>Because Courts have no other practical way to censure law enforcement for violation of rights, they exclude evidence produced in violation of the Constitution.
There was no constitutional question being decided here. The FBI ran afoul of a rule in a federal law that establishes magistrate court within the federal court system. Specifically it was a rule which limits the territorial jurisdiction of any warrants issued by a magistrate judge. It's probably going to be a rule that gets changed by Congress in the near future if the FBI doesn't win on appeal of this decision.
That is a constitutional question, because no legal warrant issued. You need a legal warrant. If the warrant was void, the search gets suppressed.
I suppose you could argue on appeal that the exclusionary rule should not apply because the warrant was based on PC, just issued by the wrong court. But I don't think you'd get very far, because the warrant was not issued according to Constitutional authority.
That is the status quo, but why? Only because no laws exist to directly punish law enforcement. With a simple law, congress or individual states could make it a like kind felony to lie in court or violate a suspects constitutional rights, covering everyone, including law enforcement. I believe they should also make it illegal for law enforcement to lie during interrogations, as this has led to many false confessions, often later proven false by DNA evidence. We have a far from perfect justice system in this country, but we are still by far the most fair system in the world. but as technology improves, we need to rely less on browbeating and "human" methods and more on forensics, surveillance etc. I am a firm believer that there should be surveillance on every public street, public park and other public areas, and all businesses should be required by law to monitor their internal and external spaces via looped surveillance. You should not have any expectation of privacy when you leave your property. The concern with incidental surveillance could be addressed by applying digital blackouts to any private property or private homes on fixed surveillance of roads etc. This type of camera network does nothing other than force multiplying the eyes of law enforcement, and provides a cold, objective eye to the behavior of everyone, private citizen and law enforcement. Drive by shootings would become a thing of the past overnight, as the shooters could be observed real time, tracked and intercepted by police, and it is damn hard to fight video in court.
Because the system isn't set up for it--prosecutors rely on police and as a practical matter generally can't take a position to department will hate. The department forms a blue wall of silence. And both police and prosecutors see criminality through the lens of law enforcement, which makes it impossible for them as a practical matter to take on the role of people who go after law enforcement for excess.
A lot of the "consumer devices" nowadays have very poor audio quality.
So what? If you can pay $200 for a hearing test, $200 for a consumer aid, and have a bad consumer aid that works for $400 instead of NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY FOR a high-quality hearing aid, it's still a net win for you and for society as a whole.
On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children. On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.
The people who most defend our liberties are the scum of the earth, because they are the people against whom it is easiest to justify the departure from the rights and privileges we recognize in or grant to all human beings.
Because Courts have no other practical way to censure law enforcement for violation of rights, they exclude evidence produced in violation of the Constitution. There are other ways you could work the system in practice--you could fine law enforcement, fire police officers, and have good, responsible, and accountable culture in law enforcement. But that's not something the courts can do effectively or without unwavering support from the law enforcement community and the community's true acceptance of neutral judgment. So the courts let the guilty go free as the only way they have to protect the rights of the innocent. It makes law enforcement be much more careful about at least following a script that reminds them what someone's rights are.
What's really sad is that the government has actually managed to desensitize me to at least the *idea* of something as vile as child porn and terrorism. I now mostly associate it with attempts to stomp out a tiny bit more of our freedom. Congratulations, government.
Read a warrant in one of the cases where prosecutors are going after someone who posts child porn. You'll get resensitized by about the third word and want to throw up.
The tech crowd understands the overreaching problems and dislike the strict liability and overbroad criminalization because they're engineers and distrust authority (and authority has been known to wildly abuse power, to be fair, just like cops sometimes make bad decisions about who to go after). But the people who produce and post goddamn sexual interactions with kids, not even physically mature but actual three or four-year-olds, will make the most peaceful and desensitized of nerds want to throw up and beat the living shit out of those people.
Most federal judges agree the mandatory minimums for underage pornography possession are generally insane, but are powerless to do much about them. There are lots of things needing reform in this area of law. But the cops sure as fuck should be going after the bad guys.
Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity. And it becomes impossible to live without aircond; people outside airconditioning will just drop dead.
The United States still has Alaska, which is a little over 20% as large as the rest of the United States, and with basically no population. The entire population could fit there easily if you built it up.
Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily. The trick would be keeping Britain neutral (it has nukes); France would complain but probably not do anything. If Canada was really smart it could cut the still substantial trade barriers between the two markets, welcome more successful Americans and American companies up, and gain a lot more economic and political and potentially military power through that over time.
For another thing, the people who would benefit most from this would be Inuit and good luck with that because Canadians seem to fucking hate the Inuit.
I suppose some Canadians hate Aboriginals because it is so hard to fire them when they're doing a bad job, and of course there's some basic racism, but there's such a huge immigrant population in Canada these days that I think more of the racism is directed toward the immigrants, and or to the old favorite (French speakers if you're outside of Quebec) (English speakers if you're in Quebec). Plus of course the politics.
Why is it that altruism should only go one way? Why is it us who should show altruism and not the other ones?
Nobody said that it should. But as an evolutionary matter, it is good if it goes primarily forward (i.e. if we care about the future of our species and of our children more than we care about our own.)
The first sale doctrine only applies to copyright law, not to all contracts. It also only applies to ownership, so you can change the ownership structure to a lease-to-own if you want to keep your competitors from looking at it legally for the first few years.
If you want fancier service they will want to control the hardware so that they can stream ads at you, better track your viewing, maybe deliver nonstandard signals, etc...
If you want basic service the only point of the set top box is to increase your cable bill and then WAY overcharge you if it doesn't get returned when you disconnect service.
If their move is in favor of consumers generally, they will discontinue the need to have a box with basic service. These are probably the people most likely to leave cable anyway--they don't have the money to waste an extra hundred bucks a month to see a bunch of big guys tossing a pigskin oblong around a field through a fake window in their living room.
So what stops a Ford employee from buying one and then giving it to his employer in return for a bonus? You can't stop it.
Contract Law.
You could prevent it if you set up the ownership of the car differently or possibly if you had certain specific terms in your contract. Or set up the car itself so that by opening the hood, you agree to a contract. There are lots of creative things you could do to try and set it up so that if a competitor dissects it, they have to pay you a fortune.
Estimates place the leak between 3000 and 3500 gallons. They've been pumping out the tank, which held 800,000 gallons at one point, and 20,000 gallons are left in it. There are now about 8 inches that have leaked between the layers of the inner tank and outer tank, the vast majority since they started pumping.
So they stopped pumping, to figure out how to deal with that.
I don't know... For a while now, we've been entirely dependent on bond sales to fund our government. Flooding the market with $750B in treasury bills is a pretty big deal. They would have to raise interest rates on new bond sales considerably to make them more attractive than the secondary market bills that just got flooded... all $750B of them. It would create a rather huge fucking fiscal mess if Saudi Arabia did this. Wouldn't be the end of the world, wouldn't be a new depression, but the shit show on Capitol Hill would be enough to make you want to shoot yourself.
Or the Fed could raise interest rates and devalue that $750B worth of investments with a hit to the Saudis' interest rate risk. Financial Wars are stupid and counterproductive.
This is really probably just the royal family using their clout to protect a few friends and avoid embarrassing lawsuits trying to tie them to Osama Bin Laden.
Exactly, this is how Sanders and various other so-called "liberals" play their game. These people accomplish nothing, but they still win with their "feel good" bullshit.
It's not limited to one side; it's not just liberals. It is one basic tactic of politics, right up there with sponsoring bills to get referred to committee you know will never get passed, or telling different stories to your domestic population than you do at the negotiating table with a foreign nation, and crafting your agreements explicitly to let each of you pretend to your people that you agreed to different things.
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
Given the body count in both Afghanistan and Iraq (which, as was evident even when the war began, had fuck all to do with 9/11, but hey, collateral damage), it can be argued many people already have.
Yes. Every person who flies on an airplane in America pays for it, as well as every kid who is easier to recruit as a terrorist because we bombed countries rather than building schools in them.
Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
Um... no, not really. If you go off concocting wild theories on the loose conjunction of facts not inconsistent with those theories, which is what most people who get labelled as conspiracy theorists do, sure. But plenty of people can bring up one inconsistency and ask why did X happen. If it's a question rather than a part of a grand theory involving a conspiracy of secret actors, it will be listened to by most intelligent people.
So people who say "jet fuel doesn't ordinarily burn hot enough to ignite structural steel, so that's odd..." or "isn't it convenient so many people hadn't gotten to work yet" are generally not painted as crazy conspiracy theory nuts. But if you turn that into "GWB and all those Arabs caused 9/11" then you'll be called a conspiracy theorist.
I mean, at the point where Noam Chompsky says it wasn't a conspiracy and you say it was, you're further away from the norm than Noam Chompsky, which means that statistically, you've got a 50/50 chance whether you're insane or just so far outside society that you barely have a common frame of reference.
that we can cut these bastards off. But between news and sports, the things that we do watch just aren't available on any of these streaming sites.
Not just news and sports, but they are targeting a different market segment, and are already being forced to be competitive. Much pricier, but you can select from a MUCH more impressive video library if you have cable than you can through Netflix or Amazon Prime.
Authors want everything to go their way, but the reality of the power balance is that they are producers of creative works, not marketers of them. (by and large). Time to admit that the pendulum has swung to where the people/entities who can aggregate and find information are even more valuable than the ones who produce the elements of that information.
Good God. What Universe are you living in? The power balance has NEVER favored content creators in almost any medium, and has always favored producers and aggregators. The exceptions are hugely successful artists probably three or more standard deviations above the mean in terms of demand for their work.
He probably can't do something that makes it seem like he has the endorsement of the campaign, but he can still do a LOT because the first Amendment is strongest when it comes to political speech. There's a reason you can buy Donald Trump toilet paper.
Your "friend" visited the heavily scripted tourist areas of North Korea. It's not an accurate comparison.
... and you know this because your government's propaganda told you to believe it.
Learn to think for yourself. Go to Google maps, and pan across the DMZ. Compare random areas of north and south. SK is definitely better off, but the difference is not as dramatic as you have been led to believe.
No, I know this because I have friends who have visited North Korea, had "minders" with them whenever they went anywhere, and know you can't go outside of certain tourist areas.
Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.
As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.
Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?
Clinton is opportunistic and talks like a snake oil salesman, but is unlikely to do any lasting damage. Trump is opportunistic and insane.
Slashdot Mirror
O course it's turtles. Who do you think is running the server? ;)
But do the turtles run Linux?
Of course they do. The permissions are restricted to this universe, though.
>Because Courts have no other practical way to censure law enforcement for violation of rights, they exclude evidence produced in violation of the Constitution.
There was no constitutional question being decided here. The FBI ran afoul of a rule in a federal law that establishes magistrate court within the federal court system. Specifically it was a rule which limits the territorial jurisdiction of any warrants issued by a magistrate judge. It's probably going to be a rule that gets changed by Congress in the near future if the FBI doesn't win on appeal of this decision.
That is a constitutional question, because no legal warrant issued. You need a legal warrant. If the warrant was void, the search gets suppressed.
I suppose you could argue on appeal that the exclusionary rule should not apply because the warrant was based on PC, just issued by the wrong court. But I don't think you'd get very far, because the warrant was not issued according to Constitutional authority.
That is the status quo, but why? Only because no laws exist to directly punish law enforcement. With a simple law, congress or individual states could make it a like kind felony to lie in court or violate a suspects constitutional rights, covering everyone, including law enforcement. I believe they should also make it illegal for law enforcement to lie during interrogations, as this has led to many false confessions, often later proven false by DNA evidence. We have a far from perfect justice system in this country, but we are still by far the most fair system in the world. but as technology improves, we need to rely less on browbeating and "human" methods and more on forensics, surveillance etc. I am a firm believer that there should be surveillance on every public street, public park and other public areas, and all businesses should be required by law to monitor their internal and external spaces via looped surveillance. You should not have any expectation of privacy when you leave your property. The concern with incidental surveillance could be addressed by applying digital blackouts to any private property or private homes on fixed surveillance of roads etc. This type of camera network does nothing other than force multiplying the eyes of law enforcement, and provides a cold, objective eye to the behavior of everyone, private citizen and law enforcement. Drive by shootings would become a thing of the past overnight, as the shooters could be observed real time, tracked and intercepted by police, and it is damn hard to fight video in court.
Because the system isn't set up for it--prosecutors rely on police and as a practical matter generally can't take a position to department will hate. The department forms a blue wall of silence. And both police and prosecutors see criminality through the lens of law enforcement, which makes it impossible for them as a practical matter to take on the role of people who go after law enforcement for excess.
A lot of the "consumer devices" nowadays have very poor audio quality.
So what? If you can pay $200 for a hearing test, $200 for a consumer aid, and have a bad consumer aid that works for $400 instead of NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY FOR a high-quality hearing aid, it's still a net win for you and for society as a whole.
On the one hand, I have little concern for those who traffic in anything that genuinely hurts children. On the other hand, the FBI abuses their position regularly, lying to the courts and ignoring the courts' orders when lying doesn't work, so seeing them told, "Sorry. Try again," when another questionable procedure is reviewed is welcome news.
The people who most defend our liberties are the scum of the earth, because they are the people against whom it is easiest to justify the departure from the rights and privileges we recognize in or grant to all human beings.
Because Courts have no other practical way to censure law enforcement for violation of rights, they exclude evidence produced in violation of the Constitution. There are other ways you could work the system in practice--you could fine law enforcement, fire police officers, and have good, responsible, and accountable culture in law enforcement. But that's not something the courts can do effectively or without unwavering support from the law enforcement community and the community's true acceptance of neutral judgment. So the courts let the guilty go free as the only way they have to protect the rights of the innocent. It makes law enforcement be much more careful about at least following a script that reminds them what someone's rights are.
What's really sad is that the government has actually managed to desensitize me to at least the *idea* of something as vile as child porn and terrorism. I now mostly associate it with attempts to stomp out a tiny bit more of our freedom. Congratulations, government.
Read a warrant in one of the cases where prosecutors are going after someone who posts child porn. You'll get resensitized by about the third word and want to throw up.
The tech crowd understands the overreaching problems and dislike the strict liability and overbroad criminalization because they're engineers and distrust authority (and authority has been known to wildly abuse power, to be fair, just like cops sometimes make bad decisions about who to go after). But the people who produce and post goddamn sexual interactions with kids, not even physically mature but actual three or four-year-olds, will make the most peaceful and desensitized of nerds want to throw up and beat the living shit out of those people.
Most federal judges agree the mandatory minimums for underage pornography possession are generally insane, but are powerless to do much about them. There are lots of things needing reform in this area of law. But the cops sure as fuck should be going after the bad guys.
Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity. And it becomes impossible to live without aircond; people outside airconditioning will just drop dead.
The United States still has Alaska, which is a little over 20% as large as the rest of the United States, and with basically no population. The entire population could fit there easily if you built it up.
Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily. The trick would be keeping Britain neutral (it has nukes); France would complain but probably not do anything. If Canada was really smart it could cut the still substantial trade barriers between the two markets, welcome more successful Americans and American companies up, and gain a lot more economic and political and potentially military power through that over time.
For another thing, the people who would benefit most from this would be Inuit and good luck with that because Canadians seem to fucking hate the Inuit.
Um, no. At least not when it comes to economics. Some very conservative numbers: https://www.fraserinstitute.or...
I suppose some Canadians hate Aboriginals because it is so hard to fire them when they're doing a bad job, and of course there's some basic racism, but there's such a huge immigrant population in Canada these days that I think more of the racism is directed toward the immigrants, and or to the old favorite (French speakers if you're outside of Quebec) (English speakers if you're in Quebec). Plus of course the politics.
Why is it that altruism should only go one way? Why is it us who should show altruism and not the other ones?
Nobody said that it should. But as an evolutionary matter, it is good if it goes primarily forward (i.e. if we care about the future of our species and of our children more than we care about our own.)
First sale doctrine prevents this sort of thing.
The first sale doctrine only applies to copyright law, not to all contracts. It also only applies to ownership, so you can change the ownership structure to a lease-to-own if you want to keep your competitors from looking at it legally for the first few years.
Why not all???
If you want fancier service they will want to control the hardware so that they can stream ads at you, better track your viewing, maybe deliver nonstandard signals, etc...
If you want basic service the only point of the set top box is to increase your cable bill and then WAY overcharge you if it doesn't get returned when you disconnect service.
If their move is in favor of consumers generally, they will discontinue the need to have a box with basic service. These are probably the people most likely to leave cable anyway--they don't have the money to waste an extra hundred bucks a month to see a bunch of big guys tossing a pigskin oblong around a field through a fake window in their living room.
So what stops a Ford employee from buying one and then giving it to his employer in return for a bonus? You can't stop it.
Contract Law.
You could prevent it if you set up the ownership of the car differently or possibly if you had certain specific terms in your contract. Or set up the car itself so that by opening the hood, you agree to a contract. There are lots of creative things you could do to try and set it up so that if a competitor dissects it, they have to pay you a fortune.
Yes, you do. Because you didn't ask one question, you asked ten, while suggesting a media conspiracy.
Estimates place the leak between 3000 and 3500 gallons. They've been pumping out the tank, which held 800,000 gallons at one point, and 20,000 gallons are left in it. There are now about 8 inches that have leaked between the layers of the inner tank and outer tank, the vast majority since they started pumping.
So they stopped pumping, to figure out how to deal with that.
I don't know... For a while now, we've been entirely dependent on bond sales to fund our government. Flooding the market with $750B in treasury bills is a pretty big deal. They would have to raise interest rates on new bond sales considerably to make them more attractive than the secondary market bills that just got flooded... all $750B of them. It would create a rather huge fucking fiscal mess if Saudi Arabia did this. Wouldn't be the end of the world, wouldn't be a new depression, but the shit show on Capitol Hill would be enough to make you want to shoot yourself.
Or the Fed could raise interest rates and devalue that $750B worth of investments with a hit to the Saudis' interest rate risk. Financial Wars are stupid and counterproductive.
This is really probably just the royal family using their clout to protect a few friends and avoid embarrassing lawsuits trying to tie them to Osama Bin Laden.
Exactly, this is how Sanders and various other so-called "liberals" play their game. These people accomplish nothing, but they still win with their "feel good" bullshit.
It's not limited to one side; it's not just liberals. It is one basic tactic of politics, right up there with sponsoring bills to get referred to committee you know will never get passed, or telling different stories to your domestic population than you do at the negotiating table with a foreign nation, and crafting your agreements explicitly to let each of you pretend to your people that you agreed to different things.
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
Given the body count in both Afghanistan and Iraq (which, as was evident even when the war began, had fuck all to do with 9/11, but hey, collateral damage), it can be argued many people already have.
Yes. Every person who flies on an airplane in America pays for it, as well as every kid who is easier to recruit as a terrorist because we bombed countries rather than building schools in them.
Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
Um... no, not really. If you go off concocting wild theories on the loose conjunction of facts not inconsistent with those theories, which is what most people who get labelled as conspiracy theorists do, sure. But plenty of people can bring up one inconsistency and ask why did X happen. If it's a question rather than a part of a grand theory involving a conspiracy of secret actors, it will be listened to by most intelligent people.
So people who say "jet fuel doesn't ordinarily burn hot enough to ignite structural steel, so that's odd..." or "isn't it convenient so many people hadn't gotten to work yet" are generally not painted as crazy conspiracy theory nuts. But if you turn that into "GWB and all those Arabs caused 9/11" then you'll be called a conspiracy theorist.
I mean, at the point where Noam Chompsky says it wasn't a conspiracy and you say it was, you're further away from the norm than Noam Chompsky, which means that statistically, you've got a 50/50 chance whether you're insane or just so far outside society that you barely have a common frame of reference.
that we can cut these bastards off. But between news and sports, the things that we do watch just aren't available on any of these streaming sites.
Not just news and sports, but they are targeting a different market segment, and are already being forced to be competitive. Much pricier, but you can select from a MUCH more impressive video library if you have cable than you can through Netflix or Amazon Prime.
Authors want everything to go their way, but the reality of the power balance is that they are producers of creative works, not marketers of them. (by and large). Time to admit that the pendulum has swung to where the people/entities who can aggregate and find information are even more valuable than the ones who produce the elements of that information.
Good God. What Universe are you living in? The power balance has NEVER favored content creators in almost any medium, and has always favored producers and aggregators. The exceptions are hugely successful artists probably three or more standard deviations above the mean in terms of demand for their work.
Sort of.
He probably can't do something that makes it seem like he has the endorsement of the campaign, but he can still do a LOT because the first Amendment is strongest when it comes to political speech. There's a reason you can buy Donald Trump toilet paper.
Your "friend" visited the heavily scripted tourist areas of North Korea. It's not an accurate comparison.
... and you know this because your government's propaganda told you to believe it.
Learn to think for yourself. Go to Google maps, and pan across the DMZ. Compare random areas of north and south. SK is definitely better off, but the difference is not as dramatic as you have been led to believe.
No, I know this because I have friends who have visited North Korea, had "minders" with them whenever they went anywhere, and know you can't go outside of certain tourist areas.
Your "friend" visited the heavily scripted tourist areas of North Korea. It's not an accurate comparison.
The Deuteronomic requirement to stone to death anyone wearing cotton/polyester clothing, for example?
Actually a somewhat thoughtful opinion, despite the fact that religion is absurd as a concept.
https://arstechnica.com/wp-con...
Even Trump is pretty good at this - his claim about how much the wall will cost is hard to disprove without actually building the damn thing (argue against, yes - disprove, no). But he provably lies pretty often - his stories about seeing Muslims celebrating in the streets as the WTC collapsed are demonstrably false. Or his claims to have never settled a case out of court, or never declared bankruptcy.
As long as it would be done fairly (ie. all candidates are subject to the same scrutiny) and to a set standard, I think this would be a good thing.
Apropos of nothing, why do you cite several of Trump's lies and none of Clinton's?
Clinton is opportunistic and talks like a snake oil salesman, but is unlikely to do any lasting damage. Trump is opportunistic and insane.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...