Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
- Benjamin Franklin
I think that sums it all up.
The British government, though, is seeking to change the law in order to lock up people with personality disorders that are thought to make them likely to commit crimes, before any crime is committed
Does this scare anyone else? I mean, I'm not British but what kind of a precedent would this set for the rest of the world? Not every sociopath commits a murder, men are able to supress certain sexual feelings, other disorders are treated with medicine.
Also, would this mean that they would lock up every battered woman? Every Post-Traumatic Stress disorder paitent? Everyone whose ever been molested as a child? Because we all know that paedophiles come from molested children, or at least the arguement could be made. There's no line thats able to be drawn.
In this case, as well as the one you stated, Expost Facto certainly applies. Expost facto being latin for "After the fact". In the United States, you cannot arrest someone for breaking a law, then change the law to include them. If they have even halfway decent attornies, they should realise that their convictions are null-in-void. The situation you named follows the same standard. Cant arrest someone for something that isn't yet in the books, or go back and arrest them after the fact, as it was legal then.
Actuially, they can't. Whenever their lights are on (Strobes, flashers, you know, the things that make sure they're not getting hit by cars on traffic stops) the camera and body mic is on. They can't turn it off, and the camera doesn't stop recording until 15 minutes after the lights were turned off. Cops can't get into the locked boxes unless they're Internal Afffairs to destroy tapes.
In one way, you can easily scream OMG ITS A TRAP! The article pretty much gives us the worst case senario, which leaves me thinking FUD. Yeah. That pretty much seems like it. FUD.
And the same was said about the rag-tag untrained american millitias against the heavily armed tactically advanced british. The thing is, people would be fighting for a cause, and that cause carries much more strength then any missle or bomb. (Read: At one point in the Vietnam war, for every one american soldier killed, 10 vietnameese were killed. Ho Chi Min was asked why keep fighting? He answered: Because you (The americans) will eventually give up because you are fighting for the sake of fighting. We (the vietnameese) are fighting for our right to exist.)
You speak of "Bondagegirls.ie" that turns some people on. IANAP (I am not a paedophile) but couldn't the same arguement be made for "xxxpreteens.ie"? It turns some sick freaks on. So we still allow it?
So seriously, if you're going to use that logic, make sure you subject your logic to every example before stating it.
That's just the thing, though. They won't be affected. They'll make sure that they slip something in that makes sure they aren't affected. Our government oversees itself alright, they make sure that none of their legislation affects them negativly in any way.
Why not get Mozilla, Opera and Microsoft together in a giant browser conference? We know that both Microsoft and Mozilla have something to learn about web standards. I mean, opera is the only one to have successfully passed the ACID test. And as for microsofts intentions...who knows what they're up to? And to be honest, if it makes either one of their products better, then it benefits us to some extent.
What this kid did wasn't spam. He wasn't selling anything, wasn't soliciting personal information. He was harassing a former employer because for some reason he had a bone to pick with them. He tried to DoS their mail servers with death threats. If anything, this kid should be charged as a vandal and fined for the dammage and man-hours that it took to unclog the mail server and clear the accounts, as well as some well deserved community service either clearing royally screwed windows PCs of ad/spyware/viri from public PCs or by physically hard labor.
I believe they are in fact at the mercy of media companies. If Microsoft diddn't agree to this they may have lost the ability to further build their monopoly.
In its request, Google said its Orkut pages are housed on its server in the United States and that Brazilian authorities should request that information from its headquarters, not its Brazilian unit.
Could the Brasillian government start knocking at the US DoJ's door asking for a subpeona for the data on the servers inside the USA, or will this lead to another fishing expedition from the US DoJ in MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, Ect instead of google searches?
I can't speak for work, as we have no filtering software, however, our histories are stored on the server we pass through with user-identifiable information attached to them. You do something wrong online, the boss will find and fire you.
At school, though, its a different story. Everything is blocked. Hell, we had google blocked at one point. Sadly, our tech department can't understand the difference between webmail, forums and news sites (the NY Times is constantly switching between blocked and unblocked). I understand we're there to learn, but seriously, why block everything but the school webpage and some half-ass "research sites" (Which normally give no information which is useful to you, anyways)
Very, very intreguing post. If I had mod points, and hadn't posted in this topic, I'd mod you up.
But who gives a shit if they don't get re-elected. I just want to see legislation passed to stop search engines from saving data. I know my midnight searches for woman on woman pr0n are something I don't want some person looking over. And I'm certainly sure your congressmen really don't want people seeing that, especially the republican ones.
I thought that AOL diddn't have one of those...i mean....they released the data in the first place, diddn't they? Was he sleeping when they did that? Drunk? Ston..err..no. He's a lawyer. Never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Large "Hardon" Collider Sparks 'Doomsday' Lawsuit ? I was gonna say, must have been a pretty big woody.
Netcraft Confirms It.
...A lawyer just smiled, from ear-to-ear.
Its down the shore, you goddamn benny.
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin I think that sums it all up.
Does this scare anyone else? I mean, I'm not British but what kind of a precedent would this set for the rest of the world? Not every sociopath commits a murder, men are able to supress certain sexual feelings, other disorders are treated with medicine.
Also, would this mean that they would lock up every battered woman? Every Post-Traumatic Stress disorder paitent? Everyone whose ever been molested as a child? Because we all know that paedophiles come from molested children, or at least the arguement could be made. There's no line thats able to be drawn.
prick Guess it diddn't work
Wow, I wonder how much pressure MS exerted to get Novell to pull developers off of this?
In this case, as well as the one you stated, Expost Facto certainly applies. Expost facto being latin for "After the fact". In the United States, you cannot arrest someone for breaking a law, then change the law to include them. If they have even halfway decent attornies, they should realise that their convictions are null-in-void. The situation you named follows the same standard. Cant arrest someone for something that isn't yet in the books, or go back and arrest them after the fact, as it was legal then.
And to be clear, IANAL
Actuially, they can't. Whenever their lights are on (Strobes, flashers, you know, the things that make sure they're not getting hit by cars on traffic stops) the camera and body mic is on. They can't turn it off, and the camera doesn't stop recording until 15 minutes after the lights were turned off. Cops can't get into the locked boxes unless they're Internal Afffairs to destroy tapes.
In one way, you can easily scream OMG ITS A TRAP! The article pretty much gives us the worst case senario, which leaves me thinking FUD. Yeah. That pretty much seems like it. FUD.
And the same was said about the rag-tag untrained american millitias against the heavily armed tactically advanced british. The thing is, people would be fighting for a cause, and that cause carries much more strength then any missle or bomb. (Read: At one point in the Vietnam war, for every one american soldier killed, 10 vietnameese were killed. Ho Chi Min was asked why keep fighting? He answered: Because you (The americans) will eventually give up because you are fighting for the sake of fighting. We (the vietnameese) are fighting for our right to exist.)
I completely agree. Technology sector is completely different from other areas of society.
You speak of "Bondagegirls.ie" that turns some people on. IANAP (I am not a paedophile) but couldn't the same arguement be made for "xxxpreteens.ie"? It turns some sick freaks on. So we still allow it? So seriously, if you're going to use that logic, make sure you subject your logic to every example before stating it.
Of course, the chances are that they're reading the messages too, cringeing that everyone still uses that gat damn youtube.
That's just the thing, though. They won't be affected. They'll make sure that they slip something in that makes sure they aren't affected. Our government oversees itself alright, they make sure that none of their legislation affects them negativly in any way.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/ 1737245
Hm. Red planet. Red China. What are the chances Russia goes Red again?
Why not get Mozilla, Opera and Microsoft together in a giant browser conference? We know that both Microsoft and Mozilla have something to learn about web standards. I mean, opera is the only one to have successfully passed the ACID test. And as for microsofts intentions...who knows what they're up to? And to be honest, if it makes either one of their products better, then it benefits us to some extent.
What this kid did wasn't spam. He wasn't selling anything, wasn't soliciting personal information. He was harassing a former employer because for some reason he had a bone to pick with them. He tried to DoS their mail servers with death threats. If anything, this kid should be charged as a vandal and fined for the dammage and man-hours that it took to unclog the mail server and clear the accounts, as well as some well deserved community service either clearing royally screwed windows PCs of ad/spyware/viri from public PCs or by physically hard labor.
I believe they are in fact at the mercy of media companies. If Microsoft diddn't agree to this they may have lost the ability to further build their monopoly.
At school, though, its a different story. Everything is blocked. Hell, we had google blocked at one point. Sadly, our tech department can't understand the difference between webmail, forums and news sites (the NY Times is constantly switching between blocked and unblocked). I understand we're there to learn, but seriously, why block everything but the school webpage and some half-ass "research sites" (Which normally give no information which is useful to you, anyways)
But who gives a shit if they don't get re-elected. I just want to see legislation passed to stop search engines from saving data. I know my midnight searches for woman on woman pr0n are something I don't want some person looking over. And I'm certainly sure your congressmen really don't want people seeing that, especially the republican ones.
I thought that AOL diddn't have one of those...i mean....they released the data in the first place, diddn't they? Was he sleeping when they did that? Drunk? Ston..err..no. He's a lawyer. Never mind.