Seriously, there are those who consider a lot of what are generally considered defects/handicaps/etc "communities" that should be preserved. Deafness, for instance, autism as another. I think it's asinine but it's on-point to the question.
Don't let the "community" crap fool you - it's mainly politics. The larger a special interest group is, the more political influence it can assert. The more influence it can assert, the more goodies it can divert to its members.
While I agree there are a number of industries and professions in which not allowing user intervention is mistaken, and while I agree that the administration who altered the system in place poorly are at least somewhat to blame for the needless deaths, I don't think dispatchers should have the ability to arbitrarily override the priority system either. It looks like the software handled everything it was told to do correctly, but the administrators made a mistake in designing and testing alterations to it and perhaps did not even consult medical professionals. As a result, people died.
Oh goody - since there's no actual judgment required by the dispatcher's position, you can save even more money by simply offshoring those positions to India. After all, if all they do is follow a script and check boxes on a screen, why pay for expensive locals to do it?
Those dispatchers should have good judgment. They should listen to what the caller is telling them, and make their own determination as to what the priority should be. Having procedures/software in place that suggests a priority is good, as it provides a starting point for the judgment process, but it should be only a suggestion.
If your dispatchers are routinely overestimating the seriousness of a situation, then they need to be either retrained or replaced. Exactly the same as if they were routinely underestimating the seriousness of a situation.
Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things? Wires hanging out of your eyes connected to a computer?
I'd love such a tech. But let's not get too excited, as this has a LONG way to go before it'll become useful...
They're using subspace communications, or ansible, or ultrawave.
or semaphore...
Not entirely sure why this was modded "Funny" - it's a very valid point. Just because electromagnetic radiation is the best tool we have for long-range communications does not mean that other, more advanced civilizations aren't using something that we don't even know how to detect (Gravity wave telegraphy? Quantum entanglement semaphores?).
We base all our assumptions on what we know about 1) Humans and 2) Earth.
As soon as you go into space, that all changes. Or maybe it doesn't. But assuming it doesn't is a flawed way of going about it.
Sorry, but "On Earth" is the only dataset we have from which to extrapolate. There is a *possibility* that going into space will change everthing, but there's no *evidence* to that effect.
I have to agree with the GP - in nearly every instance where there have been "discoverers" and "discovered", in the long term the "discovered" have gotten the short end of the stick. As such, I hope we are the "discoverers"...
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense..
IANAL, but "inadequate representation" can only be used to appeal in *criminal* cases. In civil cases, the client can potentially sue the lawyer for malpractice, if he loses a case (and money) because his attorney turned out to be a nutjob.
Downloading music is illegal now? I live in the US and am aware of laws to stop the *distributing* of copyrighted works, but I have never seen any legal restrictions on downloading or possession. I am also under the impression that the MPAA/RIAA has never been able to show that an IP address is a person, and thus bound by the distribution laws.
The act of downloading to your computer is the creation of a copy of that work. Which is forbidden, unless you are authorized by the rightsholder to create said copy.
That said, the RIAA et. al. will never sue just over downloading. Because if you are caught having downloaded x number of illegal copies, you can definitively prove the amount of damages (x times cost per track), and as such can avoid those ludicrous "statutory damages" that are at the heart of the record industry's terror campaign.
As for the "IP address is not a person" issue - they're ignoring that one, and just claiming that the "owner" of the IP addresses (whoever it's assigned to at the time of the alleged infringement) is automagically liable for any damages resulting from the infringement. Which is, unfortunately, enough to get most people to roll over and pay the extortion money rather than risk the huge court costs of fighting them.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?
"gyroscopic thrust"???
Gyros can be used to *rotate* an object in orbit, but unless they rewrote the laws of physics since I went to school there's no way to get "thrust" out of one.
declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland
Citation please.
I believe the PP is referring to the Irish Defamation Law, which includes a section that makes it a crime to say or print anything that a religion considers "blasphemy". Saying that "Mary wasn't a virgin" is contradicting the official dogma of the Catholic Church, and as such could be considered blasphemy.
This Amendment would also allow the U.S. law(s) which grant corporations "personhood" to be declared unconstitutional.
I hate to tell you this, but it *isn't* the federal government that created such laws. There are many federal laws that apply to corporations, but the laws that allow corporations to exist are primarily *state* laws. For instance, since so many corporations incorporate in Delaware, the corporate laws of that state, along with their state-issued charter, are what grant those corporations "personhood".
While the U.S. Government has the right to issue charters (and thus create corporations), I don't believe it has done so since the 19th century.
Uhm, what do you think governments are for then? Forcing individuals into doing things that should not be done?
What are they for? To prevent people from doing things that should not be done. There are a few cases where government needs to force people into actions (such as paying taxes), but those are necessary for the maintenance of government.
I'm all for a law that shields a good samaritan, if he/she was genuinely acting in good faith to the best of his/her ability, but the notion that people should be *forced* to be good samaritans is, in my opinion, over the line.
I'm a right winger and I like to see smaller, less intrusive government, but, I think it is wrong to say that the US government is competent.
The US Gov't has successfully operated as a going concern for 220+ years, with a proven and reliable management structure. Few, if any corporations, have been able to do that.
Let's see...
War on Poverty - yeah, that worked out *real* well, didn't it. War on Drugs - See any results there? War on Terror - With this one, I can't really tell if it's bungling, or actual malice
Those are just the "big names".
The US Government is a well-designed structure. And it worked pretty darn well for a while. But as federal power has increased, the effectiveness of that structure has decreased. In short, the Republic of the Founding Fathers is showing it's years.
And, for the record, there are organizations such as Lloyd's of London that can trace their existence, in one form or another, back to the 17th century. And if you want a truly old corporation, look at Stora Kopparberg Bergslags Aktiebolag in Sweden, which has been around since the 1300's!
Most corporations wither and die after a while, since their markets can wither and die. The "market" of a government does not - the only way for a government to "die" is by armed force, either from within or without.
I know everyone likes to assume that Microsoft is being evil here, but wouldn't the more realistic assumption be that they were just being incompetent?
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. For additional examples, see Government, US.
The simple fact is that ignoring robots.txt is effectively evil, regardless of the intent. It's not like robots.txt is some new innovation...
Seriously though, if we really could figure out to export lawyers; it would balance the trade deficit, and just think what it would do for the quality of life domestically.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that would constitute an "Act of War".
Besides - you really think someone would be stupid enough to *pay* us for them?
A simple way around this is to allow Disney to keep Mickey, you do this by creating a new class of limited rights for National Icons. This would be similar to copyright but would not expire. These would require a specific act of Congress for a copyrightable work to be awarded this status but would not expire as long as the company in question is still actively using and marketing the iconic item in question
Or simply link the copyright to a trademark. Trademarks, unlike copyrights, have to be maintained (costing money), and as such are dropped by corporations when they are no longer cost-effective. They have all of the attributes of your "National Icons".
So Disney could potentially keep "Steam Boat Willie" under copyright for as long as they wish, by tying it to the Mickey trademark(s). But the majority of copyrighted works would never be linked in this fashion (because there's no economic incentive to do so), and could fall into the public domain in a reasonable number of years.
The real problem with these copyright extensions isn't that certain valuable properties are being kept under copyright forever. It's that the vast majority of works, which aren't particularly valuable, are being kept under copyright forever as a side effect of protecting those valuable works.
The problem actually appears to have started in 1831. Why was nothing done then, since the US Congress dosn't (in theory) have the power to create ipso post facto laws?
I believe the term you're looking for is "ex post facto" ("after the fact") laws, not "ipso facto" ("by the fact itself").
I believe the courts *have* limited Congress, in that they aren't allowed to pass a law that would put works that have fallen into the public domain back under copyright.
The problem here is with the very definition of what a corporation is.
A corporation is an "artificial person", created by a government-granted charter.
If legislation as you propose is enacted, we'll simply begin to see Steve Jobs making donations on Apple's behalf.
That's perfectly fine. In the district in which Steve happens to live. My proposal would restrict him from influencing elections elsewhere.
What about privately owned companies? There are some huge companies that wouldn't be classified as corporations -- the largest have revenues over $100bn annually. Some of these companies regularly contract for the government (Bechtel) while others receive considerable subsidies (GMAC, Chrysler, HCA).
Those are all, AFAIK, chartered corporations. The rule would restrict them. The fact that the stock in a corporation is privately held (as opposed to publicly traded) does not make it less of a corporation.
Also consider that corporations are aggregate representations of their employees and shareholders, which are (in theory) regular, average citizens.
Er, no. The corporation may be considered a representative of the shareholders, but the employees? Employees are a resource the corporation uses to make money for the shareholders.
And the shareholders and employees, being people, are ALREADY represented, via their vote.
In fact, I would argue that corporations that employ tons of workers, or are engaged in cutting-edge research need to be heard by the government.
There's nothing preventing corporations from sending representatives to testify before Congress. In fact, it would be negligent of Congress not to invite them when considering actions that would affect them. But there's a world of difference between "telling Congress what you want it to do" and "contributing money to sway politicians to do what you want". The former is fine - the latter needs to be stopped.
I'll concede that much corporate lobbying is categorically evil, although there needs to be a system by which legitimate and beneficial interests can be represented. Also note that there's a rather slippery slope by which any corporate lobbying regulations would likely apply to unions and nonprofits as well.
You are confusing two issues. Corporate *lobbying* is not really a problem, if corporate *funding* of politicians is blocked. Then they just become another voice to be considered, rather than an essential part of getting re-elected. I've proposed NO restrictions on the lobbying part, just the funding part.
Problem: Lobbyists exert a disproportional amount of influence in the legislative branch of government. Solution: Tax lobbyists. Problem: The Supreme Court see the 14th amendment as giving human rights to property and also see money as a form of speech so we can't touch them. Solution: New constitutional amendment. "Money is not a form of speech."
Bad idea. If only because it would restrict organizations like the ACLU, EFF, etc.
Better idea - "To be eligible to donate funds to the election campaign of a person running for federal office, the donator must be a human individual, not a corporation, and must live within the district of the person to whom he is donating the funds".
This would block corporate bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations entirely, and while a rich individual could still have a larger-than-normal effect on an election, it would be restricted to a limited number of seats.
Of course, this will *never* happen, as the politicians who can implement such a change are the ones who benefit most from the current system...
No they can't. They can only seize it if it is illegal, by itself, for the owner to possess. Now, if they find drugs as well they can probably do so under the right circumstances.
Actually, they *can* seize a perfectly legal weapon, if the police can assert that they felt it was necessary to do so to ensure their safety while performing the search. Of course, if they do this, they have to give it back again (I'm assuming they can make you jump through hoops to get it back).
That said - I didn't explicitly state it was an unlawful weapon (unregistered, in possession of a felon, etc), but that *was* what I meant. A better example would be if they were searching for cocaine, and in the course of the search found kiddie porn.
Re:While I don't have any use for the program
on
Microsoft COFEE Leaked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Most warrants are specific... not that I'd want to defend myself on that basis, but I'm sure a good lawyer could help you if you were investigated for child porn and the only thing they find is some evidence of Internet gambling.
On the other hand, I'd stop the Internet gambling right away, because you know they'd be looking for a way to justify getting you for that having 'lost' the child porn case.
The *warrant* is specific, but if, in the service of the warrant, the officer finds something else, that evidence *can* be seized, and I believe it would be admissible in a court of law (IANAL!).
The police cannot search for something that is not on the warrant, however. So if the warrant specifies a "bicycle", the police would have no business looking in your sock drawer (unless said sock drawer was large enough to hold the bicycle, of course). But if the warrant specifies drugs (which could reasonably be hidden in a sock drawer), and when searching the sock drawer find a pistol, they can seize the pistol, even though it's not on the warrant.
Given the nature of a computer search, I'd expect anything on the hard drive to be fair game...
I rarely comment on/. but this post just struck me. I feel like a drastic change like the one you suggested would be the only way to restore the republic. Unfortunately, There is no way to do this. It would be a restriction on the federal government. The power to restrict the Federal government comes from the constitution. The power to interpret the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court, BY the Supreme Court, which is fundamentally (contrary to whatever image they try to portray) part of the Federal Government. This is how the system works now.
And can be fixed by changing the Constitution. Which can be done with *no* involvement of the federal government whatsoever (the states, via a Constitutional Convention, can propose an amendment, which the state legislatures can then ratify).
The problem isn't that there's no mechanism to fix the problem, but rather that those who hold the power to do so (the state legislatures) have chosen not to do so. It isn't just the federal government that's the problem...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, there are those who consider a lot of what are generally considered defects/handicaps/etc "communities" that should be preserved. Deafness, for instance, autism as another. I think it's asinine but it's on-point to the question.
Don't let the "community" crap fool you - it's mainly politics. The larger a special interest group is, the more political influence it can assert. The more influence it can assert, the more goodies it can divert to its members.
You wouldn't happen to be the guy who does the numbers for Congress?
Why go with a low paying federal job? The guy obviously has the potential for a very lucrative job producing piracy statistics for the MAFIAA.
While I agree there are a number of industries and professions in which not allowing user intervention is mistaken, and while I agree that the administration who altered the system in place poorly are at least somewhat to blame for the needless deaths, I don't think dispatchers should have the ability to arbitrarily override the priority system either. It looks like the software handled everything it was told to do correctly, but the administrators made a mistake in designing and testing alterations to it and perhaps did not even consult medical professionals. As a result, people died.
Oh goody - since there's no actual judgment required by the dispatcher's position, you can save even more money by simply offshoring those positions to India. After all, if all they do is follow a script and check boxes on a screen, why pay for expensive locals to do it?
Those dispatchers should have good judgment. They should listen to what the caller is telling them, and make their own determination as to what the priority should be. Having procedures/software in place that suggests a priority is good, as it provides a starting point for the judgment process, but it should be only a suggestion.
If your dispatchers are routinely overestimating the seriousness of a situation, then they need to be either retrained or replaced. Exactly the same as if they were routinely underestimating the seriousness of a situation.
Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things? Wires hanging out of your eyes connected to a computer?
I'd love such a tech. But let's not get too excited, as this has a LONG way to go before it'll become useful...
one day we could scan a book or magazine in seconds using a smartphone
... I guess this claim was made because we all know that soon smartphones will all have lasers and high speed cameras.
.. which will be mounted on the heads of friggin' sharks, who will not only zap you, but save pictures of it for their scrapbooks.
They're using subspace communications, or ansible, or ultrawave.
or semaphore...
Not entirely sure why this was modded "Funny" - it's a very valid point. Just because electromagnetic radiation is the best tool we have for long-range communications does not mean that other, more advanced civilizations aren't using something that we don't even know how to detect (Gravity wave telegraphy? Quantum entanglement semaphores?).
Right. On Earth.
We base all our assumptions on what we know about 1) Humans and 2) Earth.
As soon as you go into space, that all changes. Or maybe it doesn't. But assuming it doesn't is a flawed way of going about it.
Sorry, but "On Earth" is the only dataset we have from which to extrapolate. There is a *possibility* that going into space will change everthing, but there's no *evidence* to that effect.
I have to agree with the GP - in nearly every instance where there have been "discoverers" and "discovered", in the long term the "discovered" have gotten the short end of the stick. As such, I hope we are the "discoverers"...
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense..
IANAL, but "inadequate representation" can only be used to appeal in *criminal* cases. In civil cases, the client can potentially sue the lawyer for malpractice, if he loses a case (and money) because his attorney turned out to be a nutjob.
Downloading music is illegal now? I live in the US and am aware of laws to stop the *distributing* of copyrighted works, but I have never seen any legal restrictions on downloading or possession. I am also under the impression that the MPAA/RIAA has never been able to show that an IP address is a person, and thus bound by the distribution laws.
The act of downloading to your computer is the creation of a copy of that work. Which is forbidden, unless you are authorized by the rightsholder to create said copy.
That said, the RIAA et. al. will never sue just over downloading. Because if you are caught having downloaded x number of illegal copies, you can definitively prove the amount of damages (x times cost per track), and as such can avoid those ludicrous "statutory damages" that are at the heart of the record industry's terror campaign.
As for the "IP address is not a person" issue - they're ignoring that one, and just claiming that the "owner" of the IP addresses (whoever it's assigned to at the time of the alleged infringement) is automagically liable for any damages resulting from the infringement. Which is, unfortunately, enough to get most people to roll over and pay the extortion money rather than risk the huge court costs of fighting them.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, I'd like to know), but couldn't solar-powered gyroscopic thrust be cheaply incorporated into every launched satellite and be activated once the satellite's mission has expired and the satellite is no longer needed?
"gyroscopic thrust"???
Gyros can be used to *rotate* an object in orbit, but unless they rewrote the laws of physics since I went to school there's no way to get "thrust" out of one.
Here's your link. Note that it's a PDF file.
declaring that Mary is not a virgin is technically a criminal offence in Ireland
Citation please.
I believe the PP is referring to the Irish Defamation Law, which includes a section that makes it a crime to say or print anything that a religion considers "blasphemy". Saying that "Mary wasn't a virgin" is contradicting the official dogma of the Catholic Church, and as such could be considered blasphemy.
This Amendment would also allow the U.S. law(s) which grant corporations "personhood" to be declared unconstitutional.
I hate to tell you this, but it *isn't* the federal government that created such laws. There are many federal laws that apply to corporations, but the laws that allow corporations to exist are primarily *state* laws. For instance, since so many corporations incorporate in Delaware, the corporate laws of that state, along with their state-issued charter, are what grant those corporations "personhood".
While the U.S. Government has the right to issue charters (and thus create corporations), I don't believe it has done so since the 19th century.
Uhm, what do you think governments are for then? Forcing individuals into doing things that should not be done?
What are they for? To prevent people from doing things that should not be done. There are a few cases where government needs to force people into actions (such as paying taxes), but those are necessary for the maintenance of government.
I'm all for a law that shields a good samaritan, if he/she was genuinely acting in good faith to the best of his/her ability, but the notion that people should be *forced* to be good samaritans is, in my opinion, over the line.
I'm a right winger and I like to see smaller, less intrusive government, but, I think it is wrong to say that the US government is competent.
The US Gov't has successfully operated as a going concern for 220+ years, with a proven and reliable management structure. Few, if any corporations, have been able to do that.
Let's see...
War on Poverty - yeah, that worked out *real* well, didn't it.
War on Drugs - See any results there?
War on Terror - With this one, I can't really tell if it's bungling, or actual malice
Those are just the "big names".
The US Government is a well-designed structure. And it worked pretty darn well for a while. But as federal power has increased, the effectiveness of that structure has decreased. In short, the Republic of the Founding Fathers is showing it's years.
And, for the record, there are organizations such as Lloyd's of London that can trace their existence, in one form or another, back to the 17th century. And if you want a truly old corporation, look at Stora Kopparberg Bergslags Aktiebolag in Sweden, which has been around since the 1300's!
Most corporations wither and die after a while, since their markets can wither and die. The "market" of a government does not - the only way for a government to "die" is by armed force, either from within or without.
I know everyone likes to assume that Microsoft is being evil here, but wouldn't the more realistic assumption be that they were just being incompetent?
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. For additional examples, see Government, US.
The simple fact is that ignoring robots.txt is effectively evil, regardless of the intent. It's not like robots.txt is some new innovation...
Seriously though, if we really could figure out to export lawyers; it would balance the trade deficit, and just think what it would do for the quality of life domestically.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that would constitute an "Act of War".
Besides - you really think someone would be stupid enough to *pay* us for them?
A simple way around this is to allow Disney to keep Mickey, you do this by creating a new class of limited rights for National Icons. This would be similar to copyright but would not expire. These would require a specific act of Congress for a copyrightable work to be awarded this status but would not expire as long as the company in question is still actively using and marketing the iconic item in question
Or simply link the copyright to a trademark. Trademarks, unlike copyrights, have to be maintained (costing money), and as such are dropped by corporations when they are no longer cost-effective. They have all of the attributes of your "National Icons".
So Disney could potentially keep "Steam Boat Willie" under copyright for as long as they wish, by tying it to the Mickey trademark(s). But the majority of copyrighted works would never be linked in this fashion (because there's no economic incentive to do so), and could fall into the public domain in a reasonable number of years.
The real problem with these copyright extensions isn't that certain valuable properties are being kept under copyright forever. It's that the vast majority of works, which aren't particularly valuable, are being kept under copyright forever as a side effect of protecting those valuable works.
The problem actually appears to have started in 1831. Why was nothing done then, since the US Congress dosn't (in theory) have the power to create ipso post facto laws?
I believe the term you're looking for is "ex post facto" ("after the fact") laws, not "ipso facto" ("by the fact itself").
I believe the courts *have* limited Congress, in that they aren't allowed to pass a law that would put works that have fallen into the public domain back under copyright.
The problem here is with the very definition of what a corporation is.
A corporation is an "artificial person", created by a government-granted charter.
If legislation as you propose is enacted, we'll simply begin to see Steve Jobs making donations on Apple's behalf.
That's perfectly fine. In the district in which Steve happens to live. My proposal would restrict him from influencing elections elsewhere.
What about privately owned companies? There are some huge companies that wouldn't be classified as corporations -- the largest have revenues over $100bn annually. Some of these companies regularly contract for the government (Bechtel) while others receive considerable subsidies (GMAC, Chrysler, HCA).
Those are all, AFAIK, chartered corporations. The rule would restrict them. The fact that the stock in a corporation is privately held (as opposed to publicly traded) does not make it less of a corporation.
Also consider that corporations are aggregate representations of their employees and shareholders, which are (in theory) regular, average citizens.
Er, no. The corporation may be considered a representative of the shareholders, but the employees? Employees are a resource the corporation uses to make money for the shareholders.
And the shareholders and employees, being people, are ALREADY represented, via their vote.
In fact, I would argue that corporations that employ tons of workers, or are engaged in cutting-edge research need to be heard by the government.
There's nothing preventing corporations from sending representatives to testify before Congress. In fact, it would be negligent of Congress not to invite them when considering actions that would affect them. But there's a world of difference between "telling Congress what you want it to do" and "contributing money to sway politicians to do what you want". The former is fine - the latter needs to be stopped.
I'll concede that much corporate lobbying is categorically evil, although there needs to be a system by which legitimate and beneficial interests can be represented. Also note that there's a rather slippery slope by which any corporate lobbying regulations would likely apply to unions and nonprofits as well.
You are confusing two issues. Corporate *lobbying* is not really a problem, if corporate *funding* of politicians is blocked. Then they just become another voice to be considered, rather than an essential part of getting re-elected. I've proposed NO restrictions on the lobbying part, just the funding part.
I used to get really upset about lobbyists, but I think the problem is really the general incompetence of our elected officials.
Actually they are very competent. At getting elected/re-elected. Which is the primary selection criteria in a democratic system.
Problem: Lobbyists exert a disproportional amount of influence in the legislative branch of government.
Solution: Tax lobbyists.
Problem: The Supreme Court see the 14th amendment as giving human rights to property and also see money as a form of speech so we can't touch them.
Solution: New constitutional amendment. "Money is not a form of speech."
Bad idea. If only because it would restrict organizations like the ACLU, EFF, etc.
Better idea - "To be eligible to donate funds to the election campaign of a person running for federal office, the donator must be a human individual, not a corporation, and must live within the district of the person to whom he is donating the funds".
This would block corporate bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H donations entirely, and while a rich individual could still have a larger-than-normal effect on an election, it would be restricted to a limited number of seats.
Of course, this will *never* happen, as the politicians who can implement such a change are the ones who benefit most from the current system...
No they can't. They can only seize it if it is illegal, by itself, for the owner to possess. Now, if they find drugs as well they can probably do so under the right circumstances.
Actually, they *can* seize a perfectly legal weapon, if the police can assert that they felt it was necessary to do so to ensure their safety while performing the search. Of course, if they do this, they have to give it back again (I'm assuming they can make you jump through hoops to get it back).
That said - I didn't explicitly state it was an unlawful weapon (unregistered, in possession of a felon, etc), but that *was* what I meant. A better example would be if they were searching for cocaine, and in the course of the search found kiddie porn.
Most warrants are specific... not that I'd want to defend myself on that basis, but I'm sure a good lawyer could help you if you were investigated for child porn and the only thing they find is some evidence of Internet gambling.
On the other hand, I'd stop the Internet gambling right away, because you know they'd be looking for a way to justify getting you for that having 'lost' the child porn case.
The *warrant* is specific, but if, in the service of the warrant, the officer finds something else, that evidence *can* be seized, and I believe it would be admissible in a court of law (IANAL!).
The police cannot search for something that is not on the warrant, however. So if the warrant specifies a "bicycle", the police would have no business looking in your sock drawer (unless said sock drawer was large enough to hold the bicycle, of course). But if the warrant specifies drugs (which could reasonably be hidden in a sock drawer), and when searching the sock drawer find a pistol, they can seize the pistol, even though it's not on the warrant.
Given the nature of a computer search, I'd expect anything on the hard drive to be fair game...
I rarely comment on /. but this post just struck me. I feel like a drastic change like the one you suggested would be the only way to restore the republic. Unfortunately, There is no way to do this. It would be a restriction on the federal government. The power to restrict the Federal government comes from the constitution. The power to interpret the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court, BY the Supreme Court, which is fundamentally (contrary to whatever image they try to portray) part of the Federal Government. This is how the system works now.
And can be fixed by changing the Constitution. Which can be done with *no* involvement of the federal government whatsoever (the states, via a Constitutional Convention, can propose an amendment, which the state legislatures can then ratify).
The problem isn't that there's no mechanism to fix the problem, but rather that those who hold the power to do so (the state legislatures) have chosen not to do so. It isn't just the federal government that's the problem...