Now, go after all the police agencies using Stingray/Hailstorm/Triggerfish/Kingfish/etc. devices to listen to cell phone conversations without warrants. They do, of course, transmit on licensed frequencies, and the cops don't have a license. They also violate anti-cellular reception laws, and are themselves illegal according to the FCC:
The Communications Act also contains provisions that affect the manufacture of equipment used for listening to or receiving radio transmissions, such as "scanners." The FCC cannot authorize scanning equipment that:
can receive transmissions in the frequencies allocated to domestic cellular services;
can readily be altered by the user to intercept cellular communications; or
may be equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio.
In addition, these receivers may not be manufactured in the United States or imported for use in the United States. FCC regulations also prohibit the sale or lease of scanning equipment that is not authorized by the FCC.
It's not so simple either way, it's more nuanced. They provided a clarification of the rules to be applied:
In an extremely brief and unanimous opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court held that a taxpayer who wants to question Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents about their motives for issuing a summons may do so if he can point to "specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith." ... it "will ensure inquiry where the facts and circumstances make inquiry appropriate, without turning every summons dispute into a fishing expedition for official wrongdoing."
If that "trash" consists of the only copy of protected records, yes, it is illegal. It is a failure by the head of the agency to "preserve records."
You seem to think that federal agencies can legally destroy records simply by placing them in the trash, where they can be carried off by the garbageman.
The administration has a legal duty to retain and protect records. If they do not keep that duty, as is the case here, it is an illegal act. You're not very good at this.
You say that as if it were true. Cite, please, because there is no "6 month" limitation, and the records required to be kept are
As used in this chapter, "records" includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them.
Which clearly includes the information now being sought. Furthermore, for records kept only on a (now defective) hard drive, the law requires action to recover them:
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
Traffic shaping (which deals with big pipe/little pipe issues, or where there is an artifical bandwidth cap) is different than QoS (priority).
Your argument ignores the fact that there may be competitive voice offerings (e.g. Skype, 3rd party SIP gateways) which can run side-by-side with a phone's integral voice capability, and in a net neutral world, deserve QoS similar to that given to "integral voice" at least while traversing the carrier's network.
You fail to explain exactly how a carrier is supposed to identify the "type" of traffic - how are they to know one RTP stream is a voice call and another is someone listening to "Internet radio?"
How does one write "net neutrality" rules which accommodate voice on modern cellular networks, when it's carried as data? Customers expect their voice calls to always work, and not get interference from an email getting downloaded in the background.
With carriers moving toward VoLTE for voice services, there's a legitimate desire to apply QoS for the voice services the carriers themselves offer. QoS is an integral part of VoLTE, so there may be legitimate concern that net neutrality rules will get in the way of VoLTE rollouts.
OTOH, net neutrality could be met in a reasonably equitable manner by allowing each device to mark, say, up to x% (or x bps) of its traffic for preferential QoS treatment. That would allow third-party VoIP apps to somewhat compete with carrier VoLTE services. VoLTE would still receive preferential treatment due to the IMS support it receives for things like roaming and handoff. But considering that cellular network are not obligated to provide data service, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Non-taxpaying (501c) status should simply go away. Why should religious organizations receive special treatment vs. commercial ones, and why isn't that "establishment?" (It may be non-denominational, but it certainly establishes religion)
Slashdot Mirror
"If i want a jammer i should be able to get one."
By the same logic that I should be able to come to your house with spotlights and a sound truck.
You say that, but much of the evidence which might clarify the reality has now gone missing.
If you have the legal responsibility to preserve records, and do not do so, you have acted unlawfully.
- Scotusblog.com
Can I buy a link? Timothy strikes again.
If that "trash" consists of the only copy of protected records, yes, it is illegal. It is a failure by the head of the agency to "preserve records."
You seem to think that federal agencies can legally destroy records simply by placing them in the trash, where they can be carried off by the garbageman.
Seems that the Supremes unanimously agree with those complaints.
If you figure it out, patent it!
The administration has a legal duty to retain and protect records. If they do not keep that duty, as is the case here, it is an illegal act. You're not very good at this.
Which clearly includes the information now being sought. Furthermore, for records kept only on a (now defective) hard drive, the law requires action to recover them:
- both cites from 44 USC Chapter 33.
"Personally I don't know of many IT staff that keep broken hard drives for 3 years."
How many do you know who are required by law to preserve the records stored on those hard drives?
Selective enforcement is a violation of the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Boughten is perfectly cromulent.
Duke Blue Devils is offensive to Smurfs.
Could be worse, could be vuvuzelas.
"everyone is equal."
Always remember, in this whole world of billions of people, you're unique - just like everyone else.
Redskins are peanuts with the skin left on. I assume the football team's native American mascot likes to eat them.
Traffic shaping (which deals with big pipe/little pipe issues, or where there is an artifical bandwidth cap) is different than QoS (priority).
Your argument ignores the fact that there may be competitive voice offerings (e.g. Skype, 3rd party SIP gateways) which can run side-by-side with a phone's integral voice capability, and in a net neutral world, deserve QoS similar to that given to "integral voice" at least while traversing the carrier's network.
You fail to explain exactly how a carrier is supposed to identify the "type" of traffic - how are they to know one RTP stream is a voice call and another is someone listening to "Internet radio?"
How does one write "net neutrality" rules which accommodate voice on modern cellular networks, when it's carried as data? Customers expect their voice calls to always work, and not get interference from an email getting downloaded in the background.
With carriers moving toward VoLTE for voice services, there's a legitimate desire to apply QoS for the voice services the carriers themselves offer. QoS is an integral part of VoLTE, so there may be legitimate concern that net neutrality rules will get in the way of VoLTE rollouts.
OTOH, net neutrality could be met in a reasonably equitable manner by allowing each device to mark, say, up to x% (or x bps) of its traffic for preferential QoS treatment. That would allow third-party VoIP apps to somewhat compete with carrier VoLTE services. VoLTE would still receive preferential treatment due to the IMS support it receives for things like roaming and handoff. But considering that cellular network are not obligated to provide data service, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Blackmailer blackmails blackmailer. More at 11.
"I don't recall the brand of the fourth"
:-)
There you go again.
"I've got 5 and all are well. 1 Intel, 2 Samsung and 1 Critical. "
That apparently doesn't prevent you from dropping bits, though. 1+2+1=4.
Non-taxpaying (501c) status should simply go away. Why should religious organizations receive special treatment vs. commercial ones, and why isn't that "establishment?" (It may be non-denominational, but it certainly establishes religion)