Is it coercion for the boss to threaten to terminate your employment if you fail to travel on Election Day, ostensibly for essential business purposes, to a location that just happens to be between 100 and 200 miles away from the polling place?
Yes. In New York State at least. Here they have to give you four hours off to vote unless your shift begins or ends more than four hours after the polls open or close. Polls are open 6am to 9pm for general elections (12pm to 9pm for primaries), so if you're obligated to be work from 9am to 6pm they're obligated to give you the time to go vote. If your shift ended at 5pm (or started at 10am) they would not have to give you the four hours.
End the antiquated requirement for anonymous ballots
Coercing or discriminating against someone for their vote needs to become a serious crime
I like how you point out the most important reason for the anonymous ballot while simultaneously calling for its end. Hint: It's already a crime to try and coerce someone's vote. It's also a very difficult crime to prove, which is why it's simpler to just say, "Your boss can't go into the booth with you." than "Tell is if your boss is trying to intimidate you."
If Democracy is worth anything it's worth an hour of your fucking time once a year to go a polling place. Online voting is a solution looking for a problem. Absentee ballots are a necessary evil for people (the handicapped and those unavoidably out of town) who legitimately can't make it to the polling place. They do not need to be and should not be the new normal.
My sig is a quote from a work of fiction. An extremely entertaining work of fiction to be sure, but fiction nonetheless. I'm surprised you're not familiar with it if you're on this site.
Actually, it's really irrelevant *which* agency does the search for these purposes.
I agree with this point; all I'll say is that it's relevant as an indictment of the lack of knowledge on the part of the people who are screaming the loudest in this thread. They didn't even read the bloody ruling, they just saw the headline and started checking off the talking points.
but as a general rule the United States can do pretty much whatever it wants at its own border.
That was one of the more interesting parts of the ruling. The Judge seemed to think that it would have been okay to fire up the laptop and go through it at the border. She was not okay with sending it off to another Special Agent 150 miles away who imaged the hard drive and spent weeks combing it for evidence. The border search exception was not meant to provide agents of the Government with limitless amounts of time to comb through someone's property.
Of course, firing up the laptop may change the evidence contained therein, which was a point made by the Agents on this case. It's a valid point but it doesn't change the underlying nature of the border search exception. With the body of probable cause against this particular individual I can't fathom why (aside from laziness) they didn't seize the laptop through traditional means (warrant) rather than relying on the border search exception.
Thank you for providing the Ayatollah's point of view. If you hate the West so much why don't you leave? I hear they're looking for able bodied males and fertile females in Syria. The odds are good you're one of those two things.
Keeping advanced weaponry and/or the components thereof out of the hands of people who are championing our destruction has no bearing whatsoever on your liberty. You're creating a false equivalence. Have fun trying to exercise your liberty when you're dead.
When a crime has no victim, the criminal is the government, no exceptions.
Exporting duel-use technology (accelerometers useful for missile guidance systems) to enemies of the United States (Iran) is far from a victimless crime.
TSA et al have done the exact same thing with the laptops of people who aren't suspected of any criminal activity.
TSA doesn't conduct border searches; you fail on the very first sentence of your post. Border searches are typically conducted by ICE. In this instance it was conducted by a US Special Agent that was investigating this one specific individual.
What you're saying is "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide".
What I'm saying is that in this specific case the person was already under investigation and had indeed previously been arrested for the crime being investigated. Did you bother to read the part of my post where I said I agreed with the ruling? Did you bother to click on the fucking link and read the ruling or do you generate your outage based solely off the headline?
The last was a rhetorical question that I already know the answer to.
The lion's share of TSA employees are not "Agents." They are inaccurately labeled as "Officers" but in reality they do not possess law enforcement powers. They have no special powers (beyond that of a citizen's arrest) to arrest or detain you; that's what the uniformed law enforcement officer monitoring the checkpoint is there for.
TSA does have a few Special Agents working for it that have such powers, as do all United States Special Agents, but they're focused on transportation security. The case being discussed here relates to export laws.
no, you miss the point. travel 'empty'. a plain fresh install with no URL history or anything on it. ie, you do a fresh build, you create a backup (that's your new image for any new travel) and you travel with a fresh install of linux (ideally not windows) and you remember, in your head, your passwords and key URLs.
its very sad that its gotton to this. but this is probably the best way to protect yourself and arrive in one piece, unmolested.
If you want to arrive unmolested you might try not taking part in an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Did you read the ruling or TFA? This was an ongoing investigation, where the owner of the laptop had previously been arrested; it was not a random "Let's take that dude's laptop." search. If the Special Agents involved had done their due diligence they could have easily obtained a warrant to seize the laptop rather than relying on the border search exception.
I tend to agree with the ruling, the border search exception is flimsy cover to image someone's hard drive, but the multitude of uninformed comments here is bad even by/. standards. This was not a random search without basis or probable cause.
The moral of this story is:
1) The TSA and assorted related three letter agencies don't give a crap about due process or warrants anyways
The moral of your comment is you can't be bothered to read the fucking article. TSA has nothing to do with it. It's an investigation of a foreign national suspected of violating export laws regarding aerospace hardware with defense implications (accelerometers that can be used in missile guidance systems) to China. The search was carried out by a United States Special Agent, of the DHS Security Investigations Office, not TSA.
The ruling is actually an interesting read, the long and short of which is that the Government had tons of probable cause. The owner of the laptop had even been arrested previously and given testimony regarding his activities. This reeks of laziness on the part of the Special Agents conducting the investigation; they had more than enough to get a conventional warrant but choose instead of rely on the border search exception. Something tells me they won't be repeating that mistake in the future.
Or it could be that they don't actually have anything on you. Not to burst your self-importance bubble but (with apologies to South Park) the odds are good that you're fat and unimportant.
More than half of Mr. Hitchen's FBI file is records of previous requests (by the USSS for his White House press pass, by Immigration and Naturalization for his residence permit, and so forth) that returned nothing of consequence, exactly what you would expect for someone with no criminal record. I've seen my own FBI file; it's a handful of requests for information from various State agencies (all related to background checks for firearms licenses) that resulted in "no hit." I'm also fat and unimportant....
So do landlords have the right to fit cameras in their rental properties, specifically in the bedroom and toilets, so they can sell the video obtained for profit. Their properties, their laws or is that a false premise.
Landlords give up their property right for a specified amount of time to their tenants via a lease agreement.
Maybe the US of A should put more money into public schools
The United States spends more per pupil than most other countries with less to show for it. There are many problems with the American education system; a lack of money is not one of them, at least in the aggregate (there are obviously individual school districts that are hard up)
You got +5 for this nonsense? The "Fascist Police State" that you condemn is the mechanism that this lady is using to right the wrong committed against her by her employer. Your entire post is off-topic ranting about issues that have nothing to do with the TFA.
Lying is indefensible in most contexts, IMHO, and if you had noted the rest of the thread you would have observed that I did not limit my indictment to women or dating. It seems to be a problem with everybody these days in the States, people would rather lie than run even the slightest risk of dealing with something unpleasant.
American women will be as nasty as they can get away while still being able to receive their required narcissistic supply.
Misogynist much?
It's not an indictment of American women, it's an indictment of American culture. You can see it everywhere, not just dating. Most people of our generation can't deal with anything that might be perceived as confrontation, lying is the easier route for them.
Americans also tend to make commitments of all shapes that they fail to keep. "We should have lunch sometime." In most cultures that's a commitment; in America it's just a way of being polite. We say a lot of shit we don't mean to grease our social wheels.
With the decline of civility, asking a woman out and being rejected is no longer, "I'm sorry. I appreciate you asking but I'm just not interested" to, "Fucking loser! Why would you talk to me? Get the fuck out of here."
That would actually be a refreshing change of pace. In the United States, amongst the current generation, the response is usually, "Sure, that sounds awesome!" followed by being stood up and radio silence. They can't deal with anything that's hard, so they go the "easy" route and just lie to your face about it. Other cultures have a more evolved attitude than ours, hence the "US" qualifier; YMMV but I've never been stood up in Europe. I have been rejected, but that's life, and as I said was a refreshing change of pace....
One of the analogies I've seen at a speech on the subject went something like, "A computer can detect an object in the roadway, but it can't yet tell if it's a paper bag that can be safely run over or a rock that's apt to damage the car."
This was a few years ago, so I don't know if it's still true or not, but it does demonstrate the programming challenge in processing something exceedingly simple that even the most inexperienced human driver would be able.
Please explain how civil strife in nation-states like Syria where there is little American much like the Secretary of State's influence are Hillary Clinton's fault.
Please explain how you can be so fucking obtuse as to wave away the example of Libya (which she enthusiastically supported) and her vote in favor of the Iraq War AUMF.
On second thought, don't bother. You have nothing interesting to say and are conveniently ignoring the points that don't line up with your world view.
It's only outdated if you don't want a dedicated device for time. Some of us do want or need such a device, preferably one that doesn't need to be recharged every 24 hours, do a bunch of shit we don't care about, and occupy half of our lower arms. A nice looking watch is also a fashion statement; I'm not talking Rolex level (although you can certainly do that), just something that looks halfway decent and goes with most of your wardrobe.
There's still a market for dedicated devices. What does a smartwatch give me? Don't need it for fitness, it will never compete with a decent runner's watch for durability and ease of use. Don't want it for time, my real watch is less cumbersome and has a battery life measured in years. Can't do anything productive (e-mails, shopping lists, etc.) with it that I can't do better with my smartphone. Directions? That might be an argument, but again, how is the watch better than my phone? I've gotten around foreign cities where I don't speak the local language using my phone and Google Maps. Where's the game changer in doing the same with my watch?
No, the destruction of nation-states (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) that created the conditions for ISIS to flourish are Clinton's responsibility. She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it coercion for the boss to threaten to terminate your employment if you fail to travel on Election Day, ostensibly for essential business purposes, to a location that just happens to be between 100 and 200 miles away from the polling place?
Yes. In New York State at least. Here they have to give you four hours off to vote unless your shift begins or ends more than four hours after the polls open or close. Polls are open 6am to 9pm for general elections (12pm to 9pm for primaries), so if you're obligated to be work from 9am to 6pm they're obligated to give you the time to go vote. If your shift ended at 5pm (or started at 10am) they would not have to give you the four hours.
But don't worry, we've got "Lawrence's Mom is a Slut" waiting in the wings as our new VP.
Can't be any worse than the last two. :P
End the antiquated requirement for anonymous ballots
Coercing or discriminating against someone for their vote needs to become a serious crime
I like how you point out the most important reason for the anonymous ballot while simultaneously calling for its end. Hint: It's already a crime to try and coerce someone's vote. It's also a very difficult crime to prove, which is why it's simpler to just say, "Your boss can't go into the booth with you." than "Tell is if your boss is trying to intimidate you."
If Democracy is worth anything it's worth an hour of your fucking time once a year to go a polling place. Online voting is a solution looking for a problem. Absentee ballots are a necessary evil for people (the handicapped and those unavoidably out of town) who legitimately can't make it to the polling place. They do not need to be and should not be the new normal.
My sig is a quote from a work of fiction. An extremely entertaining work of fiction to be sure, but fiction nonetheless. I'm surprised you're not familiar with it if you're on this site.
Actually, it's really irrelevant *which* agency does the search for these purposes.
I agree with this point; all I'll say is that it's relevant as an indictment of the lack of knowledge on the part of the people who are screaming the loudest in this thread. They didn't even read the bloody ruling, they just saw the headline and started checking off the talking points.
but as a general rule the United States can do pretty much whatever it wants at its own border.
That was one of the more interesting parts of the ruling. The Judge seemed to think that it would have been okay to fire up the laptop and go through it at the border. She was not okay with sending it off to another Special Agent 150 miles away who imaged the hard drive and spent weeks combing it for evidence. The border search exception was not meant to provide agents of the Government with limitless amounts of time to comb through someone's property.
Of course, firing up the laptop may change the evidence contained therein, which was a point made by the Agents on this case. It's a valid point but it doesn't change the underlying nature of the border search exception. With the body of probable cause against this particular individual I can't fathom why (aside from laziness) they didn't seize the laptop through traditional means (warrant) rather than relying on the border search exception.
You don't know what fascism actually is. It's just a buzzword that you parrot.
Thank you for providing the Ayatollah's point of view. If you hate the West so much why don't you leave? I hear they're looking for able bodied males and fertile females in Syria. The odds are good you're one of those two things.
Keeping advanced weaponry and/or the components thereof out of the hands of people who are championing our destruction has no bearing whatsoever on your liberty. You're creating a false equivalence. Have fun trying to exercise your liberty when you're dead.
Sell them missles for all I care
You're entitled to your opinion but I think you'll find it doesn't command much support amongst the American public.
When a crime has no victim, the criminal is the government, no exceptions.
Exporting duel-use technology (accelerometers useful for missile guidance systems) to enemies of the United States (Iran) is far from a victimless crime.
TSA et al have done the exact same thing with the laptops of people who aren't suspected of any criminal activity.
TSA doesn't conduct border searches; you fail on the very first sentence of your post. Border searches are typically conducted by ICE. In this instance it was conducted by a US Special Agent that was investigating this one specific individual.
What you're saying is "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide".
What I'm saying is that in this specific case the person was already under investigation and had indeed previously been arrested for the crime being investigated. Did you bother to read the part of my post where I said I agreed with the ruling? Did you bother to click on the fucking link and read the ruling or do you generate your outage based solely off the headline?
The last was a rhetorical question that I already know the answer to.
The lion's share of TSA employees are not "Agents." They are inaccurately labeled as "Officers" but in reality they do not possess law enforcement powers. They have no special powers (beyond that of a citizen's arrest) to arrest or detain you; that's what the uniformed law enforcement officer monitoring the checkpoint is there for.
TSA does have a few Special Agents working for it that have such powers, as do all United States Special Agents, but they're focused on transportation security. The case being discussed here relates to export laws.
no, you miss the point. travel 'empty'. a plain fresh install with no URL history or anything on it. ie, you do a fresh build, you create a backup (that's your new image for any new travel) and you travel with a fresh install of linux (ideally not windows) and you remember, in your head, your passwords and key URLs.
its very sad that its gotton to this. but this is probably the best way to protect yourself and arrive in one piece, unmolested.
If you want to arrive unmolested you might try not taking part in an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Did you read the ruling or TFA? This was an ongoing investigation, where the owner of the laptop had previously been arrested; it was not a random "Let's take that dude's laptop." search. If the Special Agents involved had done their due diligence they could have easily obtained a warrant to seize the laptop rather than relying on the border search exception.
I tend to agree with the ruling, the border search exception is flimsy cover to image someone's hard drive, but the multitude of uninformed comments here is bad even by /. standards. This was not a random search without basis or probable cause.
The moral of this story is: 1) The TSA and assorted related three letter agencies don't give a crap about due process or warrants anyways
The moral of your comment is you can't be bothered to read the fucking article. TSA has nothing to do with it. It's an investigation of a foreign national suspected of violating export laws regarding aerospace hardware with defense implications (accelerometers that can be used in missile guidance systems) to China. The search was carried out by a United States Special Agent, of the DHS Security Investigations Office, not TSA.
The ruling is actually an interesting read, the long and short of which is that the Government had tons of probable cause. The owner of the laptop had even been arrested previously and given testimony regarding his activities. This reeks of laziness on the part of the Special Agents conducting the investigation; they had more than enough to get a conventional warrant but choose instead of rely on the border search exception. Something tells me they won't be repeating that mistake in the future.
Or it could be that they don't actually have anything on you. Not to burst your self-importance bubble but (with apologies to South Park) the odds are good that you're fat and unimportant.
More than half of Mr. Hitchen's FBI file is records of previous requests (by the USSS for his White House press pass, by Immigration and Naturalization for his residence permit, and so forth) that returned nothing of consequence, exactly what you would expect for someone with no criminal record. I've seen my own FBI file; it's a handful of requests for information from various State agencies (all related to background checks for firearms licenses) that resulted in "no hit." I'm also fat and unimportant....
So do landlords have the right to fit cameras in their rental properties, specifically in the bedroom and toilets, so they can sell the video obtained for profit. Their properties, their laws or is that a false premise.
Landlords give up their property right for a specified amount of time to their tenants via a lease agreement.
Maybe the US of A should put more money into public schools
The United States spends more per pupil than most other countries with less to show for it. There are many problems with the American education system; a lack of money is not one of them, at least in the aggregate (there are obviously individual school districts that are hard up)
You got +5 for this nonsense? The "Fascist Police State" that you condemn is the mechanism that this lady is using to right the wrong committed against her by her employer. Your entire post is off-topic ranting about issues that have nothing to do with the TFA.
Lying is indefensible in most contexts, IMHO, and if you had noted the rest of the thread you would have observed that I did not limit my indictment to women or dating. It seems to be a problem with everybody these days in the States, people would rather lie than run even the slightest risk of dealing with something unpleasant.
American women will be as nasty as they can get away while still being able to receive their required narcissistic supply.
Misogynist much?
It's not an indictment of American women, it's an indictment of American culture. You can see it everywhere, not just dating. Most people of our generation can't deal with anything that might be perceived as confrontation, lying is the easier route for them.
Americans also tend to make commitments of all shapes that they fail to keep. "We should have lunch sometime." In most cultures that's a commitment; in America it's just a way of being polite. We say a lot of shit we don't mean to grease our social wheels.
With the decline of civility, asking a woman out and being rejected is no longer, "I'm sorry. I appreciate you asking but I'm just not interested" to, "Fucking loser! Why would you talk to me? Get the fuck out of here."
That would actually be a refreshing change of pace. In the United States, amongst the current generation, the response is usually, "Sure, that sounds awesome!" followed by being stood up and radio silence. They can't deal with anything that's hard, so they go the "easy" route and just lie to your face about it. Other cultures have a more evolved attitude than ours, hence the "US" qualifier; YMMV but I've never been stood up in Europe. I have been rejected, but that's life, and as I said was a refreshing change of pace....
Computers are still too stupid.
One of the analogies I've seen at a speech on the subject went something like, "A computer can detect an object in the roadway, but it can't yet tell if it's a paper bag that can be safely run over or a rock that's apt to damage the car."
This was a few years ago, so I don't know if it's still true or not, but it does demonstrate the programming challenge in processing something exceedingly simple that even the most inexperienced human driver would be able.
Please explain how civil strife in nation-states like Syria where there is little American much like the Secretary of State's influence are Hillary Clinton's fault.
Please explain how you can be so fucking obtuse as to wave away the example of Libya (which she enthusiastically supported) and her vote in favor of the Iraq War AUMF.
On second thought, don't bother. You have nothing interesting to say and are conveniently ignoring the points that don't line up with your world view.
It's only outdated if you don't want a dedicated device for time. Some of us do want or need such a device, preferably one that doesn't need to be recharged every 24 hours, do a bunch of shit we don't care about, and occupy half of our lower arms. A nice looking watch is also a fashion statement; I'm not talking Rolex level (although you can certainly do that), just something that looks halfway decent and goes with most of your wardrobe.
There's still a market for dedicated devices. What does a smartwatch give me? Don't need it for fitness, it will never compete with a decent runner's watch for durability and ease of use. Don't want it for time, my real watch is less cumbersome and has a battery life measured in years. Can't do anything productive (e-mails, shopping lists, etc.) with it that I can't do better with my smartphone. Directions? That might be an argument, but again, how is the watch better than my phone? I've gotten around foreign cities where I don't speak the local language using my phone and Google Maps. Where's the game changer in doing the same with my watch?
No, the destruction of nation-states (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) that created the conditions for ISIS to flourish are Clinton's responsibility. She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.