Yes, except in *very* narrow circumstances. IIRC, when there is a compelling government interest and exceptionally clear rules about the restraint, so that government officials do not have any discretion. (If there is discretion, then there is the possibility for censorship.) In practice, that is a much higher bar than it sounds like.
They are allowed time place and manner restrictions on speech much more easily. If this were to go to court on a First Amendment issue, the government would try to get it thrown into that category.
It's much more sporting to have your NSA or equivalent do it.
The NSA does espionage for the state; my understanding is it generally does not do espionage for private companies. Why *that* is the line they chose not to cross, who knows, but there it is.
The summary notes that the merger would raise questions about China's commitment to its recent wave of antitrust investigations. It does not say China is investigating the two train companies it owns already.
The First Amendment prohibits the prior restraint of speech except in *very* narrow circumstances.
Lots of things are illegal without violating a statute--they may violate the Constitution, or a regulation promulgated pursuant to a statute, for example.
China's "antitrust" push is a very easy way to steal trade secrets. Antitrust investigations let you seize corporate hard drives, which means you can share them with competitors whom you happen to like--i.e. your companies.
Getting the government involved in regulating the site to preemptively prevent these transactions is stupid. Instead there should be a streamlined process for getting a warrant, and then you go after people who purchase the material. While mailing them a large cache of something that looks like the product but isn't and that has a locator.
If you ban the sale altogether you just push it underground. If you use it to gather data you have actionable intelligence.
Technological advancement saves lives and brings us closer to an understanding of the universe. Thousands of people die every day for far less; to die in the pursuit of knowledge is one of the best reasons there is.
I would rather die in the quest for knowledge than die because of an accident, or heart disease, or cancer, or because my parts simply wear out.
The Author argues that SpaceShip Two was not the Enterprise. But the Enterprise was about that quest for knowledge, about exploration, about building a better world. You don't have to be sailing between stars to be reaching for them.
Your lack of privacy rights for American citizens do not apply to people who may or may not be citizens of countries you signed treaties with.
Translation: Nope.
When the US Senate affirms an international treaty, it overrides all lower decisions, including those of the US House signed into law.
Virginia is for lusers.
No, that's not necessarily true.
There is a distinction between "self-executing treaties" and "non-self-executing treaties." Self-executing treaties become binding law when they are ratified by the Senate; non-self-executing treaties do not.
So non-self-executing treaties are still commitments the United States has made, but they are almost never considered part of the law of the United States. Rather, laws have to passed to satisfy those commitments.
So it auto searches your twitter friends' twitter feeds (stuff they've posted for the world to see) and people think this is a privacy violation? How he fuck is this different than wget-ing and grep-ing your friends' feed?
Yawn. Manufactured and/or Idiot's Outrage
Exactly.
If anything, people who are sharing their problems on twitter are broadcasting them in an attempt to get help. They may just be looking for attention or they may genuinely need help, but either way, having an app scan the feed and flag it doesn't violate their privacy.
The summary (and the non-paywalled article) are not clearly written. I am guessing that they mean sports team owners can depreciate goodwill over fifteen years...
And the loopholes are there because of the influence the rich have over the government. You can be mad at the people who made a loophole and the people who abuse it simultaneously.
It's not like tax policy doesn't also help poor people in some ways.
The earned income tax credit is basically the way we've raised minimum wage for the past thirty years. (We haven't formally raised minimum wage because that would be hard politically--turns out it's much easier to make policy when you do it in taxes.)
The problem is precedent. It has now been established in law that a cop can mow down a pedestrian while texting and not be charged for it (CA), and toss a hand grenade into a baby's crib during a wrong-address raid and not be charged for it (GA) . Small wonder that the right now hates cops just as much as the left ever did.
Legal precedent doesn't work that way. Precedent is only formed when a case goes to trial and the court issues a "reported" opinion, and has little effect until it starts getting up to the appeals level. Fewer than 2% of all cases go to trial and appeals tend to focus on one or two issues (mostly fourth amendment "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" law in criminal cases).
A DA or Grand Jury's charging decision to not charge a cop with something doesn't establish legal precedent.
Rape and other crimes by police officers are quite common--which is not to say that most police officers engage in them. But in a large city, there tend to be at least a few cops who are committing major crimes on a regular basis, especially against marginalized populations who they know can't effectively do anything about it.
I am aware of someone reporting such crimes in Oakland, for example, and getting threatened by law enforcement for reporting it.
Relatedly, the NY Times did a report a few years back on making complaints to local police department. The vast majority of the departments tried not to give a complaint form and to have the person talk to them instead; in at least one case the cops went through their "Do you have psychological problems?" script and placed their hands on their guns.
I would feel comfortable with the following arrangement:
1st Offense, no evidence it was a regular practice: Ten Thousand dollar fine and four years off of pension benefits. 2nd Offense, or evidence of regular practice: Fired for cause and lose entire pension. Any offense and images shared in a public space: Jail Time for 30-90 days, plus fired for cause and lose at least half of pension.
Note that *conspiracy* and the *Computer Fraud and Abuse Act* also may apply, so you could easily throw them in jail if you wanted to throw the book at them.
The reality is people are going to abuse their power. If you give someone who abuses power once a stern reprimand and they change, great--you've just saved a bundle of inefficiencies and you've got a cop who understands why it's important to be serious about this stuff. You also have a police culture which is less paranoid about getting officers caught, and which makes the corrupt less likely to get promoted.
This is just ISPs v. Content Producers, each fighting over who can bribe Congress more. (Siding with content producers is basically everyone else who cares about the issue and has time or money to spend on it, which is probably less than 0.01% of everybody.)
You can run it in the new "built-in web browser." They must have refactored Firefox to Emacs Lisp. Firefox can run java when you bundle it with the jre, and there are lots of text editors in java. So you're golden.
and they do a lot of entrapment of people who go along with whatever crime they set up (in most domestic terrorism cases you hear about the FBI is the one selling the arms to the "terrorists").
But at the end of the day, they're generally law enforcement guys interested in arresting people who violate the law, not in pretending innocent people have violated the law.
There is quite a bit of contradiction in those lines, and the former of them is the very reason the grandparent finds the FBI more threatening.
Not at all. They entrap people, yes, but they only arrest people who actually commit the crime. Sometimes it's a pretty terrible thing to do, sometimes it isn't, but either way, it's arresting people who committed the crime.
It is simple. If you know you are guilty they will offer you a chance to take a deal, save the courts a lot of time and effort, and rewards the guilty party for choosing to be honest. Yes it is honest for a reward but still being honest. If you are caught and you know that you are actually guilty of breaking the law but try to get out of it they will make you an example.
That's a nice theory, but the system is actually designed to hurt honest criminals.
If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to use apologies as evidence of the crime.
The chinese might break into your secure email server, but they won't plant child porn on it in an attempt to incriminate you. The FBI, on the other hand..
Citation needed. Most FBI & Justice types I've met would not do that kind of thing. People who are into law enforcement have political agendas, yes, but there's a big red line between acting on a political agenda and outright felony criminal behavior.
Sure, the FBI will sometimes publicly support things which hurt as a society because it makes it easier for them to do their jobs (e.g. fighting encryption), and they do a lot of entrapment of people who go along with whatever crime they set up (in most domestic terrorism cases you hear about the FBI is the one selling the arms to the "terrorists").
But at the end of the day, they're generally law enforcement guys interested in arresting people who violate the law, not in pretending innocent people have violated the law.
Slashdot Mirror
They will claim this will help criminals know where they normally are for planning crimes.
Because it will.
Yes, except in *very* narrow circumstances. IIRC, when there is a compelling government interest and exceptionally clear rules about the restraint, so that government officials do not have any discretion. (If there is discretion, then there is the possibility for censorship.) In practice, that is a much higher bar than it sounds like.
They are allowed time place and manner restrictions on speech much more easily. If this were to go to court on a First Amendment issue, the government would try to get it thrown into that category.
It's much more sporting to have your NSA or equivalent do it.
The NSA does espionage for the state; my understanding is it generally does not do espionage for private companies. Why *that* is the line they chose not to cross, who knows, but there it is.
The summary notes that the merger would raise questions about China's commitment to its recent wave of antitrust investigations. It does not say China is investigating the two train companies it owns already.
illegal
What statute has been violated?
The First Amendment prohibits the prior restraint of speech except in *very* narrow circumstances.
Lots of things are illegal without violating a statute--they may violate the Constitution, or a regulation promulgated pursuant to a statute, for example.
China's "antitrust" push is a very easy way to steal trade secrets. Antitrust investigations let you seize corporate hard drives, which means you can share them with competitors whom you happen to like--i.e. your companies.
What relevance does this story have with respect to nerd news? The answer: none. Where were your other Ferguson stories??
Timothy, this is not your personal blog. Post this on your own soapbox.
This is outrageous political trolling and you should be ashamed and fired.
Nerds and geeks and general information-types are all about the free exchange of ideas. Censorship is anti-nerd.
If you're a nuclear scientist or engineer, your activities are more closely watched than anyone else's save the president of your country.
Kim Kardashian is President?
Why stop it?
Getting the government involved in regulating the site to preemptively prevent these transactions is stupid. Instead there should be a streamlined process for getting a warrant, and then you go after people who purchase the material. While mailing them a large cache of something that looks like the product but isn't and that has a locator.
If you ban the sale altogether you just push it underground. If you use it to gather data you have actionable intelligence.
Anyone not woowoo anti-science (usually being the theistic types who worship the Invisible Hand) has already established:
1. Climate change is mostly man-made;
2. This doesn't mean the world's about to end, but we aren't doing enough to prevent significant harm.
Seriously, it's almost 2015, didn't we finish this debate decades ago? Can we try to save the planet already?
Is that carbon fiber worth dying for, then?
Yes.
Technological advancement saves lives and brings us closer to an understanding of the universe. Thousands of people die every day for far less; to die in the pursuit of knowledge is one of the best reasons there is.
I would rather die in the quest for knowledge than die because of an accident, or heart disease, or cancer, or because my parts simply wear out.
The Author argues that SpaceShip Two was not the Enterprise. But the Enterprise was about that quest for knowledge, about exploration, about building a better world. You don't have to be sailing between stars to be reaching for them.
Your lack of privacy rights for American citizens do not apply to people who may or may not be citizens of countries you signed treaties with.
Translation: Nope.
When the US Senate affirms an international treaty, it overrides all lower decisions, including those of the US House signed into law.
Virginia is for lusers.
No, that's not necessarily true.
There is a distinction between "self-executing treaties" and "non-self-executing treaties." Self-executing treaties become binding law when they are ratified by the Senate; non-self-executing treaties do not.
So non-self-executing treaties are still commitments the United States has made, but they are almost never considered part of the law of the United States. Rather, laws have to passed to satisfy those commitments.
So it auto searches your twitter friends' twitter feeds (stuff they've posted for the world to see) and people think this is a privacy violation? How he fuck is this different than wget-ing and grep-ing your friends' feed?
Yawn. Manufactured and/or Idiot's Outrage
Exactly.
If anything, people who are sharing their problems on twitter are broadcasting them in an attempt to get help. They may just be looking for attention or they may genuinely need help, but either way, having an app scan the feed and flag it doesn't violate their privacy.
The summary (and the non-paywalled article) are not clearly written. I am guessing that they mean sports team owners can depreciate goodwill over fifteen years...
And the loopholes are there because of the influence the rich have over the government. You can be mad at the people who made a loophole and the people who abuse it simultaneously.
It's not like tax policy doesn't also help poor people in some ways.
The earned income tax credit is basically the way we've raised minimum wage for the past thirty years. (We haven't formally raised minimum wage because that would be hard politically--turns out it's much easier to make policy when you do it in taxes.)
The problem is precedent. It has now been established in law that a cop can mow down a pedestrian while texting and not be charged for it (CA), and toss a hand grenade into a baby's crib during a wrong-address raid and not be charged for it (GA) . Small wonder that the right now hates cops just as much as the left ever did.
Legal precedent doesn't work that way. Precedent is only formed when a case goes to trial and the court issues a "reported" opinion, and has little effect until it starts getting up to the appeals level. Fewer than 2% of all cases go to trial and appeals tend to focus on one or two issues (mostly fourth amendment "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" law in criminal cases).
A DA or Grand Jury's charging decision to not charge a cop with something doesn't establish legal precedent.
http://www.oklahomalegalgroup.com/news/ohp-trooper-formally-charged-in-rape-case ...
Rape and other crimes by police officers are quite common--which is not to say that most police officers engage in them. But in a large city, there tend to be at least a few cops who are committing major crimes on a regular basis, especially against marginalized populations who they know can't effectively do anything about it.
I am aware of someone reporting such crimes in Oakland, for example, and getting threatened by law enforcement for reporting it.
Relatedly, the NY Times did a report a few years back on making complaints to local police department. The vast majority of the departments tried not to give a complaint form and to have the person talk to them instead; in at least one case the cops went through their "Do you have psychological problems?" script and placed their hands on their guns.
Now. No other options. This shit has gotta stop.
I would feel comfortable with the following arrangement:
1st Offense, no evidence it was a regular practice: Ten Thousand dollar fine and four years off of pension benefits.
2nd Offense, or evidence of regular practice: Fired for cause and lose entire pension.
Any offense and images shared in a public space: Jail Time for 30-90 days, plus fired for cause and lose at least half of pension.
Note that *conspiracy* and the *Computer Fraud and Abuse Act* also may apply, so you could easily throw them in jail if you wanted to throw the book at them.
The reality is people are going to abuse their power. If you give someone who abuses power once a stern reprimand and they change, great--you've just saved a bundle of inefficiencies and you've got a cop who understands why it's important to be serious about this stuff. You also have a police culture which is less paranoid about getting officers caught, and which makes the corrupt less likely to get promoted.
This is just ISPs v. Content Producers, each fighting over who can bribe Congress more. (Siding with content producers is basically everyone else who cares about the issue and has time or money to spend on it, which is probably less than 0.01% of everybody.)
State and ideology don't make research labs productive or unproductive. Work ethic, institutional design, budget, and recruiting practices do.
Now if it only included a text editor.
You can run it in the new "built-in web browser." They must have refactored Firefox to Emacs Lisp. Firefox can run java when you bundle it with the jre, and there are lots of text editors in java. So you're golden.
The more you bash video game nostalgia, the more Atari consoles will slip through your fingers...
and they do a lot of entrapment of people who go along with whatever crime they set up (in most domestic terrorism cases you hear about the FBI is the one selling the arms to the "terrorists").
But at the end of the day, they're generally law enforcement guys interested in arresting people who violate the law, not in pretending innocent people have violated the law.
There is quite a bit of contradiction in those lines, and the former of them is the very reason the grandparent finds the FBI more threatening.
Not at all. They entrap people, yes, but they only arrest people who actually commit the crime. Sometimes it's a pretty terrible thing to do, sometimes it isn't, but either way, it's arresting people who committed the crime.
It is simple.
If you know you are guilty they will offer you a chance to take a deal, save the courts a lot of time and effort, and rewards the guilty party for choosing to be honest. Yes it is honest for a reward but still being honest.
If you are caught and you know that you are actually guilty of breaking the law but try to get out of it they will make you an example.
That's a nice theory, but the system is actually designed to hurt honest criminals.
If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to use apologies as evidence of the crime.
The chinese might break into your secure email server, but they won't plant child porn on it in an attempt to incriminate you. The FBI, on the other hand..
Citation needed. Most FBI & Justice types I've met would not do that kind of thing. People who are into law enforcement have political agendas, yes, but there's a big red line between acting on a political agenda and outright felony criminal behavior.
Sure, the FBI will sometimes publicly support things which hurt as a society because it makes it easier for them to do their jobs (e.g. fighting encryption), and they do a lot of entrapment of people who go along with whatever crime they set up (in most domestic terrorism cases you hear about the FBI is the one selling the arms to the "terrorists").
But at the end of the day, they're generally law enforcement guys interested in arresting people who violate the law, not in pretending innocent people have violated the law.