Are you a lawyer? And does what you say apply to private gatherings on private property (which is what this was)?
Yes, but this is not legal advice and you are not my client.
Call it what you want, but it's a strange private gathering that allows anyone to attend. If it were really private, she would not have been allowed in at all.
I seem to recall Red Hat already being in the desktop market at one point.
Didn't they basically throw it away already?
Isn't the reason why Ubuntu was able to take the lead was because Red Hat left a huge gaping hole in the category of "Most Popular Desktop Linux Distro?"
Why? How is a group of drunks/fundies gathering to hear people speak different from a group of hackers gathering to hear people speak? You don't have to sign up to go to a church, so it's even more public than a security conference.
Because they are talking about things that are private by their very nature. There is a cause of action (reason to sue someone) that covers this. It's called "Public Disclosure of Private Facts". These are personal things that the individuals are dealing with and trying to get help with. There are potential First Amendment issues with this sort of claim (as it's dealing with true facts, not falsehoods), but I don't believe it's ever reached the Supreme Court.
Sigh. It's a conference on security, which is useful to security professionals to test and defend their own networks. I've been sent by two different employers (both financial institutions).
I understand that. I'm not trying to say that everyone there is a criminal. But clearly the topic of discussion is how to (or at least how other people) break the law. Am I mistaken that there are speeches about how people have broken into systems and intercepted communications?
Was this in a public place? Aren't conventions usually in rented property, thus voiding the "no privacy in a public place" canard?
The kinds of private places that are protected from "invasions of privacy" are places like bathrooms and bedrooms. A public gathering (even on private property) is not a place where you can expect to be free from public scrutiny.
It might be different if it were a group therapy session or an AA meeting at the local church. But it's not.
It's a group of people talking about how to break the law. I can't think of a place where the public has a greater interest in what is being said and who is saying it. They can kick her out, but they can't stop her from showing images that she has lawfully obtained.
This is a fun story. I like that she was outed and ran scared. But calling this unethical is just silly. There's no allegation of lying, only that she went in there undercover as a regular citizen without press credentials.
Guess what, you don't need "press credentials" to take video in a public place. Absent a contractual agreement (or the public shaming that she received), there's not much anyone could do to stop her.
Dateline is a horrible show. I'm quite glad they didn't get their story, because you can be sure they would have twisted it to sound as salacious and titillating as possible.
You see, the laptop was paid for by the FRHCDL (Fedora Red Hat CentOS Development Labs) as part of my employment with them.
As the founder of the project, it is my responsibility to make sure that FRHCOS runs well on all manner of laptops. It is grueling work, and I have to put up with constant criticism for my outspoken views on licensing issues (they are all invalid, so I keep the source code to myself), but it is worth it.
"Aren't Fedora and Centos two totally different things?"
Yes, as are Fedora Red Hat and Fedora Red Hat CentOS.
Fedora Red Hat CentOS is my special creation. I mix the artwork of Fedora, Red Hat AND CentOS.
In this way, I can have the stability of Red Hat, the currentness of Fedora, and the lack of mandatory expensive support contracts which makes CentOS such a great option.
All of this in one distribution. You should try it. It's the next big thing. Honest.
Those charges would result in the gambler getting hauled before a judge and made to prove that he thought that he was just "lucky" when the machine gave him a $10 credit for every $1 he put in.
Where in the hell did you get that idea?
In this country, when you are charged with a crime, you have no obligation to prove anything. That obligation remains with the state unless and until you are convicted.
But OpenSolaris doesn't have as many drivers as Linux. They could use some code from Linux, as there is a certain amount that's been contributed as "GPL2 or later," but the majority is contributed as "GPL2 only."
It would take a lot of people changing course for OpenSolaris to reach the same acceptance as Linux.
How many developers are upset about things that GPL3 covers and GPL2 does not?
The prosecutors are going to need something more than what is public in order to prosecute Mr. Reiser.
Their most important witness, the child, is in Russia. And even his statements are inconsistent about whether his parents were fighting the day she disappeared, and whether he saw her leave the house alone.
The boyfriend she was leaving him for is an admitted sadomasochist and mass murderer who says he has "nothing to hide." Oh sure, you can trust him.
There is no body, and she's from another country (same country where her kid is at). So we don't even know if she's really dead.
The only real admissible evidence against him is that he left his Mom's car on the street behind her house with a passenger seat missing. Maybe he was cleaning it up after disposing of the body... maybe. But "maybe" is a far cry from being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Look for Mr. Reiser to be released from jail some time soon unless something new comes up. There is no way the prosecutors can go to trial on this evidence unless there is additional evidence that we don't know about yet.
Speech can be, and frequently is an economic activity.
Your cases do not support your view at all. Back when I was in law school, I read each of the cases you posted. They have nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Do I have cases to support my view??? HAHAHAHAHA. That's choice. Google Obscenity and Supreme Court. Every case you find will be a First Amendment case that deals with Economic Activity. Have fun.
The interstate commerce clause simply allows the Federal government to regulate activity that would otherwise be left for the states to regulate.
Neither the Federal government, nor the states are allowed to violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment limits the Interstate Commerce Clause and not the other way around.
But instead of having to let it dry for a week, I just took the keyboard apart.
Modern keyboards are not very complex. It's pretty easy to disassemble them into their individual parts and run through the wash.
Just make sure that you put the keys in a container with holes (like the containers used for washing baby bottle parts in a dishwasher). You don't want to lose any of those keys, or have them fall into the heating element and get melted.
The drying time here is a matter of hours rather than days.
And when you put it back together, you can be sure that the inside of the keyboard is as clean as the outside. Years of daily use can bring hair and other filth deep inside of a keyboard. Taking it apart and running it through the wash will clean it fully.
What is the rationale for the Free Speech infringement here?
With broadcast regs, it is reasoned that the airwaves are a limited public resource. Thus, the public supposedly has a right to regulate content broadcast over it.
But cable is neither a limited, nor a public resource. And I don't gather that satellite is either. So how does the Congress get around the First Amendment and regulate their content?
It forces those voting on a bill to make a decision about how bad they want one thing versus how bad they don't want the other.
And it works both ways. Someone who initially would be dead-set against a bill is more inclined to do so if they get something that they do want in return for a yes vote.
You are trying to prove your point by saying, "Scenario A is morally wrong and should be illegal, so Scenario B, even though it is not morally wrong, must also be illegal." It's non-sequitur.
The statute is ambiguous. "[S]uch interception" could refer to interception of that particular communication, or it could refer (as you suggest) to interception via that particular device.
A criminal defendant ALWAYS gets the benefit of ambiguity in a criminal statute.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you a lawyer? And does what you say apply to private gatherings on private property (which is what this was)?
Yes, but this is not legal advice and you are not my client.
Call it what you want, but it's a strange private gathering that allows anyone to attend. If it were really private, she would not have been allowed in at all.
I seem to recall Red Hat already being in the desktop market at one point.
Didn't they basically throw it away already?
Isn't the reason why Ubuntu was able to take the lead was because Red Hat left a huge gaping hole in the category of "Most Popular Desktop Linux Distro?"
Why? How is a group of drunks/fundies gathering to hear people speak different from a group of hackers gathering to hear people speak? You don't have to sign up to go to a church, so it's even more public than a security conference.
Because they are talking about things that are private by their very nature. There is a cause of action (reason to sue someone) that covers this. It's called "Public Disclosure of Private Facts". These are personal things that the individuals are dealing with and trying to get help with. There are potential First Amendment issues with this sort of claim (as it's dealing with true facts, not falsehoods), but I don't believe it's ever reached the Supreme Court.
Sigh. It's a conference on security, which is useful to security professionals to test and defend their own networks. I've been sent by two different employers (both financial institutions).
I understand that. I'm not trying to say that everyone there is a criminal. But clearly the topic of discussion is how to (or at least how other people) break the law. Am I mistaken that there are speeches about how people have broken into systems and intercepted communications?
Oh, I don't know - government proceedings?
Good point.
She was specifically told that video taping in secret was not allowed, but she did it anyway. Sounds pretty unethical to me.
Just because someone tells you not to do something doesn't make it unethical or illegal.
It is definitely not unethical for a journalist to disobey someone in order to get a story. They are supposed to do that.
Where does wiretapping fall under this?
It doesn't. Noone's accused her of "wiretapping." That's something completely different.
Hint: It involves wires.
Was this in a public place? Aren't conventions usually in rented property, thus voiding the "no privacy in a public place" canard?
The kinds of private places that are protected from "invasions of privacy" are places like bathrooms and bedrooms. A public gathering (even on private property) is not a place where you can expect to be free from public scrutiny.
It might be different if it were a group therapy session or an AA meeting at the local church. But it's not.
It's a group of people talking about how to break the law. I can't think of a place where the public has a greater interest in what is being said and who is saying it. They can kick her out, but they can't stop her from showing images that she has lawfully obtained.
This is a fun story. I like that she was outed and ran scared. But calling this unethical is just silly. There's no allegation of lying, only that she went in there undercover as a regular citizen without press credentials.
Guess what, you don't need "press credentials" to take video in a public place. Absent a contractual agreement (or the public shaming that she received), there's not much anyone could do to stop her.
Dateline is a horrible show. I'm quite glad they didn't get their story, because you can be sure they would have twisted it to sound as salacious and titillating as possible.
Oh, that's hard to calculate.
You see, the laptop was paid for by the FRHCDL (Fedora Red Hat CentOS Development Labs) as part of my employment with them.
As the founder of the project, it is my responsibility to make sure that FRHCOS runs well on all manner of laptops. It is grueling work, and I have to put up with constant criticism for my outspoken views on licensing issues (they are all invalid, so I keep the source code to myself), but it is worth it.
"Aren't Fedora and Centos two totally different things?"
Yes, as are Fedora Red Hat and Fedora Red Hat CentOS.
Fedora Red Hat CentOS is my special creation. I mix the artwork of Fedora, Red Hat AND CentOS.
In this way, I can have the stability of Red Hat, the currentness of Fedora, and the lack of mandatory expensive support contracts which makes CentOS such a great option.
All of this in one distribution. You should try it. It's the next big thing. Honest.
It's probably not fashionable to complain about how your own posts get modded, but I'm curious...
How is it possible for a first post to be "Redundant"?
That's nothing special.
On my laptop, I am running Fedora Red Hat CentOS.
after the clinical trials are done.
We've seen these kinds of claims before (in HIV research, cold fusion, and many other areas).
Here the only source is "a group of Russian researchers." How about some peer review before we get all excited?
Those charges would result in the gambler getting hauled before a judge and made to prove that he thought that he was just "lucky" when the machine gave him a $10 credit for every $1 he put in.
Where in the hell did you get that idea?
In this country, when you are charged with a crime, you have no obligation to prove anything. That obligation remains with the state unless and until you are convicted.
But OpenSolaris doesn't have as many drivers as Linux. They could use some code from Linux, as there is a certain amount that's been contributed as "GPL2 or later," but the majority is contributed as "GPL2 only."
It would take a lot of people changing course for OpenSolaris to reach the same acceptance as Linux.
How many developers are upset about things that GPL3 covers and GPL2 does not?
Uhm, because standards tend to be defined by what others are doing more than anything else.
What MA does will influence what its suppliers do.
What its suppliers do will influence what their other customers do.
All of this will also affect whether Microsoft takes ODF seriously and provides adequate support for it in their software.
Is SWSoft a big enough company to have a full time dedicated legal department?
They damn well better have someone who can read on staff. It's not as if the GPL is all that complicated.
If they don't understand it, they need to have someone explain it to them BEFORE releasing the software, not after someone requests compliance.
Respecting other people's copyrights is one of the most fundamental aspects of running a software business... one would hope.
The prosecutors are going to need something more than what is public in order to prosecute Mr. Reiser.
Their most important witness, the child, is in Russia. And even his statements are inconsistent about whether his parents were fighting the day she disappeared, and whether he saw her leave the house alone.
The boyfriend she was leaving him for is an admitted sadomasochist and mass murderer who says he has "nothing to hide." Oh sure, you can trust him.
There is no body, and she's from another country (same country where her kid is at). So we don't even know if she's really dead.
The only real admissible evidence against him is that he left his Mom's car on the street behind her house with a passenger seat missing. Maybe he was cleaning it up after disposing of the body... maybe. But "maybe" is a far cry from being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Look for Mr. Reiser to be released from jail some time soon unless something new comes up. There is no way the prosecutors can go to trial on this evidence unless there is additional evidence that we don't know about yet.
Are they changing their tune or are they just trying to show us what they are capable of so that we won't get out of line?
Hmmmmmmmm.
Yep.
But as I've pointed out, the interstate commerce clause does not allow the Feds to regulate the content of speech... even if it involves commerce.
It's called the First Amendment, because (drum roll)... it's an amendment... the first one.
As such, it amends the parts of the Constitution that came before it... like for example, the interstate commerce clause.
Speech can be, and frequently is an economic activity.
Your cases do not support your view at all. Back when I was in law school, I read each of the cases you posted. They have nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Do I have cases to support my view??? HAHAHAHAHA. That's choice. Google Obscenity and Supreme Court. Every case you find will be a First Amendment case that deals with Economic Activity. Have fun.
You are way way off.
The interstate commerce clause simply allows the Federal government to regulate activity that would otherwise be left for the states to regulate.
Neither the Federal government, nor the states are allowed to violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment limits the Interstate Commerce Clause and not the other way around.
But instead of having to let it dry for a week, I just took the keyboard apart.
Modern keyboards are not very complex. It's pretty easy to disassemble them into their individual parts and run through the wash.
Just make sure that you put the keys in a container with holes (like the containers used for washing baby bottle parts in a dishwasher). You don't want to lose any of those keys, or have them fall into the heating element and get melted.
The drying time here is a matter of hours rather than days.
And when you put it back together, you can be sure that the inside of the keyboard is as clean as the outside. Years of daily use can bring hair and other filth deep inside of a keyboard. Taking it apart and running it through the wash will clean it fully.
What is the rationale for the Free Speech infringement here?
With broadcast regs, it is reasoned that the airwaves are a limited public resource. Thus, the public supposedly has a right to regulate content broadcast over it.
But cable is neither a limited, nor a public resource. And I don't gather that satellite is either. So how does the Congress get around the First Amendment and regulate their content?
Is this unconstitutional or what?
Like all politics, it is a form of gamesmanship.
It forces those voting on a bill to make a decision about how bad they want one thing versus how bad they don't want the other.
And it works both ways. Someone who initially would be dead-set against a bill is more inclined to do so if they get something that they do want in return for a yes vote.
You are trying to prove your point by saying, "Scenario A is morally wrong and should be illegal, so Scenario B, even though it is not morally wrong, must also be illegal." It's non-sequitur.
The statute is ambiguous. "[S]uch interception" could refer to interception of that particular communication, or it could refer (as you suggest) to interception via that particular device.
A criminal defendant ALWAYS gets the benefit of ambiguity in a criminal statute.