No disagreement here. I just want to reiterate the idea that if something is explicitly spelled out in the constitution, it is much harder to trample over. Yeah, some of the things that are spelled out in our constitution have been trampled over, but the fact that they were spelled out may be what kept them from being trampled for 200 years.
Are imaginary papers protected under the 4th amendment?
I can't see why they shouldn't be. Yes, I can imagine a world where those files are considered immune to this amendment, but on the other hand, I can imagine a world where car trunks are also considered immune. I can imagine lots of worlds where the government gets away with unjust and irrational distinctions, but I don't believe that a Constitution alone can prevent that.
Well then I think you give your fellow man too much credit. The people around you really believe there are "tubes" and "clouds." Your average rational person generally understands that these rights apply to physical issues like car trunks or briefcases or whatnot. It is a lot easier to convince that same man that his password or encryption key is not protected because it is not a real physical object.
What you say is logically and factually true, but have you not been paying attention to the court system? If an activist court decides that a tail is a leg, then within the jurisdiction of that court, a tail is most definitely a leg, and any attempt to prove otherwise would be shot down by precedent. Courts can determine if a terrorist is a terrorist or not, if a certain type of weapon applies to the second amendment, and what the definition of "search and seizure" is. Once the courts decide something, it is a lot more difficult to get that overturned than it would be to have it explicitly spelled out from the beginning.
I like that idea. Instead of distinguishing between digital right and non-digital rights, simply specify within the constitution that rights should be interpreted as broadly as possibly, not as limited as possible. Or even better. The only limiting factors to constitutional rights bust be spelled out within the constitution itself (i.e. not by wishy washy congress or activist judges).
But really, those things still don't make digital rights a special case. The real questions are, do you have freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? What about a right to privacy? If you can answer those questions, those rights should be protected regardless of the technology.
The particulars about how those rights are protected will have to change over time, as the culture and technology change. Those can be individual laws and court cases, but probably shouldn't be in a constitution.
Your argument makes the assumption that rights are considered the same whether they are digital or otherwise. This isn't necessarily true. There is absolutely nothing that would stop an activist court from deciding that some right isn't actually protected simply because it's digital. I'll even give you an example. Consider the 4th amendment, which outlines the right of citizens to be free against unreasonable searches and seizures. Are imaginary papers protected under the 4th amendment? Can you not imagine a world where it is decided that digital files are considered immune from this amendment?
At the very least, I think it could be helpful to outline and spell out the simple ideas that digital property is real property, and that rights do apply even within the digital domain.
Yet no one ever goes to jail for issuing false warrants.
I agree that is a problem, but that signals to me that the system needs to be fixed, not overhauled. I'm not really sure what the situation is to the problem we are discussing, but I'm also fairly certain that the solution you suggest would be just as inappropriate.
Ok I agree there. But change the argument just a little. Instead of getting the warrant for something that will get thrown out, get the warrant for some victimless, harmless crime, that has minimal penalties. Then use the warrant to "stumble upon" incriminating evidence for harsher crimes. Now will it work?
The problem I see with your argument is that at some point in time the police did have a valid warrant, signed by a judge, which directed their course of action. Based on this legal document, the police then acted accordingly, and LEGALLY. If the warrant was later found to be invalid for any reason, then all evidence stemming from the warrant is thrown out. That is how it generally works now. Just because the warrant was later found to be invalid, you can't take the police officer's legal actions and retroactively make them illegal. That would be a perfect example of an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.
Warrants are thrown out all the time. Sometimes it is thrown out because the police officers left out some facts, or because the issuing judge gives them out too easily, or for any number of reasons. It isn't always the officer's fault and it isn't always the judge's fault, so pinning all the blame on one or the other in one fell swoop wouldn't work very well. These things should probably be worked out on a case by case basis, which is how it is currently done.
Right, I agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, if i remember correctly, there was quite a bit of testimony and physical evidence that was allowed in the civil suite that was barred from the criminal case. All that evidence probably had a role to play in the different verdict as well.
Do you not see how everything you said applies to your own post as well, and to mine? That mean's you're either a hypocrite, too stupid to realize, or haven't had your morning coffee yet. Also, there is no other forum to discuss this particular topic in, and no other way to resolve the situation, so what would you have the OP do?
I wonder what evidence they could have found about hacking into the school's computers to change grades. Would he be stupid enough to keep a log of all IP numbers he connected to so there would be a nice trail to follow right to the school's sever? If someone hacked a server, wouldn't you need to look at that server to find evidence that there was a connection with a particular person/IP number?
It seems ridiculous to the point of absurdity that they even put that in the warrant in the first place.
You make it sound as if address tracking was the only possible evidence that could be found that would prove this type of hacking. What if the school's grade changing program had a simple web based interface, and that website was conveniently bookmarked in this guy's browser. And then let's say the police found some type of program that was commonly used to crack various passwords? Maybe this guy was stupid enough to have a long string of various emails saved from the past few months that discuss his grade changing ability? Pick two out of the above three, and you probably have enough proof to convince the university to take a closer look at their own server. If something is found, then THAT would be the proof that neatly ties up all the rest of the circumstantial evidence.
The fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine will make step 1 nuke step 2.
Except that is almost exactly what the judge in this case suggested the police should have done. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is the police already had a pretty good idea what "actual crime" they would try to find evidence for.
I'm pretty sure illegally seized evidence can be used in civil cases. I'm pretty sure civil cases have a much higher "conviction rate" than criminal cases precisely because, in general, there is a much lower standard to meet. This applies to the final finding as well as how to determine if some issue or item is admissible as evidence. That's why you see things like OJ Simpson getting acquitted of murder but losing millions of dollars in the civil suit.
I don't think it works that way. Just because a warrant was later found to be invalid does not necessarily mean the police were acting illegally. I think the judge would say that as long as the police were acting "in good faith" or whatever, then they can't be touched. Unless of course they did something totally heinous or overreaching, in which case the warrant issue would have nothing to do with it. Also, I think I should point out that in general, the legality of the police actions and the admissibility of any evidence found are two separate issues.
Al Capone, is that you?
How is that posting flamebait? I think the logic is sound.
If you are going to break an inane or unenforceable law, Don't break other laws that draw attention to yourself or give the authorities an easier way to get you convicted. The only way I can see that post as flamebait is if the moderator got caught drunk driving AND the post was directed at him personally. Or maybe you just have something against slashdot's newest member, Anonymous Cowardon?
What gets me is this: "the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search"
There shouldn't be a lawsuit because the issues involved are similar to a case that was decided ALMOST 20 YEARS PREVIOUSLY??
Thank you for your concern, but I have not killed any babies or shot up a wedding. You seem to have strong opinions about the United States Military. Why don't you express those feelings while logged in so we can all see?
No, we have a local Afghan internet service provider. Of course there are military computers all over base, but we cannot use them for personal use . . especially not to install software and dl music.
As a deployed American soldier (Afghanistan) who has downloaded many songs from Itunes over the last year, I just have to say this change is ridiculous!
That is all.
He probably means that at home (or his parents home) he has a 100GB cap. When he is at his dorm in college, he has a 5GB cap. So dealing with a 5GB cap on most days, and then going home and having 20 times that, he doesn't have to worry so much.
how about the one where that one side convinces it's followers that it's less corrupt than the other side, and (perhaps) takes LESS money from special interests, even though the full disclosure sites show they actually took at least as much, if not more money?
What bugs me about this election, more than any other, is that the sides are polarizing. As a student of history, this is setting off alarm bells.
Republicans and Democratics: Zelotry will get you in trouble.
Usually the complaint is that the two parties are so alike you can't tell who is for what. Now there's a problem when the two parties have different beliefs and fight for them? I'd rather have polarized parties who fight for their beliefs and for the ideals they were voted in for, rather than all this "compromise" where the only ones who win are the rich and the government.
Slashdot Mirror
No disagreement here. I just want to reiterate the idea that if something is explicitly spelled out in the constitution, it is much harder to trample over. Yeah, some of the things that are spelled out in our constitution have been trampled over, but the fact that they were spelled out may be what kept them from being trampled for 200 years.
Are imaginary papers protected under the 4th amendment?
I can't see why they shouldn't be. Yes, I can imagine a world where those files are considered immune to this amendment, but on the other hand, I can imagine a world where car trunks are also considered immune. I can imagine lots of worlds where the government gets away with unjust and irrational distinctions, but I don't believe that a Constitution alone can prevent that.
Well then I think you give your fellow man too much credit. The people around you really believe there are "tubes" and "clouds." Your average rational person generally understands that these rights apply to physical issues like car trunks or briefcases or whatnot. It is a lot easier to convince that same man that his password or encryption key is not protected because it is not a real physical object.
What you say is logically and factually true, but have you not been paying attention to the court system? If an activist court decides that a tail is a leg, then within the jurisdiction of that court, a tail is most definitely a leg, and any attempt to prove otherwise would be shot down by precedent. Courts can determine if a terrorist is a terrorist or not, if a certain type of weapon applies to the second amendment, and what the definition of "search and seizure" is. Once the courts decide something, it is a lot more difficult to get that overturned than it would be to have it explicitly spelled out from the beginning.
Mod UP! That is exactly what I was trying to say a few posts up, but you explain it much more concisely.
I like that idea. Instead of distinguishing between digital right and non-digital rights, simply specify within the constitution that rights should be interpreted as broadly as possibly, not as limited as possible. Or even better. The only limiting factors to constitutional rights bust be spelled out within the constitution itself (i.e. not by wishy washy congress or activist judges).
But really, those things still don't make digital rights a special case. The real questions are, do you have freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? What about a right to privacy? If you can answer those questions, those rights should be protected regardless of the technology.
The particulars about how those rights are protected will have to change over time, as the culture and technology change. Those can be individual laws and court cases, but probably shouldn't be in a constitution.
Your argument makes the assumption that rights are considered the same whether they are digital or otherwise. This isn't necessarily true. There is absolutely nothing that would stop an activist court from deciding that some right isn't actually protected simply because it's digital. I'll even give you an example. Consider the 4th amendment, which outlines the right of citizens to be free against unreasonable searches and seizures. Are imaginary papers protected under the 4th amendment? Can you not imagine a world where it is decided that digital files are considered immune from this amendment? At the very least, I think it could be helpful to outline and spell out the simple ideas that digital property is real property, and that rights do apply even within the digital domain.
Yet no one ever goes to jail for issuing false warrants.
I agree that is a problem, but that signals to me that the system needs to be fixed, not overhauled. I'm not really sure what the situation is to the problem we are discussing, but I'm also fairly certain that the solution you suggest would be just as inappropriate.
Ok I agree there. But change the argument just a little. Instead of getting the warrant for something that will get thrown out, get the warrant for some victimless, harmless crime, that has minimal penalties. Then use the warrant to "stumble upon" incriminating evidence for harsher crimes. Now will it work?
The problem I see with your argument is that at some point in time the police did have a valid warrant, signed by a judge, which directed their course of action. Based on this legal document, the police then acted accordingly, and LEGALLY. If the warrant was later found to be invalid for any reason, then all evidence stemming from the warrant is thrown out. That is how it generally works now. Just because the warrant was later found to be invalid, you can't take the police officer's legal actions and retroactively make them illegal. That would be a perfect example of an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional. Warrants are thrown out all the time. Sometimes it is thrown out because the police officers left out some facts, or because the issuing judge gives them out too easily, or for any number of reasons. It isn't always the officer's fault and it isn't always the judge's fault, so pinning all the blame on one or the other in one fell swoop wouldn't work very well. These things should probably be worked out on a case by case basis, which is how it is currently done.
Right, I agree with what you are saying, but at the same time, if i remember correctly, there was quite a bit of testimony and physical evidence that was allowed in the civil suite that was barred from the criminal case. All that evidence probably had a role to play in the different verdict as well.
Do you not see how everything you said applies to your own post as well, and to mine? That mean's you're either a hypocrite, too stupid to realize, or haven't had your morning coffee yet. Also, there is no other forum to discuss this particular topic in, and no other way to resolve the situation, so what would you have the OP do?
I wonder what evidence they could have found about hacking into the school's computers to change grades. Would he be stupid enough to keep a log of all IP numbers he connected to so there would be a nice trail to follow right to the school's sever? If someone hacked a server, wouldn't you need to look at that server to find evidence that there was a connection with a particular person/IP number? It seems ridiculous to the point of absurdity that they even put that in the warrant in the first place.
You make it sound as if address tracking was the only possible evidence that could be found that would prove this type of hacking. What if the school's grade changing program had a simple web based interface, and that website was conveniently bookmarked in this guy's browser. And then let's say the police found some type of program that was commonly used to crack various passwords? Maybe this guy was stupid enough to have a long string of various emails saved from the past few months that discuss his grade changing ability? Pick two out of the above three, and you probably have enough proof to convince the university to take a closer look at their own server. If something is found, then THAT would be the proof that neatly ties up all the rest of the circumstantial evidence.
Won't work in theory.
The fruit of a poisoned tree doctrine will make step 1 nuke step 2.
Except that is almost exactly what the judge in this case suggested the police should have done. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is the police already had a pretty good idea what "actual crime" they would try to find evidence for.
I'm pretty sure illegally seized evidence can be used in civil cases. I'm pretty sure civil cases have a much higher "conviction rate" than criminal cases precisely because, in general, there is a much lower standard to meet. This applies to the final finding as well as how to determine if some issue or item is admissible as evidence. That's why you see things like OJ Simpson getting acquitted of murder but losing millions of dollars in the civil suit.
I don't think it works that way. Just because a warrant was later found to be invalid does not necessarily mean the police were acting illegally. I think the judge would say that as long as the police were acting "in good faith" or whatever, then they can't be touched. Unless of course they did something totally heinous or overreaching, in which case the warrant issue would have nothing to do with it. Also, I think I should point out that in general, the legality of the police actions and the admissibility of any evidence found are two separate issues.
Al Capone, is that you? How is that posting flamebait? I think the logic is sound. If you are going to break an inane or unenforceable law, Don't break other laws that draw attention to yourself or give the authorities an easier way to get you convicted. The only way I can see that post as flamebait is if the moderator got caught drunk driving AND the post was directed at him personally. Or maybe you just have something against slashdot's newest member, Anonymous Cowardon?
If the 13 abstentions had joined the 11 who voted against this, then it would have failed!
What gets me is this: "the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search" There shouldn't be a lawsuit because the issues involved are similar to a case that was decided ALMOST 20 YEARS PREVIOUSLY??
Thank you for your concern, but I have not killed any babies or shot up a wedding. You seem to have strong opinions about the United States Military. Why don't you express those feelings while logged in so we can all see?
No, we have a local Afghan internet service provider. Of course there are military computers all over base, but we cannot use them for personal use . . especially not to install software and dl music.
As a deployed American soldier (Afghanistan) who has downloaded many songs from Itunes over the last year, I just have to say this change is ridiculous! That is all.
He probably means that at home (or his parents home) he has a 100GB cap. When he is at his dorm in college, he has a 5GB cap. So dealing with a 5GB cap on most days, and then going home and having 20 times that, he doesn't have to worry so much.
"Your mom goes to college" was the funniest line in that movie. True story.
Seriously, I've never heard of S3. Are they not sold at normal stores like Best Buy?
how about the one where that one side convinces it's followers that it's less corrupt than the other side, and (perhaps) takes LESS money from special interests, even though the full disclosure sites show they actually took at least as much, if not more money?
What bugs me about this election, more than any other, is that the sides are polarizing. As a student of history, this is setting off alarm bells.
Republicans and Democratics: Zelotry will get you in trouble.
Usually the complaint is that the two parties are so alike you can't tell who is for what. Now there's a problem when the two parties have different beliefs and fight for them? I'd rather have polarized parties who fight for their beliefs and for the ideals they were voted in for, rather than all this "compromise" where the only ones who win are the rich and the government.