We appreciate your business through all these months, but sadly we must inform you that MAU is closing shop. we recently ran into some Dastardly, Mean, Cunning, And awful leagal problems that have run our business deep into the red. We regret that we are unable to continue service, but we look forward to being able to provide other services to you in about 10 to 20 years.
That's nice. How about you read the document. That analysis is a stretch. Here's the relevant information regarding terrorism and wiretaps according to the PARTRIOT act.
Not I didn't say they haven't ever installed them (though it would be nice if you had a link). However, they are not permisable in court. IOW no matter what they get, they can't use. Period.
It's cutting edge because it's the only system of it's kind. There is no other system that is all at once so powerful and so easy, so new and yet so old
Actualy, I'm recalling the old days of Mac Classic where if you had a program that you wanted to run faster and you had the memory, you could make a ram disk and copy the program into the ram disk and run it from there. It worked pretty well, though I rarely come across I program that I need to run much faster that I could load into ram, but I'm sure someone does.
It is obvious you have not read the PATRIOT act as you would see you're pulling this out of your ass.
To start, to get a roving wiretap, it has to be part of a current and ongoing investigation. IOW there needs to be a crime.
Second, they can only tap the phones which the person they are investigating uses. IOW, if he comes to your house to play cards, but doesn't use the phone, they can't tap your phone
Third, they are still required to prove it in court.
1) If I'm tapping a car for information, chances are I'm also monitoring when the person I'm tapping is in the car. When they are in the car, I'm going to put someone on the tap to be listening in.
2) This does however highlight a problem in the system. Having only one chanel going in and out seems like a really bad idea.
Not really. 8GB of RAM would be great for doing things like running applications and such in. Load the whole app into memory and never have to touch disk except to write out a file or read one in.
Again, it was an anonymous paraphrase. The actual quote could very well have been "I dont' know of any plans." and he interpreted that to mean they don't have any plans.
And Apple doesn't do this on a regular basis, they have always supported one system version behind current. Always.
So you don't trust the government to regulate the issuance of warrants, as outlined by law, and enforced by the judicial system and congress, but you trust the government with your votes?
It is a right, however, the government also has a right to regulate and restrict that right as defined in providing for the general wellfare. IOW you have the right to urinate in public, so long as it isn't a public health or safety concern. That's why it's legal to take a piss in the woods.
Because the law says they need a warrant, just like the law says they can search your car if they have "reasonable suspicion" and they've pulled you over. The reason for this is that it is not possible for a warrant to be obtained to search the vehicle with out detaining you. But since you are not yet under arrest or charged with a crime (beyond the reason they pulled you over) they have no right to detain you.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'
They still have to show that they have reason to beleive they can gain relevant information. IOW they have to have a link between your phone and the investigation. They can't just tap everything in a 4 block radius because a criminal lives in that area.
I don't recall the source I read it in specificaly, but IIRC one of the aspects of wire tap law is that information gained and permissable in court has to be relevant to the investigation in question. Otherwise, it's just like an illegal wire tap. This is why wire tap and warrant requests have to name a specific person to be tracked and detailed.
And I don't know about you, but setting up the laws so that the police when investigating someone can't tap anything except the primary phone of the criminal just seems stupid. That would mean that if I were to conduct a drug deal over the phone, all I would have to do is use other people's phones, and the cops couldn't do jack shit.
I don't know about you, but if someone is using my phone to conduct drug deals, and they can get evidence on this guy, they can tap away.
Nope, they can't do that. Evidence used to aquire a warrant must have been obtained in a manner such that that evidence is permissable within a court of law (hence the catch 22 of trying to get a warrant)
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Mods-Are Us Customers,
We appreciate your business through all these months, but sadly we must inform you that MAU is closing shop. we recently ran into some Dastardly, Mean, Cunning, And awful leagal problems that have run our business deep into the red. We regret that we are unable to continue service, but we look forward to being able to provide other services to you in about 10 to 20 years.
Sincerely,
The Mods Are Us crew
All Apple repairs and refurbs (that I've had done) come with a 90 day (minimum) waranty on them.
You can change your own batteries, but if you don't want to void your waranty, you're better off sending it back.
That's nice. How about you read the document. That analysis is a stretch. Here's the relevant information regarding terrorism and wiretaps according to the PARTRIOT act.
Here
Not I didn't say they haven't ever installed them (though it would be nice if you had a link). However, they are not permisable in court. IOW no matter what they get, they can't use. Period.
It's cutting edge because it's the only system of it's kind. There is no other system that is all at once so powerful and so easy, so new and yet so old
I would think they would have an even greater obligation given their job is to Serve and Protect
Actualy, I'm recalling the old days of Mac Classic where if you had a program that you wanted to run faster and you had the memory, you could make a ram disk and copy the program into the ram disk and run it from there. It worked pretty well, though I rarely come across I program that I need to run much faster that I could load into ram, but I'm sure someone does.
It is obvious you have not read the PATRIOT act as you would see you're pulling this out of your ass.
To start, to get a roving wiretap, it has to be part of a current and ongoing investigation. IOW there needs to be a crime.
Second, they can only tap the phones which the person they are investigating uses. IOW, if he comes to your house to play cards, but doesn't use the phone, they can't tap your phone
Third, they are still required to prove it in court.
Please educate yourself
Please show me the passages where these are outlined:
www.thebaka.com/rants/patriot
1) If I'm tapping a car for information, chances are I'm also monitoring when the person I'm tapping is in the car. When they are in the car, I'm going to put someone on the tap to be listening in.
2) This does however highlight a problem in the system. Having only one chanel going in and out seems like a really bad idea.
er... what exactly are you doing in the terminal that I can't do on my OS X box without the GUI?
Not really. 8GB of RAM would be great for doing things like running applications and such in. Load the whole app into memory and never have to touch disk except to write out a file or read one in.
Again, it was an anonymous paraphrase. The actual quote could very well have been "I dont' know of any plans." and he interpreted that to mean they don't have any plans.
And Apple doesn't do this on a regular basis, they have always supported one system version behind current. Always.
So you don't trust the government to regulate the issuance of warrants, as outlined by law, and enforced by the judicial system and congress, but you trust the government with your votes?
It is a right, however, the government also has a right to regulate and restrict that right as defined in providing for the general wellfare. IOW you have the right to urinate in public, so long as it isn't a public health or safety concern. That's why it's legal to take a piss in the woods.
Read it for yourself:
Terrorism and Wire Tap jurisdiction as outlined by the PATRIOT act
More relevant information:
Terroism and Wire Tap juristiction as outlined by the PATRIOT act
That speaks more of a problem with the courts than with the law doesn't it?
Not quite. see for yourself, I've extraced the relevant details for you:
Here is the information pertaining to terroism definitions and wire taps et al
Because the law says they need a warrant, just like the law says they can search your car if they have "reasonable suspicion" and they've pulled you over. The reason for this is that it is not possible for a warrant to be obtained to search the vehicle with out detaining you. But since you are not yet under arrest or charged with a crime (beyond the reason they pulled you over) they have no right to detain you.
Read it for yourself:
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'
They still have to show that they have reason to beleive they can gain relevant information. IOW they have to have a link between your phone and the investigation. They can't just tap everything in a 4 block radius because a criminal lives in that area.
I don't recall the source I read it in specificaly, but IIRC one of the aspects of wire tap law is that information gained and permissable in court has to be relevant to the investigation in question. Otherwise, it's just like an illegal wire tap. This is why wire tap and warrant requests have to name a specific person to be tracked and detailed.
And I don't know about you, but setting up the laws so that the police when investigating someone can't tap anything except the primary phone of the criminal just seems stupid. That would mean that if I were to conduct a drug deal over the phone, all I would have to do is use other people's phones, and the cops couldn't do jack shit.
I don't know about you, but if someone is using my phone to conduct drug deals, and they can get evidence on this guy, they can tap away.
Where does it say this? Please find the passage for me.
Nope, they can't do that. Evidence used to aquire a warrant must have been obtained in a manner such that that evidence is permissable within a court of law (hence the catch 22 of trying to get a warrant)