followed in order to keep that certification. And as for the court room one, that is allowed under the same clause as the airlines.
But there is one big positive: freedom. And as I recall, Freedom was the core principle the United States was founded on. Freedom of choice. Freedom of action. Freedom of markets. Freedom from govermnent intrusion.
Freedom to print my own money? Freedom to make copies of copyrighted works without permission? Freedom to start a bank? Freedom to swim in other people's pools? I don't have a problem with freedom of markets, but that means I'm free to create my own currency and ignore the one created by the federal government. Eliminate corporations, eliminate federal money, and divide up the land and natural resources of this country equally and I'm fine with leaving the rest to the markets.
It was the intention of the founders that the government be used to protect our freedoms, not to slowly erode them in the name of fighting terrorism, or any other purpose.
It was certainly not the intention of the founders to protect freedom at all costs.
But regardless of which phrase that modifies, the sentence still says "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..."
Even if the sentence means "the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated but upon probable cause" it still doesn't mean "the right to be secure against reasonable searches shall not be violated but upon probable cause."
It's my interpretation that "but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath or affirmation, and PARTICULARLY describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the persons or things to be siezed" modifies "no warrants shall issue".
Where exactly do you draw the line in potential death toll where the government can tell us who can access a method of transportation?
I don't think the government can ever tell us who can access a method of transportation. However, when thousands of lives are at risk and those people are not voluntarily taking on that risk I think it is reasonable for the government to require a minimum of cooperation by citizens. Asking passengers on an interstate flight to present identification before boarding is one example of something which I consider reasonable. I don't know exactly where the line is, but I can tell you that this is something I consider on the reasonable side of the line.
Where do you draw the line? Can someone drive drunk as long as they don't hit anyone? How about fly a plane drunk? Is it within the government's power to require pilots to pass certifications? How about background checks? Could we give random breathalyzer tests to pilots? Is it OK to have metal detectors at federal courtrooms? Should we require background checks to drive vehicles containing hazardous materials?
Yes they can break in, and search for the person presumed to be in danger. But, if they happen to see some contraband while inside, it is not admissable evidence.
No. That's exactly what happened in the O.J. Simpson case, for example. "A potential emergency might exist and under such urgent circumstances, real or perceived, the police were permitted to enter a property without a search warrant." "As these blood spots and the glove were found in 'plain view,' it was certified as evidence that could be collected without a search warrant." http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics4/oj/3.htm
Right to search without a warrant is usually limited to probable cause or consent. In the air travel case, they have none of the three.
That's just not true. For instance, the Supreme Court has recently upheld random drug testing for students who participate in after-school activities. I'll let you do the google for that one. It was on one of the last days of the latest court semester.
You don't need a State issued ID to be a passenger in a car, on a bus, a boat, or any other form of transportation.
That's because hijacking a car, bus, boat, or other transport vehicle likely can't take down a huge building. If it was just the other passengers on the plane we were talking about, I'd agree that it should be up to the airlines to make the rules. But this is about the danger to innocent victims in different states. Therefore I think the federal government is justified in setting reasonable regulations.
The question is not whether he possesses ID; he is prevented from travelling regardless.
No he's not. He can travel, he just has to show his ID if he wants to board an airplane.
I liked the old Title 17, Section 110(2), which this bill takes away. It seems to me that this version is much more restrictive.
I am debating the meaning of that word. Unreasonable. Being searched without cause is unreasonable. Being searched for exercising a right (to travel) is unreasonable.
I disagree, and I believe that the courts will disagree as well. The meaning of "unreasonable" in my opinion takes into consideration the government interest as well as the type of search. This is why police are able to break into a house without obtaining a warrant if they have reason to believe that someone is in imminent danger.
Also note that it specifically demands specificity in searching - ie - you cant simply put out a "dragnet". You must detail the person/things to be seized and searched.
No, warrants must describe these things. If the search is reasonable, you don't have to have a warrant, and therefore you don't have to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That's my interpretation, anyway, the courts have been divided on that issue:
There is no "safety amendment" to the Constituton; and no exception to the 4th for it. If we want to allow congress to regulate this, FINE. Than lets pass an amendment and do it right.
Hmm... Let's look at the 4th amendment.
It seems to me that searching someone before boarding an airplane is perfectly reasonable. That's where the "safety amendment" comes in. That pesky word "unreasonable".
Because the petitioner has ID, he is not sufficiently affected by the rule, and therefore doesn't have standing to sue.
There's no federal law against it.
1) insert windows boot floppy
2) a:\format c:
I don't trust either, but I think the government is better at keeping a secret.
I think that for a one month period, sometime this year, all anti-spammers and ISP's around the globe should suspend any activities that they are currently undertaking to supress spam.
If we could get all anti-spammers and ISPs around the globe to work together, we'd have implemented a new protocol which eliminates spam by now.
What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.
You do if you sign a contract agreeing to reduce your privacy.
I guess we should ban this television show, as well, since it violates the contestants' rights to privacy.
Huh? How does that make a difference?
Yeah, it's always been that way. In my experience very few companies call and those that do will let you go as soon as you tell them you're on a cell phone. I've only gotten three phone soliticitations in two years on my cell phone. Two from credit card companies (exempt for the first call due to preexisting business relationship) and one from some place that I put my number on an information card.
Extortion is already illegal. I thought we wanted to ban the act, and not the tool.
Does anyone know if this includes cell phone providers?
I don't see why not. This ruling is about whether or not the phone companies can sell the data about where and when you call, not about whether or not those who receive that data can call you.
What about my rights not to be marketed at constantly?
This ruling only says that they can give your information away. It says nothing about whether that information can be used to market at you.
Of course its usage is more expensive than a traditional land line phone, but you never have to tell your name or address.
I thought that all changed after 9/11, when it was discovered that some of the hijackers were using these phones to avoid being tracked.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act.