If I call the police, and say, "I think someone's breaking into goliemn's house." Does that automatically give the police probable cause to enter your residence? I don't think we want police breaking down doors just because someone reported a burglary.
If you are home, answer the door, and tell them you live there, then refuse to answer any more questions, are the police to take your word for it, or the callers? My position is that they have no authority to arrest you and no probable cause to enter your home. However, because it's possible that you really are a burglar lying to them, it's their duty to stick around outside and see if you start moving electronics out through the windows - at which point they would have probable cause to enter. If they stick around and see you leave through the front door, lock it, enter the car registered to the owner of the house and drive away, they can leave without bothering anyone any more.
In the specific Gates/Crowley debacle, the caller specifically noted that the men trying to force the door had suitcases and might live there. Now, assuming dispatch relayed that info to Crowley, he should have walked off the second Gates produced his ID (which again, he was not obligated to do.)
Nowhere did I say you wouldn't be hassled for failing to provide proper ID. All I said is you're not legally obligated to provide it.
If you don't want any trouble, cooperate fully. If you want to take a stand on principles, you're within your rights to keep your mouth shut.
I am not inclined to assume that the cops are in the right because they're wearing badges. I do however, think everyone should know their rights, should they find themselves in a position in which they might want to assert them.
actually I take that back. Had Gates slammed the door, it wouldn't be at all clear that the officer had probable cause. The appropriate course of action would have been to stake out the house to see if a crime was being committed.
In that particular case, had Gates simply slammed the door, the officer would probably have had probable cause to enter the house and investigate.
What happened however is that Gates provided ID (which he was not legally obligated to do) and yelled at the officer. Crowley, then decided he was creating a disturbance which is an entirely different matter not related to your right to remain silent.
You don't have to present ID even if a cop does have probable cause. Many states have "stop and identify" laws which require you to provide an officer with your name, and possibly DOB and address, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. You do not, however have to present any written identification.
The ONLY TIMES you have to present a drivers license or other state issued ID to a LEO is (a) if you're driving, (b) under a court order, and (c) at international borders.
But it is a distribution, and the human body does radiate some visible photons. This phenomenon, however, is theorized not thermal radiation, but as something else.
The game is selling insurance policies that you can't cover. Sure we could (should) regulate credit default swaps, OR we could just regulate the industry issuing the loans so we can be reasonably certain that they're not taking on unreasonable levels of bad loans. It's a whole lot easier to audit a portfolio of mortgage loans than it is to audit a pile of mortgage backed securities hedged with credit default swaps. It's financial obfuscation, and the CDSs (insurance) makes it harder to untangle the real risks. It's been widely reported that Lehman was leveraged 40:1 before it went bust, doesn't it make more sense to say don't bet 40 times your capital reserves on the shitty tranches of shitty mortgages, then to just say, "do whatever you want" but be sure to buy insurance... Buying insurance just moves the risk up a level. If a company needs insurance because it might make bad business decisions, who covers the insurance company when it makes the bad business decision to cover bad investments? (AIG issuing CDSs on MBSs) The idea that buying insurance decreases financial risk is the business equivalent of declaring that "it's turtles all the way down."
EVEN IF AIG were able to cover it's obligations, that would only protect the financial institutions who owned a stake of the mortgages. It wouldn't do a damn thing to stop or even stem foreclosures or any of the other less immediate bad effects of of the sub-prime melt down. People would still be losing their homes and going bankrupt, which drives down consumer spending which causes the economy to tank. The people issuing, selling, bundling, and reselling MBS don't care about all those less immediate effects, the only care if they can make a profit in 2 weeks on a horribly tangled and complicated pile of 30 mortgages by selling it off to the next sucker before it starts to stink too badly. Insurance makes that more likely, not less, and insurance in this case helped the economic meltdown.
The same story can be told about 9/11 or the savings and loan crisis. Everyone covered their bases with insurance, but no one was looking out for the system as a whole. Insurance covers individual, not systematic risks. Airlines (or more accurately airlines insurers) ARE liable for millions per passenger lost. All told there was somewhere around $40 billion in insurance payouts resulting from 9/11 - but that didn't stop us from entering an 8 month recession which ended up resulting in far greater loses than the $40 billion that was directly covered.
What do they have to do with this discussion?
The sub-prime meltdown wouldn't have been possible without AIG offering insurance hedges, the dot-com bust isn't directly related, but failures of regulation with Enron, MCI, are closely linked.
We don't need to insurance for people who do stupid things with far reaching consequences, we need to stop those people from doing stupid things.
The example is a specific rebuttal to the GP's assertion that we should let airlines handle their own security. I'm not dismissing libertarianism only on the one example, I'm dismissing it based on the general principle I laid out. I could offer dozens of examples to support this, for instance, particualrly timely are Liehman/AIG, Bernie Madoff, and countrywide financial.
Socialized risk and privitized reward is the worst of all worlds. And since some risk is always going to be socialized, since the individuals will be unable to fully account for their actions even after we level our most sever punishmets (see Bernie Madoff again) some level of regulation is absolutely essential. This is true in enviornmental cases (superfund), economic cases (glass-steagall), and security cases (airlines).
I am in no way requiring that we "throw out the constitution." I'm making the case that some level of security at airports is necessary. If you find the airport search to be "unreasonable," you're free to find alternate travel arrangements. That is not to say that any measure is acceptable. We're seeing some pushback on millimeter wave technology, and one can hope that someday the TSA will get their head out of their asses and stop making me take off my shoes and give up my cologne. But even if those measures are frustrating and useless, they are not unconstitutional.
Why libertarianism doesn't work: The downside cost of an action (or failure to act) can be greater to society than the individual actor is capable of reimbursing, while the upside benefit of so acting (or failing to so act) can be substantial.
Remember the financial crisis after 911? From an airlines cost/benefit perspective it's better to scrimp on security, because they personally are unlikely to recoup the cost of security expenditures. However, if even a single airline has sufficiently lax security to attract a terrorist strike, the cost to society as a whole is astronomical. Meanwhile, that one airline folds as soon as it is sued, and your 401(k) suffers.
Satellite TV makes the market more competitive, and, at least in some cases e.g. extremely rural areas, it is an improvement in both market and technology.
Direct TV is also cheaper than most cable services.
This is actually an area where IP law has done better than the so-called free market, where cable companies exist as a natural monopoly.
The court shouldn't waste it's time with internal disputes. Anytime a company sues itself the courts should automatically find for the defendant. As soon as that's the policy you won't see any of this nonsense anymore. After all, the courts have more important things to do, like wage the war on (some) drugs.
The only things that I wish, is that they had better hours (national banks don't keep bankers hours anymore) and that there were more no-fee ATMs.
I actually really like ING, but they've been cutting their interest rate for about a year and a half now - I know it makes sense, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
The last thing we need is Dick Cheney firing bunker busting nuclear weapons at his undisclosed location in suburban Washington......on second thought... just give us non bureaucrats a warning first, will ya?
even if you understand that, the fact that this nonsense ends up in court means there's no one in a management position prepared to actually make decisions.
Ok, different divisions have different objectives, but it's the job of the CEO to manage the company as a whole. This should all be resolved in conference room 101 internally
Slashdot Mirror
It's complicated.
If I call the police, and say, "I think someone's breaking into goliemn's house." Does that automatically give the police probable cause to enter your residence? I don't think we want police breaking down doors just because someone reported a burglary.
If you are home, answer the door, and tell them you live there, then refuse to answer any more questions, are the police to take your word for it, or the callers? My position is that they have no authority to arrest you and no probable cause to enter your home. However, because it's possible that you really are a burglar lying to them, it's their duty to stick around outside and see if you start moving electronics out through the windows - at which point they would have probable cause to enter. If they stick around and see you leave through the front door, lock it, enter the car registered to the owner of the house and drive away, they can leave without bothering anyone any more.
In the specific Gates/Crowley debacle, the caller specifically noted that the men trying to force the door had suitcases and might live there. Now, assuming dispatch relayed that info to Crowley, he should have walked off the second Gates produced his ID (which again, he was not obligated to do.)
Nowhere did I say you wouldn't be hassled for failing to provide proper ID. All I said is you're not legally obligated to provide it.
If you don't want any trouble, cooperate fully. If you want to take a stand on principles, you're within your rights to keep your mouth shut.
I am not inclined to assume that the cops are in the right because they're wearing badges. I do however, think everyone should know their rights, should they find themselves in a position in which they might want to assert them.
actually I take that back. Had Gates slammed the door, it wouldn't be at all clear that the officer had probable cause. The appropriate course of action would have been to stake out the house to see if a crime was being committed.
In that particular case, had Gates simply slammed the door, the officer would probably have had probable cause to enter the house and investigate.
What happened however is that Gates provided ID (which he was not legally obligated to do) and yelled at the officer. Crowley, then decided he was creating a disturbance which is an entirely different matter not related to your right to remain silent.
wrong link sorry hiible
The case on point is Hiible. Follow the links for more info.
The ACLU also has a very good resource.
Negatory
You don't have to present ID even if a cop does have probable cause. Many states have "stop and identify" laws which require you to provide an officer with your name, and possibly DOB and address, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. You do not, however have to present any written identification.
The ONLY TIMES you have to present a drivers license or other state issued ID to a LEO is (a) if you're driving, (b) under a court order, and (c) at international borders.
Fox news reports that this case of reverse discrimination is an affront to janitorial principles.
and what it tells is: there isn't much money in astronomy.
not a bell curve
But it is a distribution, and the human body does radiate some visible photons. This phenomenon, however, is theorized not thermal radiation, but as something else.
The game is selling insurance policies that you can't cover. Sure we could (should) regulate credit default swaps, OR we could just regulate the industry issuing the loans so we can be reasonably certain that they're not taking on unreasonable levels of bad loans. It's a whole lot easier to audit a portfolio of mortgage loans than it is to audit a pile of mortgage backed securities hedged with credit default swaps. It's financial obfuscation, and the CDSs (insurance) makes it harder to untangle the real risks. It's been widely reported that Lehman was leveraged 40:1 before it went bust, doesn't it make more sense to say don't bet 40 times your capital reserves on the shitty tranches of shitty mortgages, then to just say, "do whatever you want" but be sure to buy insurance... Buying insurance just moves the risk up a level. If a company needs insurance because it might make bad business decisions, who covers the insurance company when it makes the bad business decision to cover bad investments? (AIG issuing CDSs on MBSs) The idea that buying insurance decreases financial risk is the business equivalent of declaring that "it's turtles all the way down."
EVEN IF AIG were able to cover it's obligations, that would only protect the financial institutions who owned a stake of the mortgages. It wouldn't do a damn thing to stop or even stem foreclosures or any of the other less immediate bad effects of of the sub-prime melt down. People would still be losing their homes and going bankrupt, which drives down consumer spending which causes the economy to tank. The people issuing, selling, bundling, and reselling MBS don't care about all those less immediate effects, the only care if they can make a profit in 2 weeks on a horribly tangled and complicated pile of 30 mortgages by selling it off to the next sucker before it starts to stink too badly. Insurance makes that more likely, not less, and insurance in this case helped the economic meltdown.
The same story can be told about 9/11 or the savings and loan crisis. Everyone covered their bases with insurance, but no one was looking out for the system as a whole. Insurance covers individual, not systematic risks. Airlines (or more accurately airlines insurers) ARE liable for millions per passenger lost. All told there was somewhere around $40 billion in insurance payouts resulting from 9/11 - but that didn't stop us from entering an 8 month recession which ended up resulting in far greater loses than the $40 billion that was directly covered.
The sub-prime meltdown wouldn't have been possible without AIG offering insurance hedges, the dot-com bust isn't directly related, but failures of regulation with Enron, MCI, are closely linked.
We don't need to insurance for people who do stupid things with far reaching consequences, we need to stop those people from doing stupid things.
AIG was selling insurance. Insurance is no substitute for regulation because it is at least as easy to game as the system you're insuring.
No one is capable of insuring against the next 9/11, the next sub-prime mortgage crisis, or the next dot-com bust.
See also: cost accounting and risk analysis of nuclear power.
The example is a specific rebuttal to the GP's assertion that we should let airlines handle their own security. I'm not dismissing libertarianism only on the one example, I'm dismissing it based on the general principle I laid out. I could offer dozens of examples to support this, for instance, particualrly timely are Liehman/AIG, Bernie Madoff, and countrywide financial.
Socialized risk and privitized reward is the worst of all worlds. And since some risk is always going to be socialized, since the individuals will be unable to fully account for their actions even after we level our most sever punishmets (see Bernie Madoff again) some level of regulation is absolutely essential. This is true in enviornmental cases (superfund), economic cases (glass-steagall), and security cases (airlines).
I am in no way requiring that we "throw out the constitution." I'm making the case that some level of security at airports is necessary. If you find the airport search to be "unreasonable," you're free to find alternate travel arrangements. That is not to say that any measure is acceptable. We're seeing some pushback on millimeter wave technology, and one can hope that someday the TSA will get their head out of their asses and stop making me take off my shoes and give up my cologne. But even if those measures are frustrating and useless, they are not unconstitutional.
Why libertarianism doesn't work:
The downside cost of an action (or failure to act) can be greater to society than the individual actor is capable of reimbursing, while the upside benefit of so acting (or failing to so act) can be substantial.
Remember the financial crisis after 911? From an airlines cost/benefit perspective it's better to scrimp on security, because they personally are unlikely to recoup the cost of security expenditures. However, if even a single airline has sufficiently lax security to attract a terrorist strike, the cost to society as a whole is astronomical. Meanwhile, that one airline folds as soon as it is sued, and your 401(k) suffers.
Only worse on the margins. In principle it's the same thing. If you provided your own amplifier, would it be ok?
Satellite TV makes the market more competitive, and, at least in some cases e.g. extremely rural areas, it is an improvement in both market and technology.
Direct TV is also cheaper than most cable services.
This is actually an area where IP law has done better than the so-called free market, where cable companies exist as a natural monopoly.
Here's why console games won't be locked in the near future. If one system manufacturer decides to do it, they'll destroy their market share.
psst:
Nope, not a thing
yes.
The court shouldn't waste it's time with internal disputes. Anytime a company sues itself the courts should automatically find for the defendant. As soon as that's the policy you won't see any of this nonsense anymore. After all, the courts have more important things to do, like wage the war on (some) drugs.
I'm begrudgingly committed to my credit union.
The only things that I wish, is that they had better hours (national banks don't keep bankers hours anymore) and that there were more no-fee ATMs.
I actually really like ING, but they've been cutting their interest rate for about a year and a half now - I know it makes sense, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
great idea asshole.
The last thing we need is Dick Cheney firing bunker busting nuclear weapons at his undisclosed location in suburban Washington... ...on second thought... just give us non bureaucrats a warning first, will ya?
sure.
We can use the unforeseen revenues we accrued in the legal system.
even if you understand that, the fact that this nonsense ends up in court means there's no one in a management position prepared to actually make decisions.
Ok, different divisions have different objectives, but it's the job of the CEO to manage the company as a whole. This should all be resolved in conference room 101 internally
I hope the judge fines the plaintiff and the defendant for wasting his time.