>'which would fall under "papers" in the above' How do you figure? A letter can actually be in your possession. Once the letter leaves your possession, such as giving it to someone else, it is no longer yours. With a telecommunications network you don't own the channel. You're skipping over the key term in the amendment, "their."
Ah, you make much more sense to me now. I had taken it as so fundamental, that I missed it.
I thought that when you sent a letter to another person, it was still considered private. That is, you are entrusting it to that person for a specific purpose... for delivery. Since it is possession of an individual, the government can't take it from them without a warrant. (Whether the courier can read your message even though you've only entrusted it to them for transport is a different issue.)
For counter examples, sending a postcard would not be private, and speaking on a CB would not be private.
I do believe speaking on a cell phone or land line is reasonably expected to be private. I'm entrusting the transmitted signals in just the same way I was entrusting my letter earlier.
Besides, if cell conversations aren't private, why are there laws against snooping on cell phones? tapping phone lines, etc? If they weren't private, there would be no need to define those as off limits for general usage, or for police to get warrants for general usage.
>'does the fact that he implicitly believes that I am doing something wrong' There was no such implicit message. He explicitly said, "live a good clean life, ignore outside influences, pay your taxes on time and you will have little to worry about."
I read his statement as: A: "Living a good clean life, etc" => "You don't worry"
The contrapositive of that being: A': "You worry" => "Not living a good clean life, etc."
If a statement is true, so is it's contrapositive.
Now, since I made my statement after his, there's no way he could actually know what my position would be, so I have to apply his logic to it after the fact.
That is, start with: "I don't want anything that I consider private to be made public without my consent." Embedded in that sentiment is that I'm worried at some level (no tin hats here) about intrusions on that privacy.
And by A' above, "I'm worried" => "I'm not living a good, clean life, etc."
I think the term "freedom" is tossed around too much. What most people fail to realize is that "freedom" is completely relative to what "rights" a person is deemed to have.
That fact that you mention this implies to me that you think I'm tossing it around too loosely, that I don't have a "right" to what I am saying I have the "freedom" for.
4th Ammendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...
Given that they didn't have telecommunications back then, I more-or-less equate our telephone system with sending letters, which would fall under "papers" in the above.
I have a right for my private communications not to be monitored by the government without warrant or probable cause. Something I say in private during idle conversation is not probable cause, and the government listening in to that is a violation of my 4th ammendment rights.
What I took from your earlier post was that you weren't concerned about someone who isn't worried about their privacy being violated.
Since you have only now brought up extremes (which bore no relation to the topic of privacy in my mind), I take from your last post that you put the "right to privacy" in the same category as the right to drive drunk... that is, we don't have one.
The message I took from both posts is consistent, and one I disagree with strongly.
So, to be more specific: Are you unconcerned about the original poster's view about your right to privacy as defined in the 4th ammendment? (I figure given my above logic that you are not, since it doesn't appear you believe we have such a right.)
Irrerspective of that, does the fact that he implicitly believes that I am doing something wrong because I don't want everything public bother you? it sure as hell bothers me.
> And neither can you Correct, but I can try to persuade people into thinking that removing another vector for abuse is a good thing.
> Why do people waste time on protesting non-protesters?
Evil prevails when good men fail to act.
Besides, I wasn't protesting, nor have I concluded he's pro-surveillance... I hoped that he just didn't see how it could affect him. I'm naively hoping he may see that circumstance and think "Hey, I didn't of that sort of circumstance, maybe there's other more personally relevant ways this could affect me."
Why should I care about that what he thinks?
I assume (s)he's a responsible citizen, or has occasional contact with responsible citizens, and may be abe to influence others. I can't elect leaders myself, I can't vote laws by myself. My vote gets mixed in with everyone elses. That's part of how it works.
The more people who are unconcerned about something I am concerned about, and worse, think they get a benefit out of the reverse, the worse off my case is.
Are you really that unconcerned about how others who have an impact on your freedoms view your freedoms?
So, let's say you're chatting with a friend, and he mentions how bad he things random wiretapping is. That gets flagged as a potential terrorist conversation. Since he's talking to you at the time, you both get investigated. They find out that that one weird cousion of yours recently travelled to Italy, and by concidence a known terrorist contact was also in Italy. You now look like the perfect cover, and warrant a REAL investigation... ie, asking your neighbors and employer questions. Since they've been asked, and "they wouldn't be asking if there wasn't something to worry about", you are now suspected by your neighbors. So, they've talked to you boss as well, who recalls that you were late coming back from lunch awhile back. (You're wife's prenatal checkup ran a little long) That story checks with the gov't, but they, naturally, never call your boss back to tell him.. so he's now a little suspicious.
You can't guarantee none of this could ever happen. (And you know the old byline... with the government, any possible abuse is a guaranteed abuse at some point. Do you want to be THAT guy?) However, if they didn't pick up on the original conversation, that completely removes the most probable vector for something like this happening.
>Take two seconds and email the person back and ask what it is.
and 72 hours for the person to answer your email assuming it didn't get discarded as spam... =-)
> there's a largely unmonitored SSN available for fraudulent use
Even worse, it can be unmonitorable.
A friend of mine tried to monitor his daughters reports since his Ex has used his other daughter's info to get utility service before. He was told he couldn't do it since he wasn't her. And she couldn't do it since she was a minor.... or something like that... can't recall the details
Um, cuz I got sued and it cost me about 9 months of income to fight the suit, and the since the person suing me made so much less than me the judge didn't award any costs to me. Does that sound like a good reason?
Oh yeah, and factor in some assistance for a nephew with serious medical issues that aren't completely covered by insurance.
2) Just because I can't trust them to protect me doesn't mean I don't see the need to have someone be able to follow through on longer term items. I truly believe corrupt cops are a minority. Keeping an eye on them helps keep them in line and useful to our society, and so that is what we do. My concern is that if someone breaks into my house and threatens me, there is no way they're going to be able to protect me or my family. It's simply physically impossible.
Some apps require kernel extensions. There is no way to uninstall that kernel extension when the App is dragged to the trash. When I kill the App, I want all of its pieces gone, not just the obvious piece.
There needs to be a central place I can go to run a registered uninstaller... or the OS can monitor FS activity, and when I delete the App, it can ask about removing the other crap... or something...
> In those cases where an application does put stuff in non-standard places (thus violating Apple's developer guidelines), the software company ought to provide an uninstaller. Some of them do, in fact. It should not be your responsiblity
It should not be my responsibility to remember which programs had an uninstaller. It should not be my responsibility to keep a copy of the installer around and accessible, so I can eventually uninstall.
I actually believe them on this one... I recently had email rejected for no apparent reason, with a similar explanation. And none of it would have been at all interesting to AOL
You've never been involved with corporate lawyers, have you?
I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent more time with them in a professional capacity then I have wished to. From my experience, objecting is a reflex action. You object to everything you can, but do it in a way that you save your ability later to introduce assertions of truth. If they objected based on falseness, they've removed an option for steering the course of the case later, and lawyers love options.
I'd be willing to be they're true, but this objection is not a sure indicator of that.
>Unnecessary embellishment simply gets in the way.
Totally agreed!
I'm sorry, "agreed" would have been just as good, wouldn't it?... the "Totally" and the exclamation mark were superfluous. Or were they? Did I mean something different from just a simple "agreed"? Hard to tell what is necessary sometimes =-)
The fact that it looks unnecessary to you may mean you just don't understand why the other person thinks it is necessary. Then again, it might just be a sign that they're undisciplined and lazy.
Business speak is very often about managing relationships between people, managing expectations, setting mood... finesse. Business speak, when used correctly, is about using language structures in addition to language to provide additional cues. (sort of like why a good fiction writer doesn't always say "he walked down the street"... sometimes he sauntered, sometimes he merrily skipped...)
Part of the reason is also that the cynical among us really get attached to what a phrase "really means". Certain forms of business speak can help get through that. What's the difference between "lowering the threshhold of decision making", "enabling workers to self manage", or "letting folks do what needs done"? It depends on the context of who is saying it, the culture in the environment, and the context of who is receiving it. ie, just like any other form on non technical communication.
Some business speak is BS, and much of it is just non-commital lazy speech... But it's not as bad as it sounds if you'll give some benefit of the doubt and try to really understand the person using the speech (as non cynically as possible).
Communicating with another human in speech or writing is not as simple as selecting predefined phrases from a canonical list.
Might just be me... I prefer to expect a little good in folks and get dissapointed from time to time, than to always look for the bad and never be disappointed.
I didn't actually go down the slope in my posts... My whole point was that the word "obvious" didn't apply.
But you are correct. The slippery slope is something to worry greatly about. You have to pick the point where you stop letting it "slip", and you make a hard call as to where you can't slide anymore. But since the slope is slippery, that point is almost never obvious
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It treats the press and speech pretty equally there. So, I'm not convinced that the "fire" restriction is appreciably more constitutional based just on the 1st Ammendment.
What is it that actually makes one obviously unconstitutional where the other obviously is?
Federal Gov't does it too... Pacerweb has all the details of bankruptcies online for a few cents a page. (At least, last I was in there a year or two ago)
Two questions for the non-lawyers:
1) Does the fact that it's a company make a difference? Does a company have 5th ammendment rights?
2) You can be subpoena'd to produce documents. You can refuse to produce those documents based on your 5th ammendment rights, and that can't be held as evidence against you. But... since this is Civil, the burden of the State's proof is much lower. Can't they just assert that the illegal things you did made you some astronomical amount of money based on some theory, and hope the judge/jury just takes it? Basically play on the jury's sentiments
Slashdot Mirror
>'which would fall under "papers" in the above'
How do you figure? A letter can actually be in your possession. Once the letter leaves your possession, such as giving it to someone else, it is no longer yours. With a telecommunications network you don't own the channel. You're skipping over the key term in the amendment, "their."
Ah, you make much more sense to me now. I had taken it as so fundamental, that I missed it.
I thought that when you sent a letter to another person, it was still considered private.
That is, you are entrusting it to that person for a specific purpose... for delivery. Since it is possession of an individual, the government can't take it from them without a warrant. (Whether the courier can read your message even though you've only entrusted it to them for transport is a different issue.)
For counter examples, sending a postcard would not be private, and speaking on a CB would not be private.
I do believe speaking on a cell phone or land line is reasonably expected to be private.
I'm entrusting the transmitted signals in just the same way I was entrusting my letter earlier.
Besides, if cell conversations aren't private, why are there laws against snooping on cell phones? tapping phone lines, etc? If they weren't private, there would be no need to define those as off limits for general usage, or for police to get warrants for general usage.
>'does the fact that he implicitly believes that I am doing something wrong'
There was no such implicit message. He explicitly said, "live a good clean life, ignore outside influences, pay your taxes on time and you will have little to worry about."
I read his statement as:
A: "Living a good clean life, etc" => "You don't worry"
The contrapositive of that being:
A': "You worry" => "Not living a good clean life, etc."
If a statement is true, so is it's contrapositive.
Now, since I made my statement after his, there's no way he could actually know what my position would be, so I have to apply his logic to it after the fact.
That is, start with: "I don't want anything that I consider private to be made public without my consent."
Embedded in that sentiment is that I'm worried at some level (no tin hats here) about intrusions on that privacy.
And by A' above, "I'm worried" => "I'm not living a good, clean life, etc."
I think the term "freedom" is tossed around too much. What most people fail to realize is that "freedom" is completely relative to what "rights" a person is deemed to have.
That fact that you mention this implies to me that you think I'm tossing it around too loosely, that I don't have a "right" to what I am saying I have the "freedom" for.
4th Ammendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...
Given that they didn't have telecommunications back then, I more-or-less equate our telephone system with sending letters, which would fall under "papers" in the above.
I have a right for my private communications not to be monitored by the government without warrant or probable cause.
Something I say in private during idle conversation is not probable cause, and the government listening in to that is a violation of my 4th ammendment rights.
What I took from your earlier post was that you weren't concerned about someone who isn't worried about their privacy being violated.
Since you have only now brought up extremes (which bore no relation to the topic of privacy in my mind), I take from your last post that you put the "right to privacy" in the same category as the right to drive drunk... that is, we don't have one.
The message I took from both posts is consistent, and one I disagree with strongly.
So, to be more specific: Are you unconcerned about the original poster's view about your right to privacy as defined in the 4th ammendment?
(I figure given my above logic that you are not, since it doesn't appear you believe we have such a right.)
Irrerspective of that, does the fact that he implicitly believes that I am doing something wrong because I don't want everything public bother you? it sure as hell bothers me.
> And neither can you
Correct, but I can try to persuade people into thinking that removing another vector for abuse is a good thing.
> Why do people waste time on protesting non-protesters?
Evil prevails when good men fail to act.
Besides, I wasn't protesting, nor have I concluded he's pro-surveillance... I hoped that he just didn't see how it could affect him.
I'm naively hoping he may see that circumstance and think "Hey, I didn't of that sort of circumstance, maybe there's other more personally relevant ways this could affect me."
Why should I care about that what he thinks?
I assume (s)he's a responsible citizen, or has occasional contact with responsible citizens, and may be abe to influence others.
I can't elect leaders myself, I can't vote laws by myself. My vote gets mixed in with everyone elses. That's part of how it works.
The more people who are unconcerned about something I am concerned about, and worse, think they get a benefit out of the reverse, the worse off my case is.
Are you really that unconcerned about how others who have an impact on your freedoms view your freedoms?
So, let's say you're chatting with a friend, and he mentions how bad he things random wiretapping is.
That gets flagged as a potential terrorist conversation.
Since he's talking to you at the time, you both get investigated.
They find out that that one weird cousion of yours recently travelled to Italy, and by concidence a known terrorist contact was also in Italy.
You now look like the perfect cover, and warrant a REAL investigation... ie, asking your neighbors and employer questions.
Since they've been asked, and "they wouldn't be asking if there wasn't something to worry about", you are now suspected by your neighbors.
So, they've talked to you boss as well, who recalls that you were late coming back from lunch awhile back. (You're wife's prenatal checkup ran a little long) That story checks with the gov't, but they, naturally, never call your boss back to tell him.. so he's now a little suspicious.
You can't guarantee none of this could ever happen. (And you know the old byline... with the government, any possible abuse is a guaranteed abuse at some point. Do you want to be THAT guy?)
However, if they didn't pick up on the original conversation, that completely removes the most probable vector for something like this happening.
>Take two seconds and email the person back and ask what it is. and 72 hours for the person to answer your email assuming it didn't get discarded as spam... =-)
You actually want all the government agencies correlating information together?
> there's a largely unmonitored SSN available for fraudulent use
... or something like that... can't recall the details
Even worse, it can be unmonitorable.
A friend of mine tried to monitor his daughters reports since his Ex has used his other daughter's info to get utility service before.
He was told he couldn't do it since he wasn't her.
And she couldn't do it since she was a minor.
>If you can't respect your boss then you should be angling for his job.
Hell, that's why I respect so many of the bosses I've had.
They actively help me angle for their jobs.
Keeps me happy and challenged, and also helps them get the most possible out of me... makes us both look good.
> why not?
Um, cuz I got sued and it cost me about 9 months of income to fight the suit, and the since the person suing me made so much less than me the judge didn't award any costs to me.
Does that sound like a good reason?
Oh yeah, and factor in some assistance for a nephew with serious medical issues that aren't completely covered by insurance.
Two answers:
1) Never been to Montana, eh?
2) Just because I can't trust them to protect me doesn't mean I don't see the need to have someone be able to follow through on longer term items.
I truly believe corrupt cops are a minority. Keeping an eye on them helps keep them in line and useful to our society, and so that is what we do.
My concern is that if someone breaks into my house and threatens me, there is no way they're going to be able to protect me or my family. It's simply physically impossible.
I still disagree there.
Some apps require kernel extensions. There is no way to uninstall that kernel extension when the App is dragged to the trash. When I kill the App, I want all of its pieces gone, not just the obvious piece.
There needs to be a central place I can go to run a registered uninstaller... or the OS can monitor FS activity, and when I delete the App, it can ask about removing the other crap... or something...
> In those cases where an application does put stuff in non-standard places (thus violating Apple's developer guidelines), the software company ought to provide an uninstaller. Some of them do, in fact. It should not be your responsiblity
It should not be my responsibility to remember which programs had an uninstaller.
It should not be my responsibility to keep a copy of the installer around and accessible, so I can eventually uninstall.
I actually believe them on this one... I recently had email rejected for no apparent reason, with a similar explanation.
And none of it would have been at all interesting to AOL
You've never been involved with corporate lawyers, have you?
I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent more time with them in a professional capacity then I have wished to.
From my experience, objecting is a reflex action. You object to everything you can, but do it in a way that you save your ability later to introduce assertions of truth. If they objected based on falseness, they've removed an option for steering the course of the case later, and lawyers love options.
I'd be willing to be they're true, but this objection is not a sure indicator of that.
>If an employee knows that his company is committing an illegal act, then it is his or her responsibility to alert the public and the judicial system
There, fixed that for ya.
(at least in the world I want to live in =-) )
But how does the IRS know you properly declared everything?
>Unnecessary embellishment simply gets in the way.
Totally agreed!
I'm sorry, "agreed" would have been just as good, wouldn't it?... the "Totally" and the exclamation mark were superfluous.
Or were they? Did I mean something different from just a simple "agreed"? Hard to tell what is necessary sometimes =-)
The fact that it looks unnecessary to you may mean you just don't understand why the other person thinks it is necessary.
Then again, it might just be a sign that they're undisciplined and lazy.
Bull.
Business speak is very often about managing relationships between people, managing expectations, setting mood... finesse.
Business speak, when used correctly, is about using language structures in addition to language to provide additional cues. (sort of like why a good fiction writer doesn't always say "he walked down the street"... sometimes he sauntered, sometimes he merrily skipped...)
Part of the reason is also that the cynical among us really get attached to what a phrase "really means". Certain forms of business speak can help get through that. What's the difference between "lowering the threshhold of decision making", "enabling workers to self manage", or "letting folks do what needs done"? It depends on the context of who is saying it, the culture in the environment, and the context of who is receiving it. ie, just like any other form on non technical communication.
Some business speak is BS, and much of it is just non-commital lazy speech... But it's not as bad as it sounds if you'll give some benefit of the doubt and try to really understand the person using the speech (as non cynically as possible).
Communicating with another human in speech or writing is not as simple as selecting predefined phrases from a canonical list.
Might just be me... I prefer to expect a little good in folks and get dissapointed from time to time, than to always look for the bad and never be disappointed.
I didn't actually go down the slope in my posts... My whole point was that the word "obvious" didn't apply.
But you are correct. The slippery slope is something to worry greatly about. You have to pick the point where you stop letting it "slip", and you make a hard call as to where you can't slide anymore. But since the slope is slippery, that point is almost never obvious
> Remember "Congress shall make no law..."?
Sure do.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It treats the press and speech pretty equally there. So, I'm not convinced that the "fire" restriction is appreciably more constitutional based just on the 1st Ammendment.
What is it that actually makes one obviously unconstitutional where the other obviously is?
How is that _obviously_ unconstitutional?
To help me calibrate: Is yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre _obviously_ unconstitutional as well?
Federal Gov't does it too... Pacerweb has all the details of bankruptcies online for a few cents a page.
(At least, last I was in there a year or two ago)
Um, no.
IBM doesn't want a default judgement entered... so it can't ignore it.
Two questions for the non-lawyers: 1) Does the fact that it's a company make a difference? Does a company have 5th ammendment rights? 2) You can be subpoena'd to produce documents. You can refuse to produce those documents based on your 5th ammendment rights, and that can't be held as evidence against you. But... since this is Civil, the burden of the State's proof is much lower. Can't they just assert that the illegal things you did made you some astronomical amount of money based on some theory, and hope the judge/jury just takes it? Basically play on the jury's sentiments
That's OK, he's got billions of media on his tape... What? you mean those oxide chunk don't count? darn