I would definitely encourage you to research further. It took me a bloody long time to get my head around Title II, so if you want to see what I found out, have a look here. Heck, if you're that keen, then why don't you help out? I need to document what the EFF says about the title, what the ACLU says about it and what the U.S. Govt says about it.
Be aware that there were three cases before the United States District Courts before section 213 (Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant) amended the US Code to allow the notification of search warrants to be delayed: United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990); and United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000). Each determined that, under certain circumstances, it was not unconstitutional to delay the notification of search warrants.
They do. This is classed as "foreign intelligence", and is covered under Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act. "Foreign intelligence" is further defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (20 U.S.C. 401a) They still need to go through a FISA court. More info can be found here.
I had to research Title II of the Patriot Act for Wikipedia (mainly to start to fix up the main article, which is a dogs breakfast as it currently stands) and what I find especially ironic is that under the Patriot Act, the FBI or other govt agency can get a surveillance order at any time from a FISA court, and they can:
Delay notification of the order
Present evidence before the court ex parte (without having the party who the orer is made out against present) and in camera (in secret).
The mind boggles when you realise that this isn't enough for Bush! Apparently, the President should be able to do as he pleases without any checks or balances applying. It was only just the other day that I heard that he and Condeleeza Rice outlawed the CIA from committing torture! This was done reluctantly, because Rice told the EU that it was "stopping terrorists" and that the EU should be grateful for extraordinary rendition of non-U.S. citizens on non-U.S. soil!
... this is a direct Presidential Executive Order. Have the U.S. courts actually decided whether this is something he is allowed to do? However, to me it seems that the fourth ammendment has been violated. The 4th ammendment states that:
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.
The operative part that it violates here is that they must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If the U.S. President is allowing for surveillance and searches without search warrants through a FISA court, then he is clearly violating the 4th ammendment. I'm not sure how you could spin it otherwise!
So my question is: can a Presidential Order override the U.S. Constitution? And if not, how can the President be stopped from violating the 4th ammendment?
More interesting nuggets are here. Mr Brandt fell for a hoax, he has the user Splash "Daniel Atta Benzona". This actually apparently means "Daniel you are a son of a whore" in Hebrew, though don't quote me on that one.
Watch it while you still can: he's liable to take down such slanderous accusations pretty soon.
I added this to the main article, but it bares repeating:
Wikipedia has had numerous problems with Internet providers who use proxies and dynamic IP addresses, which at times inadvertantly gives their customers complete anonymity. The IP address or usernames of all Wikipedia users is logged and it is quite clear who has written what in the page history. In the case of the vandalism of Seigenthaler's article, it was shown that the IP address 65.81.97.208 was the author of the edit, and the logs show that the edit was made at 00:29, May 27, 2005 (currently the revisions are deleted, only administrators can review the content, though anyone can view the time and IP addresses of the edits). A whois of ARIN shows that the IP address belongs to BellSouth, an major U.S. Internet Service Provider. A reverse domain name lookup resolves this to adsl-065-081-097-208.sip.bna.bellsouth.net.
Wikipedia has previously had issues with other large providers, such as Australia's Ozemail (their security team told Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu that he could block the IP address range he asked about, as they said it was only being used by their proxy servers - this proved false) and AOL, who uses centralised proxies which users cannot bypass. These providers have been less than responsive to Wikipedia when asked for assistance in dealing with page vandalism.
He wrote "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research -- but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them." For an expert on the first ammendment, I find this to be strange position. According to the , cable records can be subpoened by a Federal agency. Surely he would know this?
Apparently, academic institutions are far better than Wikipedia. But wait! A quick Google search for the ABC shows that Department of Computer Science in Iowa State University believes the same thing: that "The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the world's first electronic digital computer."
Hmmm... I know what you mean. But my suggestion is, if your gf found useful and verifiable information then she should cite the URL that points to that specific article revision. Don't cite the URL of the most up2date version of the Wikipedia article.
Seriously, I think that you might just need to learn a bit of Wikipedia etiquette. If someone disagrees with you, don't go off half-cocked but instead take your concerns to the talk page. Discuss the issue, and if nothing happens there and the other party appears intractible, list the article on the RFC page. Perhaps send the other party a message. Be polite.
Almost every time I've ignored my own advise, I've gotten into trouble. The problem, then, was not with the other editors: it was with myself.
I'm hearing a lot of people commenting that it's impossible to get their information listed. Yet I hear a lot of blame of the other party, and no discussion of their own behaviour.
What on earth are you on about? Some Wikipedia editors are more interested in the "community", however when it becomes clear that they aren't really contributing to articles they do tend to be ignored by the same community. And at the end of the day, the community is geared towards writing factual and neutral encyclopedia articles. Those who participate in the featured article candidates process are definitely the most constructive ones. I'd say the same for those who participate in WikiProjects.
It kind of sounds like you are bitter about the site. It's either that, or your really don't know what you are talking about.
I tried this already - I called it a Baseline Revisions. It never really took off, though it would never have impacted on Wikipedia (the baseline is just a subpage that hangs off the main article and points to an article revision selected for reliability, readibility, verifiability, number of citation - to stop it from going against the no original research policy - and neutrality).
I basically made it to try to satisfy the criticism that Wikipedia is too unstable. For some reason, those critics don't realise you can select a stable revision that never changes... standard citation techiques for webpages currently state that the retrived date of the webpage should be included. This ONLY allows the marker/reviewer of the document to see if the content has changed. Wikipedia actually showsall changes made to the page. Can't get much more reliable than that!
"Watson, once a speechwriter for former Australian prime minister Paul Keating..." - need I say any more?
Paul Keating used to be a master at NEVER ANSWERING A DAMN THING when asked straight questions, and has been emulated by both sides of the Australian political spectrum ever since.
Clearly it wasn't, but if you like making slashdot viewers surf at -1, who am I to complain? After all, who cares if a genuinely interesting discourse is entered into on an issue that many people have pointed out as a flaw of Wikipedia?
Can't argue that: we've done that three times already. That particular article was submitted to votes for deletion 3 times, and each time Wikipedia editors voted to keep the article.
Slashdot Mirror
I would definitely encourage you to research further. It took me a bloody long time to get my head around Title II, so if you want to see what I found out, have a look here. Heck, if you're that keen, then why don't you help out? I need to document what the EFF says about the title, what the ACLU says about it and what the U.S. Govt says about it.
Be aware that there were three cases before the United States District Courts before section 213 (Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant) amended the US Code to allow the notification of search warrants to be delayed: United States v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990); and United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000). Each determined that, under certain circumstances, it was not unconstitutional to delay the notification of search warrants.
TBSDY
They do. This is classed as "foreign intelligence", and is covered under Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act. "Foreign intelligence" is further defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (20 U.S.C. 401a) They still need to go through a FISA court. More info can be found here.
TBSDY
The mind boggles when you realise that this isn't enough for Bush! Apparently, the President should be able to do as he pleases without any checks or balances applying. It was only just the other day that I heard that he and Condeleeza Rice outlawed the CIA from committing torture! This was done reluctantly, because Rice told the EU that it was "stopping terrorists" and that the EU should be grateful for extraordinary rendition of non-U.S. citizens on non-U.S. soil!
The land of the free indeed.
TBSDY
The operative part that it violates here is that they must "particularly [describe] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If the U.S. President is allowing for surveillance and searches without search warrants through a FISA court, then he is clearly violating the 4th ammendment. I'm not sure how you could spin it otherwise!
So my question is: can a Presidential Order override the U.S. Constitution? And if not, how can the President be stopped from violating the 4th ammendment?
TBSDY
Source is here.
More interesting nuggets are here. Mr Brandt fell for a hoax, he has the user Splash "Daniel Atta Benzona". This actually apparently means "Daniel you are a son of a whore" in Hebrew, though don't quote me on that one.
Watch it while you still can: he's liable to take down such slanderous accusations pretty soon.
TBSDY
Maybe, but if the article has references then you can check those sources and come to your own conclusion.
... do you say that objectively?
No.
What do you suggest?
I added this to the main article, but it bares repeating:
Wikipedia has had numerous problems with Internet providers who use proxies and dynamic IP addresses, which at times inadvertantly gives their customers complete anonymity. The IP address or usernames of all Wikipedia users is logged and it is quite clear who has written what in the page history. In the case of the vandalism of Seigenthaler's article, it was shown that the IP address 65.81.97.208 was the author of the edit, and the logs show that the edit was made at 00:29, May 27, 2005 (currently the revisions are deleted, only administrators can review the content, though anyone can view the time and IP addresses of the edits). A whois of ARIN shows that the IP address belongs to BellSouth, an major U.S. Internet Service Provider. A reverse domain name lookup resolves this to adsl-065-081-097-208.sip.bna.bellsouth.net.
Wikipedia has previously had issues with other large providers, such as Australia's Ozemail (their security team told Wikipedia administrator Ta bu shi da yu that he could block the IP address range he asked about, as they said it was only being used by their proxy servers - this proved false) and AOL, who uses centralised proxies which users cannot bypass. These providers have been less than responsive to Wikipedia when asked for assistance in dealing with page vandalism.
He wrote "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research -- but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them." For an expert on the first ammendment, I find this to be strange position. According to the , cable records can be subpoened by a Federal agency. Surely he would know this?
Apparently, academic institutions are far better than Wikipedia. But wait! A quick Google search for the ABC shows that Department of Computer Science in Iowa State University believes the same thing: that "The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the world's first electronic digital computer."
Ya... but the slashdot mods have already dealt with the comment you're replying to :-)
That is not correct, though there is a blocking policy and mechanism.
Hmmm... I know what you mean. But my suggestion is, if your gf found useful and verifiable information then she should cite the URL that points to that specific article revision. Don't cite the URL of the most up2date version of the Wikipedia article.
Just a hint.
Seriously, I think that you might just need to learn a bit of Wikipedia etiquette. If someone disagrees with you, don't go off half-cocked but instead take your concerns to the talk page. Discuss the issue, and if nothing happens there and the other party appears intractible, list the article on the RFC page. Perhaps send the other party a message. Be polite.
Almost every time I've ignored my own advise, I've gotten into trouble. The problem, then, was not with the other editors: it was with myself.
I'm hearing a lot of people commenting that it's impossible to get their information listed. Yet I hear a lot of blame of the other party, and no discussion of their own behaviour.
What on earth are you on about? Some Wikipedia editors are more interested in the "community", however when it becomes clear that they aren't really contributing to articles they do tend to be ignored by the same community. And at the end of the day, the community is geared towards writing factual and neutral encyclopedia articles. Those who participate in the featured article candidates process are definitely the most constructive ones. I'd say the same for those who participate in WikiProjects.
It kind of sounds like you are bitter about the site. It's either that, or your really don't know what you are talking about.
Guess I'm interested... which articles are we talking about? Might be worthwhile reviewing these...
I tried this already - I called it a Baseline Revisions. It never really took off, though it would never have impacted on Wikipedia (the baseline is just a subpage that hangs off the main article and points to an article revision selected for reliability, readibility, verifiability, number of citation - to stop it from going against the no original research policy - and neutrality).
I basically made it to try to satisfy the criticism that Wikipedia is too unstable. For some reason, those critics don't realise you can select a stable revision that never changes... standard citation techiques for webpages currently state that the retrived date of the webpage should be included. This ONLY allows the marker/reviewer of the document to see if the content has changed. Wikipedia actually shows all changes made to the page. Can't get much more reliable than that!
How about we source a reliable news source? The Telegraph is for people who find it hard to read.
"Watson, once a speechwriter for former Australian prime minister Paul Keating..." - need I say any more?
Paul Keating used to be a master at NEVER ANSWERING A DAMN THING when asked straight questions, and has been emulated by both sides of the Australian political spectrum ever since.
This has happened for almost every single one of the releases of Harry Potter. There's nothing "accidental" about the leaking of this book whatsoever.
Clearly it wasn't, but if you like making slashdot viewers surf at -1, who am I to complain? After all, who cares if a genuinely interesting discourse is entered into on an issue that many people have pointed out as a flaw of Wikipedia?
Perhaps we should mark your comment as flamebait?
Aside from the blatant advertising, ITIL is most definitely used in many large companies.
Can't argue that: we've done that three times already. That particular article was submitted to votes for deletion 3 times, and each time Wikipedia editors voted to keep the article.