Well, it's not like they didn't try. In 2003 the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Senator Ron Wyden. It attempted to put limits on "sneak and peak" searches and roving wiretaps, narrowed the USA PATRIOT Act's definition of terrorism and reinstated judicial review when agencies wished to access library and business records. Not only that, but it would have also restored the primary purpose criteria of FISA surveillance - which is what this court did.
Then there was the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, which would have reverted the sections on sneak and peak searches, expansion of pen register and trap and trace authorities, the authority provided to the FBI to gain access to records and other tangible items under FISA, the mandatory detention of aliens, the use of National Security Letters and the broadened definition of "domestic terrorism". Not only that, but it would have restored the primary purpose test for foreign intelligence surveillance under FISA.
Later there was the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (aka SAFE). It would have limited the scope of roving wiretaps, changed the "sneak and peak" delayed notification period from "within a reasonable period" to not later than 7 days after execution of the warrant, restored the requirements for seizure of business records that there are specific and articulate facts that business records are those of a foreign power or agents of a foreign power and prevent the use of National Security Letters to gain access to library records.
Bernie Sanders, Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers Jr., Clement Leroy Otter and Ron Paul proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill of 2005 that would have tried to cut off funding to the DoJ for section 215 searches.
None of these attempts went anywhere. However, before you get your knickers in a twist, consider this: the United States is a democratic country. The Bush administration were doing this blatantly. Heck, they wanted to go even further with the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (aka PATRIOT II). Yet, they were still voted in. Tell me now, who was the one who let Bush et al. get these unconstitutional laws passed? Sadly, it was the U.S. people.
I don't live in the U.S. and I don't want to look like I'm passing judgement on a nation I don't reside in. In fact, my personal opinion is that the U.S. has the strongest and best democracy and government the world has ever seen. Truly. It has evolved a system of checks and balances that extraordinarily well. The U.S. Constitution is amazing. The balance between Executive and Judicial power is fantastic. However, hard as it is to say, those living in the U.S. now are really just living on blind luck and have inherited their hard-won freedoms from previous generations. I really don't think that many citizens realise what they are risking when they let maniacs like Dinh, Ashcroft and Gonzalez draft and push through these terrorist laws. If it wasn't for Feingold and Leahy, things would be much worse. And if it wasn't for dissent in the Republican party by such people as Richard Armey, who reported insisted on the original sunsets, U.S. anti-terrorist legislation would be positively dire.
Well, I now primarily work on Wikipedia, so not so much experience with trolls anymore. But, that's pretty much the reason I thought that. My apologies for mistaking you for one.
The problem with using the word "terrorist" is that it means different things to different people. After all, one man's terrorist might be another's freedom fighter. I personally don't consider her to be a terrorist. As I say, we can agree to disagree on this point.
Personally, I also wouldn't be dumb enough to wear something like that to the airport, and I agree that it looks pretty lame. However, art is in the mind of the viewer, so she may or may not have realised what it looked like.
Don't know anything about no-fly lists, so can't comment specifically on that topic. But still think that it's going too far to ban her from airports.
In that case, I think we are both assuming things that are not accurate. I'm neither a new slashdot reader, nor do I have a lack of understanding about the term "troll" (I was a heavy poster on Kuro5hin for a number of years, if that means anything to you). I suppose that I thought you might be trolling because your reaction is so over the top and to my mind is a ridiculous reaction to what happened.
If you aren't trolling, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. You ask me to look up the definition of the word "terrorist". Sure. The U.N. says that terrorism is the "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act", while the EB says that it is "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective". Neither of which applies to this situation.
Perhaps you are looking up a source I'm not familiar with? Or perhaps you are reacting from your gut and you haven't looked it up yourself?
As for creating a bomb hoax: that's open to interpretation. From my reading of the article, and the lady in question, she appears to like wearing, creating and using tech-art for her own reason. While I understand that the police had a duty to make sure it wasn't a bomb, it looks to me like it was not the intention of the lady in question to cause a scare. I'd argue that she didn't cause a bomb hoax, and that it was a very unfortunate misunderstanding.
Anyway, I guess I'll agree to disagree with you. Personally, I think that you are ranting a little here, but maybe that's just me.
I'm particularly glad you got reverted, because I really doubt you can prove that. But if you can, then find a source. I don't just want to take some anonymous editors word for it.
If we followed your example, then the system would fall apart because Wikipedia only works well when it references good quality sources. It's not like you can just take it's word for anything - which Wikipedia administrators, long time users, and WMF members (and founder) freely admit to and warn about.
At the risk of replying to a troll, I don't think that she wore that shirt to make it look like she had a bomb. You might think otherwise, but at the end of the day she shouldn't be banned from the airport as she is NOT a terrorist.
Oh come on! that's totally stupid. Sure, she was dumb for wearing the board, but banned for good from airports? Total overreaction. Unless you're implying she is a terrorist, which seems mighty unlikely.
Actually, not true. The 4th Amendment holds "the right of the people 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."
That's why NSLs were struck down - any legislation that allows for searches and seizures that bypasses judicial review is unconstitutional.
You did ask what part of the USA PATRIOT Act (notUS PATRIOT Act - note that it is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) was being commented on. I just responded.
Section 505, "Miscellaneous national security authorities." Allows for National Security Letters that bypass judicial review. Struck down on April 9th, 2004 by Doe v. Ashcroft. Reauthorized legislation later struck down on September 6th, 2007, by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
I notice that some nimrod has marked a number of posts "trolling" when they are most definitely not trolling at all.
I think we should definitely all point and laugh at Sun for being stupid enough to be intimidated by SCO. As the previous poster commented, indeed this is poetic justice.
Forgot to mention: you asked how this is related to FISA reform. Dude, the whole of Title II of the Patriot Act is modifications to FISA and the ECPA! How is this not related?
The Valerie Plame leak investigation has NOTHING in common with this case. Your Government was breaking the law by wiretapping without warrants. The fact that Bush excused the whole thing does NOT make it any more legal.
I'm glad you are the arbiter of what is legal and what is not! Good to know that some random guy on slashdot who swears a lot and has poor emotional control gets to decide these things! Does the fact that congress passed a law chance anything for you?
Interestingly, you are also not answering his point. He probably shouldn't have sworn at you, but he makes a valid point. Considering that you just assumed that I was opposed to the investigation of leaked classified information when I'm not actually opposed to this, that's pretty ironic. Also, I suppose that it escapes you that you are also a random guy on slashdot?
Perhaps you might like to answer his valid point about non-authorized wiretaps?
You Republican morons sometimes make me want to weep, you're so fucking dumb.
That's sweet. Take a chill pill dude, there's room for people to disagree with you without being "fucking dumb." to think otherwise is pretty arrogant!
I have no problems with a government investigating leaking of classified material. However, I do have a problem with doing so without first going through the judicial system. That's why the U.S. is such a powerful and just nation: the Executive branch has seperate powers from the Judicial arm. This prevents abuses.
Therefore, your question is invalid, because I don't oppose the investigating of leaked classified material.
I was researching the USA PATRIOT Act for Wikipedia, and all those people like Orin Kerr insisted that the changes to FISA wouldn't lead to abuses. Guess we can see what a hollow promise that was.
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
So, reviewing what she did:
1. The purpose and character of the use: non-profit, to show her little brother who would go to see the film. She's basically being a film reviewer. NBC, CBS and ABC show small clips of films - about this length. They can claim fair use - why can't she? 2. Nature of the work: grainy, poor quality film footage from a Camcorder. 3. Amount: Only 20 seconds worth! Hardly enough to sell the video. Who would want to buy 20 seconds worth of poor quality film? 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: her brother will probably go see it now. She basically helped the company.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed a space... :-) Seriously, I wanted to point this out also, but a slashdot slowdown prevented me.
Well, it's not like they didn't try. In 2003 the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democrat Senator Ron Wyden. It attempted to put limits on "sneak and peak" searches and roving wiretaps, narrowed the USA PATRIOT Act's definition of terrorism and reinstated judicial review when agencies wished to access library and business records. Not only that, but it would have also restored the primary purpose criteria of FISA surveillance - which is what this court did.
Then there was the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act , which would have reverted the sections on sneak and peak searches, expansion of pen register and trap and trace authorities, the authority provided to the FBI to gain access to records and other tangible items under FISA, the mandatory detention of aliens, the use of National Security Letters and the broadened definition of "domestic terrorism". Not only that, but it would have restored the primary purpose test for foreign intelligence surveillance under FISA.
Later there was the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (aka SAFE). It would have limited the scope of roving wiretaps, changed the "sneak and peak" delayed notification period from "within a reasonable period" to not later than 7 days after execution of the warrant, restored the requirements for seizure of business records that there are specific and articulate facts that business records are those of a foreign power or agents of a foreign power and prevent the use of National Security Letters to gain access to library records.
Bernie Sanders, Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers Jr., Clement Leroy Otter and Ron Paul proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill of 2005 that would have tried to cut off funding to the DoJ for section 215 searches.
None of these attempts went anywhere. However, before you get your knickers in a twist, consider this: the United States is a democratic country. The Bush administration were doing this blatantly. Heck, they wanted to go even further with the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (aka PATRIOT II). Yet, they were still voted in. Tell me now, who was the one who let Bush et al. get these unconstitutional laws passed? Sadly, it was the U.S. people.
I don't live in the U.S. and I don't want to look like I'm passing judgement on a nation I don't reside in. In fact, my personal opinion is that the U.S. has the strongest and best democracy and government the world has ever seen. Truly. It has evolved a system of checks and balances that extraordinarily well. The U.S. Constitution is amazing. The balance between Executive and Judicial power is fantastic. However, hard as it is to say, those living in the U.S. now are really just living on blind luck and have inherited their hard-won freedoms from previous generations. I really don't think that many citizens realise what they are risking when they let maniacs like Dinh, Ashcroft and Gonzalez draft and push through these terrorist laws. If it wasn't for Feingold and Leahy, things would be much worse. And if it wasn't for dissent in the Republican party by such people as Richard Armey, who reported insisted on the original sunsets, U.S. anti-terrorist legislation would be positively dire.
Well, I now primarily work on Wikipedia, so not so much experience with trolls anymore. But, that's pretty much the reason I thought that. My apologies for mistaking you for one.
The problem with using the word "terrorist" is that it means different things to different people. After all, one man's terrorist might be another's freedom fighter. I personally don't consider her to be a terrorist. As I say, we can agree to disagree on this point.
Personally, I also wouldn't be dumb enough to wear something like that to the airport, and I agree that it looks pretty lame. However, art is in the mind of the viewer, so she may or may not have realised what it looked like.
Don't know anything about no-fly lists, so can't comment specifically on that topic. But still think that it's going too far to ban her from airports.
In that case, I think we are both assuming things that are not accurate. I'm neither a new slashdot reader, nor do I have a lack of understanding about the term "troll" (I was a heavy poster on Kuro5hin for a number of years, if that means anything to you). I suppose that I thought you might be trolling because your reaction is so over the top and to my mind is a ridiculous reaction to what happened.
If you aren't trolling, then I guess I'm not sure what to say. You ask me to look up the definition of the word "terrorist". Sure. The U.N. says that terrorism is the "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act", while the EB says that it is "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective". Neither of which applies to this situation.
Perhaps you are looking up a source I'm not familiar with? Or perhaps you are reacting from your gut and you haven't looked it up yourself?
As for creating a bomb hoax: that's open to interpretation. From my reading of the article, and the lady in question, she appears to like wearing, creating and using tech-art for her own reason. While I understand that the police had a duty to make sure it wasn't a bomb, it looks to me like it was not the intention of the lady in question to cause a scare. I'd argue that she didn't cause a bomb hoax, and that it was a very unfortunate misunderstanding.
Anyway, I guess I'll agree to disagree with you. Personally, I think that you are ranting a little here, but maybe that's just me.
I'm particularly glad you got reverted, because I really doubt you can prove that. But if you can, then find a source. I don't just want to take some anonymous editors word for it.
If we followed your example, then the system would fall apart because Wikipedia only works well when it references good quality sources. It's not like you can just take it's word for anything - which Wikipedia administrators, long time users, and WMF members (and founder) freely admit to and warn about.
Someone mod this +5 funny!
... is this the same Unisys that held the GIF LZW patent and tried to sue everyone for it, even though it was developed by Compuserv?
Excuse me while I don't shed a tear.
If you aren't trolling, then why is your comment marked as trolling?
Oh, wait a minute...
At the risk of replying to a troll, I don't think that she wore that shirt to make it look like she had a bomb. You might think otherwise, but at the end of the day she shouldn't be banned from the airport as she is NOT a terrorist.
Oh come on! that's totally stupid. Sure, she was dumb for wearing the board, but banned for good from airports? Total overreaction. Unless you're implying she is a terrorist, which seems mighty unlikely.
Typo.
Actually, not true. The 4th Amendment holds "the right of the people 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."
That's why NSLs were struck down - any legislation that allows for searches and seizures that bypasses judicial review is unconstitutional.
You did ask what part of the USA PATRIOT Act (notUS PATRIOT Act - note that it is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) was being commented on. I just responded.
Section 505, "Miscellaneous national security authorities." Allows for National Security Letters that bypass judicial review. Struck down on April 9th, 2004 by Doe v. Ashcroft. Reauthorized legislation later struck down on September 6th, 2007, by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
I thought that this was struck down by the courts? You're a bit late my friend.
Chilling? Maybe if your name is Daniel Brandt, but back here in the real world this stays most definitely in the real of fiction.
For a site that prides itself on being up their with announcing new things, this is really pretty much old news.
Then perceptions != reality. It was never OK.
Vandalism by the media. I guess another entry for this article on Wikipedia.
I notice that some nimrod has marked a number of posts "trolling" when they are most definitely not trolling at all.
I think we should definitely all point and laugh at Sun for being stupid enough to be intimidated by SCO. As the previous poster commented, indeed this is poetic justice.
If we die out as a species, then the universe can keep on not being unconcerned about anything. Don't really see the problem for the universe here.
Forgot to mention: you asked how this is related to FISA reform. Dude, the whole of Title II of the Patriot Act is modifications to FISA and the ECPA! How is this not related?
Interestingly, you are also not answering his point. He probably shouldn't have sworn at you, but he makes a valid point. Considering that you just assumed that I was opposed to the investigation of leaked classified information when I'm not actually opposed to this, that's pretty ironic. Also, I suppose that it escapes you that you are also a random guy on slashdot?
Perhaps you might like to answer his valid point about non-authorized wiretaps?
Agreed. There was no need for that diatribe.
I have no problems with a government investigating leaking of classified material. However, I do have a problem with doing so without first going through the judicial system. That's why the U.S. is such a powerful and just nation: the Executive branch has seperate powers from the Judicial arm. This prevents abuses.
Therefore, your question is invalid, because I don't oppose the investigating of leaked classified material.
I was researching the USA PATRIOT Act for Wikipedia, and all those people like Orin Kerr insisted that the changes to FISA wouldn't lead to abuses. Guess we can see what a hollow promise that was.
Couldn't she claim fair use?
Under 17 U.S.C. 107, fair use is defined as:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
So, reviewing what she did:
1. The purpose and character of the use: non-profit, to show her little brother who would go to see the film. She's basically being a film reviewer. NBC, CBS and ABC show small clips of films - about this length. They can claim fair use - why can't she?
2. Nature of the work: grainy, poor quality film footage from a Camcorder.
3. Amount: Only 20 seconds worth! Hardly enough to sell the video. Who would want to buy 20 seconds worth of poor quality film?
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: her brother will probably go see it now. She basically helped the company.