There is not necessarily any conflict. That which is forbidden by the constitution and/or statutes of one state may be permitted in another. Whether or not this is permitted by the US Constitution must be decided by a Federal court.
State constitutions cannot conflict with the Federal one with respects to rights granted, as in the Bill of Rights, and in this case, the requirement that a warrant be obtained.
States can grant you MORE rights than the Federal Constitution, but they may not restrict you more than it does.
My understanding here is that monitoring without a warrant would constitute (no pun intended) a breach of the 'unreasonable search and seizure' part of the US constitution. If a cop can't investigate someone on the sole basis of profiling (racial or otherwise), then he shouldn't be allowed to GPS tag them without a warrant either. Seems simple to me... No?
This reeks of laziness on the part of law enforcement to me.
If the man was a suspect, they could have had plainclothes officers follow his vehicle. This would not have required a warrant nor violated his rights, so long as the officers didn't violate his person or property without a warrant.
Instead they slapped a GPS on his vehicle and allowed it to save them the time, labor, and expense of doing so.
That's where they crossed the line. Had they done good police work (ie: followed him instead of taking the lazy way out) they would have collected the SAME evidence and done so legally.
From the skimming I did of the summary it looks like the sentence was over turned because they didn't get a warrant for using GPS to track the guy. Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO, should there be discipline for not using proper procedures absolutely. Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
Wrong. The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
Obama is a very weak leader for all the fascist like control he's trying to take, and he wants to "change" the way we do things. So, yes, I can see him giving ICANN up. This is a good time to ask for stuff that's contrary to American interests.
Fortunately where I work upper management wants nothing to do with IT decisions and passes these types of sales pitches to us.
I've enjoyed pissing off salespeople from these "MakeAlgoreRich" companies with statements like, "I care about performance and reliability, I couldn't give a fuck about how much power it uses or even if it needs a smokestack, in fact, if I could make my servers go faster by sending double the power to it or running a smokestack up the roof, I'd do it"
I'm not sure there are significant groups of economists, on either the left or right or in between, who actually think it'd be a good idea for governments to run pro-cyclical fiscal policies. If the government spends more in good times, and less in bad times, it compounds both bubbles and recessions.
Increasing taxation during a recession only makes the recession worse since it puts MORE burden on the economy when it's already hurting, thus increasing both the length and severity of the recession.
Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax? I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.
They could just shut down their UK specific service, leaving their users there with the option of google.com.
This would put the UK government in the position of ordering websites that refuse to pay them taxes to be firewalled out of the country. Which would have the effect of cutting them off the internet completely.
What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?
"Hey, we're making lots of profits - don't tax us!"
How about the government for once having to do what everyone ELSE has to do in a recession? Do with LESS.
Here is how government works with respect to industry:
If it moves, TAX it.
If it survives, REGULATE it.
If it doesn't survive, SUBSIDIZE it.
I'm not saying that government should stay completely out of business with respect to consumer protection, and workplace safety, but it shouldn't be micromanaging or looking for ways to tax activity multiple times, which is what the UK is trying to do here. Google already pays taxes on earnings from their UK operations. What the government is wanting to do is essentially tax them AGAIN.
This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation, and given that with anything that is internet based, you can run it from ANYWHERE, what the UK is doing is encouraging Google to remove any operation from their soil and to lose what revenue they get from them. And I wouldn't blame them for it.
Businesses do not exist to funnel money into politicians coffers, they exist to make money.
Armed criminals who are seeking to ilegally board a ship should be SHOT. Killing them is the best deterrent of all: Those particular pirates will never pirate again.
To not arm the crews or put armed guards on these ships is utter insanity and proof that political correctness run amok is suicide.
This gets really stupid after a while. I mean everything you do will be a threat to someone's "business model". If I choose to walk to work then I threaten Fords model. If I choose to go the Gym instead of buying a wii-fit I'm hurting Nintendo. Could my ISP sue me for writing a letter instead of an email?
This is pretty much the welfare mentality that has infected business. Businesses and industries now think that just because they have made money in the past that they are entitled to it in the future, even with changing technology and such that might make what they are doing obsolete. IE: the recording industry... So, just like the lazy do-less welfare slob, these companies thinks that the public owes them something for nothing regardless of what they do or don't do.
If the court authorization specifically lists the data to be siezed, it's not. If the court issues blanket authorization "in a wide variety of cases", it's a fishing expedition.
That is correct. Warrants are supposed to only be issued for a specific person, a specific place, and for specific things, based on enough EVIDENCE to show to a judge "probable cause" that the search specified would provide further evidence. They are not supposed to be "carte blanche" permits to conduct fishing expeditions, which sounds to me what this spyware actually does.
I don't think you are paranoid and I don't trust them one damn bit not to abuse this neat little toy that the FBI has. My point was meant to respond to all the people who are claiming that the FBI shouldn't even have this toy -- would it really bother if you it was used in conjunction with a warrant to monitor a Tony Soprano?
I'm not saying they shouldn't have it and that it shouldn't be used WHEN proper authorization is obtained in accordance with the Constitution, WITH proper supervision, and LIMITED, as the 4th Amendment requires, to "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". It sounds to me from the article that the FBI is capturing ALL activity with this, even that which is unrelated to their authorized investigation. There is no way that is within the letter or spirit of the 4th Amendment.
The "right wing extremists" report was extremely troubling. It was a whole bunch of "coulds" with no specific information and a warning to watch out for returning veterans and firearm owners. WTF?
Well, the current administration has grabbed more power in 3 months than the government has in 30 years. Clearly, they are afraid that opposition to that (and future planned power grabs) is going to do nothing but grow, and that it's naturally going to come from the people who would be classified as being "from the right" and the people they will naturally have to FEAR (and government fear of the people as an incentive to obey the Constitution's restrictions on their power IS the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment) are people who own firearms.
I know it sounds crazy, and hopefully is, but when you combine the "perfect storm" of a major economic crisis, single party control of government, and a desire to impose more central control (healthcare, industry, etc) with the patriot act which gives that single party the actual AUTHORITY to investigate and even arrest their opposition on a whim we very well might be the closest we've ever been to a Hugo Chavez type authoritarian coup.
And watching the major media drool over "Dear Leader" to the extent that they do is disgusting. What happened to the skepticism and criticism of the government? Is there not just as much a need for journalists to investigate Obama as they did Bush, especially when he's asking for unprecedented power and control? Or does it matter only when the agenda doesn't suit the personal beliefs of the media?
Wiretaps are just as unconstitutional too.. but that battle has been fought and lost already.
There are actually limits on wiretaps. They can't just monitor and record ALL phone conversations, for example, they have to break it off when it's not related to what they were authorized to investigate. I seriously doubt that this FBI spyware is as discreet, it probably monitors and records EVERYTHING. This definitely puts this into a legal gray area.
Of course, lately they've decided that rubber stamp court authorization isn't even needed.. and that they should just record everything as they might need it later.
Which is what the Bush administration was doing and clearly there is no "hope" that the Obamessiah is going to "change" in that area.
Who says the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
Exactly. With Obama's homeland security department deciding to define political opponents as "extremists" and "potential terrorists" we are about to see everything we feared about the potential misuse of the patriot act come to fruition.
Like all laws passed in a panic, the patriot act IS bad law and is FAR too broad in scope. Had it's power been limited to FOREIGN non US Citizens, it would have been able to do the intended job (give the FBI, et all the ability to investigate plots by known purveyors of terrorism) without granting the government powers that it should NEVER have, the ability to secretly investigate with little to no supervision, oversight, or accountability US citizens with little to no evidence.
Ironic that the people who I supported at the time despite being of the other party when they objected quite correctly to the patriot act are determined to hang onto that weapon now that they wield it.
That is a legitimate fear -- which is why we have warrants and a judicial system. But to say that this software can't be used at ALL is a bridge too far, IMHO. Would you complain if the FBI installed this spyware on Tony Soprano's computer?
You are assuming the Obama administration will respect the law OR be held to account to it to any greater degree than previous administrations.
The patriot act is extremely powerful. They can, under this act, by simply declaring the target a "terrorist" (and I believe the homeland security report on "right wing extremists" was no accident, that it was done to set that pretext) act first and get court approval later. They can wiretap, they can install stuff like this, they can force libraries to divulge what books you have read (and it's a crime if you are interviewed to divulge that you were), and other Orwellian actions.
All legal to do, if they eventually get court approval, or never actually USE the information acquired directly.
When I see an administration calling people who protest peacefully and lawfully in favor of limited government and their Constitutional rights "extremists" and "potential terrorists" while at the same time intervening into the private economy to an unprecedented degree and acquiring more control over it than ever, I think that concern about them abusing such things as the patriot act and this spyware isn't paranoia.
Federal judges serve for life and basically have no check or balance on their power, save a higher court, or a Constitutional amendment.
When a judge leaves the court it's usually because they can't or aren't going to be moving up. IE: district judge to appeals court to supreme court. At some point they cash in for their years of "service" and it's almost ALWAYS to go into the corporate world. The entertainment industry, both music and video, employ a shit ton of lawyers. It wouldn't surprise me if this judge ends up going to work for one of those in the not too distant future and didn't want to burn bridges.
The RIAA clearly feels they have something to hide here hence their fierce protest of the public being able to see the hearing.
"So if they obtained court authorization to deploy Sarin gas that'd be ok too right? Are you saying that when the president does it then it's not a crime?"
Precisely. What is it about the courts that make their actions always sacrosanct even when they are clearly against the letter of the Constitution? By and large we don't get to elect the courts, making it the LEAST democratic institution in government. At the Federal level we don't get to elect ANY of them, and they serve for LIFE and it's practically impossible to remove them from office (few judges are ever impeached, even the really egregious ones who get overturned on appeal all the time).
Frankly right is right and wrong is wrong, and the courts have just as little respect for the law and our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as the elected branches of government. Probably even less so, since they don't even have the pretense of fear of the people throwing them out of office for their actions.
"After sending the information to the FBI, the CIPAV settles into a silent "pen register" mode, in which it lurks on the target computer and monitors its internet use, logging the IP address of every server to which the machine connects. "
Let's hope the RIAA doesn't get it's hands on this."
What I'd like to see is an open source antivirus/antispyware suite that WILL detect this. I own my computer, not the government, therefore I have a right to know what is running on it and to decide what is and isn't going to run on it.
I don't think it is any of the government's business what websites I go to, what blogs I post on, and for that matter, what porn I download.
Given some of the scary things coming out of the "O"ministration lately (such as the recent homeland security advisory painting people who support the right to own firearms and who object to the outrageous spending going on as "rightwing extremists" and "potential terrorists" I think I and others have a legitimate fear that we may be targeted for such spyware for political reasons.
That's why I opposed and still oppose the patriot act... Not because I am against going after the actual JIHADI terrorists who have and are attacking our country, but because government abuse of it and turning it on law abiding citizens was inevitable.
Note that Obama isn't doing anything to repeal the patriot act (which he used to object to). He wants that power just as much as Bush did.
Breaking the law to enforce the law.. way to piss on justice."
I've always been skeptical about this and other tricks used by the FBI and other law enforcement. The Constitution is QUITE clear that a search of private property requires a warrant.
Another thing that has always bothered me is that law enforcement lying to citizens is routine and legal, but lying to law enforcement is a crime (even if you don't know the person you are talking to is law enforcement).
Seems to me that if the government wants us to respect the FAR too many laws on the books that it should start following them itself. And that starts with respecting the Constitution.
Free speech Assembly Petition the government (or government institutions).
Why those subversives who not only wrote it into law, but preceded those rights with the words "Congress shall make no law abridging..." must have been terrorists or something.
No wonder this was marked "not to show to public". How dare we engage in such subversion of the LAW enforcement establishment.
The way I read this is that they are setting up pretexts for "probable cause" to detain and search people who engage in normal, legal behavior. Yet more evidence that the "war on terror" and the PATRIOT act are being used to expand law enforcement power over the law abiding, when instead such energy would be better spent guarding the porous borders or monitoring the FOREIGN FUNDED (Saudi) mosques (which is where most world wide terrorism originates).
One component of most Sci-Fi "warp drives" is a forcefield/shield etc that would reinforce or protect the ship within that bubble.
So while the hyperspace bubble may be inherently unstable there could be a way given enough power (think fusion or matter-antimatter power) to stabilize it with a forcefield.
We're clearly at least a century if not more from having the technology to even think about building a warp capable space craft, and I believe that's largely because we need to get to the point of practical nuclear fusion or a practical way to manufacture antimatter in quantity.
Luminous Blue Variables (like Eta Carine) are so massive and so bright that gravity can barely hold them together. Should it be such a shock that such a star might blow itself apart given their inherent instability.
Slashdot Mirror
There is not necessarily any conflict. That which is forbidden by the constitution and/or statutes of one state may be permitted in another. Whether or not this is permitted by the US Constitution must be decided by a Federal court.
State constitutions cannot conflict with the Federal one with respects to rights granted, as in the Bill of Rights, and in this case, the requirement that a warrant be obtained.
States can grant you MORE rights than the Federal Constitution, but they may not restrict you more than it does.
My understanding here is that monitoring without a warrant would constitute (no pun intended) a breach of the 'unreasonable search and seizure' part of the US constitution. If a cop can't investigate someone on the sole basis of profiling (racial or otherwise), then he shouldn't be allowed to GPS tag them without a warrant either. Seems simple to me... No?
This reeks of laziness on the part of law enforcement to me.
If the man was a suspect, they could have had plainclothes officers follow his vehicle. This would not have required a warrant nor violated his rights, so long as the officers didn't violate his person or property without a warrant.
Instead they slapped a GPS on his vehicle and allowed it to save them the time, labor, and expense of doing so.
That's where they crossed the line. Had they done good police work (ie: followed him instead of taking the lazy way out) they would have collected the SAME evidence and done so legally.
From the skimming I did of the summary it looks like the sentence was over turned because they didn't get a warrant for using GPS to track the guy. Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO, should there be discipline for not using proper procedures absolutely. Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
Wrong. The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
The Constitution is not a technicality.
Yeah, people are SO going to purchase content that can be revoked on a whim. Those Divx players sold so well.
Obama is a very weak leader for all the fascist like control he's trying to take, and he wants to "change" the way we do things. So, yes, I can see him giving ICANN up. This is a good time to ask for stuff that's contrary to American interests.
Fortunately where I work upper management wants nothing to do with IT decisions and passes these types of sales pitches to us.
I've enjoyed pissing off salespeople from these "MakeAlgoreRich" companies with statements like, "I care about performance and reliability, I couldn't give a fuck about how much power it uses or even if it needs a smokestack, in fact, if I could make my servers go faster by sending double the power to it or running a smokestack up the roof, I'd do it"
Serves them right for calling my phone :)
I'm not sure there are significant groups of economists, on either the left or right or in between, who actually think it'd be a good idea for governments to run pro-cyclical fiscal policies. If the government spends more in good times, and less in bad times, it compounds both bubbles and recessions.
Increasing taxation during a recession only makes the recession worse since it puts MORE burden on the economy when it's already hurting, thus increasing both the length and severity of the recession.
Just when "Obama Calls for New Curbs on Offshore Tax Havens [nytimes.com]".
Which won't do a damn thing except cause American companies to become foreign companies (ie: change where they are incorporated).
Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax?
I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.
They could just shut down their UK specific service, leaving their users there with the option of google.com.
This would put the UK government in the position of ordering websites that refuse to pay them taxes to be firewalled out of the country. Which would have the effect of cutting them off the internet completely.
What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?
"Hey, we're making lots of profits - don't tax us!"
How about the government for once having to do what everyone ELSE has to do in a recession? Do with LESS.
Here is how government works with respect to industry:
If it moves, TAX it.
If it survives, REGULATE it.
If it doesn't survive, SUBSIDIZE it.
I'm not saying that government should stay completely out of business with respect to consumer protection, and workplace safety, but it shouldn't be micromanaging or looking for ways to tax activity multiple times, which is what the UK is trying to do here. Google already pays taxes on earnings from their UK operations. What the government is wanting to do is essentially tax them AGAIN.
This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation, and given that with anything that is internet based, you can run it from ANYWHERE, what the UK is doing is encouraging Google to remove any operation from their soil and to lose what revenue they get from them. And I wouldn't blame them for it.
Businesses do not exist to funnel money into politicians coffers, they exist to make money.
SHOOT THEM.
Armed criminals who are seeking to ilegally board a ship should be SHOT. Killing them is the best deterrent of all: Those particular pirates will never pirate again.
To not arm the crews or put armed guards on these ships is utter insanity and proof that political correctness run amok is suicide.
This gets really stupid after a while. I mean everything you do will be a threat to someone's "business model". If I choose to walk to work then I threaten Fords model. If I choose to go the Gym instead of buying a wii-fit I'm hurting Nintendo.
Could my ISP sue me for writing a letter instead of an email?
This is pretty much the welfare mentality that has infected business. Businesses and industries now think that just because they have made money in the past that they are entitled to it in the future, even with changing technology and such that might make what they are doing obsolete. IE: the recording industry... So, just like the lazy do-less welfare slob, these companies thinks that the public owes them something for nothing regardless of what they do or don't do.
"Adapt or Die" has become "Pay me or get sued"
If the court authorization specifically lists the data to be siezed, it's not. If the court issues blanket authorization "in a wide variety of cases", it's a fishing expedition.
That is correct. Warrants are supposed to only be issued for a specific person, a specific place, and for specific things, based on enough EVIDENCE to show to a judge "probable cause" that the search specified would provide further evidence. They are not supposed to be "carte blanche" permits to conduct fishing expeditions, which sounds to me what this spyware actually does.
I don't think you are paranoid and I don't trust them one damn bit not to abuse this neat little toy that the FBI has. My point was meant to respond to all the people who are claiming that the FBI shouldn't even have this toy -- would it really bother if you it was used in conjunction with a warrant to monitor a Tony Soprano?
I'm not saying they shouldn't have it and that it shouldn't be used WHEN proper authorization is obtained in accordance with the Constitution, WITH proper supervision, and LIMITED, as the 4th Amendment requires, to "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". It sounds to me from the article that the FBI is capturing ALL activity with this, even that which is unrelated to their authorized investigation. There is no way that is within the letter or spirit of the 4th Amendment.
The "right wing extremists" report was extremely troubling. It was a whole bunch of "coulds" with no specific information and a warning to watch out for returning veterans and firearm owners. WTF?
Well, the current administration has grabbed more power in 3 months than the government has in 30 years. Clearly, they are afraid that opposition to that (and future planned power grabs) is going to do nothing but grow, and that it's naturally going to come from the people who would be classified as being "from the right" and the people they will naturally have to FEAR (and government fear of the people as an incentive to obey the Constitution's restrictions on their power IS the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment) are people who own firearms.
I know it sounds crazy, and hopefully is, but when you combine the "perfect storm" of a major economic crisis, single party control of government, and a desire to impose more central control (healthcare, industry, etc) with the patriot act which gives that single party the actual AUTHORITY to investigate and even arrest their opposition on a whim we very well might be the closest we've ever been to a Hugo Chavez type authoritarian coup.
And watching the major media drool over "Dear Leader" to the extent that they do is disgusting. What happened to the skepticism and criticism of the government? Is there not just as much a need for journalists to investigate Obama as they did Bush, especially when he's asking for unprecedented power and control? Or does it matter only when the agenda doesn't suit the personal beliefs of the media?
Wiretaps are just as unconstitutional too.. but that battle has been fought and lost already.
There are actually limits on wiretaps. They can't just monitor and record ALL phone conversations, for example, they have to break it off when it's not related to what they were authorized to investigate. I seriously doubt that this FBI spyware is as discreet, it probably monitors and records EVERYTHING. This definitely puts this into a legal gray area.
Of course, lately they've decided that rubber stamp court authorization isn't even needed.. and that they should just record everything as they might need it later.
Which is what the Bush administration was doing and clearly there is no "hope" that the Obamessiah is going to "change" in that area.
Who says the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
Exactly. With Obama's homeland security department deciding to define political opponents as "extremists" and "potential terrorists" we are about to see everything we feared about the potential misuse of the patriot act come to fruition.
Like all laws passed in a panic, the patriot act IS bad law and is FAR too broad in scope. Had it's power been limited to FOREIGN non US Citizens, it would have been able to do the intended job (give the FBI, et all the ability to investigate plots by known purveyors of terrorism) without granting the government powers that it should NEVER have, the ability to secretly investigate with little to no supervision, oversight, or accountability US citizens with little to no evidence.
Ironic that the people who I supported at the time despite being of the other party when they objected quite correctly to the patriot act are determined to hang onto that weapon now that they wield it.
That is a legitimate fear -- which is why we have warrants and a judicial system. But to say that this software can't be used at ALL is a bridge too far, IMHO. Would you complain if the FBI installed this spyware on Tony Soprano's computer?
You are assuming the Obama administration will respect the law OR be held to account to it to any greater degree than previous administrations.
The patriot act is extremely powerful. They can, under this act, by simply declaring the target a "terrorist" (and I believe the homeland security report on "right wing extremists" was no accident, that it was done to set that pretext) act first and get court approval later. They can wiretap, they can install stuff like this, they can force libraries to divulge what books you have read (and it's a crime if you are interviewed to divulge that you were), and other Orwellian actions.
All legal to do, if they eventually get court approval, or never actually USE the information acquired directly.
When I see an administration calling people who protest peacefully and lawfully in favor of limited government and their Constitutional rights "extremists" and "potential terrorists" while at the same time intervening into the private economy to an unprecedented degree and acquiring more control over it than ever, I think that concern about them abusing such things as the patriot act and this spyware isn't paranoia.
Federal judges serve for life and basically have no check or balance on their power, save a higher court, or a Constitutional amendment.
When a judge leaves the court it's usually because they can't or aren't going to be moving up. IE: district judge to appeals court to supreme court. At some point they cash in for their years of "service" and it's almost ALWAYS to go into the corporate world. The entertainment industry, both music and video, employ a shit ton of lawyers. It wouldn't surprise me if this judge ends up going to work for one of those in the not too distant future and didn't want to burn bridges.
The RIAA clearly feels they have something to hide here hence their fierce protest of the public being able to see the hearing.
"So if they obtained court authorization to deploy Sarin gas that'd be ok too right?
Are you saying that when the president does it then it's not a crime?"
Precisely. What is it about the courts that make their actions always sacrosanct even when they are clearly against the letter of the Constitution? By and large we don't get to elect the courts, making it the LEAST democratic institution in government. At the Federal level we don't get to elect ANY of them, and they serve for LIFE and it's practically impossible to remove them from office (few judges are ever impeached, even the really egregious ones who get overturned on appeal all the time).
Frankly right is right and wrong is wrong, and the courts have just as little respect for the law and our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as the elected branches of government. Probably even less so, since they don't even have the pretense of fear of the people throwing them out of office for their actions.
"FTA :
"After sending the information to the FBI, the CIPAV settles into a silent "pen register" mode, in which it lurks on the target computer and monitors its internet use, logging the IP address of every server to which the machine connects. "
Let's hope the RIAA doesn't get it's hands on this."
What I'd like to see is an open source antivirus/antispyware suite that WILL detect this. I own my computer, not the government, therefore I have a right to know what is running on it and to decide what is and isn't going to run on it.
I don't think it is any of the government's business what websites I go to, what blogs I post on, and for that matter, what porn I download.
Given some of the scary things coming out of the "O"ministration lately (such as the recent homeland security advisory painting people who support the right to own firearms and who object to the outrageous spending going on as "rightwing extremists" and "potential terrorists" I think I and others have a legitimate fear that we may be targeted for such spyware for political reasons.
That's why I opposed and still oppose the patriot act... Not because I am against going after the actual JIHADI terrorists who have and are attacking our country, but because government abuse of it and turning it on law abiding citizens was inevitable.
Note that Obama isn't doing anything to repeal the patriot act (which he used to object to). He wants that power just as much as Bush did.
"How is this not breaking the law?
Breaking the law to enforce the law.. way to piss on justice."
I've always been skeptical about this and other tricks used by the FBI and other law enforcement. The Constitution is QUITE clear that a search of private property requires a warrant.
Another thing that has always bothered me is that law enforcement lying to citizens is routine and legal, but lying to law enforcement is a crime (even if you don't know the person you are talking to is law enforcement).
Seems to me that if the government wants us to respect the FAR too many laws on the books that it should start following them itself. And that starts with respecting the Constitution.
"Don't forget that there's a judge that approved that warrant. He's just as much part of the problem."
Exactly.
And I think the judge is gay.
Expressing an opinion, even an offensive one is NOT a crime. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." can't they understand?
There is no Constitutional right to not be offended.
How DARE citizens engage in the rights to:
Free speech
Assembly
Petition the government (or government institutions).
Why those subversives who not only wrote it into law, but preceded those rights with the words "Congress shall make no law abridging..." must have been terrorists or something.
No wonder this was marked "not to show to public". How dare we engage in such subversion of the LAW enforcement establishment.
The way I read this is that they are setting up pretexts for "probable cause" to detain and search people who engage in normal, legal behavior. Yet more evidence that the "war on terror" and the PATRIOT act are being used to expand law enforcement power over the law abiding, when instead such energy would be better spent guarding the porous borders or monitoring the FOREIGN FUNDED (Saudi) mosques (which is where most world wide terrorism originates).
One component of most Sci-Fi "warp drives" is a forcefield/shield etc that would reinforce or protect the ship within that bubble.
So while the hyperspace bubble may be inherently unstable there could be a way given enough power (think fusion or matter-antimatter power) to stabilize it with a forcefield.
We're clearly at least a century if not more from having the technology to even think about building a warp capable space craft, and I believe that's largely because we need to get to the point of practical nuclear fusion or a practical way to manufacture antimatter in quantity.
"200 million, not 200"
Yep, had it been 200LY it would have been brighter than the moon in the sky and would have been visible even in the daytime...
200LY is seriously dangerously close to us for a supernova...
Luminous Blue Variables (like Eta Carine) are so massive and so bright that gravity can barely hold them together. Should it be such a shock that such a star might blow itself apart given their inherent instability.