If you had a business and you had to pay your competition.01 in order to sell your product because of a lame limitation put in place by your competition, you would likely think that.01 was about.02 too much.
"It makes me sad that now there are some things that the US can no longer make."
We can make anything we used to make, and many never before made. It's just that we are led by weenies ( politically and economically ). And that is what there is to be sad about.
The voter? Vote coercion/buying is enabled. You know "vote for X, or we beat you silly". Or "vote for X, we will give you $1000.00". The election officials? "I don't like how he voted, oops, I lost it". Not to mention they have no business knowing. The machine? You have no idea if the paper tape or whatever really marked as you requested, unless they show you. And even if they do that, how do you know they don't mark another on the tape after each "wrong" vote?
There is no need for a fast vote tally. There is a need for a correct vote tally. Correct being how the voters really voted.
..."countersuit by B for the same Billion should be considered reasonable and what a court should default to unless some pretty unusual circumstances are involved..."
They would then just spin up a small business, sell the patent to them, fund them with just enough to make it thru the trial. Lose? Nothing lost, small company defaults. Win? Small business merges/is squired by original company.
All aircraft go thru revisions during their lifetimes. There is never a "final design", there is a "good enough to start" design which is changed until the aircraft is not produced any more. Been that way since at least WWII.
My understanding is that the F-22 is the first to attempt to use bleed air for the pilot, so, there is no working system to go look at, the planes you mention all use bottles of oxygen.
British aircraft would have either the.303 machine guns ( 8 of them ) or the 20mm cannon. Not the.50 caliber Browning ( flown in American aircraft, usually 6 per aircraft, except for the Thunderbolt ( P-47 ), which had 8. ).
Winston Churchill ( English PM ) was convinced that conflict with the Russians ( and other communists, I expect ) would be the order of the day after Germany ( and Japan ) were defeated. I would not be surprised if "the enemy" were either the Russians or the Chinese.
"Name and address information from any source that may have it; cell phone company, employer, club membership etc. Phone numbers of all phones owned by someone (To tap them would require a warrant)."
Unless someone were to show me a case where those bit could be misused, I would be ready to call those reasonable.
"Do you mean to for an officer to misrepresent himself and get the information then no officer who does not misrepresent himself should be able to get it..."
I have to confess that I am not sure what you mean by that.
What I mean is that officers should represent themselves as law enforcement, no "social engineering", no representing themselves as the target, or the target's family, employer, or as a member of the company ( or affiliate ) that holds the desired information. Nor as any other 3rd parties that might have access. An officer *could* misrepresent to a judge, but there would at least be that paper trail leading back ( for things he/she/it is not allowed to get at ).
"...The law in question deals with "location information" and nothing more...."
I came in in the middle, so I didn't have the full context, so fair enough.
Is "location information" the name and billing address you mentioned before, or it is where the person is now? The former I can see as reasonable, the later, I am not sure about. Why do they need to know where I am and why shouldn't a judge have oversight over that?
"Not allwing a tool because it can be abused just means that no new tools can be allowed."
I think we need to consider how new tools can be abused and determine from the standpoint of ensuring Law Enforcement has sufficient oversight over their activities before they can use them.
"I just love how you bold that statement except the word "reasonable" and a few others."
Ill grant I should have included "reasonable". But if I included too many others, I would have had to bold the whole sentence. I will say that you have a good point, but I think I do also. There seems to be a push ( not relevant to this article, perhaps ) to push the bounds of what is included in "reasonable" things that do not seem reasonable to me, especially in "new tools" like cell phone conversations, etc. An example would be the warrantless wiretapping we have read about here before. ( I believe that if the concept of electronic records or cell phone conversations, or email had occurred to the founding fathers, they would have included them more specifically, and I think they would look at what is being done in the US relative to these and disapprove ).
"I think where your arguments fall down is when you use absolutes like "anything". The statements become over broad and easily refuted. For example Law Enforcement can not look at someone's tax records without a warrant. A more accurate statement would be that Law Enforcement is able to look at a small well defined list of information about a Citizen."
Fair enough. How small, and is it that well defined?
"The next point is the "good reason". All a warrant does is require the officer to prove to a judge they have a good reason. Officers who have accessed personal information without good reason, even though they do not require a warrant, have been charged with invasion of privacy and some fired."
When they are detected as having done so. A warrant is part of the oversight ( paper trail ) as well as having to get another ( hopefully more objective ) opinion about the reasonableness of the search.
"The officer in question was in effect committing the crime of abuse of authority. It is harder to catch without a warrant but requiring the other 99.9% of legitimate inquiries to get a warrant is overkill."
I disagree, in general, in this specific case, if we are talking about name and billing address, then I agree.
"Here is a direct question which I challenge you to answer; What items would you consider to be reasonable?"
If they can get the information without fraud ( misrepresenting themselves, mainly ) If they can get the information from public records I would probably concede other points for edge/boundary cases.
"In my example it would be 5 as a separate one would have to be served on each telco."
You assume. Maybe it might be that many. Still lower than the 30 you were positing before.
"So in your mind police should not get any information about anyone without a search warrant."
Pretty much. There would probably be some items that might fall under "reasonable". Not many. What is ludicrous is for Law Enforcement to be able to look at anything about a Citizen without a real good reason.
You bring up the 4th amendment. Excellent. What does it mean to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"?
How can anyone be secure in anything if Law Enforcement can do anything they want any time they want? Why do we have a bill of rights or a Constitution with it's amendments?
"Notice it says "unreasonable searches and seizures" most people would consider a name and billing address to be reasonable."
Now you are changing the playing ground. There is more than just a name and an billing address they can ask for. And where do you draw the line of what is "reasonable"? And keep it from moving in an unreasonable way?
An assumption note. You assume that Law Enforcement is doing the job they ideally should be doing. I am quite sure that the vast majority of them are. But, you seem to be overlooking that these limits are to keep bad actors ( a minority ) abusing the system. If no warrants are required, an officer can use cell phone positioning to track the spouse or sigOther ensuring their control over that person. If no warrants are required, an officer can use who/when am innocent person is/texts/calls to incriminate them. Other abuses that are better at motivating my argument can be imagined ( and are probably happening ). To paraphrase the old "if you have nothing to hide..." argument If Law Enforcement is doing the right thing, why...
So, if I own property, I can be safe from unreasonable searches ( on that property ), but if I rent, I cannot be.
"To get that warrant the police must show probable cause, i.e. reason to expect that they will actually find what they claim to be looking for."
Isn't *that* what it is supposed to be all about? Not which "class" of people I belong to, but in limiting the state in how it interacts with me? All these exceptions seem to be about enabling the state, which was not what was intended.
I believe I can paraphrase you as: "Its too hard, so we will just have to suspend their rights".
One warrant listing all the involved numbers would seem to suffice for your example, not 30. Sure it will make it harder. If you dont require it, then you are giving each officer too much authority without any oversight. It will be ( and likely is being ) abused.
As the cell phone account owner, I would think you would be able to authorize the request in such a case. And exceptions where the warrant was requested after the fact could be written in for such cases, as was already law.
What confusion? Have warrant? Yes, OK. No, not OK. No confusion there.
They are already serving the data, it seems, so what "burdensome and costly mandate" is there, aside from checking for the warrant?
Further, who the cares about "burdensome and costly"? What happened to the rights of the people using the service? Being safe from unreasonable searches...
I don't disagree, but what will happen is that workers wages will have to go up to compensate, eventually. So, I don't think the consumer's cost nor the companies costs will really change, just be distributed differently. And it will remove the "our taxes are so high we have to find shysters to find loopholes to reduce it" by a lot.
I think such a changes would also be good on the "who should the government be responsive to" front. Right now, there is too much regard for corporate interests.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had a business and you had to pay your competition .01 in order to sell your product because of a lame limitation put in place by your competition, you would likely think that .01 was about .02 too much.
Or, keep the train in vacuum all the time, have the passenger exit/enter system do the "airlocking".
First, dream
Then, do
Barely Moving Windows, in my experience.....
Yes, big business uses government regulation to create and maintain cartels and monopolies.
In the absence of big government, big business will use whatever comes to hand to get what it wants.
And no, the saying is that we need government powerful enough ( not necessarily big ) enough to save us from big business.
Its not for back talking.
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death"
Is the actual quote ( new international version ( 1984 ) ).
True. We need to get it back.
"It makes me sad that now there are some things that the US can no longer make."
We can make anything we used to make, and many never before made.
It's just that we are led by weenies ( politically and economically ).
And that is what there is to be sad about.
And the procedure that verifies the hash, how do you know that has not been compromised?
Sheesh yourself, thoughtless one.
Who gets the receipt?
The voter? Vote coercion/buying is enabled. You know "vote for X, or we beat you silly". Or "vote for X, we will give you $1000.00".
The election officials? "I don't like how he voted, oops, I lost it". Not to mention they have no business knowing.
The machine? You have no idea if the paper tape or whatever really marked as you requested, unless they show you. And even if they do that, how do you know they don't mark another on the tape after each "wrong" vote?
There is no need for a fast vote tally. There is a need for a correct vote tally. Correct being how the voters really voted.
Russian mafia take control,
"You wanna buy this plane, or do I haveta make you fly in it".
Not for long, and then we would have some ethical and some uncaught leadership.
Spin around that loop a few billion times, and we will have fewer unethical leaders.
..."countersuit by B for the same Billion should be considered reasonable and what a court should default to unless some pretty unusual circumstances are involved..."
They would then just spin up a small business, sell the patent to them, fund them with just enough to make it thru the trial. Lose? Nothing lost, small company defaults. Win? Small business merges/is squired by original company.
All aircraft go thru revisions during their lifetimes. There is never a "final design", there is a "good enough to start" design which is changed until the aircraft is not produced any more. Been that way since at least WWII.
My understanding is that the F-22 is the first to attempt to use bleed air for the pilot, so, there is no working system to go look at, the planes you mention all use bottles of oxygen.
British aircraft would have either the .303 machine guns ( 8 of them ) or the 20mm cannon. Not the .50 caliber Browning ( flown in American aircraft, usually 6 per aircraft, except for the Thunderbolt ( P-47 ), which had 8. ).
Winston Churchill ( English PM ) was convinced that conflict with the Russians ( and other communists, I expect ) would be the order of the day after Germany ( and Japan ) were defeated. I would not be surprised if "the enemy" were either the Russians or the Chinese.
"Name and address information from any source that may have it; cell phone company, employer, club membership etc.
Phone numbers of all phones owned by someone (To tap them would require a warrant)."
Unless someone were to show me a case where those bit could be misused, I would be ready to call those reasonable.
"Do you mean to for an officer to misrepresent himself and get the information then no officer who does not misrepresent himself should be able to get it..."
I have to confess that I am not sure what you mean by that.
What I mean is that officers should represent themselves as law enforcement, no "social engineering", no representing themselves as the target, or the target's family, employer, or as a member of the company ( or affiliate ) that holds the desired information. Nor as any other 3rd parties that might have access. An officer *could* misrepresent to a judge, but there would at least be that paper trail leading back ( for things he/she/it is not allowed to get at ).
"...The law in question deals with "location information" and nothing more...."
I came in in the middle, so I didn't have the full context, so fair enough.
Is "location information" the name and billing address you mentioned before, or it is where the person is now?
The former I can see as reasonable, the later, I am not sure about. Why do they need to know where I am and why shouldn't a judge have oversight over that?
"Not allwing a tool because it can be abused just means that no new tools can be allowed."
I think we need to consider how new tools can be abused and determine from the standpoint of ensuring Law Enforcement has sufficient oversight over their activities before they can use them.
"I just love how you bold that statement except the word "reasonable" and a few others."
Ill grant I should have included "reasonable". But if I included too many others, I would have had to bold the whole sentence. I will say that you have a good point, but I think I do also. There seems to be a push ( not relevant to this article, perhaps ) to push the bounds of what is included in "reasonable" things that do not seem reasonable to me, especially in "new tools" like cell phone conversations, etc. An example would be the warrantless wiretapping we have read about here before. ( I believe that if the concept of electronic records or cell phone conversations, or email had occurred to the founding fathers, they would have included them more specifically, and I think they would look at what is being done in the US relative to these and disapprove ).
"I think where your arguments fall down is when you use absolutes like "anything". The statements become over broad and easily refuted. For example Law Enforcement can not look at someone's tax records without a warrant. A more accurate statement would be that Law Enforcement is able to look at a small well defined list of information about a Citizen."
Fair enough. How small, and is it that well defined?
"The next point is the "good reason". All a warrant does is require the officer to prove to a judge they have a good reason. Officers who have accessed personal information without good reason, even though they do not require a warrant, have been charged with invasion of privacy and some fired."
When they are detected as having done so. A warrant is part of the oversight ( paper trail ) as well as having to get another ( hopefully more objective ) opinion about the reasonableness of the search.
"The officer in question was in effect committing the crime of abuse of authority. It is harder to catch without a warrant but requiring the other 99.9% of legitimate inquiries to get a warrant is overkill."
I disagree, in general, in this specific case, if we are talking about name and billing address, then I agree.
"Here is a direct question which I challenge you to answer; What items would you consider to be reasonable?"
If they can get the information without fraud ( misrepresenting themselves, mainly )
If they can get the information from public records
I would probably concede other points for edge/boundary cases.
What items would you consider to be reasonable?
"In my example it would be 5 as a separate one would have to be served on each telco."
You assume. Maybe it might be that many. Still lower than the 30 you were positing before.
"So in your mind police should not get any information about anyone without a search warrant."
Pretty much. There would probably be some items that might fall under "reasonable". Not many.
What is ludicrous is for Law Enforcement to be able to look at anything about a Citizen without a real good reason.
You bring up the 4th amendment. Excellent.
What does it mean to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"?
How can anyone be secure in anything if Law Enforcement can do anything they want any time they want?
Why do we have a bill of rights or a Constitution with it's amendments?
"Notice it says "unreasonable searches and seizures" most people would consider a name and billing address to be reasonable."
Now you are changing the playing ground. There is more than just a name and an billing address they can ask for. And where do you draw the line of what is "reasonable"? And keep it from moving in an unreasonable way?
An assumption note. You assume that Law Enforcement is doing the job they ideally should be doing. ...
I am quite sure that the vast majority of them are.
But, you seem to be overlooking that these limits are to keep bad actors ( a minority ) abusing the system.
If no warrants are required, an officer can use cell phone positioning to track the spouse or sigOther ensuring their control over that person.
If no warrants are required, an officer can use who/when am innocent person is/texts/calls to incriminate them.
Other abuses that are better at motivating my argument can be imagined ( and are probably happening ).
To paraphrase the old "if you have nothing to hide..." argument
If Law Enforcement is doing the right thing, why
So, if I own property, I can be safe from unreasonable searches ( on that property ), but if I rent, I cannot be.
"To get that warrant the police must show probable cause, i.e. reason to expect that they will actually find what they claim to be looking for."
Isn't *that* what it is supposed to be all about? Not which "class" of people I belong to, but in limiting the state in how it interacts with me?
All these exceptions seem to be about enabling the state, which was not what was intended.
I believe I can paraphrase you as: "Its too hard, so we will just have to suspend their rights".
One warrant listing all the involved numbers would seem to suffice for your example, not 30.
Sure it will make it harder. If you dont require it, then you are giving each officer too much authority without any oversight.
It will be ( and likely is being ) abused.
As the cell phone account owner, I would think you would be able to authorize the request in such a case.
And exceptions where the warrant was requested after the fact could be written in for such cases, as was already law.
What confusion? Have warrant? Yes, OK. No, not OK. No confusion there.
They are already serving the data, it seems, so what "burdensome and costly mandate" is there, aside from checking for the warrant?
Further, who the cares about "burdensome and costly"? What happened to the rights of the people using the service?
Being safe from unreasonable searches...
I don't disagree, but what will happen is that workers wages will have to go up to compensate, eventually.
So, I don't think the consumer's cost nor the companies costs will really change, just be distributed differently.
And it will remove the "our taxes are so high we have to find shysters to find loopholes to reduce it" by a lot.
I think such a changes would also be good on the "who should the government be responsive to" front. Right now, there is too much regard for corporate interests.