If they aren't, why does so much of the world rely on them? Yes, America included, though they're hardly the only ones.
Because most of the world, yes, America included, doesn't care about justice; they (we) care about proving that they (we) were right, whether or not that's the truth.
And if they aren't reliable (they aren't reliable, but in the interests of neutrality I'll pretend otherwise) then every nation that carries out torture, or sponsors other nations to carry it out for them, is guilty of serious crimes against humanity.
It's a pretty safe bet that many Pakistanis probablyfeel the same way about us, and they have nukes, too. Are you going to lead the revolution against the powers that be here in the U.S.? No? Didn't think so. Perhaps you'd better be careful what you wish for, and think through the implications of what you're saying before spouting off.
It would be interesting for this guy to calculate the same thing on a planet/moon we *can* visit (Titan or Mars, for example), then see how his prediction stacks up to the real thing. If they match, cool. If not...well, iteration is a time-honored scientific and engineering principle, no?
On or off, true or false, Arduino or R. Pi, Linux or Windows, PC or Apple. Sheesh! Sometimes techies can be so....binary!:D
I've had a lot of fun tinkering with the Arduino, but I'm stoked about the Raspberry Pi, too. I've got a few projects in mind where even a netbook would be too big, but an Arduino isn't powerful enough. A BeagleBoard or BeagleBone would work, but since the Raspberry Pi is a third of the price, I'll probably give it a try first.
Technically, yes, the Constitution applies to everyone in the U.S. regardless of nationality, or at least that's the theory. In practice...well...if the reality is that the Constitution doesn't apply to those of us who were born here and who live here, why would it apply to someone else, instead?
Personally, while I would be very sad to see visitors to the U.S. stay away -- I've met some really cool people who were visiting the country -- I am nevertheless encouraging exactly this behaviour anyway. I can, and have, raised as much noise about TSA and other violations of civil liberty as I can, but the sad truth is that money talks. The U.S. is in an economic downturn. If you spend your tourist dollars somewhere else, then that has a definite impact on the economy of the U.S. When airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc. start feeling enough of an economic pinch because tourists are picking less oppressive places to visit, maybe they'll start making noise with their Congresscritters, too. I'm one guy, and my Senators and Representatives wouldn't know me from Adam. But if American Airlines starts screaming, maybe they'll pay attention.
Be aware that a civil rights violation is a windfall in your favor. If you have good evidence, such as a video clearly showing what happened...
Unfortunately, there are quite a few places where capturing video of a police officer is illegal. Double (negative) points if it includes audio and both parties haven't consented to the recording (maybe just one party in some cases? don't ask me, IANAL) because you might have just violated federal wiretapping laws. So yeah...if you've got video proof, you might be sitting on a windfall, but good luck getting video in the first place...or if you do manage to get video, you might only be providing evidence for other charges to be levied against you. Not saying I wouldn't try it myself in such a situation, mind you;) but it's worth noting that you are probably increasing your risk quite a bit by doing so.
WTF!? Yeah I'm anon here but I have to say if you will not submit to a search from an entity designed to combat terrorism at it's base then get the fuck off my airplane, train, bus, whatever the hell form of transportation I've decided to take on that particular day. Go the fuck away or go to another country. We've allowed this to go unchecked in our own country before and it has cost lives.
"Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little, temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." --Benjamin Franklin, who, I daresay, was a *LOT* smarter than you.
I suppose you're one of the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) characters we've read so much about in these last few years, as long as it's not your kids school that get blasted from freaks with assault rifles then all is well and good, but when it happens to you "then someone didn't do enough to stop it!!!!!". Same damn thing applies when the bus you get on is the one that gets blown to shit because some one didn't want to submit to a random search.
Then you suppose wrong. Excrement occurs, and sometimes excrement occurs to good people despite all the precautions we take. Get over it. Public transportation is an exercise in risk management. Violating civil rights to reduce the likelihood of an action that is already statistically less likely to occur than getting struck by lightning is just effin' stupid.
Then start with Wikipedia. There is usually a list of citations at the end of every article for further reading. From that, you can probably get ideas for other topics to investigate. Also, if there is a college in -- or even near -- your town, you can try speaking with a law or civics professor. Worst case, sign up for a class and then you can ask all the questions you want.
Keep in mind that inspecting your bag means looking at what is inside, in "plain sight" so to speak. They aren't going to be intrusively poking around at the files on your laptop or smartphone.
Don't forget this one, too. Yeah, we're well and truly screwed. I'm starting to think our only hope is an American Spring, not that I particularly want things to go that far...:( But maybe some vocal demonstrations might shake things up a bit?
This is purely speculation; I have no data or citations to back this up. However, my *suspicion* is that U.S. highway speeds are still largely a legacy of the '70s when speed limits around the nation were capped at a max of 55 MPH, due to a study that claimed most vehicles were most fuel efficient at that speed. Finally, a little sanity started to return in the mid to late '80s (I don't recall exactly when, but something like that), and speeds started increasing. However, since a lot of the people in positions of power now grew up when 55 MPH was the norm, our speeds haven't varied terribly far from that point, unfortunately.
Every car I've ever owned could exceed 85 MPH with no problems whatsoever. If you can't exceed 80 MPH without stability issues, then either your car sucks or your driving skills do (and I apologize; I'm really not trying to be offensive, but 80 MPH really isn't *that* fast).
If you think engineers have made the (modern) world far worse than it would have been otherwise, you are welcome to move to some third-world backwater where the things those engineers have brought to us are still unnecessary. No? Then kindly STFU. At the very least, it's highly disingenuous to complain about the miracles of modern technology while typing on a computer connected to the Internet.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?
I did, in fact RTFA (or one of them, anyway), and it sounded to me like some of the evidence may have been GPS based. Since I had a GPS show me travelling at 140 MPH in my Nissan Frontier on the way to work a couple of years ago (it also showed a single waypoint on my track to work out in the middle of the inlet near the city where I live -- which is impossible since the water there is too deep to drive through and there are no bridges over the inlet), please excuse me if I claim to be a little...leery...that the data provided may not be 100% accurate.
For the record, the fastest I have ever gone on a land vehicle is ~120 MPH -- and I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to prove that I achieved those speeds in a place where it was not legal. Also for the record, on the day my GPS showed I hit 140, I I don't believe I actually even exceeded 50 MPH. It's kind of hard to hit triple digit speeds in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
When the local PD* arrives, measures the excessively long skid marks on the highway, assesses the damage done to your vehicle, and determines that you were traveling well in excess of the speed limit, they have proven what they need to prove. At that point, you had better have some data to back up your claim that you were obeying all of the traffic laws and that the police/insurance agent misdiagnosed the cause of the accident. Otherwise, you will be in for a rather unpleasant reality check when you are now on the hook for the citation issued by the cops, the damage for the car, the damage -- if any -- to anyone else's car(s), and the costs of the lawsuit that you just lost.
*or, more likely, the insurance agent. There was a very amusing anecdote by Joe Gresh in a recent issue of Motorcyclist magazine about him and his friends being able to pull the wool over the local police's eyes, but not being able to fool the insurance inspector -- who was, of course, much more motivated to find out what *really* happened to the custom chopper that one of Gresh's friends wrecked.
No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.
Agreed, although I would go one step further to say that, while this is a fundamental right that nobody has the right to take away from you, that doesn't mean that people with power won't try, nor does it mean that you will not (possibly) suffer for attempting to exercise that right. There is a subtle distinction between "This is the way it should be" and "This is the way it is."
This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.
People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.
And biological systems don't? I spent almost a year back in the '90s getting my blood removed and filtered three times a week...trust me, it sucks. If you ever get the chance to avoid dialysis, I highly recommend it;) Having the ability to remove and replace a modular component when it wears out or breaks would be the biggest advantage of a mechanical device over a biological one, IMHO.
Gotcha. By the way, interesting comment re: the 5th Amendment. I hadn't heard or thought of that, although it's a pretty...interesting*...loophole for compelling a testimony from someone who doesn't particularly want to cooperate.
Then, thank you, EFF, for what you've been doing. Thank you for raising the issues and at least attempting to bring about the change you want to see. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude, despite the grumbling from the A.C. above.
The key here being the two phrases you used, "As far as I know..." and "gross violations of the law...[emphasis mine]".
Can you quote book, chapter and verse from the laws on the books in the state and municipality where you live? No? Then you don't know whether or not you have violated any laws. For example, someone once told me that where I live, if the state troopers catch you stopping to take a leak outside, they can arrest you and you will have to register as a sex offender. Keep in mind that I live in a state that is over half a million square miles with a total population of about half a million people. On average, that's roughly one person per square mile. Considering that over half of those people live in a 2000 square mile area, most of the state has a population density considerably less than one person per square mile (and for the record, there aren't a lot of rest stops over most of state, so peeing in the woods is just a fact of life here). The point is, while it's not likely that the Troopers will arrest you for relieving your bladder in the bushes unless you are being absolutely ignorant about it, it is possible. Therefore, the argument that "I have nothing to hide because I have done nothing wrong" is dangerously naive. If you give the authorities a reason to come look for you, there's a better than even chance that they can find something to hang you with.
But the telcos (arguably) didn't comply with all of the legal requirements that existed at the time. There were laws on the books that prohibited wiretapping, and the 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches without proper authorization (and, yes, the "unreasonable" clause in the 4th Amendment is a potential loophole; I'll let the lawyers argue about whether or not such requests were "reasonable").
I agree that we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who overstep those bounds, but each and every one of us has a moral and ethical obligation to weigh every request, order or demand from authority before complying. Doing the right thing is not always easy, but that's life. If people, as a whole, would grow a collective backbone, those in authority would be far less inclined to overstep their bounds because they would have the proverbial snowball's chance of succeeding with whatever it is they are trying to do that is unethical or dishonest. As long as we keep complying with authority because "I was just following orders" we are willing accomplices in their evil. That's not the way I want to live my life.
First, let me say that personally, I agree with you. Philosophically, you are exactly right, and I wish our elected leaders, as well as those who elected them, would get a clue.
However, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Unfortunately, for many people, it is not at all clear that it is not in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, in fact, a number of otherwise sane, rational people who are clamoring for the government to go ahead and subvert whatever rights they have to keep them safe from the "terrists". They have become brainwashed into thinking that there is a radical Islamic hiding behind every corner, just waiting to blow up their airplane, bus, train, etc. As a result, they are more than happy to surrender their rights in the name of "security" because, after all...this is the U.S.A. we're talking about. We're the good guys -- we don't ship people off to the Gulags or concentration camps (cough...cough..."Guantanamo"...cough). We don't have anything to fear from our government, right?
If we want things to change, if we want to return to the principles upon which this country was founded, we have GOT to make people understand that the Constitution exists for a very, very good reason, and that government -- any government, even ours -- WILL abuse the people it is supposed to protect if you allow it to get too powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
If they aren't, why does so much of the world rely on them? Yes, America included, though they're hardly the only ones.
Because most of the world, yes, America included, doesn't care about justice; they (we) care about proving that they (we) were right, whether or not that's the truth.
And if they aren't reliable (they aren't reliable, but in the interests of neutrality I'll pretend otherwise) then every nation that carries out torture, or sponsors other nations to carry it out for them, is guilty of serious crimes against humanity.
Pretty much.
It's a pretty safe bet that many Pakistanis probably feel the same way about us, and they have nukes, too. Are you going to lead the revolution against the powers that be here in the U.S.? No? Didn't think so. Perhaps you'd better be careful what you wish for, and think through the implications of what you're saying before spouting off.
It would be interesting for this guy to calculate the same thing on a planet/moon we *can* visit (Titan or Mars, for example), then see how his prediction stacks up to the real thing. If they match, cool. If not...well, iteration is a time-honored scientific and engineering principle, no?
On or off, true or false, Arduino or R. Pi, Linux or Windows, PC or Apple. Sheesh! Sometimes techies can be so....binary! :D
I've had a lot of fun tinkering with the Arduino, but I'm stoked about the Raspberry Pi, too. I've got a few projects in mind where even a netbook would be too big, but an Arduino isn't powerful enough. A BeagleBoard or BeagleBone would work, but since the Raspberry Pi is a third of the price, I'll probably give it a try first.
Technically, yes, the Constitution applies to everyone in the U.S. regardless of nationality, or at least that's the theory. In practice...well...if the reality is that the Constitution doesn't apply to those of us who were born here and who live here, why would it apply to someone else, instead?
Personally, while I would be very sad to see visitors to the U.S. stay away -- I've met some really cool people who were visiting the country -- I am nevertheless encouraging exactly this behaviour anyway. I can, and have, raised as much noise about TSA and other violations of civil liberty as I can, but the sad truth is that money talks. The U.S. is in an economic downturn. If you spend your tourist dollars somewhere else, then that has a definite impact on the economy of the U.S. When airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc. start feeling enough of an economic pinch because tourists are picking less oppressive places to visit, maybe they'll start making noise with their Congresscritters, too. I'm one guy, and my Senators and Representatives wouldn't know me from Adam. But if American Airlines starts screaming, maybe they'll pay attention.
Be aware that a civil rights violation is a windfall in your favor. If you have good evidence, such as a video clearly showing what happened...
Unfortunately, there are quite a few places where capturing video of a police officer is illegal. Double (negative) points if it includes audio and both parties haven't consented to the recording (maybe just one party in some cases? don't ask me, IANAL) because you might have just violated federal wiretapping laws. So yeah...if you've got video proof, you might be sitting on a windfall, but good luck getting video in the first place...or if you do manage to get video, you might only be providing evidence for other charges to be levied against you. Not saying I wouldn't try it myself in such a situation, mind you ;) but it's worth noting that you are probably increasing your risk quite a bit by doing so.
WTF!? Yeah I'm anon here but I have to say if you will not submit to a search from an entity designed to combat terrorism at it's base then get the fuck off my airplane, train, bus, whatever the hell form of transportation I've decided to take on that particular day. Go the fuck away or go to another country. We've allowed this to go unchecked in our own country before and it has cost lives.
"Those who would sacrifice their liberty for a little, temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." --Benjamin Franklin, who, I daresay, was a *LOT* smarter than you.
I suppose you're one of the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) characters we've read so much about in these last few years, as long as it's not your kids school that get blasted from freaks with assault rifles then all is well and good, but when it happens to you "then someone didn't do enough to stop it!!!!!". Same damn thing applies when the bus you get on is the one that gets blown to shit because some one didn't want to submit to a random search.
Then you suppose wrong. Excrement occurs, and sometimes excrement occurs to good people despite all the precautions we take. Get over it. Public transportation is an exercise in risk management. Violating civil rights to reduce the likelihood of an action that is already statistically less likely to occur than getting struck by lightning is just effin' stupid.
Goddamnit sometimes you morons piss me off.
Ditto.
Then start with Wikipedia. There is usually a list of citations at the end of every article for further reading. From that, you can probably get ideas for other topics to investigate. Also, if there is a college in -- or even near -- your town, you can try speaking with a law or civics professor. Worst case, sign up for a class and then you can ask all the questions you want.
Keep in mind that inspecting your bag means looking at what is inside, in "plain sight" so to speak. They aren't going to be intrusively poking around at the files on your laptop or smartphone.
Yet.
Don't forget this one, too. Yeah, we're well and truly screwed. I'm starting to think our only hope is an American Spring, not that I particularly want things to go that far... :( But maybe some vocal demonstrations might shake things up a bit?
This is purely speculation; I have no data or citations to back this up. However, my *suspicion* is that U.S. highway speeds are still largely a legacy of the '70s when speed limits around the nation were capped at a max of 55 MPH, due to a study that claimed most vehicles were most fuel efficient at that speed. Finally, a little sanity started to return in the mid to late '80s (I don't recall exactly when, but something like that), and speeds started increasing. However, since a lot of the people in positions of power now grew up when 55 MPH was the norm, our speeds haven't varied terribly far from that point, unfortunately.
Every car I've ever owned could exceed 85 MPH with no problems whatsoever. If you can't exceed 80 MPH without stability issues, then either your car sucks or your driving skills do (and I apologize; I'm really not trying to be offensive, but 80 MPH really isn't *that* fast).
If you think engineers have made the (modern) world far worse than it would have been otherwise, you are welcome to move to some third-world backwater where the things those engineers have brought to us are still unnecessary. No? Then kindly STFU. At the very least, it's highly disingenuous to complain about the miracles of modern technology while typing on a computer connected to the Internet.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?
I did, in fact RTFA (or one of them, anyway), and it sounded to me like some of the evidence may have been GPS based. Since I had a GPS show me travelling at 140 MPH in my Nissan Frontier on the way to work a couple of years ago (it also showed a single waypoint on my track to work out in the middle of the inlet near the city where I live -- which is impossible since the water there is too deep to drive through and there are no bridges over the inlet), please excuse me if I claim to be a little...leery...that the data provided may not be 100% accurate.
For the record, the fastest I have ever gone on a land vehicle is ~120 MPH -- and I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to prove that I achieved those speeds in a place where it was not legal. Also for the record, on the day my GPS showed I hit 140, I I don't believe I actually even exceeded 50 MPH. It's kind of hard to hit triple digit speeds in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
No, I think perhaps *YOU* are missing the point.
When the local PD* arrives, measures the excessively long skid marks on the highway, assesses the damage done to your vehicle, and determines that you were traveling well in excess of the speed limit, they have proven what they need to prove. At that point, you had better have some data to back up your claim that you were obeying all of the traffic laws and that the police/insurance agent misdiagnosed the cause of the accident. Otherwise, you will be in for a rather unpleasant reality check when you are now on the hook for the citation issued by the cops, the damage for the car, the damage -- if any -- to anyone else's car(s), and the costs of the lawsuit that you just lost.
*or, more likely, the insurance agent. There was a very amusing anecdote by Joe Gresh in a recent issue of Motorcyclist magazine about him and his friends being able to pull the wool over the local police's eyes, but not being able to fool the insurance inspector -- who was, of course, much more motivated to find out what *really* happened to the custom chopper that one of Gresh's friends wrecked.
No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.
Agreed, although I would go one step further to say that, while this is a fundamental right that nobody has the right to take away from you, that doesn't mean that people with power won't try, nor does it mean that you will not (possibly) suffer for attempting to exercise that right. There is a subtle distinction between "This is the way it should be" and "This is the way it is."
This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.
People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.
Agreed, without reservations.
And biological systems don't? I spent almost a year back in the '90s getting my blood removed and filtered three times a week...trust me, it sucks. If you ever get the chance to avoid dialysis, I highly recommend it ;) Having the ability to remove and replace a modular component when it wears out or breaks would be the biggest advantage of a mechanical device over a biological one, IMHO.
You might want to take your sarcasm detector to the shop. My post was definitely intended as sarcasm ;)
Gotcha. By the way, interesting comment re: the 5th Amendment. I hadn't heard or thought of that, although it's a pretty...interesting*...loophole for compelling a testimony from someone who doesn't particularly want to cooperate.
*sed "s/interesting/(sneaky|devious|clever)/"
Are you stepping up to the plate? No?
Then, thank you, EFF, for what you've been doing. Thank you for raising the issues and at least attempting to bring about the change you want to see. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude, despite the grumbling from the A.C. above.
Actually, I think that was Franklin, not Jefferson, but otherwise, yes, you are correct.
The key here being the two phrases you used, "As far as I know..." and "gross violations of the law...[emphasis mine]".
Can you quote book, chapter and verse from the laws on the books in the state and municipality where you live? No? Then you don't know whether or not you have violated any laws. For example, someone once told me that where I live, if the state troopers catch you stopping to take a leak outside, they can arrest you and you will have to register as a sex offender. Keep in mind that I live in a state that is over half a million square miles with a total population of about half a million people. On average, that's roughly one person per square mile. Considering that over half of those people live in a 2000 square mile area, most of the state has a population density considerably less than one person per square mile (and for the record, there aren't a lot of rest stops over most of state, so peeing in the woods is just a fact of life here). The point is, while it's not likely that the Troopers will arrest you for relieving your bladder in the bushes unless you are being absolutely ignorant about it, it is possible. Therefore, the argument that "I have nothing to hide because I have done nothing wrong" is dangerously naive. If you give the authorities a reason to come look for you, there's a better than even chance that they can find something to hang you with.
But the telcos (arguably) didn't comply with all of the legal requirements that existed at the time. There were laws on the books that prohibited wiretapping, and the 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches without proper authorization (and, yes, the "unreasonable" clause in the 4th Amendment is a potential loophole; I'll let the lawyers argue about whether or not such requests were "reasonable").
No.
I agree that we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who overstep those bounds, but each and every one of us has a moral and ethical obligation to weigh every request, order or demand from authority before complying. Doing the right thing is not always easy, but that's life. If people, as a whole, would grow a collective backbone, those in authority would be far less inclined to overstep their bounds because they would have the proverbial snowball's chance of succeeding with whatever it is they are trying to do that is unethical or dishonest. As long as we keep complying with authority because "I was just following orders" we are willing accomplices in their evil. That's not the way I want to live my life.
First, let me say that personally, I agree with you. Philosophically, you are exactly right, and I wish our elected leaders, as well as those who elected them, would get a clue.
However, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Unfortunately, for many people, it is not at all clear that it is not in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, in fact, a number of otherwise sane, rational people who are clamoring for the government to go ahead and subvert whatever rights they have to keep them safe from the "terrists". They have become brainwashed into thinking that there is a radical Islamic hiding behind every corner, just waiting to blow up their airplane, bus, train, etc. As a result, they are more than happy to surrender their rights in the name of "security" because, after all...this is the U.S.A. we're talking about. We're the good guys -- we don't ship people off to the Gulags or concentration camps (cough...cough..."Guantanamo"...cough). We don't have anything to fear from our government, right?
If we want things to change, if we want to return to the principles upon which this country was founded, we have GOT to make people understand that the Constitution exists for a very, very good reason, and that government -- any government, even ours -- WILL abuse the people it is supposed to protect if you allow it to get too powerful.