But "The State" is my adversary, even as a third party. They are interfering with my right to a free press.
The principle differences between criminal and civil cases is the standard of proof and the penalty. Criminal cases may lead to the defendant's loss of fundamental civil rights (freedom, life) and as such have a higher standard of proof.
In this case, Alice is offered a signed immunity agreement
But Alice may not want to enter into such an agreement with the prosecutor. That's the basis of contract law: Entering into an agreement voluntarily. Alica can say, "I don't trust the prosecutor or the court to hold up their end of the bargain. So I do not wish to enter into a contract with them."
After all, they are suggesting that they will overlook and not prosecute an alleged crime: namely Alice's complicity in the misappropriation of government secrets. I wouldn't trust a person like that. Nor may Alice.
Does that mean you're agreeing with me, that if defendants can't be forced to testify, then third-party witnesses shouldn't be forced to testify either?
Correct.
Our US legal system is adversarial by design. It's us (the public) against the government. So nobody should be compelled to assist them in any way.
Some more on this: Back when law enforcement needed a warrant to collect evidence on suspects, this was not the case. We could rely upon the courts to defend our rights and select those individuals for which 'reasonable grounds' existed to initiate the adversarial relationship. But now that we are all potential targets for law enforcement evidence collection, this relationship exists for everyone.
Or reporters become ordained ministers. They will be protected by the clergy-penitent privilege.
Kidding aside, the two professions share many of the same protections. Freedom of the press and of religion are covered by the same amendment and for many of the same reasons. If a reporter can be compelled to testify about a third parties' criminal activities, then why not a priest?
Why shouldn't we also give the same rights to a third-party witness who we know is innocent?
How do we know anything about the crime scene? If we did, then the prosecution job would be done and no testimony would be needed. Given the Bob/Alice scenario, how do we know that Alice is an innocent bystander? If she is not, then she has the same fifth amendment rights as Bob does.
Likewise, we don't know James Risen's role in the CIA information leak. Did he conspire with an insider to obtain the information? If so, it would seem that the Fifth Amendment applies to him as well. If the DoJ knows any different, then they can just present that to the court without the assistance of Risen's testimony. Yes, the DoJ can offer immunity and remove the self-incrimination hurdle. But immunity from what? We don't know what other illegal acts Risen may have committed in order to acquire the information and even the act of negotiating immunity may reveal other acts that the prosecution is not aware of.
Our US legal system is adversarial by design. It's us (the public) against the government. So nobody should be compelled to assist them in any way.
For all intents and purposes, when you can't see any more of the driver other than the top of a little bald head over the dashboard, its already a self-driving car. And all this stuff about negotiating stop signs, occupied crosswalks and off ramps: The present drivers just plow through at 15 mph and its all good. So what's so hard about doing that in software?
In these parts, Cadillacs that miss off-ramps just back up on the freeway and try again. If they can implement this behavior in an autonomous car, I'd say they are good to go.
I think the parent is referring to a diffraction limited optical system. There's only so much you can do with sensors or software if the optics is inadequate.
There is also the issue of sensor noise and the resulting S/N ratio of such a small aperture.
Yes. But there's nothing buried in a chip which cannot be inspected. The hardware parameters being read are well understood and the software can be analyzed. Not so for a (possibly NSA spec'd) chip.
People can't change their race. They can change their behavior. My GPS is flagging high crime areas which I am avoiding. Residents of these areas are free to either change their behavior and/or move out. At which point, the technology no longer affects them.
Employment applicability aside, avoiding crime is not a "facially neutral practice". I can easily demonstrate the equivalent of the "business necessity" defense. I don't want to get robbed or die. So I don't go to certain places.
All we need to do is settle on whether it is better to let 10 guilty men go free then one innocent suffer (William Blackstone) or 100 (Benjamin Franklin).
Right now, we are leaning toward the philosophy of Pol Pot: 'It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape.'
There was an article a few days ago about software to create the illusion of eye contact with video calls. As some people pointed out, continuous eye contact is actually somewhat disconcerting. When I'm listening to someone, I tend to watch their lips, particularly in high background noise environments.
No more retro-reflective license plates. So no more cop lasers. On many vehicles, the only thing that provides sufficient return for the laser pulse is the license plate. Other surfaces are either non-reflective or scatter the beam.
The cops hate my truck. Any impact with grass or brush (driving off road) bends the front plate to hell, scrapes it up and effectively makes it non reflective. I've been pulled over a few times when they get no laser return off it and told to get a new plate. Which will last for about three months.
Because the average bystander doesn't carry an RFID reader. And they need to record the plate numbers of people involved in accidents, hit-and-run, etc.
The 'why' on tabs is a better question. Police plate readers can check a stolen/expired database in seconds and report back.
Slashdot Mirror
In criminal cases THERE IS NO PLAINTIFF.
Yes there is. Its "The People v Defendant".
There is the State prosecuting a defendant.
But "The State" is my adversary, even as a third party. They are interfering with my right to a free press.
The principle differences between criminal and civil cases is the standard of proof and the penalty. Criminal cases may lead to the defendant's loss of fundamental civil rights (freedom, life) and as such have a higher standard of proof.
In this case, Alice is offered a signed immunity agreement
But Alice may not want to enter into such an agreement with the prosecutor. That's the basis of contract law: Entering into an agreement voluntarily. Alica can say, "I don't trust the prosecutor or the court to hold up their end of the bargain. So I do not wish to enter into a contract with them."
After all, they are suggesting that they will overlook and not prosecute an alleged crime: namely Alice's complicity in the misappropriation of government secrets. I wouldn't trust a person like that. Nor may Alice.
Are you certain?
Does that mean you're agreeing with me, that if defendants can't be forced to testify, then third-party witnesses shouldn't be forced to testify either?
Correct.
Our US legal system is adversarial by design. It's us (the public) against the government. So nobody should be compelled to assist them in any way.
Some more on this: Back when law enforcement needed a warrant to collect evidence on suspects, this was not the case. We could rely upon the courts to defend our rights and select those individuals for which 'reasonable grounds' existed to initiate the adversarial relationship. But now that we are all potential targets for law enforcement evidence collection, this relationship exists for everyone.
Or reporters become ordained ministers. They will be protected by the clergy-penitent privilege.
Kidding aside, the two professions share many of the same protections. Freedom of the press and of religion are covered by the same amendment and for many of the same reasons. If a reporter can be compelled to testify about a third parties' criminal activities, then why not a priest?
Why shouldn't we also give the same rights to a third-party witness who we know is innocent?
How do we know anything about the crime scene? If we did, then the prosecution job would be done and no testimony would be needed. Given the Bob/Alice scenario, how do we know that Alice is an innocent bystander? If she is not, then she has the same fifth amendment rights as Bob does.
Likewise, we don't know James Risen's role in the CIA information leak. Did he conspire with an insider to obtain the information? If so, it would seem that the Fifth Amendment applies to him as well. If the DoJ knows any different, then they can just present that to the court without the assistance of Risen's testimony. Yes, the DoJ can offer immunity and remove the self-incrimination hurdle. But immunity from what? We don't know what other illegal acts Risen may have committed in order to acquire the information and even the act of negotiating immunity may reveal other acts that the prosecution is not aware of.
Our US legal system is adversarial by design. It's us (the public) against the government. So nobody should be compelled to assist them in any way.
Bellevue, Washington.
For all intents and purposes, when you can't see any more of the driver other than the top of a little bald head over the dashboard, its already a self-driving car. And all this stuff about negotiating stop signs, occupied crosswalks and off ramps: The present drivers just plow through at 15 mph and its all good. So what's so hard about doing that in software?
In these parts, Cadillacs that miss off-ramps just back up on the freeway and try again. If they can implement this behavior in an autonomous car, I'd say they are good to go.
So, Google is voluntarily giving up the ability to scan our e-mail for adwords?
Yes, but can it make calls?
I think they've been calling the shots at Nokia since Elop took over there.
I think the parent is referring to a diffraction limited optical system. There's only so much you can do with sensors or software if the optics is inadequate.
There is also the issue of sensor noise and the resulting S/N ratio of such a small aperture.
Yes. But there's nothing buried in a chip which cannot be inspected. The hardware parameters being read are well understood and the software can be analyzed. Not so for a (possibly NSA spec'd) chip.
No problem. We'll just change tack.
April First, that is.
Chip? This is a software PRNG method. Software can be inspected.
People can't change their race. They can change their behavior. My GPS is flagging high crime areas which I am avoiding. Residents of these areas are free to either change their behavior and/or move out. At which point, the technology no longer affects them.
Employment applicability aside, avoiding crime is not a "facially neutral practice". I can easily demonstrate the equivalent of the "business necessity" defense. I don't want to get robbed or die. So I don't go to certain places.
Now I can't get anywhere near Fort Meade, Maryland.
So, let us know when Mr. Gilmore drives off a cliff some night.
All we need to do is settle on whether it is better to let 10 guilty men go free then one innocent suffer (William Blackstone) or 100 (Benjamin Franklin).
Right now, we are leaning toward the philosophy of Pol Pot: 'It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape.'
There was an article a few days ago about software to create the illusion of eye contact with video calls. As some people pointed out, continuous eye contact is actually somewhat disconcerting. When I'm listening to someone, I tend to watch their lips, particularly in high background noise environments.
No more retro-reflective license plates. So no more cop lasers. On many vehicles, the only thing that provides sufficient return for the laser pulse is the license plate. Other surfaces are either non-reflective or scatter the beam.
The cops hate my truck. Any impact with grass or brush (driving off road) bends the front plate to hell, scrapes it up and effectively makes it non reflective. I've been pulled over a few times when they get no laser return off it and told to get a new plate. Which will last for about three months.
why even make it a plate?
Because the average bystander doesn't carry an RFID reader. And they need to record the plate numbers of people involved in accidents, hit-and-run, etc.
The 'why' on tabs is a better question. Police plate readers can check a stolen/expired database in seconds and report back.