Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak). But I guess every family is different. Although I wouldn't underestimate attention, because I've got a dog that definitely thrives on it, and I'm pretty sure he's learnt he gets more attention doing good things then bad things.
But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided). So no matter how humans or apes are taught (or not taught), they do learn language. And apes at least don't always learn it from humans.
Furthermore, maybe those of us with older wireless gear (WEP w/ no WPA) can start to point the finger of blame at Linksys, Netgear, or whomever. If these companies don't supply us with the means to adequately protect our personal networks, how can we be responsible for them?
I really don't think that should be necessary. Why should I be held responsible for people coming into my home (without my knowledge) and use my DVD burner to pirate DVDs (again without my knowledge)? If I am legally responsible, then it just goes to show that the legal system is at a very sorry state, and I fear for those minority who don't lock their back door (believe it or not. People do do this).
Yeah, but people who visit slashdot aren't judges. They don't base people's guilt or innocence, depending on the type of legal case is involved in. A lot of people WILL assume innocence until they get enough facts that prove the person's guilt. It doesn't make any difference in a legal case, but it makes all the difference in a conversation between citizens.
the researchers were very lax about what they accepted as a sign, etc. they of course had their own agenda to push
While research bias (either for or against chimps communicating) is a problem that is difficult to overcome in such a strong issue (for many), I have read quite a bit on the successes. I was referring to an instance where chimpanzee's (or another primate) did create words. The example I remember is "bad+dream" for nightmare.
they imitated some key words, but didn't originate their own
Humans have the "inventing words gene," while I believe other primates don't. But that isn't a bad thing (IMO), as it allows us to continue to understand them. If they did invent new words, they would have to teach us, and their ability to teach humans (they are, after all, not equal to our intelligence) could be limited.
Having said that this article says that it's quite possible bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee) do create verbal sounds for specific things, which I presume they've invented. I don't know if it is true that they are verbal "words," but it does bear more research.
However I don't see their inability to create words as them being unable to learn language. This page (it was only a quick search, info may be a bit suspect, but it seems fairly valid and jibes with what I've read in the past) has info on both success and failures. Why I like it is because it outlines those against the results proving language's opinions, as well as those opinions who are for it. One man called Herb Terrace doesn't believe the results so far are indicative of language aquisition, but merely "aping." Some of his complaints are: * That the apes were were performing rote memorization tasks similar to pigeons who are taught to peck at colors in specific orders.
This I take issue with, because the page earlier shows an ape taking a word in one context "more" and using it in others. It isn't a simple case of "sign X always follows action Y" but instead, reasoning what sign X actually means, and applying it in other situations.
* Primates only signed in order to please their trainers, not for the personal gratification of using the signs.
I take issue with this, as many sources I've read say apes do spontaneously speak with each other. Having said that, it appears Terrace's complaints were actually made a few decades ago, and that research since then has proven him wrong. More info here
* A primate might learn to connect a sign with food and reproduce the sign through simple conditioning, just as Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell.
To be honest, is it possible to prove that human children don't speak for the same reasons? I don't think so. Think about it, when a baby is learning to speak, we heap attention and treats on them. The Pavlovian method of teaching requires this to begin with, which is then removed and the taught actions continue regardless. A problem with detractors of ape speech is that they often ask questions we can't answer when it comes to humans.
but if anyone did do some proper communicating with chimps, i don't know about it.
Unfortunately I to, do not know if anyone has. The article I linked to before, does suggest that researchers are doing their best to communicate properly with apes, but it's a hot issue for those involved. I believe current research is very indicative, but it can't silence critics yet. But I do believe it's enough (or at least enough to warrant a much more structured research program with a definitive goal of giving apes more rights) to say "y'know. Maybe we should reconsider how we treat them. Perhaps there is a better place in our society for them."
Dude, back off a bit. You can settle down. No-one's saying chimps are superior to humans. It's obvious they aren't as good as us, now it's a case of finding out how much below us they are. This can be done by comparing mature chimps with immature humans. Eventually we'll find an age where chimps and humans are equal, and we'll be able to say "on a whole, adult chimps have the intelligence of a human at age X."
But all they're saying is "chimps on a whole are smarter then humans when humans are at age X." They're not trying to say chimps are smarter then humans. Or that adult chimps can outsmart human children (excepting those who are of an age as those in the test or below).
I think part of what they're trying to do, is find out what level of intelligence chimps equal when compared with humans. Are they as intelligent as 4 year olds? How about 10 year olds? How about 13? 18? It's also interesting if adult chimps excell in some areas over humans of age X, but lag in other areas when compared with those same children. Why's that interesting? Because it helps show how the chimp brain works, and in what areas it falls short compared with humans, and possibly if chimps can beat us in any area.
It would probably eat the human child because chimps are vicious wild animals, not the cute, cuddly animals people think they are.
You know something, that is actually unfair, and highly typical of a human-supremist. Here's the article reworded slightly:
Humans come across to the public as little darlings, often in diapers and always willing to hold hands. But they're really aggressors, primate experts say, more than capable of carrying out attacks as violent as one that left a chimpanzee fighting for his life.
Generally weighing between 80 and 100 pounds, humans in the wild are known to kill humans from neighboring groups, hunt other primates and even attack chimps.
"Male humans are intensely territorial. They defend their territory against any perceived threat... Huamns can be violent at times just as chimps can be."
To say that chimps are viscious animals, is to say humans are viscious animals. Chimps can act in a certain away towards others, it doesn't mean they do it all the time.
Yes,unfortunately the most likely answer is, whatever our brains have that promoted verbal communication, their brains lack. They can understand verbal communication, and are able to communicate with us by sign language (and if you claim that isn't reason of intelligence, then I've got some deaf and mute people for you to meet). The only difference between humans and chimps, is that we created the methods of communicating, they do need some help to create language (but are able to do "create words" by merging two seperate ideas in order to make up for what they may lack in their vocabulary).
I find it interesting that continuously we prove to ourselves that while apes can't reason, think or act on a human adult level, they are able to do so on a level above or equal the human child/mentally handicaped adult. And yet, we continue to deny them equal rights to children/retards. It says a lot about our society on the whole I think.
They're alienating me by doing so. And while I, one person, might not matter to them. I don't really care if they do continue once I'm alienated, because I'll be enjoying myself with other forms of entertainment. They can continue to succeed or fail as far as I'm concerned.
As long as YOU don't get to pick a product, you're just arguing about the size of the dildo up your ass and how hard some creativity-challenged accountant is ramming it up there.
I personally wouldn't want any product placement in my tv shows, and if I ever notice it, the show/movie is going to have to be DAMN good for me to overlook it. I choose, by boycotting shows/movies that do it in a manner that is too damn obvious.
I say, "Freedom of the media comes from having control over what we fill our senses with." I am referring to the fact that until we get around the oligipolies, we are just pawns in their game.
But you do have the choice. Watch it or don't. For those that MUST have their television shows, there is a growing amount of amateur stuff available on the web. But I personally believe it's going to be growing much too slowly for it to make any difference within my lifetime (although I might be being a bit too pessimistic with this timeframe). But then again, I watch very little tv, and what tv I do watch, I don't have a problem with product placement (if it's present, I'm not noticing it).
How are you winning? You still don't get the content. I guess if your aim is to avoid advertising then yeah, you win. But I'm willing to bet most people DON'T watch tv to avoid adverts, but instead watch it to watch entertaining products (or to watch shows where they don't need to think).
Agreed. Believe it or not, I actually liked I, Robot. But why is a movie having to resort to such blatant product placement? Is it greed? Or are they truly unable to produce a profit without it?
I'm guessing it's that the studio overall doesn't just have to cover the movie itself, but also all of the bombs it made that year. If only it was possible to have a better screening process so that the better movies were made. Would it help if they looked for good movies, rather then movies they think will sell well?
It's nice to see the revenue battle not taking the form of buying congressmen for once. It's a battle between those who don't view commercials (which means less money for advertising slots), and the need for the television company to make money. The latest move is to include product-placement. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then those tv shows will be doomed (or they'll stop doing it). It is an interesting battle, as it shows the problem of having entertainment for free. I think the internet sidesteps this issue as the cost is much lower, so more people creating the content are willing to be out of pocket. Unfortunately with tv, this just isn't an option because of the large budgets.
It could mean the death of tv as we know it. Although I believe that if it does mean the death of tv, tv shows will continue to live in DVD releases (as the audience directly pays for the product and has been successful).
With NASA not even putting people in space, instead paying others to, it will be yet another step in furthering NASA away from... well anything involving space. After all, once a company does this, eventually people will begin to ask "what is NASA needed for? Can't we just have this company do it? We'll be able to save money if we cut out the NASA overhead and replace it with a smaller group."
Thank god this will be help in furthering private space-flight. If NASA has to be destroyed, at least they're doing it in a way that will give a boost to the private space industry.
Or perhaps Google simply censors those who don't say good things about google (and if you don't think firing people for speaking has a censoring effect on free speech I've got a bridge to sell to you).
They have to be ex-googlers, because Google, like many other companies, see's people talking about their employer on their own time as a sackable offense. The First Ammendment is only for the government, so there's no way to stop employers from sacking people who dare to exercise their first ammendment rights during non-working hours.
Shouldn't they need a search warrant (that requires probable cause) to get any of my information from the phone company? It mentions a warrant of some kind was needed. Shouldn't probable cause be required for all warrants? Want to search my home? The police need probable cause. Want to search my bank records, I'd like to hope you need probable cause. Want to find out who I've rung up? I hope you need probable cause. Want to follow me, I'd hope you need probable cause.
If I'm on an investigation and I need to know where somebody is located who might be committing a crime, or, worse, might have a hostage, real-time knowledge of where this person is could be a matter of life or death."
Let's pretend he doesn't have a phone. Don't you need probable cause to search through his belongings (home/work-place/car)? Tough luck mate. But you can't just screw people over in the name of national security. Well, at least you couldn't.....
corroborating their whereabouts with witness accounts
Well get probable cause. Sheeesh. Or ask the person to give the police permission to look at his phone record location.
or helping build a case for a wiretap on the phone
Wait, you want to be able to access someone's phone records willy-nilly, so you can build up a case to access their phone records even more? Am I the only one to think this is crazy?
And the government is not required to report publicly when it makes such requests.
Now that's scary. I can understand them wanting to keep it quiet at the time it's happening, but come on. A week, or at most a month, should be sufficient time to no longer be crucial, especially if you're using it to obtain a hostage or arrest them. The only reason to keep it secret indefinitely is so you can to pull the wool over people's eyes as you widdle away their civil liberties.
Prosecutors, while acknowledging that they have to get a court order before obtaining real-time cell-site data, argue that the relevant standard is found in a 1994 amendment to the 1986 Stored Communications Act, a law that governs some aspects of cellphone surveillance.
That's a joke. How could the congressmen in 1986 have any idea what sort of application and usage cell-phones would have 10 years in the future? They probably gave wide-powers to the police, because at the time, it wasn't possible (and perhaps not even thinkable) for them to use those powers. You can't blame them for not forseeing the future, and to claim they did and that the law should still be used is ridiculous. That's like claiming the right to bear arms in the constitution gives every citizen the right to have nuclear weapons. There was no way nuclear weapons were invisaged when America was formed.
The standard calls for the government to show "specific and articulable facts" that demonstrate that the records sought are "relevant and material to an ongoing investigation" - a standard lower than the probable-cause hurdle.
The language is very telling. "Oh it's just a necessity in our way. We don't need to worry about that." I believe perhaps the standard should be raised, especially with an opinion like that.
Prosecutors in the recent cases also unsuccessfully argued that the expanded police powers under the USA Patriot Act could be read as allowing cellphone tracking under a standard lower than probable cause.
God bless us. Every one. (Thankfully they have been unsuccessful, although is that 100% of the time? I don't think so.)
In the digital era, what's on the envelope and what's inside of it, "have absolutely blurred," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy advocacy group.
And so the prosecution predictably wants it to be treated as if it were all on the envelope.
And that makes it harder for courts to determine whether a certain digital surveillance method invokes Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing has been happening for ever.
Agreed. But the question is, is it our fault this time? People die all the time. But that doesn't mean I can get away with murder.
Not only all that, but Microsoft did the online thing before anyone else.
Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak). But I guess every family is different. Although I wouldn't underestimate attention, because I've got a dog that definitely thrives on it, and I'm pretty sure he's learnt he gets more attention doing good things then bad things.
But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided). So no matter how humans or apes are taught (or not taught), they do learn language. And apes at least don't always learn it from humans.
Furthermore, maybe those of us with older wireless gear (WEP w/ no WPA) can start to point the finger of blame at Linksys, Netgear, or whomever. If these companies don't supply us with the means to adequately protect our personal networks, how can we be responsible for them?
I really don't think that should be necessary. Why should I be held responsible for people coming into my home (without my knowledge) and use my DVD burner to pirate DVDs (again without my knowledge)? If I am legally responsible, then it just goes to show that the legal system is at a very sorry state, and I fear for those minority who don't lock their back door (believe it or not. People do do this).
Yeah, but people who visit slashdot aren't judges. They don't base people's guilt or innocence, depending on the type of legal case is involved in. A lot of people WILL assume innocence until they get enough facts that prove the person's guilt. It doesn't make any difference in a legal case, but it makes all the difference in a conversation between citizens.
the researchers were very lax about what they accepted as a sign, etc.
they of course had their own agenda to push
While research bias (either for or against chimps communicating) is a problem that is difficult to overcome in such a strong issue (for many), I have read quite a bit on the successes. I was referring to an instance where chimpanzee's (or another primate) did create words. The example I remember is "bad+dream" for nightmare.
they imitated some key words, but didn't originate their own
Humans have the "inventing words gene," while I believe other primates don't. But that isn't a bad thing (IMO), as it allows us to continue to understand them. If they did invent new words, they would have to teach us, and their ability to teach humans (they are, after all, not equal to our intelligence) could be limited.
Having said that this article says that it's quite possible bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee) do create verbal sounds for specific things, which I presume they've invented. I don't know if it is true that they are verbal "words," but it does bear more research.
However I don't see their inability to create words as them being unable to learn language. This page (it was only a quick search, info may be a bit suspect, but it seems fairly valid and jibes with what I've read in the past) has info on both success and failures. Why I like it is because it outlines those against the results proving language's opinions, as well as those opinions who are for it. One man called Herb Terrace doesn't believe the results so far are indicative of language aquisition, but merely "aping." Some of his complaints are:
* That the apes were were performing rote memorization tasks similar to pigeons who are taught to peck at colors in specific orders.
This I take issue with, because the page earlier shows an ape taking a word in one context "more" and using it in others. It isn't a simple case of "sign X always follows action Y" but instead, reasoning what sign X actually means, and applying it in other situations.
* Primates only signed in order to please their trainers, not for the personal gratification of using the signs.
I take issue with this, as many sources I've read say apes do spontaneously speak with each other. Having said that, it appears Terrace's complaints were actually made a few decades ago, and that research since then has proven him wrong. More info here
* A primate might learn to connect a sign with food and reproduce the sign through simple conditioning, just as Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell.
To be honest, is it possible to prove that human children don't speak for the same reasons? I don't think so. Think about it, when a baby is learning to speak, we heap attention and treats on them. The Pavlovian method of teaching requires this to begin with, which is then removed and the taught actions continue regardless. A problem with detractors of ape speech is that they often ask questions we can't answer when it comes to humans.
but if anyone did do some proper communicating with chimps, i don't know about it.
Unfortunately I to, do not know if anyone has. The article I linked to before, does suggest that researchers are doing their best to communicate properly with apes, but it's a hot issue for those involved. I believe current research is very indicative, but it can't silence critics yet. But I do believe it's enough (or at least enough to warrant a much more structured research program with a definitive goal of giving apes more rights) to say "y'know. Maybe we should reconsider how we treat them. Perhaps there is a better place in our society for them."
Dude, back off a bit. You can settle down. No-one's saying chimps are superior to humans. It's obvious they aren't as good as us, now it's a case of finding out how much below us they are. This can be done by comparing mature chimps with immature humans. Eventually we'll find an age where chimps and humans are equal, and we'll be able to say "on a whole, adult chimps have the intelligence of a human at age X."
But all they're saying is "chimps on a whole are smarter then humans when humans are at age X." They're not trying to say chimps are smarter then humans. Or that adult chimps can outsmart human children (excepting those who are of an age as those in the test or below).
I think part of what they're trying to do, is find out what level of intelligence chimps equal when compared with humans. Are they as intelligent as 4 year olds? How about 10 year olds? How about 13? 18? It's also interesting if adult chimps excell in some areas over humans of age X, but lag in other areas when compared with those same children. Why's that interesting? Because it helps show how the chimp brain works, and in what areas it falls short compared with humans, and possibly if chimps can beat us in any area.
It would probably eat the human child because chimps are vicious wild animals, not the cute, cuddly animals people think they are.
You know something, that is actually unfair, and highly typical of a human-supremist. Here's the article reworded slightly:
Humans come across to the public as little darlings, often in diapers and always willing to hold hands. But they're really aggressors, primate experts say, more than capable of carrying out attacks as violent as one that left a chimpanzee fighting for his life.
Generally weighing between 80 and 100 pounds, humans in the wild are known to kill humans from neighboring groups, hunt other primates and even attack chimps.
"Male humans are intensely territorial. They defend their territory against any perceived threat... Huamns can be violent at times just as chimps can be."
To say that chimps are viscious animals, is to say humans are viscious animals. Chimps can act in a certain away towards others, it doesn't mean they do it all the time.
While politically incorrect, perpetuating unfair stereotypes about our homosapien cousins, it was damn funny.
Yes,unfortunately the most likely answer is, whatever our brains have that promoted verbal communication, their brains lack. They can understand verbal communication, and are able to communicate with us by sign language (and if you claim that isn't reason of intelligence, then I've got some deaf and mute people for you to meet). The only difference between humans and chimps, is that we created the methods of communicating, they do need some help to create language (but are able to do "create words" by merging two seperate ideas in order to make up for what they may lack in their vocabulary).
I find it interesting that continuously we prove to ourselves that while apes can't reason, think or act on a human adult level, they are able to do so on a level above or equal the human child/mentally handicaped adult. And yet, we continue to deny them equal rights to children/retards. It says a lot about our society on the whole I think.
They're alienating me by doing so. And while I, one person, might not matter to them. I don't really care if they do continue once I'm alienated, because I'll be enjoying myself with other forms of entertainment. They can continue to succeed or fail as far as I'm concerned.
As long as YOU don't get to pick a product, you're just arguing about the size of the dildo up your ass and how hard some creativity-challenged accountant is ramming it up there.
I personally wouldn't want any product placement in my tv shows, and if I ever notice it, the show/movie is going to have to be DAMN good for me to overlook it. I choose, by boycotting shows/movies that do it in a manner that is too damn obvious.
I say, "Freedom of the media comes from having control over what we fill our senses with." I am referring to the fact that until we get around the oligipolies, we are just pawns in their game.
But you do have the choice. Watch it or don't. For those that MUST have their television shows, there is a growing amount of amateur stuff available on the web. But I personally believe it's going to be growing much too slowly for it to make any difference within my lifetime (although I might be being a bit too pessimistic with this timeframe). But then again, I watch very little tv, and what tv I do watch, I don't have a problem with product placement (if it's present, I'm not noticing it).
How are you winning? You still don't get the content. I guess if your aim is to avoid advertising then yeah, you win. But I'm willing to bet most people DON'T watch tv to avoid adverts, but instead watch it to watch entertaining products (or to watch shows where they don't need to think).
Agreed. Believe it or not, I actually liked I, Robot. But why is a movie having to resort to such blatant product placement? Is it greed? Or are they truly unable to produce a profit without it?
I'm guessing it's that the studio overall doesn't just have to cover the movie itself, but also all of the bombs it made that year. If only it was possible to have a better screening process so that the better movies were made. Would it help if they looked for good movies, rather then movies they think will sell well?
It's nice to see the revenue battle not taking the form of buying congressmen for once. It's a battle between those who don't view commercials (which means less money for advertising slots), and the need for the television company to make money. The latest move is to include product-placement. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then those tv shows will be doomed (or they'll stop doing it). It is an interesting battle, as it shows the problem of having entertainment for free. I think the internet sidesteps this issue as the cost is much lower, so more people creating the content are willing to be out of pocket. Unfortunately with tv, this just isn't an option because of the large budgets.
It could mean the death of tv as we know it. Although I believe that if it does mean the death of tv, tv shows will continue to live in DVD releases (as the audience directly pays for the product and has been successful).
If they fail to perform their duties (write "truth" that can be confirmed), then they will be fired and possibly shunned from the journalism industry.
2005 called. It wants you to join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
Is it commercially viable to go to Mars?
I doubt NASA will get there anyway. But I hope to be wrong.
This is just another step in NASA's eventual demise that I spoke about earlier.
With NASA not even putting people in space, instead paying others to, it will be yet another step in furthering NASA away from... well anything involving space. After all, once a company does this, eventually people will begin to ask "what is NASA needed for? Can't we just have this company do it? We'll be able to save money if we cut out the NASA overhead and replace it with a smaller group."
Thank god this will be help in furthering private space-flight. If NASA has to be destroyed, at least they're doing it in a way that will give a boost to the private space industry.
Unless they've had a recent policy change, that's completely untrue. At least one guy has been fired (the article itself is a bit iffy on if he was fired for that reason but this blog clears up any ambiguity).
Or perhaps Google simply censors those who don't say good things about google (and if you don't think firing people for speaking has a censoring effect on free speech I've got a bridge to sell to you).
They have to be ex-googlers, because Google, like many other companies, see's people talking about their employer on their own time as a sackable offense. The First Ammendment is only for the government, so there's no way to stop employers from sacking people who dare to exercise their first ammendment rights during non-working hours.
Depends on if they're European women or not.
Wouldn't they have to change it significantly to avoid getting sued by OSC?
I'd say there'll be at least two balls per player.
Shouldn't they need a search warrant (that requires probable cause) to get any of my information from the phone company? It mentions a warrant of some kind was needed. Shouldn't probable cause be required for all warrants? Want to search my home? The police need probable cause. Want to search my bank records, I'd like to hope you need probable cause. Want to find out who I've rung up? I hope you need probable cause. Want to follow me, I'd hope you need probable cause.
If I'm on an investigation and I need to know where somebody is located who might be committing a crime, or, worse, might have a hostage, real-time knowledge of where this person is could be a matter of life or death."
Let's pretend he doesn't have a phone. Don't you need probable cause to search through his belongings (home/work-place/car)? Tough luck mate. But you can't just screw people over in the name of national security. Well, at least you couldn't.....
corroborating their whereabouts with witness accounts
Well get probable cause. Sheeesh. Or ask the person to give the police permission to look at his phone record location.
or helping build a case for a wiretap on the phone
Wait, you want to be able to access someone's phone records willy-nilly, so you can build up a case to access their phone records even more? Am I the only one to think this is crazy?
And the government is not required to report publicly when it makes such requests.
Now that's scary. I can understand them wanting to keep it quiet at the time it's happening, but come on. A week, or at most a month, should be sufficient time to no longer be crucial, especially if you're using it to obtain a hostage or arrest them. The only reason to keep it secret indefinitely is so you can to pull the wool over people's eyes as you widdle away their civil liberties.
Prosecutors, while acknowledging that they have to get a court order before obtaining real-time cell-site data, argue that the relevant standard is found in a 1994 amendment to the 1986 Stored Communications Act, a law that governs some aspects of cellphone surveillance.
That's a joke. How could the congressmen in 1986 have any idea what sort of application and usage cell-phones would have 10 years in the future? They probably gave wide-powers to the police, because at the time, it wasn't possible (and perhaps not even thinkable) for them to use those powers. You can't blame them for not forseeing the future, and to claim they did and that the law should still be used is ridiculous. That's like claiming the right to bear arms in the constitution gives every citizen the right to have nuclear weapons. There was no way nuclear weapons were invisaged when America was formed.
The standard calls for the government to show "specific and articulable facts" that demonstrate that the records sought are "relevant and material to an ongoing investigation" - a standard lower than the probable-cause hurdle.
The language is very telling. "Oh it's just a necessity in our way. We don't need to worry about that." I believe perhaps the standard should be raised, especially with an opinion like that.
Prosecutors in the recent cases also unsuccessfully argued that the expanded police powers under the USA Patriot Act could be read as allowing cellphone tracking under a standard lower than probable cause.
God bless us. Every one. (Thankfully they have been unsuccessful, although is that 100% of the time? I don't think so.)
In the digital era, what's on the envelope and what's inside of it, "have absolutely blurred," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy advocacy group.
And so the prosecution predictably wants it to be treated as if it were all on the envelope.
And that makes it harder for courts to determine whether a certain digital surveillance method invokes Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.