As Gilmore points out on his website, driving a car is hardly anonymous: You are legally obliged to carry a state-issued ID at all times, and you may be stopped by police for almost any reason and be compelled to show that ID. If you don't, you can be arrested. I'd hardly call that anonymous.
And if it's your own car, the vehicle itself is tied to you via its license registration and its title.
Or how about the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s? I'd say a lot of rights were gained there. Or, as another poster would probably say, "the government was compelled to honor existing rights".
Like Gilmore is doing? You ought to stand up for him now. What are you waiting for? For the situation to get even worse? To find yourself with even less options at your disposal?
ballot box
November's getting closer.
ammo box
Well, then you'll be a dead terrorist. You're not going to make an armed resistance against the US Government and live. Or make any difference, for that matter. And don't forget, as a summary of the old saying goes, that by the time they come for you, there will be nobody left to stand up for you. Anybody with the sense to notice the creep of the police state and the guts to try to head it off will be long gone, if the 90% who don't care -- a group you appear to be among -- do not wake up and solve problems while they are still (relatively) small.
Basically, your stance boils down to apathy, laziness and pessimism. I also find it interesting that, while privacy and personal security are Constitutional rights that are under attack and being eroded yearly, the "important" issues you choose to focus on are all derivative governmental programs and policies. Not quite bread and circuses, but certainly a far cry from our most precious, fundamental rights.
Incidentally, you also have recourse to the jury box -- the other half of Gilmore's defense.
Hear, hear! I haven't managed to be quite as austere as you, but I'm working on it. Boycott is the only way. Put the bastards out of business. Once their temple is razed to the ground, something else will spring up in its place. If it's no better, we'll burn that one down, too.
Anyway, why not make your own music? God forbid that people might actually get in touch with their own human abilities again, realize that they have that power within them. Not-so-coincidentally, this is also part of the cure for the pathology gripping America now: People don't believe they can create, but only consume, and they've lost touch with any sense of self-worth. Not everyone, of course, but it's a growing plague.
It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous... In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact. (George Orwell, 1984)
On face value, there appears to be nothing wrong with... the ability to detain somebody for significant periods of time if they are suspected of something
Detention = incarceration = punishment when you have been convicted of no crime. I'd say that, on the face of it, there is something very wrong with giving the police this power. Since when does suspicion give someone the right to deprive you of your freedom? Don't forget that, in the United States at least, you have the right to a trial by jury of your peers before you are convicted and punished. And the jury is instructed to find the acused not guilty if there is any reasonable doubt as to guilt. What a far cry from de facto conviction by paid police agents for whom the burden of proof is replaced by mere suspicion!
Given the choice between stepping in a puddle and in a pile of dogshit, I might not like either of the choices, but I'll take the lesser of the two evils. And I sure as hell don't want somebody else pushing me into either of them. I'll exercise my own will, thank you very much.
The only things worth a crap in Urbana-Champaign are the university...
Given that the cities are so utterly dominated by the size and population of the University, that's not really saying much. Almost (but not quite) like saying that the only thing worth a crap on Manhattan island is New York City.
I'll give you that it's not the most exciting place on earth by a long shot, but there's a lot to do if you have any immagination at all, and compared to the other rail-side corn depots on the line to Chicago, it's a real oasis.
Oh, but it was, from a technical perspective. It's just being obstructed by the actions of idiot spammers who have led too many sysadmins to make the IMHO stupid decision to blacklist ALL dynamic IP addresses just because some spammers use them.
In any case, as I forgot to write in my original post, I found an easy way around the problem: Forward my outgoing email first to my ISP's SMTP server, which isn't blacklisted. I've been able to do this in three of my four affected offices. If I can do it, it seems that spammers should be able to do it, too. So, the blacklisting might help with virus-infected zombie machines, but overall I find it a half-assed, inelegent solution. Not that I have a better suggestion...
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a non-techie to configure the IP, DNS, gateway, etc. for their machine?
Yes, it's (part of) what I do for a living. But as you've probably read by now in the posts of other readers (and which you would have known already were you a professional sysadmin) DHCP can be configured to always give the same user the same IP address. This solves both problems.
I agree with you on this. I manage the IT infrastructure for the four European branch offices of an American company, and I take advantage of the cheap, fast DSL lines in these offices to route outgoing SMTP mail, instead of routing it over expensive, slow WAN lines back to corporate headquarters in California to be distributed out our "official" pipe. So far so good. Unfortunately, many of our European customers have subscribed to blacklists banning the dynamic IP ranges given out by many ISPs, like Deutsche Telekom. There goes my great solution.
At the same time I was going through all this frustration, my colleagues back in in California actually configured our incoming mail server to use just the kind of dynamic-IP blacklist that was giving me a headache! Not too funny. Well, they've removed the blacklist now, which is good.
Still, I do wonder what the incentive is for the ISPs to use dynamic addresses. Are they oversubscribing their IP ranges? That seems stupid. Otherwise, why not give all customers their own, single, static address? Some of them are reserving this for a higher-cost "business DSL" service, but it would be up to the customers to put pressure on them to remedy this situation.
Deutsche Telekom, for example, makes it very expensive to get a static IP address. My ISP in the Netherlands, on the other hand, XS4ALL (an outstanding outfit, IMHO) on the other hand, provides me with a static IP address for my business-class connection at work, but also for my entry-level connection at home. Customers should flock to the savvy XS4ALLs of the world and force the change.
Maybe I'm too hard on Telekom and their likes. Maybe they have a good reason. I'd like to hear it.
When you exaggerate so wildly, you don't make any point at all. Homeless men? Hollywood starlets? If you'll pull back from your extreme examples to more moderate, likely combinations you should be able to find plenty of couples who fit the bill. I can think of lots from my own life and acquaintances.
Well, some explanation will probably be in order if she's unfamiliar with the concept and what it means. After that, if she doesn't care, she's not worth my time.
I should know: I'm married to a beautiful, intelligent girl who does understand and appreciate things like this.
Not long ago, I discussed this concept with my company's CFO. I suggested to him that the big change for most companies will be a shift in IT expenditure away from proprietary software with it's associated maintenance / assurance contracts and salaries for one-trick-pony staff skilled in supporting said software, and toward open-source software and staff skilled in coding, compiling and supporting this.
Even if the company only breaks even in the end (and there seems to be a good chance that it will actually save money), it will benefit from a smarter and more flexible IT staff, and from software that is totally adaptable to business needs.
And don't forget that women are only interested in your money! That good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar could never fathom that you have heart and soul and integrity and have contributed something valuable to the world without demanding payment in kind. No, you'd better be making big bucks before thinking about talking to her.
Maybe that's the kind of girl he married and is still bitter about it...
how much more solid would this case be if someone had reasonably and politely stated their rights?
You're right, of course, but the integrity of our legal system is never tested by easy cases with everyone on their best behavior. It's the tricky stuff at the edges that shows whether you walk the walk or just talk the talk.
Good points. I would only point out, as I believe other posters already have, that he would probably never been charged with domestic battery at all (since he hadn't done anything anyway, which the police would have learned had they kept cool and asked some pertinent questions at the scene. After this fiasco, the state had to charge him with something to save face, however ridiculous they realized their position was by that time. They couldn't simply admit that they had made a mistake.
If the person has done time and has paid their debt to society, they should be treated like any other citizen. No assumptions should be made about them, and the police should be prohibited from doing random background checks like this, because such checks imply that they will act on this information. Why else would they do the check?
Whether or not the American criminal justice system returns people to society in a fit state is another question, but it is sheer hypocrisy to "rehabilitate" convicts, return them to society, and then treat them with prejudice.
And anyway, how would knowing that someone was once convicted of rape "come in handy" at a roadside check? If the police are investigating a report of or a confirmed instance of a heinous crime, we're looking at a situation way beyond the random roadside check situation. If they have proceeded to that point, the police have a lot more discretionary power at their disposal, and with good cause. But I don't agree with giving them this power when they know absolutely nothing about the situation, as was the case in this case.
but there's very rarely any need to be anything but polite to an officer of the law. Most often they're simply doing their job or attemping to do it in the way they see best.
And when they're arrogant bullies like this one? Oh yeah, then you stand up for your rights and they violate them and your case goes to the Supreme Court!
The Court isn't hearing a case about all the good police officers out there who do commendable work. They're hearing a case about this particular incident, which will set a precedent and draw the line that brings us closer to or holds us back a little longer from a police state where we have no rights at all. Don't pretend that a small step in the wrong direction doesn't mean anything.
Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
Well, as I hope the Supreme Court says, "No dice." Working within the letter of the law is one of the occupational hazards of being a police officer. "ax murderer"? I suppose you're using hyperbole, but I'll take it anyway: He clearly didn't have an ax, so... What would make him an ax murdered? His record on file back at the station? Ummm... Then what would he be doing involved in a supposed domestic dispute with his daughter on the side of the road? And since the cops are armed with guns, I can't see what difference his background would make anyway. It also seems that in cuffs in the back of your car is EXACTLY where you'd want him to be, and as soon as possible, if he gave any indication of violence.
The police should not be allowed to perform random background checks, which is what this would have amounted to. Having this man's ID would have told them nothing that would have helped them do their jobs correctly. And their job here was to investigate a report of domestic violence and, I suppose, to diffuse any such situation that existed. These cops went way off on a tangent and, in my opinion, violated these people's civil rights.
This is a very good example of what happens when two stubborn, hard headed people clash and are unwilling to give in a little bit to the other side.
The difference is that one of the people is a civil servant being paid to work strictly within the legal framework. The situations of the two people are like foreground / background: The private citizen enjoys all freedoms and rights not limited by the law; the civil servant has no rights to exceed his mandated authority.
the officer should be able to ensure his own safety, and a first step in that is finding out who you're dealing with and whether they are a known "bad guy".
I'm no cop, but I suppose that a much smarter first step would be to find out whether you are in a life-threatening situation, to secure the area as it were, and then proceed with an orderly, calm, reasonable investigation. Demanding an ID as almost your first act after stepping out of the car seems idiotic in a situation where you think your safety is in jeopardy. This cop didn't think he was in danger. He felt assured enough to act out his ego instead of doing his job correctly.
Clearly it's not the end of the story. Hiibel was arrested for failing to produce an ID in circumstances where, apparently (otherwise the Supreme Court would not have agreed to hear the case) there is some doubt whether the police have the authority to make such a demand. That's what this is all about. This case tests the limits of police power.
Slashdot Mirror
As Gilmore points out on his website, driving a car is hardly anonymous: You are legally obliged to carry a state-issued ID at all times, and you may be stopped by police for almost any reason and be compelled to show that ID. If you don't, you can be arrested. I'd hardly call that anonymous.
And if it's your own car, the vehicle itself is tied to you via its license registration and its title.
Or how about the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s? I'd say a lot of rights were gained there. Or, as another poster would probably say, "the government was compelled to honor existing rights".
I'll use the soap box
Like Gilmore is doing? You ought to stand up for him now. What are you waiting for? For the situation to get even worse? To find yourself with even less options at your disposal?
ballot box
November's getting closer.
ammo box
Well, then you'll be a dead terrorist. You're not going to make an armed resistance against the US Government and live. Or make any difference, for that matter. And don't forget, as a summary of the old saying goes, that by the time they come for you, there will be nobody left to stand up for you. Anybody with the sense to notice the creep of the police state and the guts to try to head it off will be long gone, if the 90% who don't care -- a group you appear to be among -- do not wake up and solve problems while they are still (relatively) small.
Basically, your stance boils down to apathy, laziness and pessimism. I also find it interesting that, while privacy and personal security are Constitutional rights that are under attack and being eroded yearly, the "important" issues you choose to focus on are all derivative governmental programs and policies. Not quite bread and circuses, but certainly a far cry from our most precious, fundamental rights.
Incidentally, you also have recourse to the jury box -- the other half of Gilmore's defense.
"The first rule of government spending: Why build one when you can build two at twice the price?" -- Contact
How about a version of dd for Windows? There appears to be a standalone version here (including some usage examples), or you can install Cygwin.
Hear, hear! I haven't managed to be quite as austere as you, but I'm working on it. Boycott is the only way. Put the bastards out of business. Once their temple is razed to the ground, something else will spring up in its place. If it's no better, we'll burn that one down, too.
Anyway, why not make your own music? God forbid that people might actually get in touch with their own human abilities again, realize that they have that power within them. Not-so-coincidentally, this is also part of the cure for the pathology gripping America now: People don't believe they can create, but only consume, and they've lost touch with any sense of self-worth. Not everyone, of course, but it's a growing plague.
Long ago, I boycotted DVDs because of CSS now I've got three players hooked up to the TVs, a NetFlix subscription, and DeCSS is still illegal.
What's your point? That you've got a short memory and no willpower? That you're a sell-out? You seem to be amused by it. That's sad.
It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous ... In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact. (George Orwell, 1984)
On face value, there appears to be nothing wrong with ... the ability to detain somebody for significant periods of time if they are suspected of something
Detention = incarceration = punishment when you have been convicted of no crime. I'd say that, on the face of it, there is something very wrong with giving the police this power. Since when does suspicion give someone the right to deprive you of your freedom? Don't forget that, in the United States at least, you have the right to a trial by jury of your peers before you are convicted and punished. And the jury is instructed to find the acused not guilty if there is any reasonable doubt as to guilt. What a far cry from de facto conviction by paid police agents for whom the burden of proof is replaced by mere suspicion!
That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Given the choice between stepping in a puddle and in a pile of dogshit, I might not like either of the choices, but I'll take the lesser of the two evils. And I sure as hell don't want somebody else pushing me into either of them. I'll exercise my own will, thank you very much.
You will vote, won't you?
The only things worth a crap in Urbana-Champaign are the university...
Given that the cities are so utterly dominated by the size and population of the University, that's not really saying much. Almost (but not quite) like saying that the only thing worth a crap on Manhattan island is New York City.
And, anyway, during the years I lived there, '90-'96, I found plenty of off-campus things to appreciate: The Blind Pig; the Courier Cafe; Espresso Royale on Oregon; several great local bands including Poster Children, The Moon Seven Times and The Suede Chain; Bikeworks bicycle shop; the New Art Theatre; WEFT community radio, and many others.
I'll give you that it's not the most exciting place on earth by a long shot, but there's a lot to do if you have any immagination at all, and compared to the other rail-side corn depots on the line to Chicago, it's a real oasis.
Maybe your solution wasn't so great, after all.
Oh, but it was, from a technical perspective. It's just being obstructed by the actions of idiot spammers who have led too many sysadmins to make the IMHO stupid decision to blacklist ALL dynamic IP addresses just because some spammers use them.
In any case, as I forgot to write in my original post, I found an easy way around the problem: Forward my outgoing email first to my ISP's SMTP server, which isn't blacklisted. I've been able to do this in three of my four affected offices. If I can do it, it seems that spammers should be able to do it, too. So, the blacklisting might help with virus-infected zombie machines, but overall I find it a half-assed, inelegent solution. Not that I have a better suggestion...
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a non-techie to configure the IP, DNS, gateway, etc. for their machine?
Yes, it's (part of) what I do for a living. But as you've probably read by now in the posts of other readers (and which you would have known already were you a professional sysadmin) DHCP can be configured to always give the same user the same IP address. This solves both problems.
I agree with you on this. I manage the IT infrastructure for the four European branch offices of an American company, and I take advantage of the cheap, fast DSL lines in these offices to route outgoing SMTP mail, instead of routing it over expensive, slow WAN lines back to corporate headquarters in California to be distributed out our "official" pipe. So far so good. Unfortunately, many of our European customers have subscribed to blacklists banning the dynamic IP ranges given out by many ISPs, like Deutsche Telekom. There goes my great solution.
At the same time I was going through all this frustration, my colleagues back in in California actually configured our incoming mail server to use just the kind of dynamic-IP blacklist that was giving me a headache! Not too funny. Well, they've removed the blacklist now, which is good.
Still, I do wonder what the incentive is for the ISPs to use dynamic addresses. Are they oversubscribing their IP ranges? That seems stupid. Otherwise, why not give all customers their own, single, static address? Some of them are reserving this for a higher-cost "business DSL" service, but it would be up to the customers to put pressure on them to remedy this situation.
Deutsche Telekom, for example, makes it very expensive to get a static IP address. My ISP in the Netherlands, on the other hand, XS4ALL (an outstanding outfit, IMHO) on the other hand, provides me with a static IP address for my business-class connection at work, but also for my entry-level connection at home. Customers should flock to the savvy XS4ALLs of the world and force the change.
Maybe I'm too hard on Telekom and their likes. Maybe they have a good reason. I'd like to hear it.
When you exaggerate so wildly, you don't make any point at all. Homeless men? Hollywood starlets? If you'll pull back from your extreme examples to more moderate, likely combinations you should be able to find plenty of couples who fit the bill. I can think of lots from my own life and acquaintances.
Well, some explanation will probably be in order if she's unfamiliar with the concept and what it means. After that, if she doesn't care, she's not worth my time.
I should know: I'm married to a beautiful, intelligent girl who does understand and appreciate things like this.
Not long ago, I discussed this concept with my company's CFO. I suggested to him that the big change for most companies will be a shift in IT expenditure away from proprietary software with it's associated maintenance / assurance contracts and salaries for one-trick-pony staff skilled in supporting said software, and toward open-source software and staff skilled in coding, compiling and supporting this.
Even if the company only breaks even in the end (and there seems to be a good chance that it will actually save money), it will benefit from a smarter and more flexible IT staff, and from software that is totally adaptable to business needs.
And don't forget that women are only interested in your money! That good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar could never fathom that you have heart and soul and integrity and have contributed something valuable to the world without demanding payment in kind. No, you'd better be making big bucks before thinking about talking to her.
Maybe that's the kind of girl he married and is still bitter about it...
how much more solid would this case be if someone had reasonably and politely stated their rights?
You're right, of course, but the integrity of our legal system is never tested by easy cases with everyone on their best behavior. It's the tricky stuff at the edges that shows whether you walk the walk or just talk the talk.
Good points. I would only point out, as I believe other posters already have, that he would probably never been charged with domestic battery at all (since he hadn't done anything anyway, which the police would have learned had they kept cool and asked some pertinent questions at the scene. After this fiasco, the state had to charge him with something to save face, however ridiculous they realized their position was by that time. They couldn't simply admit that they had made a mistake.
If the person has done time and has paid their debt to society, they should be treated like any other citizen. No assumptions should be made about them, and the police should be prohibited from doing random background checks like this, because such checks imply that they will act on this information. Why else would they do the check?
Whether or not the American criminal justice system returns people to society in a fit state is another question, but it is sheer hypocrisy to "rehabilitate" convicts, return them to society, and then treat them with prejudice.
And anyway, how would knowing that someone was once convicted of rape "come in handy" at a roadside check? If the police are investigating a report of or a confirmed instance of a heinous crime, we're looking at a situation way beyond the random roadside check situation. If they have proceeded to that point, the police have a lot more discretionary power at their disposal, and with good cause. But I don't agree with giving them this power when they know absolutely nothing about the situation, as was the case in this case.
but there's very rarely any need to be anything but polite to an officer of the law. Most often they're simply doing their job or attemping to do it in the way they see best.
And when they're arrogant bullies like this one? Oh yeah, then you stand up for your rights and they violate them and your case goes to the Supreme Court!
The Court isn't hearing a case about all the good police officers out there who do commendable work. They're hearing a case about this particular incident, which will set a precedent and draw the line that brings us closer to or holds us back a little longer from a police state where we have no rights at all. Don't pretend that a small step in the wrong direction doesn't mean anything.
Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
Well, as I hope the Supreme Court says, "No dice." Working within the letter of the law is one of the occupational hazards of being a police officer. "ax murderer"? I suppose you're using hyperbole, but I'll take it anyway: He clearly didn't have an ax, so... What would make him an ax murdered? His record on file back at the station? Ummm... Then what would he be doing involved in a supposed domestic dispute with his daughter on the side of the road? And since the cops are armed with guns, I can't see what difference his background would make anyway. It also seems that in cuffs in the back of your car is EXACTLY where you'd want him to be, and as soon as possible, if he gave any indication of violence.
The police should not be allowed to perform random background checks, which is what this would have amounted to. Having this man's ID would have told them nothing that would have helped them do their jobs correctly. And their job here was to investigate a report of domestic violence and, I suppose, to diffuse any such situation that existed. These cops went way off on a tangent and, in my opinion, violated these people's civil rights.
This is a very good example of what happens when two stubborn, hard headed people clash and are unwilling to give in a little bit to the other side.
The difference is that one of the people is a civil servant being paid to work strictly within the legal framework. The situations of the two people are like foreground / background: The private citizen enjoys all freedoms and rights not limited by the law; the civil servant has no rights to exceed his mandated authority.
the officer should be able to ensure his own safety, and a first step in that is finding out who you're dealing with and whether they are a known "bad guy".
I'm no cop, but I suppose that a much smarter first step would be to find out whether you are in a life-threatening situation, to secure the area as it were, and then proceed with an orderly, calm, reasonable investigation. Demanding an ID as almost your first act after stepping out of the car seems idiotic in a situation where you think your safety is in jeopardy. This cop didn't think he was in danger. He felt assured enough to act out his ego instead of doing his job correctly.
End of story.
Clearly it's not the end of the story. Hiibel was arrested for failing to produce an ID in circumstances where, apparently (otherwise the Supreme Court would not have agreed to hear the case) there is some doubt whether the police have the authority to make such a demand. That's what this is all about. This case tests the limits of police power.