If you are prepared to accept that you will be inevitably murdering innocent people, then I suppose you can feel comfortable with your support for the death penalty. If you have an aversion to killing innocent people, then you may want to rethink your position.
No system of justice is perfect, nor will it ever be. I'd rather that the imperfections didn't lead to the government killing innocent people.
Interesting... but does the law work the other way? Is it illegal to build a daycare, school, playground, mall, etc. near the home of a sex offender?
Not sure about Florida, but in many states, if a daycare, school, bus-stop, playground, mall, etc. is built near the home of a sex offender, then the sex offender has to move.
Reading those comments, more than the article itself.
That's pretty obvious. The article is about Vista and computer forensic investigation. That would be why most of the comments are focusing on a search and seizure situation.
I didn't know the FBI had that many agents. And it's not just FBI agents anymore. Every backwoods local police department puts a few keystone cops on the intraweb now posing as 14 year old girls. Cops love it because it's easy, they barely have to leave their desks, and it makes for some great headlines.
Which is why there should be a law to protect privacy on the internet. Law and privacy are not mutually exclusive.
This isn't simply a matter of reading TOS's. I don't see why we should have to wait for a corporation to offer it to us before arguing we deserve privacy. Again, there is an expectation of privacy for telephone and U.S. mail communication, so why should we throw up our hands and abandon all hope of privacy for the internet?
I'm not saying people shouldn't have privacy, I'm saying if you export your secrets outside of your domain, you shouldn't expect privacy.
Although really, there is a good argument to be made that people have the expectation of privacy when they use the internet from their own homes, even if it is not technically feasible.
To use the house analogy, I assume you don't keep your blinds down on your windows 24/7. Wouldn't it feel wrong if someone were using a telescopic lens from 200 feet away and watching your every move through your windows? What if you were writing a private letter on an airplane, and when you got up to use the lavatory, the stranger sitting next to you unfolded the letter and started reading it? Or if you fell asleep on a bus and someone started going through your cell-phone data. None of these actions are technically illegal, but I assume they would upset you, just as people get upset when you suggest that all their internet movements are being snooped on.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to point out that just because something can be easily eavesdropped on or monitored doesn't mean that we should abandon all privacy rights because of it. People expect privacy in their communications via snail mail and telephone calls (and we have laws to protect this), why should email or web searches be any different?
Personally, I think the old postcard vs. sealed letter analogy is a good one for the internet, but I wish more connections were encrypted by default, and stronger privacy laws were enacted to cover everyday internet usage.
?!?!? My original point was that the U.S. has higher levels of violent crime involving guns than Europe. Are you disputing this? I don't care about if you believe gun-ownership prevented a Japanese invasion. I don't care that gun ownership prevented a nazi occupation of Switzerland. I don't care if you believe guns can heal wounds and raise children, and I don't care how many wikipedia articles you dredge up to support your off-topic positions, because I was making a very simple point.
Sigh. But I suppose we could keep arguing past each other and continue to make patronizing statements such as, "educate yourself."
perhaps you should compare "violence involving guns" instead of "violent crime involving guns", and so include the USSR, WW1 and WW2. So the answer to your question: Europe.
Ah, but that wasn't my question, was it? You want to equate domestic crime statistics with war casualties? I have heard some lame pro-gun arguments, but come on. Seriously.
My favorite part of the article:
Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."
They don't have time to deal with entities which give a "pushback" when there are so many companies, politicians, and citizens who are ready to roll over, bark, and beg on command. Terrorism and kiddy porn are such effective justifications because most people don't even bother to examine the issues, much less debate a proposed law.
The U.S. has been whipped up into such a senseless frenzy over terrorism and kiddy porn that it's going to be a long time before Congress becomes rational about the subjects. Privacy and (pseudo)anonymity are some of the things that made the internet so popular, but unfortunately this type of emotional hype and scare tactics will make the internet far less private than the postal system and telephone network.
They've flat out run out of reasons to erode our rights.
They don't need any new reasons. They can continue to use the old reasons over and over. For example, despite all of our drug laws, there is still drug activity! Therefore we need more laws, harsher punishments, more restrictions on freedom!
In any case, you have a lot more confidence in the voting public than I do. A large portion of the population was easily duped into supporting the iraq war, and even after the pretenses leading to the invasion were proven to be false (i.e. no WMDs), millions of people still re-elected the guy that made it all happen!
Does anyone in the republican party think about the fact that most of their original constituents (in places like texas, at least) are ardent civil libertarians, and hate government intrusion into their privacy / private lives?
It seems like many of these same self-proclaimed "civil libertarians" end up supporting this type of crap anyway, under the theory of "this will never affect my privacy/private life, because I'm not a terrorist."
I think if you propose legislation such as this, claiming that it is for the children/against the terrorists, you will get broad support from both voting republicans and democrats, all of whom will also claim to be ardent supporters of the constitution.
Why is widespread surveillance acceptable to politicians and a good portion of the public when dealing with the internet?
Can you imagine the uproar if smirking ass-face Gonzales (sorry, his first name escapes me right now) proposed that every letter sent through the U.S. postal system must be photocopied, indexed, and stored? Or if all telephone conversations must be recorded in case the Justice Department needs access to them at a later date? People would be livid, and justifiably so.
Yet the internet has achieved a boogey-man status thanks to continual chicken-little scare-tactic reports and media coverage that child predators and terrorists are lurking at every website. The evil boogeymen will come over your tubes, attack your children, blow up your homes!
It's utter crap. Widespread storage and surveillance of communication should be no more acceptable just because there is a different technology involved. You'd think the congress might have more pressing matters to deal with, but I guess not much else is happening right now.
I'm a huge believer in freedom of speech - that is, you have the right to say what you want, and no government should take that from you. However, that doesn't mean you have the right to hide. They are different concepts altogether.
Tell that to those freedom-haters who wrote the Federalist Papers.
Or here is what the EFF has to say about the subject:
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Has a nice ring to it, does it not?
More laws and restrictions are proposed being placed upon sex offenders? How shocking.
Are the the US and UK only capable of passing laws that pile more restrictions and harsher punishments on sex offenders?
It's become such an easy gimmick for politicians and legislators. In the US at least, politicians can sit on their hands and do nothing for years on end as long as they push forward a few new anti-sex-offender laws right before election, and the public applauds. The laws don't even have to be effective, or even enforceable. If the public hears about any single sex-crime in a nation of 300 million people, then there is a cry for harsher punishments, more restrictions, more databases, more cops posing as 14 year old girls online, more internet surveillance, more ex post facto laws, and less freedom for us all.
Many of the laws are shamefully overbroad. Keeping some guy who got caught peeing in the bushes or leering after a 16 year old girl from living within city limits does nothing to protect the community. Effectively ending some college students life because he downloaded some naked picture of a child off of Kazaa isn't helping.
There are millions of children in the US who are without healthcare or living in severe poverty. Yet everyone is much more concerned about those scary child predators lurking on Myspace. The 24/7 attention each sexual-related case receives in the media make sex-offenses seem like a huge problem, but is it really worth all of the panic and expenditure of law enforcement resources?
Sex-offenses have turned out to be the perfect tool to distract the public from any other issues. It's just so easy to beat up on a group that no one is willing to defend.
If Microsoft really cared about end users, the latest Windows would be a small, tight little GUI shell with the bare essentials that still ran smoothly on 5-10 year old hardware.
Why on earth would anyone want a broadband connection if they cannot download music and films from the p2p networks?
If there was another option, people would move to it. Many people (in the U.S. at least) have only one other option available: dial-up. Personally, I'd rather stick with the bittorrent-throttled cable connection and obtain P2P goodies via other means than switch to a completely useless dial-up connection.
Mar's polar ice cap is getting thinner over the last half century, thus leading credence to...um...global warming.
I was under the impression that the mars polar ice caps routinely melt and reform due to the lopsided spin of its axis. The earth's spin and tilt stay uniform due the balancing effect of the moon, and thus we don't have extreme changes of temperature at the poles. Then again, I'm no scientist.
To use your previous example, if the wrong address was put on a warrant, and the police relied on that information, then any evidence of a crime at that wrong address could be used. That would (or should) fall under the good faith exception.
I disagree. Searching the wrong house, with no probable cause to do so, would not lead to admissible evidence.
Just to be clear: cops stake out a house (201 Jackson Street), and have probable cause to believe that drugs are being sold on the premises. They fill out an affidavit, get a warrant, etc. By mistake the officer writes in 205 Jackson Street and not 201. The police bust down the door of 205 Jackson street, search the whole house, and find a small amount of cocaine in the bathroom. Are you saying that the cocaine would be admissible? This does not fall under the good faith doctrine! The officer did not in good faith believe that drugs were at 205 Jackson Street.
All the cops have is an ip range. No other information. Wouldn't a more fitting analogy be that the cops get a tip that a car filled with drugs would be on a certain 5-lane highway (no other information)? They then proceed to start searching every car that passes, hoping to find the one with drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are prepared to accept that you will be inevitably murdering innocent people, then I suppose you can feel comfortable with your support for the death penalty. If you have an aversion to killing innocent people, then you may want to rethink your position.
No system of justice is perfect, nor will it ever be. I'd rather that the imperfections didn't lead to the government killing innocent people.
With the proper http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=itunes+ogg&bt nG=Google+Search/ plugin, it seems you can easily enable itunes to play ogg.
Not sure about Florida, but in many states, if a daycare, school, bus-stop, playground, mall, etc. is built near the home of a sex offender, then the sex offender has to move.
That's pretty obvious. The article is about Vista and computer forensic investigation. That would be why most of the comments are focusing on a search and seizure situation.
This isn't simply a matter of reading TOS's. I don't see why we should have to wait for a corporation to offer it to us before arguing we deserve privacy. Again, there is an expectation of privacy for telephone and U.S. mail communication, so why should we throw up our hands and abandon all hope of privacy for the internet?
Although really, there is a good argument to be made that people have the expectation of privacy when they use the internet from their own homes, even if it is not technically feasible.
To use the house analogy, I assume you don't keep your blinds down on your windows 24/7. Wouldn't it feel wrong if someone were using a telescopic lens from 200 feet away and watching your every move through your windows? What if you were writing a private letter on an airplane, and when you got up to use the lavatory, the stranger sitting next to you unfolded the letter and started reading it? Or if you fell asleep on a bus and someone started going through your cell-phone data. None of these actions are technically illegal, but I assume they would upset you, just as people get upset when you suggest that all their internet movements are being snooped on.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but I just wanted to point out that just because something can be easily eavesdropped on or monitored doesn't mean that we should abandon all privacy rights because of it. People expect privacy in their communications via snail mail and telephone calls (and we have laws to protect this), why should email or web searches be any different?
Personally, I think the old postcard vs. sealed letter analogy is a good one for the internet, but I wish more connections were encrypted by default, and stronger privacy laws were enacted to cover everyday internet usage.
Maybe the King James Version?
Yes, it's strange. It's as if they were told they had unlimited internet access.
?!?!? My original point was that the U.S. has higher levels of violent crime involving guns than Europe. Are you disputing this? I don't care about if you believe gun-ownership prevented a Japanese invasion. I don't care that gun ownership prevented a nazi occupation of Switzerland. I don't care if you believe guns can heal wounds and raise children, and I don't care how many wikipedia articles you dredge up to support your off-topic positions, because I was making a very simple point.
Sigh. But I suppose we could keep arguing past each other and continue to make patronizing statements such as, "educate yourself."
perhaps you should compare "violence involving guns" instead of "violent crime involving guns", and so include the USSR, WW1 and WW2. So the answer to your question: Europe.
Ah, but that wasn't my question, was it? You want to equate domestic crime statistics with war casualties? I have heard some lame pro-gun arguments, but come on. Seriously.
My favorite part of the article: Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."
They don't have time to deal with entities which give a "pushback" when there are so many companies, politicians, and citizens who are ready to roll over, bark, and beg on command. Terrorism and kiddy porn are such effective justifications because most people don't even bother to examine the issues, much less debate a proposed law.
The U.S. has been whipped up into such a senseless frenzy over terrorism and kiddy porn that it's going to be a long time before Congress becomes rational about the subjects. Privacy and (pseudo)anonymity are some of the things that made the internet so popular, but unfortunately this type of emotional hype and scare tactics will make the internet far less private than the postal system and telephone network.
RTFA, they already want to track videos as well.
Hmm that doesn't seem very top 10 at all. I would have thought top ten meant gigs per day.
They've flat out run out of reasons to erode our rights.
They don't need any new reasons. They can continue to use the old reasons over and over. For example, despite all of our drug laws, there is still drug activity! Therefore we need more laws, harsher punishments, more restrictions on freedom!
In any case, you have a lot more confidence in the voting public than I do. A large portion of the population was easily duped into supporting the iraq war, and even after the pretenses leading to the invasion were proven to be false (i.e. no WMDs), millions of people still re-elected the guy that made it all happen!
Does anyone in the republican party think about the fact that most of their original constituents (in places like texas, at least) are ardent civil libertarians, and hate government intrusion into their privacy / private lives?
It seems like many of these same self-proclaimed "civil libertarians" end up supporting this type of crap anyway, under the theory of "this will never affect my privacy/private life, because I'm not a terrorist."
I think if you propose legislation such as this, claiming that it is for the children/against the terrorists, you will get broad support from both voting republicans and democrats, all of whom will also claim to be ardent supporters of the constitution.
Why is widespread surveillance acceptable to politicians and a good portion of the public when dealing with the internet?
Can you imagine the uproar if smirking ass-face Gonzales (sorry, his first name escapes me right now) proposed that every letter sent through the U.S. postal system must be photocopied, indexed, and stored? Or if all telephone conversations must be recorded in case the Justice Department needs access to them at a later date? People would be livid, and justifiably so.
Yet the internet has achieved a boogey-man status thanks to continual chicken-little scare-tactic reports and media coverage that child predators and terrorists are lurking at every website. The evil boogeymen will come over your tubes, attack your children, blow up your homes!
It's utter crap. Widespread storage and surveillance of communication should be no more acceptable just because there is a different technology involved. You'd think the congress might have more pressing matters to deal with, but I guess not much else is happening right now.
More laws and restrictions are proposed being placed upon sex offenders? How shocking.
Are the the US and UK only capable of passing laws that pile more restrictions and harsher punishments on sex offenders?
It's become such an easy gimmick for politicians and legislators. In the US at least, politicians can sit on their hands and do nothing for years on end as long as they push forward a few new anti-sex-offender laws right before election, and the public applauds. The laws don't even have to be effective, or even enforceable. If the public hears about any single sex-crime in a nation of 300 million people, then there is a cry for harsher punishments, more restrictions, more databases, more cops posing as 14 year old girls online, more internet surveillance, more ex post facto laws, and less freedom for us all.
Many of the laws are shamefully overbroad. Keeping some guy who got caught peeing in the bushes or leering after a 16 year old girl from living within city limits does nothing to protect the community. Effectively ending some college students life because he downloaded some naked picture of a child off of Kazaa isn't helping.
There are millions of children in the US who are without healthcare or living in severe poverty. Yet everyone is much more concerned about those scary child predators lurking on Myspace. The 24/7 attention each sexual-related case receives in the media make sex-offenses seem like a huge problem, but is it really worth all of the panic and expenditure of law enforcement resources?
Sex-offenses have turned out to be the perfect tool to distract the public from any other issues. It's just so easy to beat up on a group that no one is willing to defend.
Just to be clear: cops stake out a house (201 Jackson Street), and have probable cause to believe that drugs are being sold on the premises. They fill out an affidavit, get a warrant, etc. By mistake the officer writes in 205 Jackson Street and not 201. The police bust down the door of 205 Jackson street, search the whole house, and find a small amount of cocaine in the bathroom. Are you saying that the cocaine would be admissible? This does not fall under the good faith doctrine! The officer did not in good faith believe that drugs were at 205 Jackson Street.
All the cops have is an ip range. No other information. Wouldn't a more fitting analogy be that the cops get a tip that a car filled with drugs would be on a certain 5-lane highway (no other information)? They then proceed to start searching every car that passes, hoping to find the one with drugs.