In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal.
Not so cut and dried in the USA. I am in no way trying to dispute what you said....'illegal' my not be the best term to use, but in reality that is what it seems to 'appear as' to the unwashed masses. See here:USA==Let me see your papers, please! Inside of the USA, you are not required any 'ID papers' to move around or cross state borders. *opens worm can* To get around in the USA will eventually require some sort of ID. It may be to cash your paycheck to get a bus ticket, or provide a lot of personal info for a car loan, or credit/debit card, etc....
If you are the driver of a vehicle in the USA, then you have most likely signed a waiver to get your drivers license that allows the state to demand that ID at request. If you are not the driver, then it gets stickier, and if you are on foot, you are toast unless you have enough cash in pocket to avoid the local 'vagrancy laws'.
Mostly it boils down to how much effort/time/resources you want to use to combat it, and where you are and the specific circumstances.
Federal law, no ID required for in country travel State law, generally the same...but depends on if, and where you get 'pulled over' 'Local Law", generally a 'crap-shoot' YMMV, determined by your tenacity and pocketbook
I was going to reply to your comment above until I saw this one. *kill two birds with one stone time* Even if we go with the assumption that we all RTFA, all we are seeing as 'evidence/facts' is the arrestee's blog. That is hardly enough data points to come to any unbiased conclusion.
I am not arguing that the security guards and cops were in the right. Not at all! All I am saying is, that you are getting riled up over some dude's self-edited blog post. There is no corroborative evidence/data; not even any adversarial evidence is presented!
Get a grip!
Now, if this account turns out to be both complete and factual, then your outrage is justified, and I will jump in at your side....but it is far from complete, it's just the affected party's blog.
The 'wisest old man' that I ever knew told me that there were three sides to every story: 1. My side 2. Your side 3. What actually happened
I have never known him to be wrong about that in my 51 years on this planet....Thanks, Grandfather!
I agree with the 'get an attorney' advice in general. But... I'm dubious about the 'facts' and limited data we have access to for this discussion. Something just smells fishy to me. Why did he not comment on the charges? Why the highly 'self edited' version of the discussion between him and the cops? (yes, I read his blog/TFA) I think we are going off 'half-cocked' here, given the available info.
I know for some reason/. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
It's all a matter of context and, thus, perspective. "What's the issue?" "Who is involved"
Add in the public perception of lawyers in general*, multiplied by a/. geek's 'personal cause' factor==extreme vitriol.
As an experiment/exercise to test this, take some of your 'personal causes' and set up a 'pro'-'con' table for each of them. You need to be as open minded and objective as you can be to do this.
I defy you to not be able to come up with 'pros' for stuff you are 'against', nor 'cons' for stuff you support.
I have personally known both 'good'** lawyers, and some that needed taken out and shot for the good of mankind, and some at various points in between...just like any other profession.
Lawyers attract more attention than a lot of professions do because of the impact they have on all of us. Even if it's a 'trickle-down effect', it still affects us. (hint: notice how vilified RIAA lawyers are here)
Most of our decision makers are lawyers: Senators, Congressmen, Judges, Presidents, etc... Our antipathy with politicians spills over into 'they are/were lawyers' in the publics eye.
* the old cliche of: 'a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch' comes into play here. NYCL, here on/. comes to mind as taking flack for the likes of Jack Thompson, just because of both being lawyers. (well, at least NYCL is still a lawyer!)
**good meaning: ethical and moral standards and even professional ethics matched 'mainstream' views. I am far from 'mainstream' socially and culturally here where I am at, and have still met more lawyers that were 'decent human beings', than lawyers that 'needed shot for the good of mankind'.
P.S. Ray Beckerman, if you read this, I did not mean to imply that you are anywhere near Jack Thompson, I was gratuitously using you as a 'pro' against J.T.'s 'con'(apply your favorite definition of 'con' here) as you both were/are attorneys! ( I marked you as 'friend' back when...I do not do so lightly, as can be seen from my 'foes' list! )
However, based on my observations of 'average' spelling and grammar here on/., I doubt many/any people noticed until you corrected it...and half of them are now confused, wondering what you are talking about.:-)
Yeah, I suspect that there is a lot more to this story we haven't heard yet.
This comment by 'coryboehne (244614) *' leads me to think it was an actual event, but there are not enough facts/data to determine much of anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some dude causing trouble and capitalizing on it to generate page hits on his blog.
I'm not defending the cops and security guards, as they may have equal culpability in this incident, but at this stage it's all suppositions and conjecture. For all I/we know, his account could be factual, partially factual, or anything.
Ditto. My usual flying habits are to travel light, check in everything and just buy a book for the wait/flight. Now I always look for authors I have seen on Baen's site. I can't say that I've ever been disappointed using that tactic.
Here's the best writeup on the subject I've seen by an author, at the Baen Free Library. Worth a read. Along web their webscription.net Ebooks website, Baen seems to have a good handle on this whole digital media business.
It depends on where you live, and specific circumstances as to what assault is. It may not even involve any physical contact.
From the wiki link:
Thus throwing a rock at someone for the purpose of hitting him is a battery if the rock in fact strikes the person and is an assault if the rock misses.
Thus you see the 'assault and battery' phrase tossed about. It can get complicated 'in law', as you put it.
If your interested, the link has a decent overview and some of the reasoning behind it, and is a quick read.
I don't think attaching anything to your property would be considered any kind of assault in any US court. They would have to attach the GPS to your person to be even considered an assault.
It's not that you said it poorly, or that we did not understand what you meant.
We are disagreeing with your opinion.
Following your logic leads directly to a state of not being able to tell the cops from the criminals...both are breaking the law.
There is valid reasoning behind the cliche: 'The road to Hell is paved by good intentions.'
It's deplorable that 'technicalities' and procedural violations allow criminals to get away, but it's a small price to pay to keep the rights you still have.
What does this content taste like that you are accusing me of 'consuming'? I have never ate drank, or breathed in this 'content' you speak of. I have listened to mp3's, and watched movies, and read books...but have never ate nor drank any of these.
You're just trying to change the definition to further your agenda.
You can make the argument that calling it 'consuming services and content' is OK because everybody does it but it still does not change the fact that what you are doing is basically dishonest. **boomerang**
When I buy an mp3 file, cd, or a theater ticket I am a customer, not a consumer. When I eat/drink at a restaurant or pub, then I am both a consumer and a customer.
BTW, when copyright gets reformed to sane standards like it was originally, then we'll debate who has the moral high ground. As it stands now, 'pirates' are in the same class as 'freedom fighters'. Go Pirate Party!
Here in Rhode Island, people are terrified of snow. If they predict snow, all of a sudden there is no milk or bread in any store in the state. This always baffled me. Bread, ok. But WHY would you buy milk when there could be severe weather. If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk. Genius.
You do realise that a cooler or other container set outside in the snow will keep your milk cold, don't you? Genius indeed!
Then you have those like me that have set our 'privacy options' to clear the history and other stuff when closing Firefox. I would Imagine that ABP will never know which sites I visit frequently.
It would not surprise me if this ends up being javascript on most websites, and with noscript installed, I doubt that any of this will affect me.
Second, the morals of this is equal to: "We didn't like the executioner, so lets burn down his house and kill his family, while we ignore the ones who gave the order"
That's heartbreakingly stupid. How is sending money to someone even remotely related to killing someone's family and burning down their house.
The bank is the one who would levvy this alleged 2 SEK fee, yet they have absolutely nothing to gain from playing along with this dumb game.
[my emphasis] The bank has 29,999,000 SEK to gain from this. I would not call that 'nothing'.(about $3,900,000.00 USD just off the top of my head)
And if you think the bank will just toss out that kind of money to 'be nice', then you don't know much about banks. They may reduce the fees some, but not throw them out.
If you walk into your county seat hoping to pay a speeding ticket in pennies, you can expect (at best) security to show you the door and tell you to come back with a check.
BZZZT! Wrong answer. They either have to accept the pennies, or cancel the debt, by Federal Law. See Coinage Act of 1965, and United States Code-Title 31. I personally did this as a junior in High School, paying off an $85 USD traffic fine...all in unrolled pennies.
If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine?
The Pirate Bay said that TPB would not pay the fine, not that someone else might. That maay be a subtle difference, but it certainly is a distinct difference.
You are totally wrong. A business or merchant can refuse to sell you goods or services for about any reason, but a creditor has to accept any form of legal tender as payment of a debt. There is a huge difference between the two.
In 1976 I paid off an eighty-five dollar traffic ticket with pennies. I got nasty looks, but they couldn't say a word about it, just accept it.
See: United States Code, Title 31, and also the Coinage Act of 1965. You are just plain wrong.
I would say he's losing more money to his cell phone bill,...
You are making the stupid assumption a college student would have a cell phone in 1994. More likely he used a landline and toll-free number, costing the company money, and him some free time.
I'm glad to see someone here that 'gets it'. One thing everyone seems to gloss over is the fact that you and what you are working on are both 'falling around the earth' at 17,00 mph. It's not like having it on the ground in a garage. Your body and mind constantly battling each other over what 'up and down' really are; mass is still mass, so those 'heavy' pieces still take effort to move in-out of position, etc.
We've already seen that you can't just set your toolbag down on the workbench for one thing...
Slashdot Mirror
In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal.
Not so cut and dried in the USA.
I am in no way trying to dispute what you said....'illegal' my not be the best term to use, but in reality that is what it seems to 'appear as' to the unwashed masses.
See here:USA==Let me see your papers, please!
Inside of the USA, you are not required any 'ID papers' to move around or cross state borders.
*opens worm can*
To get around in the USA will eventually require some sort of ID. It may be to cash your paycheck to get a bus ticket, or provide a lot of personal info for a car loan, or credit/debit card, etc....
If you are the driver of a vehicle in the USA, then you have most likely signed a waiver to get your drivers license that allows the state to demand that ID at request.
If you are not the driver, then it gets stickier, and if you are on foot, you are toast unless you have enough cash in pocket to avoid the local 'vagrancy laws'.
Mostly it boils down to how much effort/time/resources you want to use to combat it, and where you are and the specific circumstances.
Federal law, no ID required for in country travel
State law, generally the same...but depends on if, and where you get 'pulled over'
'Local Law", generally a 'crap-shoot'
YMMV, determined by your tenacity and pocketbook
I was going to reply to your comment above until I saw this one. *kill two birds with one stone time*
Even if we go with the assumption that we all RTFA, all we are seeing as 'evidence/facts' is the arrestee's blog. That is hardly enough data points to come to any unbiased conclusion.
I am not arguing that the security guards and cops were in the right. Not at all!
All I am saying is, that you are getting riled up over some dude's self-edited blog post. There is no corroborative evidence/data; not even any adversarial evidence is presented!
Get a grip!
Now, if this account turns out to be both complete and factual, then your outrage is justified, and I will jump in at your side....but it is far from complete, it's just the affected party's blog.
The 'wisest old man' that I ever knew told me that there were three sides to every story:
1. My side
2. Your side
3. What actually happened
I have never known him to be wrong about that in my 51 years on this planet....Thanks, Grandfather!
P.S.
4. ???
5. Profit???
I agree with the 'get an attorney' advice in general. But...
I'm dubious about the 'facts' and limited data we have access to for this discussion.
Something just smells fishy to me. Why did he not comment on the charges?
Why the highly 'self edited' version of the discussion between him and the cops? (yes, I read his blog/TFA)
I think we are going off 'half-cocked' here, given the available info.
I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
It's all a matter of context and, thus, perspective.
"What's the issue?"
"Who is involved"
Add in the public perception of lawyers in general*, multiplied by a /. geek's 'personal cause' factor==extreme vitriol.
As an experiment/exercise to test this, take some of your 'personal causes' and set up a 'pro'-'con' table for each of them. You need to be as open minded and objective as you can be to do this.
I defy you to not be able to come up with 'pros' for stuff you are 'against', nor 'cons' for stuff you support.
I have personally known both 'good'** lawyers, and some that needed taken out and shot for the good of mankind, and some at various points in between...just like any other profession.
Lawyers attract more attention than a lot of professions do because of the impact they have on all of us. Even if it's a 'trickle-down effect', it still affects us. (hint: notice how vilified RIAA lawyers are here)
Most of our decision makers are lawyers: Senators, Congressmen, Judges, Presidents, etc...
Our antipathy with politicians spills over into 'they are/were lawyers' in the publics eye.
* the old cliche of: 'a few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch' comes into play here. /. comes to mind as taking flack for the likes of Jack Thompson, just because of both being lawyers. (well, at least NYCL is still a lawyer!)
NYCL, here on
**good meaning: ethical and moral standards and even professional ethics matched 'mainstream' views. I am far from 'mainstream' socially and culturally here where I am at, and have still met more lawyers that were 'decent human beings', than lawyers that 'needed shot for the good of mankind'.
P.S. Ray Beckerman, if you read this, I did not mean to imply that you are anywhere near Jack Thompson, I was gratuitously using you as a 'pro' against J.T.'s 'con'(apply your favorite definition of 'con' here) as you both were/are attorneys! ( I marked you as 'friend' back when...I do not do so lightly, as can be seen from my 'foes' list! )
Kudos for the clarity!
However, based on my observations of 'average' spelling and grammar here on /., I doubt many/any people noticed until you corrected it...and half of them are now confused, wondering what you are talking about. :-)
It's a funny world, full of funny people...
Yeah, I suspect that there is a lot more to this story we haven't heard yet.
This comment by 'coryboehne (244614) *' leads me to think it was an actual event, but there are not enough facts/data to determine much of anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some dude causing trouble and capitalizing on it to generate page hits on his blog.
I'm not defending the cops and security guards, as they may have equal culpability in this incident, but at this stage it's all suppositions and conjecture.
For all I/we know, his account could be factual, partially factual, or anything.
Where's Sgt. Joe Friday when you need him?!?!?!?
Ditto.
My usual flying habits are to travel light, check in everything and just buy a book for the wait/flight.
Now I always look for authors I have seen on Baen's site. I can't say that I've ever been disappointed using that tactic.
Here's the best writeup on the subject I've seen by an author, at the Baen Free Library. Worth a read.
Along web their webscription.net Ebooks website, Baen seems to have a good handle on this whole digital media business.
He's an Australian crayfish? You did know that's what a marron is, did you not?
Or perhaps you meant to say that you are a moron?
It depends on where you live, and specific circumstances as to what assault is. It may not even involve any physical contact.
From the wiki link:
Thus throwing a rock at someone for the purpose of hitting him is a battery if the rock in fact strikes the person and is an assault if the rock misses.
Thus you see the 'assault and battery' phrase tossed about. It can get complicated 'in law', as you put it.
If your interested, the link has a decent overview and some of the reasoning behind it, and is a quick read.
I don't think attaching anything to your property would be considered any kind of assault in any US court. They would have to attach the GPS to your person to be even considered an assault.
It's not that you said it poorly, or that we did not understand what you meant.
We are disagreeing with your opinion.
Following your logic leads directly to a state of not being able to tell the cops from the criminals...both are breaking the law.
There is valid reasoning behind the cliche: 'The road to Hell is paved by good intentions.'
It's deplorable that 'technicalities' and procedural violations allow criminals to get away, but it's a small price to pay to keep the rights you still have.
What does this content taste like that you are accusing me of 'consuming'?
I have never ate drank, or breathed in this 'content' you speak of.
I have listened to mp3's, and watched movies, and read books...but have never ate nor drank any of these.
You're just trying to change the definition to further your agenda.
You can make the argument that calling it 'consuming services and content' is OK because everybody does it but it still does not change the fact that what you are doing is basically dishonest. **boomerang**
When I buy an mp3 file, cd, or a theater ticket I am a customer, not a consumer.
When I eat/drink at a restaurant or pub, then I am both a consumer and a customer.
BTW, when copyright gets reformed to sane standards like it was originally, then we'll debate who has the moral high ground. As it stands now, 'pirates' are in the same class as 'freedom fighters'. Go Pirate Party!
Here in Rhode Island, people are terrified of snow. If they predict snow, all of a sudden there is no milk or bread in any store in the state. This always baffled me. Bread, ok. But WHY would you buy milk when there could be severe weather. If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk. Genius.
You do realise that a cooler or other container set outside in the snow will keep your milk cold, don't you? Genius indeed!
Get away from /. right away!
It may be swine flu and your going to epidemic us all!!!
Get on my level.
Go play on the freeway, or jump in a lake.
Attitudes like yours are for kids.
Then you have those like me that have set our 'privacy options' to clear the history and other stuff when closing Firefox.
I would Imagine that ABP will never know which sites I visit frequently.
It would not surprise me if this ends up being javascript on most websites, and with noscript installed, I doubt that any of this will affect me.
BTW, very good post.
I think SEK to $USD got skipped in your comment. 30,000,000 SEK comes out to around $4,000,000 USD. (3,899,xxx)
So don't put much effort into berating yourself. :-)
And just like that, also illegal.
[citation needed
Under what statue/code is it illegal?
I call BullShit.
Second, the morals of this is equal to: "We didn't like the executioner, so lets burn down his house and kill his family, while we ignore the ones who gave the order"
That's heartbreakingly stupid.
How is sending money to someone even remotely related to killing someone's family and burning down their house.
You are just too stupid for words.
The bank is the one who would levvy this alleged 2 SEK fee, yet they have absolutely nothing to gain from playing along with this dumb game.
[my emphasis]
The bank has 29,999,000 SEK to gain from this. I would not call that 'nothing'.(about $3,900,000.00 USD just off the top of my head)
And if you think the bank will just toss out that kind of money to 'be nice', then you don't know much about banks. They may reduce the fees some, but not throw them out.
If you walk into your county seat hoping to pay a speeding ticket in pennies, you can expect (at best) security to show you the door and tell you to come back with a check.
BZZZT! Wrong answer.
They either have to accept the pennies, or cancel the debt, by Federal Law. See Coinage Act of 1965, and United States Code-Title 31.
I personally did this as a junior in High School, paying off an $85 USD traffic fine...all in unrolled pennies.
If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine?
The Pirate Bay said that TPB would not pay the fine, not that someone else might.
That maay be a subtle difference, but it certainly is a distinct difference.
Brush up on your reading comprehension.
You are totally wrong.
A business or merchant can refuse to sell you goods or services for about any reason, but a creditor has to accept any form of legal tender as payment of a debt.
There is a huge difference between the two.
In 1976 I paid off an eighty-five dollar traffic ticket with pennies. I got nasty looks, but they couldn't say a word about it, just accept it.
See: United States Code, Title 31, and also the Coinage Act of 1965. You are just plain wrong.
I would say he's losing more money to his cell phone bill,...
You are making the stupid assumption a college student would have a cell phone in 1994.
More likely he used a landline and toll-free number, costing the company money, and him some free time.
Not all of us have, or even want a cellphone.
Or:
c. Both of the above.
...that was real reality,...
Only on /.
I'm glad to see someone here that 'gets it'.
One thing everyone seems to gloss over is the fact that you and what you are working on are both 'falling around the earth' at 17,00 mph. It's not like having it on the ground in a garage.
Your body and mind constantly battling each other over what 'up and down' really are; mass is still mass, so those 'heavy' pieces still take effort to move in-out of position, etc.
We've already seen that you can't just set your toolbag down on the workbench for one thing...