Why do you have problems with reading comprehension and putting words in other people's mouths?
I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, and it appears my comprehension was better than yours. Allow me to quote the parent:
As much as I applaud this individual and the story, I find it odd that we've had some stories in a row painting royalties and patents in a good light by tellng stori s like this one where its easy to relate to the receiver of said royalties.
It sort of stinks of some kind of concentrated media effort to spread the idea of "patents GOOD for the little guy!",
You left out "royalties". "Painting royalties and patents in a good light". And then he refers only to royalties when saying the "odd stories" are presenting people it is easy to relate to.
So, that's why I'm asking him (not you) why he has a problem with any stories painting someone who is receiving royalties for his work in a good light? Why are royalties an issue?
That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people.
But there is such a law. It's called "murder". Or at least "manslaughter".
It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant.
They didn't tap anyone's phone. They allowed the phone to register with a fake cell system thus revealing the IMEI and proving it was the one belonging to the victim. They then moved the fake cell system to different places allowing a triangulation on the location of the phone.
At no time were they "tapping" anything. There were no conversations being listened to, and not even any "metadata" about who was calling what numbers.
They weren't even tracking a person. They were tracking a stolen phone. Had the person who stole it tossed it into the back of a pickup truck on the highway, the police would have tracked the phone where it went without any information about the driver or the thief.
This is no different than a bait car or bike where the cops have installed a radio tracking device so if the suspect gets away with the object they can track it down. Yes, there are devices they can attach to, e.g., a bike, that will emit a signal that they can track. That's not illegal, it's not unethical, and it certainly doesn't violate the fourth amendment.
So I don't know about actually using the device, I see your logic here. But isn't there a requirement that evidence be disclosed to the accused? I think that's the issue here.
I think the issue was the actual act of sticking a foot in the door and how the consent was obtained to search, not anything to do with how the stolen device was tracked. At least, that's what the court seems to be interested in.
I read the Wired article. The "stingray" doesn't belong to the police department, it was on loan, so the licensing issue attaches to the company (Hughes), which almost certainly has such a license. They make radios. They'll have all kinds of licenses. And Wired doesn't even know for sure what the device was, they're only guessing, but the NDA points to a loan and not a purchase.
Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval.
No. Federal courts do not issue FCC licenses for radio use, the FCC does. Licensing the radios would not be subject to a warrant request. Courts, federal or local, don't have the technical expertise to issue radio licenses, nor do they have statutory authority.
It appears that running a microcell is no longer a huge issue with respect to licenses. This company will sell you a complete cell system in a box, needing only an IP connection. How they deal with licensing is not apparent from their website.
On the issue of using the "controversial device" to track the criminal in this case, I'm not so ready to jump on the "police broke the law" bandwagon. If someone steals my LoJack equipped car (or OnStar) the police do not need a warrant to get location information from either source. The criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy related to the location of MY CAR after he's stolen it. Why would a criminal who steals a cell phone, which by it's very nature is inherently trackable, have such an expectation for a phone he's stolen? This is not a case of "locate Frank Smith so we can track his whereabouts whenever we want to", it's a case of "find the location of stolen property so we can recover it for the rightful owner." If they happen to find that stolen property in the possession of a criminal and can arrest him at the same time, that's a plus.
Welcome the the 21st century; science has advanced, and at this point, "climate change denier" is about as biased as "evolution denier".
Yes, they both are biased statements. That's true. That's because "climate change denier" is almost always applied to people who accept that the climate is changing but need better evidence than a positive correlation to accept anthropogenic causes. And "evolution denier" is similarly attached to people who have no problem with adaptation of species but don't necessarily accept that evolution is how life began.
And yes, almost every time someone tries countering that last statement by claiming "but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" they are talking about a situation where it was clear that the term "evolution" was being used in precisely that way. The most recent example I recall from this forum was the Kansas (IIRC) discussion about not wanting evolution taught as a fact when teaching the origins of life. The person who was quoted as the "evolution denier" was clear in his statements that he was referring to origins, that he had no problem calling it a theory when applied to those, and no problem saying "fact" when applied to situations other than origins.
It's also amply demonstrated in this discussion when one of the posters claimed that anti-vaccine people wanted a return of virulent diseases. It's an easy straw man to set up, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you on a specific point is seeking something much broader than is actually said. For example, it can't be that "anti-vaccine people" want to make sure that vaccines are as safe as possible, it must be that they are pro-disease.
That being said, it is wrong to single out Whole Foods. There are other examples. We just got a Natural Grocers in our town, and fully half of the store is vitamins and minerals and essential oils and all the overpriced supplements. It's almost as if they designed the store for that and then tacked on a few groceries so they could call themselves a grocery store.
This is one of the most common questions as far as senseless TSA rules go-- "If my stuff is supposedly dangerous, then why is it just sitting right there in a disposal bin on the checkpoint after I surrender it?"
The rules may be senseless, but this is not an example of one of them.
The material is in the bin and therefore didn't make it onto a plane where it could be used to kill lots of helpless people. If someone was targetting people in the airport outside the sterile area, they wouldn't have to go through the line with bottles of H2O2 and acetone and hope they meet up just right in the bin, they'd just bring in the acetone peroxide and use it directly. I mean, if you want to cause panic and fear, you can just drop a bottle of fuming nitric acid into a trash container.
90% of the time, this bag is swabbed by staff and the swab tested. I have never been told of results, positive/neutral/negative/other.
D'oh. The fact you aren't posting this from prison is a good indication that all those tests came up negative.
1. Why do they always swab my camera gear?
Because they ask you what it is and you tell them that you use the gear to take pictures of the death and destruction you cause in the name of Allah, MHNBP? Because you have a "Free Timothy McVeigh" sticker on the bag?
That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.
"License and registration, please. Do you know how fast you were going?"
"I have no idea, it is against the law to look at my speedometer while driving, and it always says '0' when I'm stopped. Was I going '0'?"
As for your last comment, I think you're wrong. People don't really have access to video cameras that "give little to no indication that they are recording."
A while back Woot sold out a bunch of cameras that look like pens. The lens is just above the top of the clip, so when they're clipped in your pocket they're pointing out.
The only indication they are recording is a small orange LED on the back side, hidden from view.
If the format/origin of the data is not understood by your readers, perhaps your publications need more work.
Sadly, "the public" is a much larger superset of people than "your readers". And journals are not the way to teach people all the various formats and origins of data, so even considering a limited subset of "your readers" your statement is wrong.
Not if such a program were to affect only future research.
I don't know what would be magic about future research that would allow a three-year grant to pay for extended, stable, long-term public access to the data that is collected under that grant. If you want someone to provide the data to you someone needs to pay for the systems and people it will require to store and distribute it. That would require a source of funding for the long-term. That would mean the three-year grant would need to be twenty years long or more, even if it is just paying for maintenance and upkeep in years 4 through 20+.
I am aware that it would cost somewhat more. But it is arguable that the benefit lost to society is worth far more.
"Benefit to society" doesn't put food on my table or clothes on my back or gas in my car. If you want access to my raw data someone needs to pay for someone to maintain it. That might not be me, but it will be someone. I mean, when that disk fails in my RAID6 array, someone has to physically replace it, and the replacement costs money (even if it is a warranty service exchange) and the person who replaces it costs money. If you pay nothing, you get two free disk failures. The third one means the data goes away.
If you are profiting on my dime, then yeah. Cough it up, bud.
I work for a living. That's not "profiting". Cough up the money to pay me to maintain your access to my data if you want it, because you're paying nothing for it right now.
I didn't say the researchers should pay for it. The public (meaning of course government at some level) would be responsible for maintaining publicly-accessible archives of publicly-funded research.
And yet you just accused me of "profiting" from this and I should "cough up" your data. That's a direct demand that researchers pay for your access. Yes, maybe government should pay for your access, and I'd be happy to have a lifetime job just maintaining all this data so you could come look it, if you ever do. But that's not what I'm paid to do, and government isn't paying for it.
Right, I'm ignoring your point and demonstrating how it doesn't matter.
It may not matter in the court, but it certainly matters in the brouhaha happening here. If she's the lease-holder then she has every right to consent to the search no matter what the boyfiend says. Any outrage over some travesty of justice in that case would be a tempest for tempest' sake. California law may make it an adjudicatable issue, but morally and ethically it wouldn't be.
Anyone who is domiciled there can consent to the search, and in California that doesn't take much.
I think from the description of the events that it isn't even close to a grey area here. I mean, he left her in charge of the apartment when he was arrested, so it is pretty clear he wanted her there and she wasn't just there because she was dropping off his laundry or anything.
However, by quote mining Smith v. Maryland for that 3d party doctrine, and divorcing that quote from its factual matrix, we end up with an interpretation where the NSA gets
Neither this decision nor any of my comments has anything to do with the NSA.
If you don't think this case will be quote mined, and this principal (that 3d party occupants can override the decision of a 1st party occupant)
I'm sorry, but a man and a woman living together in an apartment isn't a case of a "3rd party" anything. They are co-first-party occupants, or at worst she's a 2nd party (as if that were a relevant distinction). It is possible she's the sole first party, we don't know. Do you have any facts on hand to allocate the woman to even lower than co-habitant status? Why do you assume she's some "3rd party" to all of this?
With this case, and your "hmmm -- makes sense" attitude -- you just got robbed, and you don't even know it.
Uhhh, no. If I batter my "cohabitant" and expect her to respect my rights to privacy by keeping the cops out after I'm arrested for a violent crime, well, then, this decision might have some relevance to me. The person who got robbed was the victim of the street robbery, the person who got justice was the battered woman, and the perp got the chance to try to find any technicality he could to avoid his just due.
It's not Porsche's fault that my car got stolen when i left the keys on the seat, the top down, windows open, but the doors locked. It's my own damn fault! (Note: I do not, nor have I ever owned a Porsche!)
Well, if you left the keys on the seat with the top down and windows open, it can truly be said you never owned a Porsche, you were just making payments on one you were borrowing for a week.
So it doesn't seem to matter who is on the lease, just who believed that they lived there and demonstrated so by their actions.
The question of whose name is on the lease is not to solve the issue of "domiciling". If it is her name then there is no question that she has the legal authority to consent to a search of her apartment no matter what her boyfiend said. It wouldn't be an issue. It would be nice had that information been part of the story.
Clairvoyant much? I've seen people get arrested, but never had any idea why. Did the secondary occupant know why?
She was there, we can assume that she saw him get arrested. "You're under arrest for the assault and robbery...". It takes very little psychic power to come to that conclusion. Maybe she didn't hear it, but it also takes very little psychic ability to guess that as a battered woman she was willing to let the cops in the first time they came to her door but was coerced not to by the implicit threats from her boyfiend.
This is a dangerous case.
This is hardly news or even dangerous. An occupant of a space allows a search. The other occupant wasn't smart enough to pick a roommate that didn't rat him out as soon as she was out of arm's reach of the abuser.
"Holy Moly -- WTF were they thinking when they did that."
Holy moly what were they thinking when they let someone waive their fourth amendment rights? How could any of the sheep we've created be able to make such an important decision?
The LA Times article says they arrested him for the street robbery. Quote: "Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away."
and came back to get consent from the one occupant remaining, thus getting more evidence.
Yes. She consented. She was a legal occupant of the space. Had she wanted to say 'no', she could have. I suspect she was ready to say "yes" the first time, except for the duress her lovely boyfiend put upon her. And here's a clue: her visible injuries combined with the verbal altercation that led them to the door in the first place were sufficient for them to enter and arrest him, had they chosen to use that as the reason.
This change is just a shortcut so that they didn't have to drive the guy back to the station
You have no clue what you are talking about. "The guy" was already taken to the station.
Even if they couldn't arrest non-consenting parties, they can still get warrants based on witness testimony.
What witness testimony? You want a battered woman to have to testify in court against her abuser before she can allow the cops to enter her apartment to look for evidence? You're a heartless bastard.
Except now, cops come to the house, ask the owner to search the house. Owner says no. Cops arrest owner and he goes to jail.
Except they didn't arrest him for saying 'no'. They arrested him as a suspect in a street robbery. You know, physical assault on an innocent victim. That's a pretty serious crime.
What is the occupant going to say??? No and go to jail too?
If the other occupant is a suspect in a street robbery, then they could expect to be arrested whether they said yes or no. Since the first guy wasn't arrested for saying 'no', why would the other occupant think he would be?
That should qualify as consent under duress if he had a good lawyer.
Roxanne Rojas is a "she". A battered "she" who had every reason and every right to allow the cops into the apartment because she was a legal resident.
If you don't want your "roommate" to rat you out to the cops, don't beat her, and don't let her answer the cop's knocking at the door after you've done it. D'oh.
I suspect that Roxanne would have been quite happy to have the cops search the first time and was stopped only because of the duress applied by her abusive boyfriend.
An important question that the LA Times article does not answer is whose name was on the lease. They refer to "his apartment", but Alito is quoted as saying it was "her home". I would not put it past a gang-banger to have the apartment in her name simply so that he could walk away without any ties or responsibilities when he dumps her, and it would be harder to track him to where he lives because his name wouldn't appear in the records, but we don't know. If it was her name on the lease, there should be no question as to her right to grant permission despite anything her abusive boyfriend said.
Nothing... apart from the legal precedent it created as a side effect.
The precedent that a legal occupant of a space can consent to the search of that space. Wow.
I think the takeaway from this is not that the police are horrible people who abuse your rights, but that you should probably not choose to have roommates/spouses who would rat you out to the police, because they could very well do that without involving a search of any kind. "Hey, you're looking for the guy who sells drugs down by the high school? He lives at 123 Main Street and his name is..." "You want to search the house of the man who beats me on a regular basis so you can find stuff to put him away in prison? Go right ahead..."
It was her space, too. She has a right to be secure in her person, too. If that means putting the guy who is making her insecure away then so be it. She could have easily shortcut the process and simply shown them the drugs or whatever and then they'd be able to search based on the visible evidence.
I actually do this for a living; Having data available for projects does require it to be on large data systems which are properly backed up etc.
So do I, and for more than twenty years. If you do, you'd know it is quite a bit more than just a hole in a firewall and a read-only login. It requires an organization that the public can navigate and understand and actually find things. That's different than the organization that the local users need since local users get a much larger view of the data and need it in faster and more direct ways. I.e., local users see a lot of files, public users see links on a web page.
If your "public" access is just a "read-only" user that gets to wander about looking for the files he needs, then you're doing the public part wrong. And you're creating security issues for everyone because one of the first vectors for attack is almost always "get access to the system".
Heck, any halfway decent staged system (Sun used to make really good ones) will allow you to read tapes as if it were a regular network share.
Citation required. I have a thousand VHS tapes that it would be really nice to have available "as if [they] were a network share." I know of no such hardware for that format. I know of no such free hardware for any tape format, and since the grants that paid to collect the data didn't include robot tape systems at all it would have to be free for there to be any hope of this data being made publicly available. That's ignoring the money it would take to pay me to make it so.
The mag tapes in boxes problem we fixed years ago by simply putting everything on spinning rust with ZFS.
Someone pays for the time of the person who does that. "Graduate students". No, they're busy using the data to do something, not spending a year of their life digitizing video tapes.
I do understand the grant issues, most of those grants will actually mandate a 20 year or-so archival period but never have the money for it.
I have never seen a grant with such a mandate. Were there to be such, we'd never have to sneak it in under other grants, we'd just tell them -- "you mandated this, you pay for it."
I've figured out that future grants will simply pay for today's "large amount" of data storage in a small overhead
In other words, you'll fail any strict audit because you'll be doing work under one grant that is actually supporting one that has run out. And if your PI is more interested in keeping today's program manager happy by doing work on today's data than in managing last years/last decades, you'll be doing that instead.
The public who yearns for "free data" because they think they've paid for it need to realize that no, they really haven't paid for access to the data, only for someone to collect it in a research program. There's more to it than just flipping a couple of bits to grant the public such access, and that's going to cost money. They need to know that.
So, overly complex laws that are thousands of pages long, that legislators vote on, knowing full well that none of them have read and comprehend the entire document are better?
False dichotomy. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
My personal opinion is: petabytes or not, if the research is publicly funded then the data belongs to the public, and must be made available in some fashion.
The public is currently not paying for this access. Do you want to massively increase the research funding system in the US (or whatever country) to pay for long-term management of all publicly-funded data? Or do you expect to get it for free?
Your desire to access any and all data that was created using public money means that every research grant would need to be extended from the current length (one to three years for many of them) into decades. Someone has to pay for the system administrator, the network access, the electricity, the replacement compute/server hardware, the maintenance contracts, etc. Are you willing? Are you willing to forgo your free access when the funding agencies don't pay? I can tell you, I MIGHT work for free to keep some of the systems I created running, but I wouldn't work for free to maintain the access to the pubic for that data.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you have problems with reading comprehension and putting words in other people's mouths?
I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, and it appears my comprehension was better than yours. Allow me to quote the parent:
It sort of stinks of some kind of concentrated media effort to spread the idea of "patents GOOD for the little guy!",
You left out "royalties". "Painting royalties and patents in a good light". And then he refers only to royalties when saying the "odd stories" are presenting people it is easy to relate to.
So, that's why I'm asking him (not you) why he has a problem with any stories painting someone who is receiving royalties for his work in a good light? Why are royalties an issue?
That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people.
But there is such a law. It's called "murder". Or at least "manslaughter".
It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant.
They didn't tap anyone's phone. They allowed the phone to register with a fake cell system thus revealing the IMEI and proving it was the one belonging to the victim. They then moved the fake cell system to different places allowing a triangulation on the location of the phone.
At no time were they "tapping" anything. There were no conversations being listened to, and not even any "metadata" about who was calling what numbers.
They weren't even tracking a person. They were tracking a stolen phone. Had the person who stole it tossed it into the back of a pickup truck on the highway, the police would have tracked the phone where it went without any information about the driver or the thief.
This is no different than a bait car or bike where the cops have installed a radio tracking device so if the suspect gets away with the object they can track it down. Yes, there are devices they can attach to, e.g., a bike, that will emit a signal that they can track. That's not illegal, it's not unethical, and it certainly doesn't violate the fourth amendment.
Why do you have a problem with royalties? Those are contractually agreed terms that have nothing to do with patents or copyright.
Unlike the iPhone, you could replace the batteries. Or take them out to make sure it wasn't spying on you while you slept.
So I don't know about actually using the device, I see your logic here. But isn't there a requirement that evidence be disclosed to the accused? I think that's the issue here.
I think the issue was the actual act of sticking a foot in the door and how the consent was obtained to search, not anything to do with how the stolen device was tracked. At least, that's what the court seems to be interested in.
I read the Wired article. The "stingray" doesn't belong to the police department, it was on loan, so the licensing issue attaches to the company (Hughes), which almost certainly has such a license. They make radios. They'll have all kinds of licenses. And Wired doesn't even know for sure what the device was, they're only guessing, but the NDA points to a loan and not a purchase.
Let us strive to be correct in our outrage...
Agree 1000%.
Additionally, using one of those boxes would require court approval. Perhaps not for a traditional search warrant, but certainly to allow the police, who are not licensees of the radio frequencies involved, to operate these intentional transmitters. And that probably means federal court approval.
No. Federal courts do not issue FCC licenses for radio use, the FCC does. Licensing the radios would not be subject to a warrant request. Courts, federal or local, don't have the technical expertise to issue radio licenses, nor do they have statutory authority.
It appears that running a microcell is no longer a huge issue with respect to licenses. This company will sell you a complete cell system in a box, needing only an IP connection. How they deal with licensing is not apparent from their website.
On the issue of using the "controversial device" to track the criminal in this case, I'm not so ready to jump on the "police broke the law" bandwagon. If someone steals my LoJack equipped car (or OnStar) the police do not need a warrant to get location information from either source. The criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy related to the location of MY CAR after he's stolen it. Why would a criminal who steals a cell phone, which by it's very nature is inherently trackable, have such an expectation for a phone he's stolen? This is not a case of "locate Frank Smith so we can track his whereabouts whenever we want to", it's a case of "find the location of stolen property so we can recover it for the rightful owner." If they happen to find that stolen property in the possession of a criminal and can arrest him at the same time, that's a plus.
Welcome the the 21st century; science has advanced, and at this point, "climate change denier" is about as biased as "evolution denier".
Yes, they both are biased statements. That's true. That's because "climate change denier" is almost always applied to people who accept that the climate is changing but need better evidence than a positive correlation to accept anthropogenic causes. And "evolution denier" is similarly attached to people who have no problem with adaptation of species but don't necessarily accept that evolution is how life began.
And yes, almost every time someone tries countering that last statement by claiming "but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" they are talking about a situation where it was clear that the term "evolution" was being used in precisely that way. The most recent example I recall from this forum was the Kansas (IIRC) discussion about not wanting evolution taught as a fact when teaching the origins of life. The person who was quoted as the "evolution denier" was clear in his statements that he was referring to origins, that he had no problem calling it a theory when applied to those, and no problem saying "fact" when applied to situations other than origins.
It's also amply demonstrated in this discussion when one of the posters claimed that anti-vaccine people wanted a return of virulent diseases. It's an easy straw man to set up, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you on a specific point is seeking something much broader than is actually said. For example, it can't be that "anti-vaccine people" want to make sure that vaccines are as safe as possible, it must be that they are pro-disease.
That being said, it is wrong to single out Whole Foods. There are other examples. We just got a Natural Grocers in our town, and fully half of the store is vitamins and minerals and essential oils and all the overpriced supplements. It's almost as if they designed the store for that and then tacked on a few groceries so they could call themselves a grocery store.
This is one of the most common questions as far as senseless TSA rules go-- "If my stuff is supposedly dangerous, then why is it just sitting right there in a disposal bin on the checkpoint after I surrender it?"
The rules may be senseless, but this is not an example of one of them.
The material is in the bin and therefore didn't make it onto a plane where it could be used to kill lots of helpless people. If someone was targetting people in the airport outside the sterile area, they wouldn't have to go through the line with bottles of H2O2 and acetone and hope they meet up just right in the bin, they'd just bring in the acetone peroxide and use it directly. I mean, if you want to cause panic and fear, you can just drop a bottle of fuming nitric acid into a trash container.
90% of the time, this bag is swabbed by staff and the swab tested. I have never been told of results, positive/neutral/negative/other.
D'oh. The fact you aren't posting this from prison is a good indication that all those tests came up negative.
1. Why do they always swab my camera gear?
Because they ask you what it is and you tell them that you use the gear to take pictures of the death and destruction you cause in the name of Allah, MHNBP? Because you have a "Free Timothy McVeigh" sticker on the bag?
That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.
"License and registration, please. Do you know how fast you were going?"
"I have no idea, it is against the law to look at my speedometer while driving, and it always says '0' when I'm stopped. Was I going '0'?"
As for your last comment, I think you're wrong. People don't really have access to video cameras that "give little to no indication that they are recording."
A while back Woot sold out a bunch of cameras that look like pens. The lens is just above the top of the clip, so when they're clipped in your pocket they're pointing out. The only indication they are recording is a small orange LED on the back side, hidden from view.
Or get them from ebay. Or Walmart.
If the format/origin of the data is not understood by your readers, perhaps your publications need more work.
Sadly, "the public" is a much larger superset of people than "your readers". And journals are not the way to teach people all the various formats and origins of data, so even considering a limited subset of "your readers" your statement is wrong.
Not if such a program were to affect only future research.
I don't know what would be magic about future research that would allow a three-year grant to pay for extended, stable, long-term public access to the data that is collected under that grant. If you want someone to provide the data to you someone needs to pay for the systems and people it will require to store and distribute it. That would require a source of funding for the long-term. That would mean the three-year grant would need to be twenty years long or more, even if it is just paying for maintenance and upkeep in years 4 through 20+.
I am aware that it would cost somewhat more. But it is arguable that the benefit lost to society is worth far more.
"Benefit to society" doesn't put food on my table or clothes on my back or gas in my car. If you want access to my raw data someone needs to pay for someone to maintain it. That might not be me, but it will be someone. I mean, when that disk fails in my RAID6 array, someone has to physically replace it, and the replacement costs money (even if it is a warranty service exchange) and the person who replaces it costs money. If you pay nothing, you get two free disk failures. The third one means the data goes away.
If you are profiting on my dime, then yeah. Cough it up, bud.
I work for a living. That's not "profiting". Cough up the money to pay me to maintain your access to my data if you want it, because you're paying nothing for it right now.
I didn't say the researchers should pay for it. The public (meaning of course government at some level) would be responsible for maintaining publicly-accessible archives of publicly-funded research.
And yet you just accused me of "profiting" from this and I should "cough up" your data. That's a direct demand that researchers pay for your access. Yes, maybe government should pay for your access, and I'd be happy to have a lifetime job just maintaining all this data so you could come look it, if you ever do. But that's not what I'm paid to do, and government isn't paying for it.
Right, I'm ignoring your point and demonstrating how it doesn't matter.
It may not matter in the court, but it certainly matters in the brouhaha happening here. If she's the lease-holder then she has every right to consent to the search no matter what the boyfiend says. Any outrage over some travesty of justice in that case would be a tempest for tempest' sake. California law may make it an adjudicatable issue, but morally and ethically it wouldn't be.
Anyone who is domiciled there can consent to the search, and in California that doesn't take much.
I think from the description of the events that it isn't even close to a grey area here. I mean, he left her in charge of the apartment when he was arrested, so it is pretty clear he wanted her there and she wasn't just there because she was dropping off his laundry or anything.
However, by quote mining Smith v. Maryland for that 3d party doctrine, and divorcing that quote from its factual matrix, we end up with an interpretation where the NSA gets
Neither this decision nor any of my comments has anything to do with the NSA.
If you don't think this case will be quote mined, and this principal (that 3d party occupants can override the decision of a 1st party occupant)
I'm sorry, but a man and a woman living together in an apartment isn't a case of a "3rd party" anything. They are co-first-party occupants, or at worst she's a 2nd party (as if that were a relevant distinction). It is possible she's the sole first party, we don't know. Do you have any facts on hand to allocate the woman to even lower than co-habitant status? Why do you assume she's some "3rd party" to all of this?
With this case, and your "hmmm -- makes sense" attitude -- you just got robbed, and you don't even know it.
Uhhh, no. If I batter my "cohabitant" and expect her to respect my rights to privacy by keeping the cops out after I'm arrested for a violent crime, well, then, this decision might have some relevance to me. The person who got robbed was the victim of the street robbery, the person who got justice was the battered woman, and the perp got the chance to try to find any technicality he could to avoid his just due.
It's not Porsche's fault that my car got stolen when i left the keys on the seat, the top down, windows open, but the doors locked. It's my own damn fault! (Note: I do not, nor have I ever owned a Porsche!)
Well, if you left the keys on the seat with the top down and windows open, it can truly be said you never owned a Porsche, you were just making payments on one you were borrowing for a week.
So it doesn't seem to matter who is on the lease, just who believed that they lived there and demonstrated so by their actions.
The question of whose name is on the lease is not to solve the issue of "domiciling". If it is her name then there is no question that she has the legal authority to consent to a search of her apartment no matter what her boyfiend said. It wouldn't be an issue. It would be nice had that information been part of the story.
Clairvoyant much? I've seen people get arrested, but never had any idea why. Did the secondary occupant know why?
She was there, we can assume that she saw him get arrested. "You're under arrest for the assault and robbery ...". It takes very little psychic power to come to that conclusion. Maybe she didn't hear it, but it also takes very little psychic ability to guess that as a battered woman she was willing to let the cops in the first time they came to her door but was coerced not to by the implicit threats from her boyfiend.
This is a dangerous case.
This is hardly news or even dangerous. An occupant of a space allows a search. The other occupant wasn't smart enough to pick a roommate that didn't rat him out as soon as she was out of arm's reach of the abuser.
"Holy Moly -- WTF were they thinking when they did that."
Holy moly what were they thinking when they let someone waive their fourth amendment rights? How could any of the sheep we've created be able to make such an important decision?
They arrested him based on her injuries
The LA Times article says they arrested him for the street robbery. Quote: "Fernandez was arrested in connection with the street robbery and taken away."
and came back to get consent from the one occupant remaining, thus getting more evidence.
Yes. She consented. She was a legal occupant of the space. Had she wanted to say 'no', she could have. I suspect she was ready to say "yes" the first time, except for the duress her lovely boyfiend put upon her. And here's a clue: her visible injuries combined with the verbal altercation that led them to the door in the first place were sufficient for them to enter and arrest him, had they chosen to use that as the reason.
This change is just a shortcut so that they didn't have to drive the guy back to the station
You have no clue what you are talking about. "The guy" was already taken to the station.
Even if they couldn't arrest non-consenting parties, they can still get warrants based on witness testimony.
What witness testimony? You want a battered woman to have to testify in court against her abuser before she can allow the cops to enter her apartment to look for evidence? You're a heartless bastard.
Except now, cops come to the house, ask the owner to search the house. Owner says no. Cops arrest owner and he goes to jail.
Except they didn't arrest him for saying 'no'. They arrested him as a suspect in a street robbery. You know, physical assault on an innocent victim. That's a pretty serious crime.
What is the occupant going to say??? No and go to jail too?
If the other occupant is a suspect in a street robbery, then they could expect to be arrested whether they said yes or no. Since the first guy wasn't arrested for saying 'no', why would the other occupant think he would be?
That should qualify as consent under duress if he had a good lawyer.
Roxanne Rojas is a "she". A battered "she" who had every reason and every right to allow the cops into the apartment because she was a legal resident.
If you don't want your "roommate" to rat you out to the cops, don't beat her, and don't let her answer the cop's knocking at the door after you've done it. D'oh.
I suspect that Roxanne would have been quite happy to have the cops search the first time and was stopped only because of the duress applied by her abusive boyfriend.
An important question that the LA Times article does not answer is whose name was on the lease. They refer to "his apartment", but Alito is quoted as saying it was "her home". I would not put it past a gang-banger to have the apartment in her name simply so that he could walk away without any ties or responsibilities when he dumps her, and it would be harder to track him to where he lives because his name wouldn't appear in the records, but we don't know. If it was her name on the lease, there should be no question as to her right to grant permission despite anything her abusive boyfriend said.
Nothing ... apart from the legal precedent it created as a side effect.
The precedent that a legal occupant of a space can consent to the search of that space. Wow.
I think the takeaway from this is not that the police are horrible people who abuse your rights, but that you should probably not choose to have roommates/spouses who would rat you out to the police, because they could very well do that without involving a search of any kind. "Hey, you're looking for the guy who sells drugs down by the high school? He lives at 123 Main Street and his name is ..." "You want to search the house of the man who beats me on a regular basis so you can find stuff to put him away in prison? Go right ahead..."
It was her space, too. She has a right to be secure in her person, too. If that means putting the guy who is making her insecure away then so be it. She could have easily shortcut the process and simply shown them the drugs or whatever and then they'd be able to search based on the visible evidence.
I actually do this for a living; Having data available for projects does require it to be on large data systems which are properly backed up etc.
So do I, and for more than twenty years. If you do, you'd know it is quite a bit more than just a hole in a firewall and a read-only login. It requires an organization that the public can navigate and understand and actually find things. That's different than the organization that the local users need since local users get a much larger view of the data and need it in faster and more direct ways. I.e., local users see a lot of files, public users see links on a web page.
If your "public" access is just a "read-only" user that gets to wander about looking for the files he needs, then you're doing the public part wrong. And you're creating security issues for everyone because one of the first vectors for attack is almost always "get access to the system".
Heck, any halfway decent staged system (Sun used to make really good ones) will allow you to read tapes as if it were a regular network share.
Citation required. I have a thousand VHS tapes that it would be really nice to have available "as if [they] were a network share." I know of no such hardware for that format. I know of no such free hardware for any tape format, and since the grants that paid to collect the data didn't include robot tape systems at all it would have to be free for there to be any hope of this data being made publicly available. That's ignoring the money it would take to pay me to make it so.
The mag tapes in boxes problem we fixed years ago by simply putting everything on spinning rust with ZFS.
Someone pays for the time of the person who does that. "Graduate students". No, they're busy using the data to do something, not spending a year of their life digitizing video tapes.
I do understand the grant issues, most of those grants will actually mandate a 20 year or-so archival period but never have the money for it.
I have never seen a grant with such a mandate. Were there to be such, we'd never have to sneak it in under other grants, we'd just tell them -- "you mandated this, you pay for it."
I've figured out that future grants will simply pay for today's "large amount" of data storage in a small overhead
In other words, you'll fail any strict audit because you'll be doing work under one grant that is actually supporting one that has run out. And if your PI is more interested in keeping today's program manager happy by doing work on today's data than in managing last years/last decades, you'll be doing that instead.
The public who yearns for "free data" because they think they've paid for it need to realize that no, they really haven't paid for access to the data, only for someone to collect it in a research program. There's more to it than just flipping a couple of bits to grant the public such access, and that's going to cost money. They need to know that.
So, overly complex laws that are thousands of pages long, that legislators vote on, knowing full well that none of them have read and comprehend the entire document are better?
False dichotomy. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
My personal opinion is: petabytes or not, if the research is publicly funded then the data belongs to the public, and must be made available in some fashion.
The public is currently not paying for this access. Do you want to massively increase the research funding system in the US (or whatever country) to pay for long-term management of all publicly-funded data? Or do you expect to get it for free?
Your desire to access any and all data that was created using public money means that every research grant would need to be extended from the current length (one to three years for many of them) into decades. Someone has to pay for the system administrator, the network access, the electricity, the replacement compute/server hardware, the maintenance contracts, etc. Are you willing? Are you willing to forgo your free access when the funding agencies don't pay? I can tell you, I MIGHT work for free to keep some of the systems I created running, but I wouldn't work for free to maintain the access to the pubic for that data.