When the crown was routinely going through people's correspondence, or barging into homes and seeing what was there, how could one not understand the Founding Fathers wanted the people to both be secure in their homes and possessions as well as have the right to privacy in their lives?
It's like people forgot about how in the weeks prior to the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Red Coats were stopping everyone traveling, detaining them without cause and searching all of their possessions, luggage, papers in the hopes of finding documents pertaining to the rebellion or weapons / supplies that could be used to support them.
THAT is why we have a fourth amendment. And it is DIRECTLY related to privacy. And anyone claims to be an "originalist" and denies this, isn't an originalist.
Also, this finger pointing to these phony "originalist" as being authentic pro-constitutional people is a gross straw-man argument.
Following the original TPB cases, it's evident that this is doomed, not just because the citizenry of the world aren't behind it, but because nations will flat out break their own laws to stop it.
Here are some tips for making your next MacBook Pro more successful:
1.) Stop fucking taking away necessary ports. If your laptop doesn't have at east 2 USB ports (preferably 2 side by side), that shit can fuck off.
2.) Stop replacing the necessary ports with proprietary ports. We don't need 2+ Thunderbolt ports. they can fuck right off too.
3.) Why the fuck can't you stick with industry standard goddamn parts for SSD's?
If you could do these three things I would have purchased another macbook pro when my last laptop died. But no, you had to make that piece of shit...
So the Alt Right is getting banned on twitter. Great!
Now what about the Alt-Left?
Like SJW's and BLM crazies? The ones that call for the murder of all men, or white people?
Because all I've seen from twitter in the past (and this newest development shows no signs of deviation from this trend) is twitter going after gamergate people and the far right. They aren't being fair, they are silencing those they disagree with under the guise of anti-harrassment.
These things are usually dreamed up by anti-gun proponents who wish to push this technology into law so they can bury gun owners with regulations and thus restrict access to firearms.
That's what the safe handgun list in California was for, as well as the "microstamping" law.
If you can make it so difficult to acquire, legally, that the average person doesn't want to be involved due to the regulatory burden, congratulations, you have just restricted and/or removed the right to access that item.
...but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump.
Are you really that stupid or are you just reading what your party has spoon fed to you?
The reason why there are no wikileaks on Trump, IS BECAUSE HE ISN'T A POLITICIAN, HOLDING POLITICAL OFFICE, AND THUS HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION OR SPYING.
It's kind of fucking hard to have wikileaks documents when you're not a government employee. You do know what Wikileaks is right? Oh wait, you had to read that line from your party's catch phrases so you probably have no clue what they are.
From wikileaks.org: (https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html)
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.
Your argument is a good one, except that to make it fit lets remove the ski mask and the crowbar and the house alarm.
Is it then a crime carry a bag of jewelry at night?
If the suspect had card readers, or other paraphernalia present that would facilitate the reading/access/spoofing the of the cards, your analogy would be spot on and I would further argue that it was enough to constitute probable cause.
But mere possession alone. Just that. Just possession of the cards, is not enough.
Regardless of whether the contents are considered sealed/locked, they are not in plain view as it requires a specific device to gain access to them. Thus you cannot claim that the data "was in plain view". With possession alone, which is perfectly legal, not being enough to constitute probable cause, there is no grounds or cause for an officer to seize, scan (search) the cards
The problem here is that you cannot actually read the contents of the card without:
1.) Possession of the card,
2.) A reader capable of reading the card's magnetic strip.
In other words, it requires a tool to gain access to the contents.
The argument for evidence in plain view, is specifically if you can observe the information, without disturbing the item. In the classic "Plain View" case that is often used as a reference, IIRC it involved a LEO physically lifting up a Stereo Receiver and turning it around to access the serial number. I.E. the item was disturbed/manipulated/touched/whatever in order to gain the information necessary to know that the item in question was stolen.
In this case it is the act of swiping the card that constitutes the "disturbance". You are effectively saying that using a tool to gain access too it's contents, is the equivalent of the contents being "in plain view". This is not how evidence in "Plain View" works.
The problem here is one of the Chicken and the Egg. How do you know the cards are counterfeit without first searching them? How do you search them without first knowing they are counterfeit?
Possessing a Gift Card is not a crime. How then does one articulate probable cause that any given Gift Card they come across might be a counterfeit one?
Absent some other outside source of information, possession alone is not defacto Probable Cause.
Is it a crime to be in possession of credit cards / gift cards? (No)
Is the information contained in a credit card / gift card in plain view? (No).
Does a LEO, without a warrant or probable cause, have the legal authority to open a container to peruse it's contents? (No)
So why then can a LEO seize and search the contents of a CC / Gift Card without probable cause or a warrant, when they can't legally open closed (but unlocked) containers on a person's person and possession thereof are in-of-themselves perfectly legal?
This is yet another bad case precedent eroding the very core of the 4th Amendment. There isn't even an attempt to reconcile it with constitutional law.
In order to be "extradited" you first have to be a criminal suspect or a convicted criminal, Assange is neither in the UK.
But, because of the EU treaties, any member of the EU can hold an individual for a crime that was committed in any other EU territory. In this way, because Sweden claimed criminal wrongdoing, the UK held Assange so that he could be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for the crimes alleged there.
Assange has to first go to Sweden before the US can ask for Extradition, because Sweden is the one alleging criminal wrongdoing. If the UK simply sent him straight to the US, it would be obvious that the whole thing was a farce as it would have been an illegal extradition because Assange is not wanted for any crimes in the UK.
The whole pretense for the arrest warrant issued to Assange was so that the Swedish Prosecution Authority could interview him on the particulars of the case. Assange had offered to be interviewed multiple times by Swedish Investigators, but they all declined. Making it pretty clear that the point of the arrest warrant wasn't to interview him, but to get him onto Swedish soil.
You have no constitutional right to record your neighbor changing clothes through their second story window.
If the blinds are open with a clear and unobstructed view and I am in a place I am legally allowed to be, I absolutely have a right to record my neighbor changing clothes through their second story window.
You may want to read up on privacy laws and come back here because this line alone clearly tells me you have no clue about privacy rights.
The reality is that we have had hobbiest aircraft for a long time as the original article points out, the difference now is that nearly all drones come equipped with an HD video camera, and many can be operated beyond LOS and that is at the root of the problem.
You immediately assume that because a multi-rotor has a camera on it, it is capable of high-resolution pictures, at magnification. Again, you clearly don't know much about cameras, optical zoom, or what kind of cameras are on these hobby drones that ignorant and uninformed people are freaking about over.
If you are hovering 10 feet off the ground in front of my daughters bedroom window, you are trespassing and peeping and need a visit from a LEO.
Assuming that "hovering" is taking place over the sidewalk/street (i.e. public location). Please explain to me how that drone is "trespassing"? How is anyone's privacy rights being violated?
Also, do you know how fucking loud and distinctive a multi-rotor sounds? If there is one hovering outside your house it's not going to be subtle or quiet. Your claims and fears of being spied on are unfounded, fantastical and simply not based in reality.
Are you seriously comparing a MILITARY UAV capable of carrying multiple standard issue Air-to Ground Missiles, that is larger than a car, to a hobby drone that is smaller than a basketball?
Well, I guess if you want the fucking nutters to come out you talk about drones.
These aren't Predator UAV's, these are fucking hobby drones that weight less than 1lbs. Do you see a giant fucking camera rig slung underneath it? No? Then it's not taking pictures of your fucking hairy ass.
Now stop being a fucking ignorant dipshit and stop spreading F.U.D.
Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.
All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.
This is how computers measure digital signals but it is not how digital RF systems work.
Except that is exactly how digital RF systems work.
Regardless of how the information is encoded the broadcast RF signal is analog. The "digital" data signal is encoded within the amplitude and frequency of said analog signal.
Slashdot Mirror
When the crown was routinely going through people's correspondence, or barging into homes and seeing what was there, how could one not understand the Founding Fathers wanted the people to both be secure in their homes and possessions as well as have the right to privacy in their lives?
It's like people forgot about how in the weeks prior to the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Red Coats were stopping everyone traveling, detaining them without cause and searching all of their possessions, luggage, papers in the hopes of finding documents pertaining to the rebellion or weapons / supplies that could be used to support them.
THAT is why we have a fourth amendment. And it is DIRECTLY related to privacy. And anyone claims to be an "originalist" and denies this, isn't an originalist.
Also, this finger pointing to these phony "originalist" as being authentic pro-constitutional people is a gross straw-man argument.
Computer Fraud and Abuse act. The illegal access to a computer.
Following the original TPB cases, it's evident that this is doomed, not just because the citizenry of the world aren't behind it, but because nations will flat out break their own laws to stop it.
Dear Apple,
Here are some tips for making your next MacBook Pro more successful:
1.) Stop fucking taking away necessary ports. If your laptop doesn't have at east 2 USB ports (preferably 2 side by side), that shit can fuck off.
2.) Stop replacing the necessary ports with proprietary ports. We don't need 2+ Thunderbolt ports. they can fuck right off too.
3.) Why the fuck can't you stick with industry standard goddamn parts for SSD's?
If you could do these three things I would have purchased another macbook pro when my last laptop died. But no, you had to make that piece of shit...
He shouldn't have to be for logic and reason to prevail.
If a court wants to assert something you have to provide evidence to that assertion. Otherwise it's guilty until proven otherwise which is a farce.
How exactly does a public agency, beholden to the public enter a NDA?
Shouldn't any NDA they enter just automatically be null and void?
So the Alt Right is getting banned on twitter. Great!
Now what about the Alt-Left?
Like SJW's and BLM crazies? The ones that call for the murder of all men, or white people?
Because all I've seen from twitter in the past (and this newest development shows no signs of deviation from this trend) is twitter going after gamergate people and the far right. They aren't being fair, they are silencing those they disagree with under the guise of anti-harrassment.
These things are usually dreamed up by anti-gun proponents who wish to push this technology into law so they can bury gun owners with regulations and thus restrict access to firearms.
That's what the safe handgun list in California was for, as well as the "microstamping" law.
If you can make it so difficult to acquire, legally, that the average person doesn't want to be involved due to the regulatory burden, congratulations, you have just restricted and/or removed the right to access that item.
...but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump.
Are you really that stupid or are you just reading what your party has spoon fed to you?
The reason why there are no wikileaks on Trump, IS BECAUSE HE ISN'T A POLITICIAN, HOLDING POLITICAL OFFICE, AND THUS HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION OR SPYING.
It's kind of fucking hard to have wikileaks documents when you're not a government employee. You do know what Wikileaks is right? Oh wait, you had to read that line from your party's catch phrases so you probably have no clue what they are.
From wikileaks.org: (https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html)
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.
Your argument is a good one, except that to make it fit lets remove the ski mask and the crowbar and the house alarm.
Is it then a crime carry a bag of jewelry at night?
If the suspect had card readers, or other paraphernalia present that would facilitate the reading/access/spoofing the of the cards, your analogy would be spot on and I would further argue that it was enough to constitute probable cause.
But mere possession alone. Just that. Just possession of the cards, is not enough.
So, if I hand you a SD card or a Gift card, you can tell me what is exactly on them?
Or do you need a device/tool to read what's on them?
Regardless of whether the contents are considered sealed/locked, they are not in plain view as it requires a specific device to gain access to them. Thus you cannot claim that the data "was in plain view". With possession alone, which is perfectly legal, not being enough to constitute probable cause, there is no grounds or cause for an officer to seize, scan (search) the cards
This is simply a case of really lazy policing.
The problem here is that you cannot actually read the contents of the card without:
1.) Possession of the card,
2.) A reader capable of reading the card's magnetic strip.
In other words, it requires a tool to gain access to the contents.
The argument for evidence in plain view, is specifically if you can observe the information, without disturbing the item. In the classic "Plain View" case that is often used as a reference, IIRC it involved a LEO physically lifting up a Stereo Receiver and turning it around to access the serial number. I.E. the item was disturbed/manipulated/touched/whatever in order to gain the information necessary to know that the item in question was stolen.
In this case it is the act of swiping the card that constitutes the "disturbance". You are effectively saying that using a tool to gain access too it's contents, is the equivalent of the contents being "in plain view". This is not how evidence in "Plain View" works.
The problem here is one of the Chicken and the Egg. How do you know the cards are counterfeit without first searching them? How do you search them without first knowing they are counterfeit?
Possessing a Gift Card is not a crime. How then does one articulate probable cause that any given Gift Card they come across might be a counterfeit one?
Absent some other outside source of information, possession alone is not defacto Probable Cause.
Is it a crime to be in possession of credit cards / gift cards? (No)
Is the information contained in a credit card / gift card in plain view? (No).
Does a LEO, without a warrant or probable cause, have the legal authority to open a container to peruse it's contents? (No)
So why then can a LEO seize and search the contents of a CC / Gift Card without probable cause or a warrant, when they can't legally open closed (but unlocked) containers on a person's person and possession thereof are in-of-themselves perfectly legal?
This is yet another bad case precedent eroding the very core of the 4th Amendment. There isn't even an attempt to reconcile it with constitutional law.
What crime did Assange commit in the UK?
In order to be "extradited" you first have to be a criminal suspect or a convicted criminal, Assange is neither in the UK.
But, because of the EU treaties, any member of the EU can hold an individual for a crime that was committed in any other EU territory. In this way, because Sweden claimed criminal wrongdoing, the UK held Assange so that he could be extradited to Sweden to stand trial for the crimes alleged there.
Assange has to first go to Sweden before the US can ask for Extradition, because Sweden is the one alleging criminal wrongdoing. If the UK simply sent him straight to the US, it would be obvious that the whole thing was a farce as it would have been an illegal extradition because Assange is not wanted for any crimes in the UK.
The whole pretense for the arrest warrant issued to Assange was so that the Swedish Prosecution Authority could interview him on the particulars of the case. Assange had offered to be interviewed multiple times by Swedish Investigators, but they all declined. Making it pretty clear that the point of the arrest warrant wasn't to interview him, but to get him onto Swedish soil.
The question then becomes: why?
You have no constitutional right to record your neighbor changing clothes through their second story window.
If the blinds are open with a clear and unobstructed view and I am in a place I am legally allowed to be, I absolutely have a right to record my neighbor changing clothes through their second story window. You may want to read up on privacy laws and come back here because this line alone clearly tells me you have no clue about privacy rights.
The reality is that we have had hobbiest aircraft for a long time as the original article points out, the difference now is that nearly all drones come equipped with an HD video camera, and many can be operated beyond LOS and that is at the root of the problem.
You immediately assume that because a multi-rotor has a camera on it, it is capable of high-resolution pictures, at magnification. Again, you clearly don't know much about cameras, optical zoom, or what kind of cameras are on these hobby drones that ignorant and uninformed people are freaking about over.
If you are hovering 10 feet off the ground in front of my daughters bedroom window, you are trespassing and peeping and need a visit from a LEO.
Assuming that "hovering" is taking place over the sidewalk/street (i.e. public location). Please explain to me how that drone is "trespassing"? How is anyone's privacy rights being violated?
Also, do you know how fucking loud and distinctive a multi-rotor sounds? If there is one hovering outside your house it's not going to be subtle or quiet. Your claims and fears of being spied on are unfounded, fantastical and simply not based in reality.
A cell phone on a stick is a much better way to invade someone's privacy. So is an actual DSLR camera with telephoto zoom lens.
So what if your DJI phantom has a 14 megapixel camera, what's the optical zoom on the lens? Oh, it's a fixed 20mm lens?
Which is why there is different levels of "scrutiny" for each of the amendments. Such as "Intermediate" Scrutiny or "Strict" Scrutiny.
Can you guess which one the 2nd Amendment falls under?
Are you seriously comparing a MILITARY UAV capable of carrying multiple standard issue Air-to Ground Missiles, that is larger than a car, to a hobby drone that is smaller than a basketball?
Well, I guess if you want the fucking nutters to come out you talk about drones.
No one is "invadin muh privassy" with drones.
These aren't Predator UAV's, these are fucking hobby drones that weight less than 1lbs. Do you see a giant fucking camera rig slung underneath it? No? Then it's not taking pictures of your fucking hairy ass.
Now stop being a fucking ignorant dipshit and stop spreading F.U.D.
Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.
All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.
Good job, cops.
How exactly does the DA have a case if he doesn't have any evidence, or requires the evidence on the phone to further carrying the case?
And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims.
I would argue yes. However, to determine the credulity of the allegations would require some form of due diligence in looking into said claims.
Did Model Mayhem do such? I don't know, but that to me is the question that potentially opens up Model Mayhem to liability.
If they did no such due diligence, then regardless of which position you take, they failed in their duty.
This is how computers measure digital signals but it is not how digital RF systems work.
Except that is exactly how digital RF systems work.
Regardless of how the information is encoded the broadcast RF signal is analog. The "digital" data signal is encoded within the amplitude and frequency of said analog signal.