I don't think that has as much impact as you want to think. Let's say a bank was robbed with someone getting seriously injured or killed and your car was used for the getaway. It was likely stolen so should the cops ignore you altogether because investigating you would probably be a dead end? Suppose you know who stole it but don't offer information of this person.
No- what will happen is they will get a warrant and search your house and likely arrest you until they determine you had nothing to do with it.
My understanding is that the officer getting the warrant wasn't aware of the TOR node or it's capabilities until after applying for the warrant. I don't think compelled had anything to do with it. Most likely incompetence or ignorance was the driver behind not listing it.
And no, that still doesn't change anything fundamental about the legitimacy of the warrant. The IP address was still used privately by the residents.
If by raid you mean get a warrant and go on site looking for evidence of a crime without confiscating computers or equipment when it becomes apparent that another user other than the user the ip was assigned to - yes they should. Nothing about a public hotspot or a TOR exit node precludes a local and identifiable user from being the culprit.
If the ip address in question was used exclusively as a TOR exit node you would have a point. However it was not so your point is basically saying the cops couldn't follow the evidence in front of them because it might lead to a dead end. Sounds silly if you ask me.
That is a valid concern but I fail to see how it is reason to not investigate illegal activity within your country.
Could you imagine if someone hacked your computer, stole your financial information then drained your bank account and charged up all your credit cards and the cops say we tracked it back to this person but aren't going to check because they run a tor exist node and it might cause strife for dissidents in other countries?
Those other countries could run the exit nodes themselves and cause more havoc than investigating a crime in the U.S..
What in the hell are you talking about? No one ever said encrypted anonymous communication was the reason for suspicion. The message board gave the an IP, they followed the IP until they couldn't follow it any more. It is that simple.
They don't need better cause just probable cause. They had plenty of probable cause as the totality of the evidence to that point correctly shows the post in question came from that address. They followed the trail from the message board to the provider to the people who provisioned it. The presence of tor changes nothing until after they check the person who provisioned the ip.
If the judiciary was honked off as you put it, we would be reading about it rather than a bunch of anonymous internet lawyers complaining about the possibility of it happening.
Nothing is fundamentally different with or without the information.
No it does not. The person at the specific address has been identified by a totality of the evidence available up to the point of the search. Nothing changes that because of a TOR node. The fact that the node is present only offers reasonable explanation to why the evidence points to the person and the person may be innocent. The node itself has absolutely no bearing on the collection of evidence or the search to that point.
There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though. The problem is that there was still an illegal post made from that ip address which was assigned to a physical address and specific people. You still have probable cause to look for evidence that it was made from a computer at the physical address or through the TOR node. Nothing about the node changes that other than possibly clearing the person when the evidence doesn't exist.
What would be fundamentally different if the judge knew about the TOR node? I simply don't see it. You go to a judge and say we have evidence that this illegal post came from this ip address and tracked it to this physical address. We need to search for evidence of the illegal posting. So what does knowing of the TOR node change about that other than there is a valid reason evidence may not exist at the physical address? The fundamentals are still the same. The only difference is that they don't take the systems when they don't find something immediately.
How? I mean it doesn't matter if you run TOR or your neighbors use your WiFi, it is not a get out of jail free card so you can run something sleazy. Suppose they were the source of the kiddie porn ? Does the fact they run TOR mean that the cops cannot investigate?
No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story. Guess what, if you are around a store that gets robbed or some other crimes the cops will investigate also.
For some reason it irritates me when i go to the renaissance fair and see idiots walking around in elf ears or have fox tails. You somewhat sound like you might be one of those idiots or maybe a cheerleader who encourages them.
Sometimes people just want to experience a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that if they are not harming others. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to share in the fantasies of others. Let them have their fun before someone brings a machine gun to a D&D outing.
From 20 feet, he likely would not have accelerated to over 25 miles per hour at the point of impact. I guess it depends a lot on what "on his head" actually means. If he did a swan dive into the asphalt it might be more comparable to a faster speed on a motorcycle. If he hit at an angle or offset somewhat, it could be more directly comparable to a 25 mile per hour accident.
And for the mathematical challenged, 25 mph is about 40 kph
I really do not care if you harm yourself. In fact, I think the world might be better off if you did. It was the courts in the 60s and 70s that decided it was enough to detain you against your will. Evidently they still do because you can be detained for 72 hours under that condition.
You do realize that the reason for closing them in the first place was because the ACLU went to bat and won a case for a patient of one of those hospitals. This is the same case that only allows people to be hospitalized against their will if they are a threat to themselves or others. Once people could check themselves out and the courts called it unlawful detainment, there was little left to do other than stop the spending.
People act like this hasn't already been hashed out. You cannot open a mental hospital and just put people in it. You cannot declare someone mentally ill and force them to get treatment. You cannot even force people getting treatment to take their medications. People act like this never happened because they have some boogeyman to blame and think all will be magically different if we spend money again.
More likely it is because they are posting from a phone or tablet and are using the word complete thing instead of typing the entire word out and it inserts a space after the word it inserts. Most of the time it backspaces for punctuation but I noticed my android phones seem to skip it sometimes with anything other than a period.
If you are not comparing the amount of Co2 to the entire atmosphere you are not comparing the same things. Granted it is more dramatic but it is not the same. You could just as easily say the amount of Co2 has increased by a third but it doesn't illustrate how small changes have big effects so other claims of big effects from small changes shouldn't be surprising.
I'm not sure what surprises you here. The amount of CO2 that is claiming to be the problem is about 120 parts per million. (The difference between current levels of 400ppm and the levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution at 280ppm) That would be 0.012% or.0012 units that make up the atmosphere. It gets even smaller if you consider the 1990 baseline used for most of the countries that had limits under the Kyoto protocol.
What subsidies are those? The only ones I know of for oil is where the government wants the oil companies to do things the market doesn't support like keeping certain fields open and keeping jobs in certain places.
That's because this was political from the start almost. Back in the 80s when the activist wanted to warn congress, then senator Timothy Wirth (or is it Worth ) set out to find the historically hottest day in Washington D.C. and scheduled the hearing to coincide. He then had staffers flip the breakers on the AC the night before for effect when activist James Hansen and friends made their presentation.
Fast forward to the Kyoto protocol. This was in the works when there were groups like Jubilee2000 who were arguing for the first world countries to forgive the third world debt created in the 80s to develop their oil infrastructure after the opec embargo caused havoc. Along comes the Kyoto protocol and out of 157 original countries, only 37 had any carbon limits and 2 or 3 of them had limits well above their then values so they could build up to the limits in the future. But here is the real political story, a country could avoid their limits by moving production and infrastructure off shore to countries without the limits. They could also purchase carbon credits from countries that have managed to be under their limits. But furthermore it set requirements for technology transfers to many of these third world countries. It was as if carbon emissions was not the issue but lack of development in these third world countries. Now this Kyoto protocol was born in 1997 (actually it started birth two years prior but was a final draft to be ratified in 97) and almost as soon as it was being offered, the third world debt cries almost became invisible. Groups like Jubilee2000 stopped having large rallies and all but disappear by 99.
There has been politics and conspiracy associated with climate change since the beginnings. There is no real reason why that would disappear just because the evidence is more strong today or that more people are believers today. Most modern believers don't know the background of this and those who do want to forget it.
I disagree. Unless I'm missing something in the snoopers charter it isn't about the government disclosing information to the public unless it is part of a criminal prosecution.
Furthermore I don't think Cameron was saying private as in you cannot know but private as in not part of the public sector in which he then says was his job. It's somewhat like asking your it guy about plumbing and he says he has to do computers and walks away. It sounds to me like he just didn't want to get drug into something not directly related to his job.
I wonder how long it will take for someone to live stream something illegal or perhaps their suicide or something. Most Facebook users I know are not very smart - at least they do not appear to be when on Facebook. Some are impressively intelligent in person but pass as a moron rather easily on Facebook.
The furor is not about selling but participating by the sales.
You do not make a wedding cake and someone picks it up like for a birthday. (Well, at least not for the formal weddings). You make the sections and part of the decorations then assemble it on site coordinating it with the wedding because the icing will melt and so on. It needs to be finished near the time it is needed for the ceremony.
This makes the baker part of the wedding. The same goes for the photographer. The wedding party doesn't just show up at the studio and gets their picture taken. The photographer has to be part of the wedding, walking around and interacting and getting the right angles and so on.
In both situations it is more than selling something that is objected to. In both cases i know of, they had no problems selling in the store, it was participating that they found conflict.
Where does it say that? I just read two sources, one supposedly was the bill that made it to law and I cannot find the provisions you mentioned about court. If it is in the statutes, it must have been there before this law.
That or i cannot find the actual bill that was signed into law.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that has as much impact as you want to think. Let's say a bank was robbed with someone getting seriously injured or killed and your car was used for the getaway. It was likely stolen so should the cops ignore you altogether because investigating you would probably be a dead end? Suppose you know who stole it but don't offer information of this person.
No- what will happen is they will get a warrant and search your house and likely arrest you until they determine you had nothing to do with it.
My understanding is that the officer getting the warrant wasn't aware of the TOR node or it's capabilities until after applying for the warrant. I don't think compelled had anything to do with it. Most likely incompetence or ignorance was the driver behind not listing it.
And no, that still doesn't change anything fundamental about the legitimacy of the warrant. The IP address was still used privately by the residents.
If by raid you mean get a warrant and go on site looking for evidence of a crime without confiscating computers or equipment when it becomes apparent that another user other than the user the ip was assigned to - yes they should. Nothing about a public hotspot or a TOR exit node precludes a local and identifiable user from being the culprit.
If the ip address in question was used exclusively as a TOR exit node you would have a point. However it was not so your point is basically saying the cops couldn't follow the evidence in front of them because it might lead to a dead end. Sounds silly if you ask me.
That is a valid concern but I fail to see how it is reason to not investigate illegal activity within your country.
Could you imagine if someone hacked your computer, stole your financial information then drained your bank account and charged up all your credit cards and the cops say we tracked it back to this person but aren't going to check because they run a tor exist node and it might cause strife for dissidents in other countries?
Those other countries could run the exit nodes themselves and cause more havoc than investigating a crime in the U.S..
What in the hell are you talking about? No one ever said encrypted anonymous communication was the reason for suspicion. The message board gave the an IP, they followed the IP until they couldn't follow it any more. It is that simple.
They don't need better cause just probable cause. They had plenty of probable cause as the totality of the evidence to that point correctly shows the post in question came from that address. They followed the trail from the message board to the provider to the people who provisioned it. The presence of tor changes nothing until after they check the person who provisioned the ip.
If the judiciary was honked off as you put it, we would be reading about it rather than a bunch of anonymous internet lawyers complaining about the possibility of it happening.
Nothing is fundamentally different with or without the information.
No it does not. The person at the specific address has been identified by a totality of the evidence available up to the point of the search. Nothing changes that because of a TOR node. The fact that the node is present only offers reasonable explanation to why the evidence points to the person and the person may be innocent. The node itself has absolutely no bearing on the collection of evidence or the search to that point.
Again, nothing is fundamentally different.
There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though. The problem is that there was still an illegal post made from that ip address which was assigned to a physical address and specific people. You still have probable cause to look for evidence that it was made from a computer at the physical address or through the TOR node. Nothing about the node changes that other than possibly clearing the person when the evidence doesn't exist.
What would be fundamentally different if the judge knew about the TOR node? I simply don't see it. You go to a judge and say we have evidence that this illegal post came from this ip address and tracked it to this physical address. We need to search for evidence of the illegal posting. So what does knowing of the TOR node change about that other than there is a valid reason evidence may not exist at the physical address? The fundamentals are still the same. The only difference is that they don't take the systems when they don't find something immediately.
How? I mean it doesn't matter if you run TOR or your neighbors use your WiFi, it is not a get out of jail free card so you can run something sleazy. Suppose they were the source of the kiddie porn ? Does the fact they run TOR mean that the cops cannot investigate?
No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story. Guess what, if you are around a store that gets robbed or some other crimes the cops will investigate also.
For some reason it irritates me when i go to the renaissance fair and see idiots walking around in elf ears or have fox tails. You somewhat sound like you might be one of those idiots or maybe a cheerleader who encourages them.
Sometimes people just want to experience a fantasy. There is nothing wrong with that if they are not harming others. There is nothing wrong with them wanting to share in the fantasies of others. Let them have their fun before someone brings a machine gun to a D&D outing.
From 20 feet, he likely would not have accelerated to over 25 miles per hour at the point of impact. I guess it depends a lot on what "on his head" actually means. If he did a swan dive into the asphalt it might be more comparable to a faster speed on a motorcycle. If he hit at an angle or offset somewhat, it could be more directly comparable to a 25 mile per hour accident.
And for the mathematical challenged, 25 mph is about 40 kph
I really do not care if you harm yourself. In fact, I think the world might be better off if you did. It was the courts in the 60s and 70s that decided it was enough to detain you against your will. Evidently they still do because you can be detained for 72 hours under that condition.
You do realize that the reason for closing them in the first place was because the ACLU went to bat and won a case for a patient of one of those hospitals. This is the same case that only allows people to be hospitalized against their will if they are a threat to themselves or others. Once people could check themselves out and the courts called it unlawful detainment, there was little left to do other than stop the spending.
People act like this hasn't already been hashed out. You cannot open a mental hospital and just put people in it. You cannot declare someone mentally ill and force them to get treatment. You cannot even force people getting treatment to take their medications. People act like this never happened because they have some boogeyman to blame and think all will be magically different if we spend money again.
More likely it is because they are posting from a phone or tablet and are using the word complete thing instead of typing the entire word out and it inserts a space after the word it inserts. Most of the time it backspaces for punctuation but I noticed my android phones seem to skip it sometimes with anything other than a period.
If you are not comparing the amount of Co2 to the entire atmosphere you are not comparing the same things. Granted it is more dramatic but it is not the same. You could just as easily say the amount of Co2 has increased by a third but it doesn't illustrate how small changes have big effects so other claims of big effects from small changes shouldn't be surprising.
I'm not sure what surprises you here. The amount of CO2 that is claiming to be the problem is about 120 parts per million. (The difference between current levels of 400ppm and the levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution at 280ppm) That would be 0.012% or .0012 units that make up the atmosphere. It gets even smaller if you consider the 1990 baseline used for most of the countries that had limits under the Kyoto protocol.
What subsidies are those? The only ones I know of for oil is where the government wants the oil companies to do things the market doesn't support like keeping certain fields open and keeping jobs in certain places.
That's because this was political from the start almost. Back in the 80s when the activist wanted to warn congress, then senator Timothy Wirth (or is it Worth ) set out to find the historically hottest day in Washington D.C. and scheduled the hearing to coincide. He then had staffers flip the breakers on the AC the night before for effect when activist James Hansen and friends made their presentation.
Fast forward to the Kyoto protocol. This was in the works when there were groups like Jubilee2000 who were arguing for the first world countries to forgive the third world debt created in the 80s to develop their oil infrastructure after the opec embargo caused havoc. Along comes the Kyoto protocol and out of 157 original countries, only 37 had any carbon limits and 2 or 3 of them had limits well above their then values so they could build up to the limits in the future. But here is the real political story, a country could avoid their limits by moving production and infrastructure off shore to countries without the limits. They could also purchase carbon credits from countries that have managed to be under their limits. But furthermore it set requirements for technology transfers to many of these third world countries. It was as if carbon emissions was not the issue but lack of development in these third world countries. Now this Kyoto protocol was born in 1997 (actually it started birth two years prior but was a final draft to be ratified in 97) and almost as soon as it was being offered, the third world debt cries almost became invisible. Groups like Jubilee2000 stopped having large rallies and all but disappear by 99.
There has been politics and conspiracy associated with climate change since the beginnings. There is no real reason why that would disappear just because the evidence is more strong today or that more people are believers today. Most modern believers don't know the background of this and those who do want to forget it.
I disagree. Unless I'm missing something in the snoopers charter it isn't about the government disclosing information to the public unless it is part of a criminal prosecution.
Furthermore I don't think Cameron was saying private as in you cannot know but private as in not part of the public sector in which he then says was his job. It's somewhat like asking your it guy about plumbing and he says he has to do computers and walks away. It sounds to me like he just didn't want to get drug into something not directly related to his job.
I wonder how long it will take for someone to live stream something illegal or perhaps their suicide or something. Most Facebook users I know are not very smart - at least they do not appear to be when on Facebook. Some are impressively intelligent in person but pass as a moron rather easily on Facebook.
The furor is not about selling but participating by the sales.
You do not make a wedding cake and someone picks it up like for a birthday. (Well, at least not for the formal weddings). You make the sections and part of the decorations then assemble it on site coordinating it with the wedding because the icing will melt and so on. It needs to be finished near the time it is needed for the ceremony.
This makes the baker part of the wedding. The same goes for the photographer. The wedding party doesn't just show up at the studio and gets their picture taken. The photographer has to be part of the wedding, walking around and interacting and getting the right angles and so on.
In both situations it is more than selling something that is objected to. In both cases i know of, they had no problems selling in the store, it was participating that they found conflict.
Where does it say that? I just read two sources, one supposedly was the bill that made it to law and I cannot find the provisions you mentioned about court. If it is in the statutes, it must have been there before this law.
That or i cannot find the actual bill that was signed into law.