People can acquire paper, but a printer is too expensive.
I can go to the local uni bookstore and buy a printer for less than $50. True, that's more expensive than the paper I can pick up from the local copy room stock for nothing, but hardly an expense that would make one unobtainable.
I would love to believe that the government has my best interests at heart, but there is no such evidence available. Show me when the government has chosen to act for the best interests of the people over the best interests of the rich.
You are perhaps thinking that the best interests of the individual are the same as the best interests of the people as a whole, or that your best interests are the same as someone else's? In one sentence you refer to "my best interests", and in the next you write "best interests of the people". Those two are not necessarily the same.
It reminds me of a centuries old piece of equipment called a "Pencil". They were heavily used while I was in school before being replaced by newer, sleeker technology.
They were replaced by newer tech because the price of the batteries you needed to keep them running was much higher than a complete new pencil. That meant most people simply threw them away when they were "empty". With newer LiPo batteries and lower power devices, it might be interesting to recreate these devices in rechargeable versions.
Translators into english have long converted this into the male pronouns for simple readability.
Actually, they translated it into "he" the genderless version because that was proper English.
There was an announcement earlier this year that the newest edition of the NIV is going to switch these into the 'he or she' form in order to remain more accurate to the original text*.
And yet, that moves it further away from what the original said. "Any person or any woman..." just isn't the same as just "any person". It also tries to attach a gender to the antecedent that wasn't in the original. The true reason for the change isn't to be "more accurate", because clearly it won't be, but to placate those who cannot accept that "he" has two meanings.
*Itsself a translation. Jesus spoke in Hebrew,
Actually, while Jesus certainly knew Hebrew as a requirement to know the Old Testament, the language he most often used was Aramaic, simply because that was the language in use at the time.
Radio transmitters tend to be pretty good on emitted frequency.
Not the kind of transmitters that a pirate operator would install on the roof of a building for unattended operation. Even those that aren't bad can be misused -- such as installing an RF amp and overdriving it.
so only 3-4 times the frequency.
Filtering out something that is 1/3 to 1/4 the frequency of your device, especially at 300 MHz, is pretty easy and cheap. If it was the car end of the system that was the problem, then nobody could park anywhere near any transmitter, and there are an awful lot of transmitters around these days.
What is hard to keep from interfering is a signal that is at the same frequency as your remote, and that's the harmonics. You can design in all the filtering you want in a receiver, if there is a harmonic from an unlicensed transmitter at the same frequency you cannot filter it out.
So I guess the question is, do you own your facebook account? Do you own your gmail account?
No, the question would be, does "Bob's Meat Market" own the facebook or gmail account of someone who applies for a job there, and I think the answer to that is a pretty solid "no".
But Michigan State University DOES own the domain "msu.edu", and email addresses at that domain do belong to them. So, they have the right to ask about email accounts at msu.edu when someone applies for a job there.
Or get your municipality to run their own fiber as a public utility.
Food is a much more essential good than fiber optic internet service, and yet I never hear anyone calling for the municipalities to nationalize (city-ize?) all the food stores in town.
I want common carrier broadband. AT&T doesn't offer it, nor does Comcast. So there's no issue of public entities competing with private business here.
Huh? If a city starts selling broadband services, you don't see that as competing with both Comcast and AT&T?
Would it make any real difference when the city cannot afford to install all the infrastructure to provide unlimited service that some of the people want, compared to Comcast or AT&T not installing it? Would you, as a user who demands no caps and no bandwidth limits, care whether it was the city saying "no" or Comcast saying "no"?
I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization.
Please feel free to hand your entire paycheck to the government. There is no law stopping you. It will make you much happier knowing that you are getting much more civilization than your neighbor.
I suspect, however, that you really mean that you like the concept of taxes paid by others because it pays for the control over them that you appreciate (and that you call "civilization").
That a lot of deluded "rugged individualists" falsely think they are entirely self-made and have no obligation to pay back into society amuses me.
I have an obligation to pay back into society that which it asks me to pay and I have agreed to. There is no EULA or "shrink-wrap license"; no unilateral contract. If "society" wants to promote home ownership and does so by creating tax deductions, then I will use them and feel no sorrow at paying less in taxes. Ditto for energy-efficient appliances, weatherization, charitable donations, etc. If the sum of the deductions meets or exceeds the "tax liability", then why should I have any obligation to pay at all? After all, society has told me what it expects; I have met that expectation.
This same concept applies to corporations. Obeying the laws and paying what is owed is their obligation; paying extra because you want "more civilization" isn't.
Seeing them frustrated and resentful at paying taxes makes me smile.
Why would anyone be resentful at having to pay for things that you think they should pay for but they don't? How silly of them. And isn't it such a wonderful feeling of accomplishment when you can force them to do so, and feel superior to them at the same time?
Not really. Not an unlicensed operation that doesn't have the mandatory FCC maintenance requirements. I have a repeater that I haven't had to do anything to for more than two years. The only reason I had to visit it in the last year was because some idiot smacked it with a board and flipped a switch on it.
and (assuming it is running autonomously) a way to change music selection (although perhaps they were feeding data wirelessly?).
A Raspberry Pi can have a 32Gb or 64Gb SD card installed. The 52Gb of audio I have online would play for 74 days without repeating.
But lacking that, "he" is still the correct word because in the English language "he" is both a third-person pronoun referring to "a particular person who is a man" and a third-person pronoun referring to "a person of unknown gender". This is why people who use the pronoun "she" to demonstrate their "cultural sensitivity" are just confusing, because they have forced a gender specificity on the antecedent when none really exists. How do they know it was a woman? Those who understand the language are left trying to figure out why there is something specific to women involved, or why it matters.
And those who use "he or she" are really saying "any person or a woman..."
low-quality transmitters emit more on side-bands, IIUC
"side bands" carry the information in the radio signal. They are created by the modulation of the carrier, and are what make the signal have "bandwidth". While a low quality transmitter may have some noise in the oscillator that appears as side-band information, it is probably not as much "in the side-bands" as a full power FCC licensed FM stereo radio station that has Muzak or other extended signals, also known as "SCA".
It is the poor filtering of the low-quality transmitter that results in the emission of harmonics (third, fifth, etc.) from a non-linearity in the oscillator or the amplifiers. In this case, a third harmonic around 312 MHz, which is a commonunlicensed control device frequency.
Well, there are a lot more CEO's than generals, so that would affect the statistics.
And generals (and admirals) typically have years of through-the-ranks experience before they make it to the top, with a lot of competition. They aren't just popping up like CEOs can, and almost never make rank just because Pop owned the army.
After Australia passed strict gun controls after their mass shooting in 1996, they haven't had a single mass shooting since then.
After TSA began securing the nation's airports, not a single instance of a large commercial jetliner being flown into a skyscraper has occurred. After they instituted the "311" policy, not a single instance of liquid explosives being used to bring down an airliner has occurred. After beginning to force every person to remove their shoes, not a single shoe-bomb has detonated on board an aircraft.
And since I've started wearing my garlic necklace, I've not been attacked once by a vampire.
So, Billy Bob wakes up in the hospital with a gunshot wound. The docs and cops are surrounding his bed asking him what happened. He says "I dunno". They ask him the last thing he remembers.
Well, me and Jimmy Joe and One-Eyed Pete was at the bar drinkin', and One-Eyed Pete says 'hey, I know, let's go hunting'. And Jimmy Joe says 'yeah, that sounds like fun'. And I says 'I'm game..."
Or this one: one night, a cop brings three teenagers into court. The judge asks the first boy, 'why are you here, son?' And the boy says "I'm here for throwing peanuts in the water." That's odd, thought the judge. "Why are you here?", he asks the second. "I'm here for throwing peanuts in the water." Hmmm. The judge wonders why this is so serious. He asks the third teen, a girl, "why are you here?" "I'm Peanuts", she said.
It's a natural response to a computer system where you have to double click some things to get them to do something and single click others. Why waste time clicking once, waiting to find out that nothing happened, and then have to double click it again?
Same computer, same mouse, same display, different actions.
I find this to be an issue even in Linux. My desktop has a firefox icon on the desktop, and one in the taskbar at the top. On the desktop, click twice. In the taskbar, click once. I'm very used to seeing the warning from firefox that there is another instance running...
I guess I'm an old coot, because I remember being taught how to do this in school when I was in, maybe, grade three or thereabouts.
Dude. Teaching kids how to make change requires a reference (if not actual practice with) coins. Coins are a form of money, and it would be insensitive to refer to money when a student may not have any. Or may come from a culture where there are no coins. It could stigmatize that child, stunt their innate desire to learn, or traumatize them when they find out there are things they don't know about.
Then there should be no problem at all calling that "probable cause" and obtaining a warrant to do it. In practice, that can usually be done in less than an hour.
People who get lost in the wilderness are usually not in a municipality with an office full of prosecutors who can draft up warrant requests and then find the only judge for the county to sign it.
It's lunacy to say that a situation where someone's life is in danger and their location data can save it requires a warrant before that information can be obtained. First of all, how do you imagine this location data is going to be used in a court of law in the first place? What jeopardy does getting this information put someone in?
The people who wrote the constitution may not have conceived of warrantless tapping of cell phone towers,
Getting cell phone location from the towers is not "warrantless tapping". It's getting ancillary data, much like looking in the phone book to find out someone's address. It's almost exactly like looking at the caller ID on your phone to see the number someone is calling from and then using a reverse directory to look up his location.
In terms of what they knew about, I'd say this falls under "papers and effects".
It's "data", much like the bits on a DVD are data that yearns to be free and shared with everyone.
If the deception isn't detected, then a good faith exemption isn't necessary and is, in fact, irrelevant.
But again, ONLY if the deception is detected. That is hardly something you can assume will happen.
Yes, one has to assume that the defense council is capable and actually doing his job. If he is, the deception will be uncovered in the course of discovery and the next motion filed will be to exclude that evidence.
They probably, and quite reasonably, expect a similar level of privacy.
You're holding a radio device, using a service that MUST know your approximate location in order to be able to work. Your expectation of "privacy" MIGHT be reasonable for the content of your conversation (since another party is involved, too), but as for your location, sorry, there is no reasonable expectation. Unreasonable, yes.
In the judge's own words, the legal standard is "the amount of privacy a reasonable person would expect".
And "ignorant" doesn't mean "reasonable".
I submit that the majority of the public expects their location information to be private.
I submit that you are absurdly incorrect, because the vast majority of the public is used to seeing phone books with their address listed right next to their phone number. And a large majority of them are used to being able to look up someone's address using that publicly available data.
It is what the "average" person expects that counts.
I see what you did there. You swapped the word "reasonable" with the word "average".
Yes, and lives have been (and could have been) saved by this.
The Shue family lost in southern Oregon is an example, which is also the reason why it happens more often. Family lost in the snow while taking a shortcut. Husband dead. IIRC the wife and two kids were rescued. He died because he left them to try to find help.
A cell tech in California saw the news and thought "if they have a cell phone, I bet we can find them from tower data", and pushed his bosses to allow it.
It's now one of the first things done in any lost person situation. It saves not only the lives of the lost people, but the time and lives of people who risk theirs going out to search for them.
It shall be presumed wrong for government to gain access to anything without a warrant until argued otherwise.
Really? They can't look at you without a warrant? They can't get security camera tapes from a bank that was held up without a warrant? They can't gain access to information about who is driving your car without a warrant? I think it should be presumed there are lots of things a government can get access to without a warrant.
If one were setting up a nation, isn't hat what you'd do?
That might be what I'd do were I setting up a nation today, but we're talking about one that has already been set up. One that includes the word "unreasonable" in connection with searches and seizures, and then limited even more by the clause "person, houses, papers and effects". The word "unreasonable" doesn't mean "any and all", and it would be interesting to argue that a cell phone company data record is a "person, house, paper, or effect".
The second part of that amendment which talks about Warrants, doesn't say that warrants shall be required before the government gains "access to anything", it delineates what must happen for a warrant, when required, to be issued.
In this specific instance, the ruling was about data obtained before SCOTUS ruled on GPS, which is the only reason there is any clarity about GPS, and only provides a glimmer of clarity on cell phone usage data. For instance, one major difference is that GPS tracking data from a law enforcement installed GPS device is involuntary; tracking by your cell phone company is both necessary for them to provide the service you have asked them to provide to you and voluntary in that you carry the device of your own free will.
I'd say that were the government to slip a cell phone into your effects so that they could track you not by the GPS but by the cell phone signals, that would clearly be a violation of the constitution because it would be nearly identical to the existing GPS decisions. But you carrying a device voluntarily that requires other people to track you, that's a different situation entirely.
Well, no. It is a change based on how we were told to feel about blowing up an office building,
Uhh, no, it was a change based on an office building blowing up. We could have been told 100 times how we should feel were it to happen, but it actually happening is the trigger event.
Saith the fellow who thinks it is just fine that TSA confiscates jars of peanut butter from elderly Korean women because he doesn't think they need to have them:
Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.
No, today's reality is that the men those officers would be ordering to perform that military takeover know they'd have to shoot those civilians who have less superior weapons. Those men know that the civilian population is armed, and that dying from a gunshot wound from a rusty old.357 is still dead. When they enter the neighborhood they are taking over, they know they're going to have to kill their brothers and sisters and sons and daughters because if they don't they may wind up dead. THAT'S what's going to stop them from doing it, not some "moral qualm" of the guy who told them to do the dirty work.
What, we're supposed to give up our guns because we know the "enemy" would have superior firepower; that the second amendment is meaningless because anyone who respects it would lose in a skirmish with the government it was intended to keep in check? That we should roll over because you don't think we need to do anything more?
Slashdot Mirror
People can acquire paper, but a printer is too expensive.
I can go to the local uni bookstore and buy a printer for less than $50. True, that's more expensive than the paper I can pick up from the local copy room stock for nothing, but hardly an expense that would make one unobtainable.
I would love to believe that the government has my best interests at heart, but there is no such evidence available. Show me when the government has chosen to act for the best interests of the people over the best interests of the rich.
You are perhaps thinking that the best interests of the individual are the same as the best interests of the people as a whole, or that your best interests are the same as someone else's? In one sentence you refer to "my best interests", and in the next you write "best interests of the people". Those two are not necessarily the same.
It reminds me of a centuries old piece of equipment called a "Pencil". They were heavily used while I was in school before being replaced by newer, sleeker technology.
They were replaced by newer tech because the price of the batteries you needed to keep them running was much higher than a complete new pencil. That meant most people simply threw them away when they were "empty". With newer LiPo batteries and lower power devices, it might be interesting to recreate these devices in rechargeable versions.
Translators into english have long converted this into the male pronouns for simple readability.
Actually, they translated it into "he" the genderless version because that was proper English.
There was an announcement earlier this year that the newest edition of the NIV is going to switch these into the 'he or she' form in order to remain more accurate to the original text*.
And yet, that moves it further away from what the original said. "Any person or any woman..." just isn't the same as just "any person". It also tries to attach a gender to the antecedent that wasn't in the original. The true reason for the change isn't to be "more accurate", because clearly it won't be, but to placate those who cannot accept that "he" has two meanings.
*Itsself a translation. Jesus spoke in Hebrew,
Actually, while Jesus certainly knew Hebrew as a requirement to know the Old Testament, the language he most often used was Aramaic, simply because that was the language in use at the time.
Radio transmitters tend to be pretty good on emitted frequency.
Not the kind of transmitters that a pirate operator would install on the roof of a building for unattended operation. Even those that aren't bad can be misused -- such as installing an RF amp and overdriving it.
so only 3-4 times the frequency.
Filtering out something that is 1/3 to 1/4 the frequency of your device, especially at 300 MHz, is pretty easy and cheap. If it was the car end of the system that was the problem, then nobody could park anywhere near any transmitter, and there are an awful lot of transmitters around these days.
What is hard to keep from interfering is a signal that is at the same frequency as your remote, and that's the harmonics. You can design in all the filtering you want in a receiver, if there is a harmonic from an unlicensed transmitter at the same frequency you cannot filter it out.
So I guess the question is, do you own your facebook account? Do you own your gmail account?
No, the question would be, does "Bob's Meat Market" own the facebook or gmail account of someone who applies for a job there, and I think the answer to that is a pretty solid "no".
But Michigan State University DOES own the domain "msu.edu", and email addresses at that domain do belong to them. So, they have the right to ask about email accounts at msu.edu when someone applies for a job there.
Not my own SSN. The only people that have that are those with a legal requirement to report financial information to government entities.
What employer doesn't have a legal requirement to report financial information about their employees to at least one government entity?
Or get your municipality to run their own fiber as a public utility.
Food is a much more essential good than fiber optic internet service, and yet I never hear anyone calling for the municipalities to nationalize (city-ize?) all the food stores in town.
I want common carrier broadband. AT&T doesn't offer it, nor does Comcast. So there's no issue of public entities competing with private business here.
Huh? If a city starts selling broadband services, you don't see that as competing with both Comcast and AT&T?
Would it make any real difference when the city cannot afford to install all the infrastructure to provide unlimited service that some of the people want, compared to Comcast or AT&T not installing it? Would you, as a user who demands no caps and no bandwidth limits, care whether it was the city saying "no" or Comcast saying "no"?
I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization.
Please feel free to hand your entire paycheck to the government. There is no law stopping you. It will make you much happier knowing that you are getting much more civilization than your neighbor.
I suspect, however, that you really mean that you like the concept of taxes paid by others because it pays for the control over them that you appreciate (and that you call "civilization").
That a lot of deluded "rugged individualists" falsely think they are entirely self-made and have no obligation to pay back into society amuses me.
I have an obligation to pay back into society that which it asks me to pay and I have agreed to. There is no EULA or "shrink-wrap license"; no unilateral contract. If "society" wants to promote home ownership and does so by creating tax deductions, then I will use them and feel no sorrow at paying less in taxes. Ditto for energy-efficient appliances, weatherization, charitable donations, etc. If the sum of the deductions meets or exceeds the "tax liability", then why should I have any obligation to pay at all? After all, society has told me what it expects; I have met that expectation.
This same concept applies to corporations. Obeying the laws and paying what is owed is their obligation; paying extra because you want "more civilization" isn't.
Seeing them frustrated and resentful at paying taxes makes me smile.
Why would anyone be resentful at having to pay for things that you think they should pay for but they don't? How silly of them. And isn't it such a wonderful feeling of accomplishment when you can force them to do so, and feel superior to them at the same time?
Radio station would need constant maintenance,
Not really. Not an unlicensed operation that doesn't have the mandatory FCC maintenance requirements. I have a repeater that I haven't had to do anything to for more than two years. The only reason I had to visit it in the last year was because some idiot smacked it with a board and flipped a switch on it.
and (assuming it is running autonomously) a way to change music selection (although perhaps they were feeding data wirelessly?).
A Raspberry Pi can have a 32Gb or 64Gb SD card installed. The 52Gb of audio I have online would play for 74 days without repeating.
And we know its a "HE" because?
As someone else pointed out, because TFA said so.
But lacking that, "he" is still the correct word because in the English language "he" is both a third-person pronoun referring to "a particular person who is a man" and a third-person pronoun referring to "a person of unknown gender". This is why people who use the pronoun "she" to demonstrate their "cultural sensitivity" are just confusing, because they have forced a gender specificity on the antecedent when none really exists. How do they know it was a woman? Those who understand the language are left trying to figure out why there is something specific to women involved, or why it matters.
And those who use "he or she" are really saying "any person or a woman..."
low-quality transmitters emit more on side-bands, IIUC
"side bands" carry the information in the radio signal. They are created by the modulation of the carrier, and are what make the signal have "bandwidth". While a low quality transmitter may have some noise in the oscillator that appears as side-band information, it is probably not as much "in the side-bands" as a full power FCC licensed FM stereo radio station that has Muzak or other extended signals, also known as "SCA".
It is the poor filtering of the low-quality transmitter that results in the emission of harmonics (third, fifth, etc.) from a non-linearity in the oscillator or the amplifiers. In this case, a third harmonic around 312 MHz, which is a common unlicensed control device frequency.
Well, there are a lot more CEO's than generals, so that would affect the statistics.
And generals (and admirals) typically have years of through-the-ranks experience before they make it to the top, with a lot of competition. They aren't just popping up like CEOs can, and almost never make rank just because Pop owned the army.
After Australia passed strict gun controls after their mass shooting in 1996, they haven't had a single mass shooting since then.
After TSA began securing the nation's airports, not a single instance of a large commercial jetliner being flown into a skyscraper has occurred. After they instituted the "311" policy, not a single instance of liquid explosives being used to bring down an airliner has occurred. After beginning to force every person to remove their shoes, not a single shoe-bomb has detonated on board an aircraft.
And since I've started wearing my garlic necklace, I've not been attacked once by a vampire.
I'm game...
Are you referring to the old joke?
So, Billy Bob wakes up in the hospital with a gunshot wound. The docs and cops are surrounding his bed asking him what happened. He says "I dunno". They ask him the last thing he remembers.
Well, me and Jimmy Joe and One-Eyed Pete was at the bar drinkin', and One-Eyed Pete says 'hey, I know, let's go hunting'. And Jimmy Joe says 'yeah, that sounds like fun'. And I says 'I'm game..."
Or this one: one night, a cop brings three teenagers into court. The judge asks the first boy, 'why are you here, son?' And the boy says "I'm here for throwing peanuts in the water." That's odd, thought the judge. "Why are you here?", he asks the second. "I'm here for throwing peanuts in the water." Hmmm. The judge wonders why this is so serious. He asks the third teen, a girl, "why are you here?" "I'm Peanuts", she said.
Same computer, same mouse, same display, different actions.
I find this to be an issue even in Linux. My desktop has a firefox icon on the desktop, and one in the taskbar at the top. On the desktop, click twice. In the taskbar, click once. I'm very used to seeing the warning from firefox that there is another instance running ...
I guess I'm an old coot, because I remember being taught how to do this in school when I was in, maybe, grade three or thereabouts.
Dude. Teaching kids how to make change requires a reference (if not actual practice with) coins. Coins are a form of money, and it would be insensitive to refer to money when a student may not have any. Or may come from a culture where there are no coins. It could stigmatize that child, stunt their innate desire to learn, or traumatize them when they find out there are things they don't know about.
You insensitive clod.
Then there should be no problem at all calling that "probable cause" and obtaining a warrant to do it. In practice, that can usually be done in less than an hour.
People who get lost in the wilderness are usually not in a municipality with an office full of prosecutors who can draft up warrant requests and then find the only judge for the county to sign it.
It's lunacy to say that a situation where someone's life is in danger and their location data can save it requires a warrant before that information can be obtained. First of all, how do you imagine this location data is going to be used in a court of law in the first place? What jeopardy does getting this information put someone in?
The people who wrote the constitution may not have conceived of warrantless tapping of cell phone towers,
Getting cell phone location from the towers is not "warrantless tapping". It's getting ancillary data, much like looking in the phone book to find out someone's address. It's almost exactly like looking at the caller ID on your phone to see the number someone is calling from and then using a reverse directory to look up his location.
In terms of what they knew about, I'd say this falls under "papers and effects".
It's "data", much like the bits on a DVD are data that yearns to be free and shared with everyone.
That is ONLY true if the deception is detected.
If the deception isn't detected, then a good faith exemption isn't necessary and is, in fact, irrelevant.
But again, ONLY if the deception is detected. That is hardly something you can assume will happen.
Yes, one has to assume that the defense council is capable and actually doing his job. If he is, the deception will be uncovered in the course of discovery and the next motion filed will be to exclude that evidence.
They probably, and quite reasonably, expect a similar level of privacy.
You're holding a radio device, using a service that MUST know your approximate location in order to be able to work. Your expectation of "privacy" MIGHT be reasonable for the content of your conversation (since another party is involved, too), but as for your location, sorry, there is no reasonable expectation. Unreasonable, yes.
In the judge's own words, the legal standard is "the amount of privacy a reasonable person would expect".
And "ignorant" doesn't mean "reasonable".
I submit that the majority of the public expects their location information to be private.
I submit that you are absurdly incorrect, because the vast majority of the public is used to seeing phone books with their address listed right next to their phone number. And a large majority of them are used to being able to look up someone's address using that publicly available data.
It is what the "average" person expects that counts.
I see what you did there. You swapped the word "reasonable" with the word "average".
The Shue family lost in southern Oregon is an example, which is also the reason why it happens more often. Family lost in the snow while taking a shortcut. Husband dead. IIRC the wife and two kids were rescued. He died because he left them to try to find help.
A cell tech in California saw the news and thought "if they have a cell phone, I bet we can find them from tower data", and pushed his bosses to allow it.
It's now one of the first things done in any lost person situation. It saves not only the lives of the lost people, but the time and lives of people who risk theirs going out to search for them.
It shall be presumed wrong for government to gain access to anything without a warrant until argued otherwise.
Really? They can't look at you without a warrant? They can't get security camera tapes from a bank that was held up without a warrant? They can't gain access to information about who is driving your car without a warrant? I think it should be presumed there are lots of things a government can get access to without a warrant.
If one were setting up a nation, isn't hat what you'd do?
That might be what I'd do were I setting up a nation today, but we're talking about one that has already been set up. One that includes the word "unreasonable" in connection with searches and seizures, and then limited even more by the clause "person, houses, papers and effects". The word "unreasonable" doesn't mean "any and all", and it would be interesting to argue that a cell phone company data record is a "person, house, paper, or effect".
The second part of that amendment which talks about Warrants, doesn't say that warrants shall be required before the government gains "access to anything", it delineates what must happen for a warrant, when required, to be issued.
In this specific instance, the ruling was about data obtained before SCOTUS ruled on GPS, which is the only reason there is any clarity about GPS, and only provides a glimmer of clarity on cell phone usage data. For instance, one major difference is that GPS tracking data from a law enforcement installed GPS device is involuntary; tracking by your cell phone company is both necessary for them to provide the service you have asked them to provide to you and voluntary in that you carry the device of your own free will.
I'd say that were the government to slip a cell phone into your effects so that they could track you not by the GPS but by the cell phone signals, that would clearly be a violation of the constitution because it would be nearly identical to the existing GPS decisions. But you carrying a device voluntarily that requires other people to track you, that's a different situation entirely.
Well, no. It is a change based on how we were told to feel about blowing up an office building,
Uhh, no, it was a change based on an office building blowing up. We could have been told 100 times how we should feel were it to happen, but it actually happening is the trigger event.
Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.
No, today's reality is that the men those officers would be ordering to perform that military takeover know they'd have to shoot those civilians who have less superior weapons. Those men know that the civilian population is armed, and that dying from a gunshot wound from a rusty old .357 is still dead. When they enter the neighborhood they are taking over, they know they're going to have to kill their brothers and sisters and sons and daughters because if they don't they may wind up dead. THAT'S what's going to stop them from doing it, not some "moral qualm" of the guy who told them to do the dirty work.
What, we're supposed to give up our guns because we know the "enemy" would have superior firepower; that the second amendment is meaningless because anyone who respects it would lose in a skirmish with the government it was intended to keep in check? That we should roll over because you don't think we need to do anything more?