Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches? Warrant-based searches are explicitly supported in the fourth amendment you site. We've lived with court-ordered warrants since the country was founded, which strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement to obtain evidence against the sanctity and privacy of our homes and personal property. At this moment, if a judge ordered it, law enforcement could come into your home and demand access to absolutely everything you own. What is it, in your opinion, that makes a phone different than anything else that we consider personal or private?
The police (FBI in this case) are not allowed to use the system for fishing expeditions. The 4th explicitly states:
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 FBI has established probable cause but they have not, to my satisfaction, demonstrated particularity. Exactly what do they expect to find on the phone? To put it simply, they are fishing for anything they can get out of it.
It can also be argued there is a 1st Amendment reason to protect the phone data since it is copyrighted material thanks to the Copyright nuts getting copyright the moment a document is created. This would kick in a higher standard for probable cause. See:
We should focus on idiot-proofing idiots rather idiot-proofing their houses. Let capitalism allow for people to make their own wise decisions.
I would agree with you IF the hospitals didn't have to see them when they set themselves on fire or break their neck.
And capitalism is a poor choice for determining what is safe and what is not. The chase for the all mighty dollar would ensure nothing was safe if left to capitalism. You wouldn't have any of the safety features in cars for example that you have today if left to the manufacturers. They cost money after all.
Considering the "safety" of the cars with Takata airbags, this is no worse and can be considered far better since the driver doesn't have the expectation of that particular "safety" feature...
Something I intentionally left out of my last post, that I hoped you pounce on, is the freedom of speech though. Twitter is a platform for discussion, much like writing a letter or email is: if I advocated we moderate letters, you wouldn't be angry? Extremist speech still falls under free speech, much like neo nazi speech does in the US. I'm surprised by how quickly everybody here is to throw that out: after all the examples proven in humanity's history, after all the rhetoric about how horrible China's great firewall and censoring policy is, this is how the United States' citizens react? By simply censoring what they say?
I will address your questions first. You are comparing apples to oranges. The great firewall of China is an attempt to censor disagreement with the state and not with organizing the killing people. Isis sole use of the Twitter platform is for recruitment and organization of murderers.
Your right to free speech ends where another persons rights begin. And honestly, I put a higher priority rights wise to life than I do to speech.
Computers registered on a domain are not subject to the same update policies as standalone, personal PCs.
That's horseshit! I work in State government and our machines are nagging the shit out of us and we are on Enterprise version on a domain. Of course, that simply means that the Governor's Office of Technology are incompetent boobs and let this update through but still, it proves your statement false.
And anyone who has ever done GIS like I have knows that the old Tiger line data was notoriously incomplete and highly inaccurate for the roads that are in it.
they retired that and now there is TIGERweb
That is just a reimplementation of the old data which is just as incomplete and inaccurate.
They may have gotten better about respecting consumer privacy or worse. Nobody knows at this point.,
There is an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"
Why should anyone trust any corporation that has zero incentive to "do the right thing" in respect to privacy? In fact, they have every incentive to monetize every bit of data they can get on you!
Consider the perspective of the sponsor: When you have a new product you're trying to sell, you need a way to communicate with your customer that it is in fact available for them to buy.
That is why God created search engines. If you really have something to sell, then advertising on a random site is a piss poor way to get PAYING customers. In fact, putting advertising on a site is a sure way to piss people off and in some cases make them totally against whatever you are trying to sell.
And then of course, the perspective of the website: They pay actual people actual money to write their content. That money doesn't come in when people don't pay to view it, but it DOES have to come from somewhere. Thus, advertising works suitably.
Horseshit. You are totally ignoring that other metric they use to get money... Namely investors. They all love to tout the number of users they have in their financial reports (a number usually inflated) and use that to gain investors. If the site has value, they will have investors. If their content is really all that valuable then put it behind a paywall. We will then see just how valuable it is. But advertising on a website isn't at all the answer and in fact pisses people off. Even you are proclaiming that you use an ad blocker because of the risk to your security and the annoyance advertising causes. So don't feed me this shit of it being their only way to get money.
Bottom line, I am under no obligation to allow anything on my computer that I don't specifically want there with advertising being the top thing I don't allow. If a site doesn't like that then they can very well put it behind a paywall and I will move on.
* It's yet another flash bug, Outlook is just the host instead of IE or whatever. If you still have Flash on your system you should just assume you are pwned already and post your bank account, credit card details and nude photos straight to 4chan to shorten the painful process.
The problem is two pronged. Yes, having flash installed is a huge risk but the other part of the prong that keeps flash alive is the multitude of sites out there that require it for whatever reason. Until those sites stop requiring flash to operate correctly, you will see flash hanging in there.
* It only affects you if you have preview window on, _and_ the malicious email happens to be the first one in the mailbox when Outlook is started.
You forgot to add in "and you view email in HTML." I have Outlook (at work) set to only use plain text for both receiving and sending. Allowing HTML in email is the stupidest thing ever implemented. That is what truly needs to die!
* If you still remember when internet connection speeds were measured in baud and you had to whistle for your email, you will use email in the way $deity intended and get the headers first so (at least some of) the crap never even hits your system, making this even less likely.
The headers won't tell you shit about embedded flash. So when 80 year old Aunt Marge gets pwned and used as a relay for this bug you still get it.
I'll turn your question right around on you... What's the point of doing "simple coding" if it doesn't lead to anything? In short, it becomes a waste of time and money.
Young peoples: If you happen to like programming and CS then do it at home or for yourself and you'll be way happier.
They may be happier but it does them zilch when it comes to employers. After all, that is all school is. The front line filter for human resources to weed out who gets hired and who doesn't. Without that sheepskin from an accredited university, you aren't going to get the job. Period... End of line.
And what is your opinion of the Statue of Liberty?
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
In the end, unless you are Native American, you are an immigrant.
Well, I just did the upgrade from a fully installed, authenticated, activated and working Windows 8.1 and it is still telling me that it can't activate. Worse, when you choose "Error Details" the box is completely empty! Microsoft really fucked up releasing it with this bug especially since a Google search shows this very problem early on. Oh well, back to the drawing board and downgrade it again.
The problem you miss is that of immunocompromised or otherwise medically exempted individuals - namely, people who don't have a choice whether they get vaccinated or not.
Then you just shot down your whole argument that everyone be immunized. Again, if you fear your kid getting a disease then keep your kid away from others or immunize them. You can control that where you can't control the actions (or inaction) of others.
And to answer the AC below about babies, they inherit the mother's antibodies through the placenta and later through the mother's breast milk. Want to protect your baby, then have the mother immunized.
I'm not a big fan of government coercion as the solution to everything, but vaccinations are a public health issue where you are affecting more than yourself whenever you sneeze. That means your refusal to vaccinate your child or yourself might condemn people to death who currently have no choice to avoid interacting with you, and no idea if you're someone they should stay away from.
The problem with this statement is it makes one big assumption... Namely that everyone is NOT vaccinated. In short, if coming close to someone not vaccinated worries you then get yourself vaccinated. Or don't you trust the vaccine to protect you if exposed?
I don't proclaim that vaccines are dangerous but as with any drug I believe there can be side effects. Having said that, I am totally vaccinated having been in the military as well as in Emergency Management. There are simply some professions where it is a must.
You people completely missed the first line of what I said. Here, let me help you:
Although I believe kids should be exposed to STEM courses, forcing them into STEM fields where there is no interest is a recipe for disaster.
So being exposed to math, biology, chemistry and even computer science is completely different from being forced into a field which this law is attempting to do. Having CS year after year for 12 years as a core class is trying to force kids into the CS field. Biology, chemistry, physics and the like are NOT core classes like mathematics reading and writing.
Although I believe kids should be exposed to STEM courses, forcing them into STEM fields where there is no interest is a recipe for disaster. Better to let kids dictate where their interest lies.
Also, this is more of the corporate drive to lower wages in STEM fields no different than them wanting more H1B slave labor. More people in a field than there are available jobs means the corporation can dictate wages and get concessions on benefits that they would not otherwise be able to command.
OK... I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask you a couple questions...
Assume they do just as you say. What do you do with those that violate even that copyright term? You see, today things are copied usually the day they are released or in most cases even before they are released. Just how do you stop that? If you really intend to be fair, until you can answer those you are just blowing smoke.
You evidently didn't read the last line in TFS. FOIAs aren't free to file. They cost money to prepare and turn over. Add to that the restrictions on time to produce (10 days in my state. No idea what the federal time limit is) as well as the maze that is the legal exemptions on a FOIA request and it gets quite expensive. What news agency is willing to be the first to fork over the money just to have the means to recoup the funds pulled out from under them? I think this idea is brilliant if you want to curb the FOIA requests you receive.
You have a charging station built into walls of your house already. In fact, there just might be electrical receptacles all over the USA!
So disregarding the fact that they require special connections let's review why you want me to use electric cars...
1. Emissions. This is a fallacy since you are transferring the emissions to the power station. There will be very little savings if you consider this.
2. Expense. This is offset by the cost of electricity. Want to see the electric bill skyrocket? Plug in your car every trip to the store and watch it rise. Speaking of that, charging stations outside of the house will also charge for the electricity used based on their billing which will also include a bit of profit making it cheaper to charge at home.
3. Maintenance. I don't see any savings here since the batteries in the electric cars are very expensive and can't be changed by the user. Most of the electric cars also have very complex circuitry making them very mechanic exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
The police (FBI in this case) are not allowed to use the system for fishing expeditions. The 4th explicitly states:
The FBI has established probable cause but they have not, to my satisfaction, demonstrated particularity. Exactly what do they expect to find on the phone? To put it simply, they are fishing for anything they can get out of it.
It can also be argued there is a 1st Amendment reason to protect the phone data since it is copyrighted material thanks to the Copyright nuts getting copyright the moment a document is created. This would kick in a higher standard for probable cause. See:
http://constitution.findlaw.co...
I would agree with you IF the hospitals didn't have to see them when they set themselves on fire or break their neck.
And capitalism is a poor choice for determining what is safe and what is not. The chase for the all mighty dollar would ensure nothing was safe if left to capitalism. You wouldn't have any of the safety features in cars for example that you have today if left to the manufacturers. They cost money after all.
Considering the "safety" of the cars with Takata airbags, this is no worse and can be considered far better since the driver doesn't have the expectation of that particular "safety" feature...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/m...
Yes but "How to Serve Man" is still just a cookbook...
I will address your questions first. You are comparing apples to oranges. The great firewall of China is an attempt to censor disagreement with the state and not with organizing the killing people. Isis sole use of the Twitter platform is for recruitment and organization of murderers.
Your right to free speech ends where another persons rights begin. And honestly, I put a higher priority rights wise to life than I do to speech.
That's horseshit! I work in State government and our machines are nagging the shit out of us and we are on Enterprise version on a domain. Of course, that simply means that the Governor's Office of Technology are incompetent boobs and let this update through but still, it proves your statement false.
And anyone who has ever done GIS like I have knows that the old Tiger line data was notoriously incomplete and highly inaccurate for the roads that are in it.
That is just a reimplementation of the old data which is just as incomplete and inaccurate.
There is an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"
Why should anyone trust any corporation that has zero incentive to "do the right thing" in respect to privacy? In fact, they have every incentive to monetize every bit of data they can get on you!
That is why God created search engines. If you really have something to sell, then advertising on a random site is a piss poor way to get PAYING customers. In fact, putting advertising on a site is a sure way to piss people off and in some cases make them totally against whatever you are trying to sell.
Horseshit. You are totally ignoring that other metric they use to get money... Namely investors. They all love to tout the number of users they have in their financial reports (a number usually inflated) and use that to gain investors. If the site has value, they will have investors. If their content is really all that valuable then put it behind a paywall. We will then see just how valuable it is. But advertising on a website isn't at all the answer and in fact pisses people off. Even you are proclaiming that you use an ad blocker because of the risk to your security and the annoyance advertising causes. So don't feed me this shit of it being their only way to get money.
Bottom line, I am under no obligation to allow anything on my computer that I don't specifically want there with advertising being the top thing I don't allow. If a site doesn't like that then they can very well put it behind a paywall and I will move on.
I am going to hit on a few of your points...
The problem is two pronged. Yes, having flash installed is a huge risk but the other part of the prong that keeps flash alive is the multitude of sites out there that require it for whatever reason. Until those sites stop requiring flash to operate correctly, you will see flash hanging in there.
You forgot to add in "and you view email in HTML." I have Outlook (at work) set to only use plain text for both receiving and sending. Allowing HTML in email is the stupidest thing ever implemented. That is what truly needs to die!
The headers won't tell you shit about embedded flash. So when 80 year old Aunt Marge gets pwned and used as a relay for this bug you still get it.
I'll turn your question right around on you... What's the point of doing "simple coding" if it doesn't lead to anything? In short, it becomes a waste of time and money.
They may be happier but it does them zilch when it comes to employers. After all, that is all school is. The front line filter for human resources to weed out who gets hired and who doesn't. Without that sheepskin from an accredited university, you aren't going to get the job. Period... End of line.
And what is your opinion of the Statue of Liberty?
In the end, unless you are Native American, you are an immigrant.
The monopoly the government grant of patents gives them. Next question...
Well, I just did the upgrade from a fully installed, authenticated, activated and working Windows 8.1 and it is still telling me that it can't activate. Worse, when you choose "Error Details" the box is completely empty! Microsoft really fucked up releasing it with this bug especially since a Google search shows this very problem early on. Oh well, back to the drawing board and downgrade it again.
Then you just shot down your whole argument that everyone be immunized. Again, if you fear your kid getting a disease then keep your kid away from others or immunize them. You can control that where you can't control the actions (or inaction) of others.
And to answer the AC below about babies, they inherit the mother's antibodies through the placenta and later through the mother's breast milk. Want to protect your baby, then have the mother immunized.
The problem with this statement is it makes one big assumption... Namely that everyone is NOT vaccinated. In short, if coming close to someone not vaccinated worries you then get yourself vaccinated. Or don't you trust the vaccine to protect you if exposed?
I don't proclaim that vaccines are dangerous but as with any drug I believe there can be side effects. Having said that, I am totally vaccinated having been in the military as well as in Emergency Management. There are simply some professions where it is a must.
You people completely missed the first line of what I said. Here, let me help you:
So being exposed to math, biology, chemistry and even computer science is completely different from being forced into a field which this law is attempting to do. Having CS year after year for 12 years as a core class is trying to force kids into the CS field. Biology, chemistry, physics and the like are NOT core classes like mathematics reading and writing.
Although I believe kids should be exposed to STEM courses, forcing them into STEM fields where there is no interest is a recipe for disaster. Better to let kids dictate where their interest lies.
Also, this is more of the corporate drive to lower wages in STEM fields no different than them wanting more H1B slave labor. More people in a field than there are available jobs means the corporation can dictate wages and get concessions on benefits that they would not otherwise be able to command.
OK... I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask you a couple questions...
Assume they do just as you say. What do you do with those that violate even that copyright term? You see, today things are copied usually the day they are released or in most cases even before they are released. Just how do you stop that? If you really intend to be fair, until you can answer those you are just blowing smoke.
So I see you heard of the dibs protocol and the no take backs accord as well. (Gotten from Red Vs. Blue)...
Don't confuse idealism with tax breaks.... Remove the tax breaks and see how the "donations" decline.
You evidently didn't read the last line in TFS. FOIAs aren't free to file. They cost money to prepare and turn over. Add to that the restrictions on time to produce (10 days in my state. No idea what the federal time limit is) as well as the maze that is the legal exemptions on a FOIA request and it gets quite expensive. What news agency is willing to be the first to fork over the money just to have the means to recoup the funds pulled out from under them? I think this idea is brilliant if you want to curb the FOIA requests you receive.
I never said nobody should buy one... I said I wouldn't buy one for the expense and limited distance between charges.
So disregarding the fact that they require special connections let's review why you want me to use electric cars...
1. Emissions. This is a fallacy since you are transferring the emissions to the power station. There will be very little savings if you consider this.
2. Expense. This is offset by the cost of electricity. Want to see the electric bill skyrocket? Plug in your car every trip to the store and watch it rise. Speaking of that, charging stations outside of the house will also charge for the electricity used based on their billing which will also include a bit of profit making it cheaper to charge at home.
3. Maintenance. I don't see any savings here since the batteries in the electric cars are very expensive and can't be changed by the user. Most of the electric cars also have very complex circuitry making them very mechanic exclusive.