and the cop can't open an active case on that reasoning. There must first be a REPORTED CRIME.
For your reasoning, hmm, you;re driving without a license in your possession. That's enough to get you arrested on it's own, whether or not you HAVE one, not having it ON you is illegal.
If they have existing probable cause to believe you may have paraphernalia on you, or associate you with a known criminal, then YES, they can request to search your car. If you refuse, they impound it, do some more paperwork, still don;t require a warrant, and search it anyway. if they find nothing, they apologize and send you on your way. If they find something, you are guilty, period. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Illegally found or not, YOU are guilty, sue the cop and put him in jail WITH you if he didn't follow due process...
However, that has no bearing on this argument. This location data (which is just TOWER location data btw, not down to the meter GPS location data unless you called 911), is as easily collected by an officer legally following you, or by your purchase records which don;t require a warrant to obtain, or by your work schedule, time clock log, and just about anything else they can get. WHERE YOU GO IN PUBLIC IS NOT PRIVATE INFORMATION YOU PARANOID NUT JOB.
Access to that information however, without due process, YES, you can sue the department for that. That's why it requires a form to be filled out, and then Verizon further CHARGES for it. Do you really think a chief of police is going to look favorably on a cop who accessed your wife's records, unless there was an open case documented that she was tied to, and where those records had likelihood of having value to the case? No, he's going to deduct that charge from the cop's payroll, likely suspend him, possibly notify you (IA says he has to), and maybe fire him.
You forget the 5th amendment, for which with DUE PROCESS alone, the government CAN take your life, liberty, or property, with restrictions.
However, that's irrelevant. There's nothing PRIVATE about where you went in public, where any officer so deputized could simply have followed you. Federal district court already rules that simply with due process, cops could place a tracking device on your car, in lieu of following you with manpower, given probable cause in an active case, and following due process. The supreme court chose not to hear the case, thereby affirming the ruling.
Your actions in public are not private. WHO you called, and who you sent/received mail from (electronic or post) is not private either. Only the CONTENT of that communication is private, and what you do behind closed doors. This is NOT illegal. This has been backed REPEATEDLY in court. they STILL have to have due process to do this or you can still sue. They can't simply scan and log all this data for government use, it has to be a request-by-request access for active case work/investigations, and clearly documented. it simply does not require additional, advance, signature from a 2nd branch of government, that's the ONLY difference.
As for your list, the only one the government can not ALREADY do without a warrant is get a customer list from a reseller. (though most will give this up willingly, and you can NOT sue the reseller if they do, unless you have a written agreement/contract with them explicitly for them to refuse to release that information, since it is their information).
They do not need a warrant, but they need BOTH probable cause and due process. A warrant is just pre-approved due process, nothing more, and only applies where "reasonable" search is questionable or invasive, and when/how that is applied is a rule set by the supreme and other courts throughout our history.
but this is not COMMUNICATION. This is positional data over a period of time. no different than can be collected through OTHER means which themselves do not require a warrent (collecting call records, credit/banking records, or simply following you in public does NOT require a warrant). Furether, use of a tracking device in place of an officer to track your activity has already been upheld by the supreme court, so long as DUE PROCESS is observed.
in this case, associating the charge back from Verizon to the police for their access to the cell call/location history file to an active open case number is the process of law. Failure to do so? Failure to document cause for access? YES, that's illegal. Typing your cell phone to an open case and requesting the data is NOT a warrant requiring action. this is simply another "associative" data point, not considered private information. it's not a recorded call, it;s not private conversation, it;s where you went and when, and it;s only useful in an active investigation.
the government's not CONNECTING natively and indexing this system, they have to make ONE-AT-A-TIME requests, for particular people in particular time ranges, and pay EACH TIME THEY DO.
This is not information they can't already piece together for just about everyone anyway (from street cameras, purchase records, time clocks at work, call history, and more). it;s just a simpler and more accurate way of getting the SAME data.
Yup. this is information any cop could obtain simply by following you.
Also, lack of a warrent does NOT imply lack of due process, which in AM5, as opposed to Am4: search and seisure, they CAN take your life, liberty, and/or proerty simply by DUE PROCESS (which the supreme court rules a warrant may or may not apply based on circumstances, the detail of information collected, and whether or not sealed/locked property is invaded.
How about the spirit of the 5th amendment??? You know, the clause where taking your life, liberty, or property simple requires DUE PROCESS?
The description of a warrant in Am4 defines what it must include, but not when it must be issued. Due process based on an active case, reasonable suspicion, and/or probable cause is enough to search your person, possessions, and question you. They can not enter your home without a warrant, but in public, that's a different story...
Anywhere you go not on your own property, you are in public, including entering and leaving someone else's property, and any officer so dispatched could follow you and collect this information contained in your GPS records. Further, the supreme court also rules that a tracking device, not an officer, could equally be used in the efforts to follow a suspect, following due process, without warrant.
This request by the administration is simply an extention of existing, upheld law to a centralized system.
you have every right to disable the location service in your personal device, with the exception of when communicating with 911 services, or, if BY WARRANT, it is remotely activated.
By the congress passing, the executive approving, and the court upholding (especially the HIGH court, who's ONLY call it to review the constitution), FUCK YES, it's constitutional, that the EXACT process the constitution set out!!!
A Warrant is only defined in the constitution in amendment 4 seperate from search and seisure, in that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" However, in amendment 5, you CAN be deprived of life, liberty, property through "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
What's that mean?
Well, the supreme court has agreed numerous times that "due process" does not require the issue of a warrant, except to enter your home, read your "papers" or inspect your affects and possessions. Anything in plain sight, including where you go, who you meet, where you shop, etc, is all open to any officer to simply WATCH you do. Anything that can be observed by the common man, in the due course of ain investigation, or through the DUE PROCESS of opening a case, filing an inquiry, issuing a civil fine, etc, does not require a warrant, but does simply require a PROCESS.
Nowhere does the law say you can not be searched without a warrant, it simply sais you can not be UNREASONABLY searched without DUE PROCESS. About the only exception to this is when you are "presumed" guilty.
in this case, obtaining your cell location history record, as with your phone records, would be limited to a written request, compensated by the department with payment to the carrier for processing, and restricted to a date/location range consistent with the scope of an active case. outside of that, the access they make is illegal, and you could sue.
Carriers already hand over call history without a warrant, as do credit card companies, banks, and more. The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them, and was thus considered completely acceptable.
Who you associate with, and where you go are PUBLIC INFORMATION. What you say or do (out of earshot and eyesight) is all that's private.
This does not mean there is not a requirement for DUE PROCESS, and does not mean that if you;re searched WITHOUT CAUSE, that you can't sue, it simply means they don't have to get a warrant to get simple, otherwise considered available to a perusing officer, information.
Further, this access COSTS MONEY, PER TRANSACTION. A cop who pulls your history, for a time period, is going to have to backfill that to an active investigation and case number, otherwise they'll get in depp shit with the department, possibly get fired, and if you find out, you sue.
DUE PROCESS is simply a lesser level of a warrant. All a warrant is really is a 3rd party validation of due process.
A cop with probable cause can search your car, and there's nothing you can do about it. Refuse and they simply impound, do the paperwork, and search anyway, then give you a nasty bill for the trouble in addition to punishment for anything they find. Even if the find nothing, and let you go, you STILL have to pay the impound fee in most states, and you can not sue as probable cause rules in public. However, get pulled over for no reason, the cop logs no ticket or you have witnesses proving no wrongdoing, and he searches anyway? he's busted.
they can't search your house, they can't TAP you line and record calls, but they CAN know where and when you were. That is NOT private, and NOT protected.
No parallel. This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information. This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.
This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.
This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone. Why not? verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed. Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments, b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.
just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required. A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions. If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car). However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not. Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have levels of protection. The fact there's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.
Think about it, tracking history for known criminals (lets say we ARREST a drug dealer, and he won;t reveal his source), now they make a request, pay verizon, download his location history, and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops (other suspected dealer homes). Bamb, gotcha.
The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar. This is simply one additional tool. if they don;t have it, they'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way. That is expensive, inaccurate, and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids, tracking down wanted suspects, and cross validating false alibis.
Canada's system is a complete mess. You're also talking about one of the least dense populations in the world, and a country with fewer hospitals, and fewer specialists than just the state of Ohio. Getting medical care there is a problem due to distance between hospitals, and availability of specialists. Further, being entirely government funded (not private), expanding funding is a problem. You can not compare that system to ours,current or future.
Next, you obviously didn't read the supreme court ruling on SSA enough. The core phrase is "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare".
Essentially, that for the general welfare of the public, very much YES, the federal government does have that power. They're not requiring states to pass or enforce laws, they're mandating the people to pay into a system of welfare/health care, including the freedom to choose a provider and terms, and providing assistance to the poor. There is no language in the constitution forbidding them from requiring the purchase of a good or service of the citizens, it's simply not been done before (though STATES have done just that).
They're regulating commerce among the "several" states, not in any particular one. This HAS been upheld. By making it a national issue, health insurance becomes entirely an interstate commerce issue (insurance covers you in any hospital or doctor anywhere, not just in your state, and is thus a prepayment for services across state lines)
In fact, the only way national healthcare CAN in any way be managed by congress, by law it MUST cover all Americans. Leaving any group out breaks congressional power of commerce and the bill could be overturned.
The insurance "penalty" is in the same legal classification as the penalty for not filing your tax return (which was also upheld). It is a tax, but it;s a "penalty tax" and itself is not subject to additional panalties for non payment. Further the bill does not FORCE you to be covered, it simply taxes you if you are not, to pay for hospital subsidies that cover the uninsured.
MANY MANY lawyers who have argued cases in from of the high court have weighed in, this bill is very well crafted, with input from justices directly in many cases. This IS legal. Get over it. If you don't want insurance, pay the tax. If you don't like the policy, exercise your vote.
Oh, who do ytou think pays for SCHIP? We do. If the kids ARE insured, the portion of our taxes covering that GO DOWN. The rest are subsidized.
1st, some of the programs didn't work, but others were very successful.
2nd, they never even gave out all the money, over 200B is still in reserve. It also was not 800M, but closer to 750.
3rd, the banks already paid back over 300M, PLUS INTEREST, in TARP money. Obama and the fed are also seeking repayment of the rest of it 4 years early, and they'll get it back, all buy what went to the auto companies, and some to AIG.
Finally, that was BUSH'S stimulus plan, not Obama's. Obama was only responsible for dolling out half of it, which had already been earmarked.
Now, healthcare. It's 800B over 10 years, or 80B a year. Not bad first of all, that would be one of the SMALLLEST programs we have. Because of the efficiencies gained by 100% of Americans being covered (insurance becomes assumed, not a 30 minute process filling out paperwork before you get treatment), there's some money to be saved. MUCH more importantly, if you have coverage you're MUCH more likely to seek treatment, which means early diagnosis, and FAR less expensive treatment cycles. After 5 years (when the plan actually begins, the first 4 years, and more than half the money) is getting it set up), the savings will become realized, and medical costs over time will drop.
A large percent of what you pay in current medical costs is to cover the hospital for all the OTHER people that do NOT pay. When everyon's covered, that problem goes away.
I'm not agains SELF-insured people, provided they fill out some forms and actually have the equity available to meet a 100,000 minimum cap. But everyone needs to be covered in order to have an effective, efficient, and inexpensive medical system. It's a guarantee, costs will go down. This is proven by all the other countries that put in systems like this. ours will have the advantage of your CHOICE of provider. It would get cheaper if the government itself competed with those providers (essentially price-capping the industry into reasonable fees).
Oh, the national debt? You realize we'll only be bankrupt is the payments on the interest exceed our ability to pay. Further, adjusted for inflation, our current national debt is actually lower than antime since just past the great depression.
We have to spend our way out of this mess. We spent in a lot of areas, to see where there was and was not an effect. We learned, and can spend more with a positive return. SPENDING is not the issue, spending without a positive future return is. healthcare spending can only have a positive return. (50 million more insured people need a lot more doctors, insurance people, and staff to handle, treat, and do paperwork, that alone will put more than 80B back in the tax pool....)
Ok, fine, register as a "provider" and self-insure. NOTHING in the health care law prevents that. I know many people who have done that for their home and business insurance, and in my state you can do that for car insurance as well. It only takes some bank forms to provide guaranteed credit availability.
I'm being far from serious regarding the tatoo or RFID. It's easy enough to simply have a heavy penalty (like years in prison, and immediate dismissal from a medical facility) if you try to cheat the system. The point is, if we can ASSUME everyone is covered, then getting you in to see a doctor can be streamlined, providing better medical assistance, and lowering administrative costs, and the costs from complications due to delays in treatment from non-life-threatening issues(Life threatening issues are treated anyway, under the assumption you can pay, but when you CAN'T we pay for you through subsidies from government and higher fees from the hospital like $200 aspirins).
So, the implementation of social security, and the fines and penalties for not paying it on any income, is unconstitutional? Gee, though the supreme court already ruled on that...
How is this different?
They're not ordering you to take service from a specific provider, they're not ordering you to buy or use anything. They're ordering you to be covered. Don;t like it? Certify YOURSELF as an insurance provider, acquire a half million in find backing, and INSURE YOURSELF and pay no one. Simply qualify the policy of having a policy with minimum regulated coverage. There's your out.... There's the "lawyers" exception. You are not in fact forced to PAY for a policy (provided you can acquire coverage at any price).
Oh, and the US code of commerce, yes it very well CAN regulate commerce inside of a state. The exception is that state law can trump the federal one. Equally so, the federal government can regulate the STATE'S own finances, and essentially MAKE the state pass it;s own version of the law (seatbelt laws anyone? Drinking age changes? Gambling laws? Prostitution? all state laws enforced by federal mandate...)
in this case, it could equally be done through mandate, but the system would be highly inconsitant, and healthcare would suffer, and it certainly would cost more.
The idea here is, if you walk into a medical facility, it will be ASSUMED you are covered. this streamlines check-in and gets you to diagnosis, or surgery, faster. They deal with collection later. If ANYONE is not subject to this coverage, then EVERYONE has to check in... This is an overhead in the Medical industry easily removed.
Further, are you really willing to let children go uncovered, simply because a parent chooses to spend too much money on alcohol, entertainment, and more, to the point they can not afford coverage? NO. Children MUST be covered.
I'm full in support of an EXCEPTION policy. You over 18 and don;t want to be treated except out-of-pocket (self-insured)? Fine. Fill out a bunch of paperwork, take a government mandated class that ensures you fully understand your rights, and be required by law to at all times carry identification telling a hospital you are not to be treated for any reason (and file forms with all hosp[itals within 100 miles of your current residence to be certain. Then, should you try to check in anyway, without payment, or cheat this system, we'll simply lock you up for 20 years as soon as we discover it (and stop treatment immediately, which also could end your life).
The bill passed. It's in negotiations, and "subject" to change, but we can only discuss what is FACT on paper at this moment (until it DOES change). One chamber proposed a fine, the other did not, why would you think the negotiation would be to make the fine BIGGER?
It's not voluntary in SC, nor CT. If you have a drivers license, you MUST have insurance, whether or not you own a car at all. Since having a drivers license is all but mandatory, unless you live in a dense urban city and never leave it.
I'm completely OK with a possibility of refused treatment for medical issues if you have no insurance. However, since we can't enforce that on the poor, and it must be a subsidized system for them, essentially you'd be asking everyone who's not getting insurance to be paying for those that are. I could easily (and I do) support a WAIVER option, where you fully document, after taking a 2-4 hour course, that you refuse treatment of any kind aside that which you'll pay for out of pocket, and make arrangements with a local doctor and hospital, and accept a pre-authorization of payment/loan. You see, if we're not all 100% covered, then the hospital actually has to check you in. If we're ALL covered, they treat us and worry about the paperwork later, so unless you're pre-screened as a non-payer, and can be easily identified as such, and the hospital knows in advance how much "health credit" you have for treatment, they can't admit you at all.
All well and good when you CHOOSE treatment, but when you get "brought in" unconscious, someone has to pay, since they're going to treat you anyway unless you can be identified as a do-not-service customer. I suggest a tatoo or other permanent mark (or RFID) indicating your status of do-not-treat so hospitals can't make mistakes with you, and end up billing my government and my insurance provider in the form of increased fees because they accidentally treated you when they should not have, and in the interest of medicine and quick service, we're trying to do away with admissions hassles here...
If you don;t want service, I'm OK with that. However, this also has to be a LIFETIME decision, since you can't wait until your 60's then jump on the insurance bandwagon at the same prices I pay after having contributed my whole life either... That screws up the analyses for predicted future costs.
Also, Anyone under 18 should not have the option of going without insurance, it being a lifetime choice and all it should not be made by a 3rd party (parents). unless, of course, we simply provide all children free healthcare period, and subsidize it with taxes...
Amazon is not the manufacturer, except of the Kindle. They're the distributor/reseller.
If you sell a product to amazon to resell, and you, as a manufacturer of say radar detectors, know they're illegal in multiple states, then you have to tell Amazon the applicable state laws, and those would be attached to the product description, and their system would not ship a product to an address in a banned area/state. Amazon could bill the manufacturer a tiny fee for modifying the sales allowance records and supporting systems, or the state/locality could be asked by Amazon to fund said system (or sue for the costs of implementing it and file for relief from the court as an expense to avoid prosecution by a non-local law that applies to them).
This does not ban ALL sales, this bans the sales of the SPECIFIC product. They would not get these from the state, the manufacturer would. The manufacturer would provide such listings in a single document accompanying their entire inventory listing they're offering to Amazon to Sell. Amazon could just as easily refuse to carry "complicated" products, leaving the manufacturer to either sell direct or find local resellers in each region they are legally able to sell in.
I'm NOT suggesting this system be implemented, but so long as it IS currently upheld law (hopefully the Supreme Court will reason and kick this back down), someone needs a system to accommodate it.
i agree, however, this currently is not the case, and the Supreme court has upheld similar legislation. The only issue here is can the locality force a non-local company across a state line to obey this law, without providing a budget provision and system of compensation for the implementation of the ability to abide by it. It would make more sense to make it illegal for citizens to go there or pay them than it would to fine the provider.
Oh, they must have changed that then, since in 1994 I got pulled over for simply having one on my dash, was issued a fine, and the cop confiscated the radar detector. There's also those signs on the NJTP that say "Radar Detectors Are Illegal" I have not driven through in years, but it certainly used to be illelgal to have one at all.
Case in point: It is not illegal to gamble in your own home, however it is illegal to connect to a gambling site, in some cases even free ones, and it is further illegal for a gambling site to accept a credit card, or illegal for a bank to process a credit transaction for online gambling in some states.
You're right, they can't stop you doing it in your home (unless it's for profit), but they can stop you from engaging in TRANSACTIONS related to doing it.
No, it is solidly against federal law simply to possess an image of a person under 18 years old engaged in a sexual act, or in a nude pose. Period. this is not argued. Local law does not trump that law.
They're not saying you can't view port, they're saying you can't BUY porn... not the same thing. However, neighborhood level municipalities unfortunately have a lot more power than you think. Your only power is voting them out (or convincing them the ensuing lawsuit will cost the local body it's entire batch of local tax revenue and stop all their personal projects dead).
There are actual laws on the books, and language in the Unites States Code of Commerce (a document defined by the Constitution directly), that do allow states to control interstate commerce, but yes, that was the point, allowing such laws COULD create these cases of favoring, and that is NOT legal, but very difficult to police, and expensive to fight.
I am NOT for this, I'm just commenting on what is current law.
It;s a $750-950 penalty, not a $2500 fine, check your facts. It;s also an noncollectable penalty, meaning you can not have a lien placed on your property nor a notice against your credit, and this penalty itself accrues no non-payment penalties nor does it collect interest. Simply put, the ONLY way the government can actually collect this penalty if they deduct it from your tax return (if you get one). There is not jail time, this is not a fine, it is a "penalty" and that is legally defined quite differently.
If you make up to 3X the poverty level, its a $750 fine, otherwise $950. The fine is further prorated for those below certain marks, equivalent to the max fee they would pay to fall under a government regulated policy for their income level after subsidies (essentially, the penalty itself is subsidized by the government for the poor and lower middle class).
Finally, the penalty is waived should you acquire acceptable minimum insurance after a notification period. It is not automatically assigned (there's a grace period).
Oh, and its not illegal to require people to have insurance. This has been upheld numerous times in federal court regarding drivers insurance, home insurance, and more. Failure to have insurance does not mean you simply pay out-of-pocket, it means MY FAMILY pays out of pocket for YOU, through taxes collected and paid to hospitals to subsidize those who don't/can't pay, and through higher rates they also charge to cover non-payment for services rendered. If everyone is insured, the hospital always gets paid. This also means less hassle at the hospital because they can simply ASSUME you're covered and admit you instead of going through a paperwork process while you're suffering with a broken limb...
That's actually not a bad scenario the judge missed. Many communities will have opposite views in regards to some content, or could even publish strict laws on site organization, content that must or must not be included, and these laws could easily be worked to make national sites illegal and local sites for local businesses legal. In another part of the country, laws could equally apply in reverse.
My personal take? sale or shipping of a physical product across a state line, or providing a service in general should not be subject to local laws at all, only national and interstate commerce regulations. However, a locality could pass a law making it illegal for it;s local residents to ACCESS such material, or to request services. The only think that might be possible is for a locality to prevent the shipping of a product to it;s residents, or taking payment from addresses based in the local area. However, should such a system be applied to interstate commerce, the company effected should have the right to seek fees from the local community related to altering their process for tracking such potential purchases and denying them, such not to run afoul of the law. Any local law that does not provide a service to such companies should not be enforcible in interstate commerce.
The only case I can see is where a physical product itself is illegal to posses in a state (not local, a whole state). For example, NJ forbids radar detectors. Most states forbid cigarettes crossing state lines. These products should be on the manufacturer to document to their resellers which states they are and are not legal for sale in, and the resellers then and only then could be held liable (if the manufacturer never clarified, then sue the manufacturer). For access to content on line that may be "objectionable", and for where a fee is paid for access, the site may be asked to request "are you located in one of the following municipalities:?" and if so refuse your membership (or get this data from the credit card used for payment). However, since there's no manufacturer, just a publisher, it should be up to the State or local entity to provide sufficient notice to the publisher to implement such a system if they are not based in the local state, and to cover the costs of that implementation if it is not a state law.
Apple's Way? Power users do it any way they want. Power users have complete flexibility over the underlying UNIX structure of the OS, more so than even Windows users have. You obviously know nothing.
I personally prefer an non-unlicked smartphone. I like installing updates at will without worry they'll break my apps; I like not having to pay for unlock scripts, i like being able to not worry about root SSL hacks since I'm not running an SSL server on my iPhone; i have no issues multitasking and don't care about not being able to stream while surfing (The battery would need to be 3X the size for me to do that unless it was plugged in while streaming, in which case I'd use the PC for surfing not the phone); Scroll settings could improve, but I really don;t care enough about ANY of the apps you mentioned to go through the repeated hassle and expense, and risk of using an unlocked device (both security and warranty wise), not even including the provider's possible responses (though AT&T has sworn not to go after unlockers).
The file system FORMAT is invisible, however, the iPad is equipped with a logical, user addressable, file structure for the user to put files and folders in/out of.
It WAS BSD Unix. Back in 1989. Does that mean Windows 7 is DOS? There are still parts of it in there... Of course, there are more parts of Unix/Linux in Windows now that Dos too, so can we equally say Windows is based on Unix? It's 20 year old code... It has NO RELEVENCE on the existing OS, other than OS X is in fact still a CERTIFIED UNIX platform, and maintained certain standards of file system architecture, security, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
and the cop can't open an active case on that reasoning. There must first be a REPORTED CRIME.
For your reasoning, hmm, you;re driving without a license in your possession. That's enough to get you arrested on it's own, whether or not you HAVE one, not having it ON you is illegal.
If they have existing probable cause to believe you may have paraphernalia on you, or associate you with a known criminal, then YES, they can request to search your car. If you refuse, they impound it, do some more paperwork, still don;t require a warrant, and search it anyway. if they find nothing, they apologize and send you on your way. If they find something, you are guilty, period. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Illegally found or not, YOU are guilty, sue the cop and put him in jail WITH you if he didn't follow due process...
However, that has no bearing on this argument. This location data (which is just TOWER location data btw, not down to the meter GPS location data unless you called 911), is as easily collected by an officer legally following you, or by your purchase records which don;t require a warrant to obtain, or by your work schedule, time clock log, and just about anything else they can get. WHERE YOU GO IN PUBLIC IS NOT PRIVATE INFORMATION YOU PARANOID NUT JOB.
Access to that information however, without due process, YES, you can sue the department for that. That's why it requires a form to be filled out, and then Verizon further CHARGES for it. Do you really think a chief of police is going to look favorably on a cop who accessed your wife's records, unless there was an open case documented that she was tied to, and where those records had likelihood of having value to the case? No, he's going to deduct that charge from the cop's payroll, likely suspend him, possibly notify you (IA says he has to), and maybe fire him.
You forget the 5th amendment, for which with DUE PROCESS alone, the government CAN take your life, liberty, or property, with restrictions.
However, that's irrelevant. There's nothing PRIVATE about where you went in public, where any officer so deputized could simply have followed you. Federal district court already rules that simply with due process, cops could place a tracking device on your car, in lieu of following you with manpower, given probable cause in an active case, and following due process. The supreme court chose not to hear the case, thereby affirming the ruling.
Your actions in public are not private. WHO you called, and who you sent/received mail from (electronic or post) is not private either. Only the CONTENT of that communication is private, and what you do behind closed doors. This is NOT illegal. This has been backed REPEATEDLY in court. they STILL have to have due process to do this or you can still sue. They can't simply scan and log all this data for government use, it has to be a request-by-request access for active case work/investigations, and clearly documented. it simply does not require additional, advance, signature from a 2nd branch of government, that's the ONLY difference.
As for your list, the only one the government can not ALREADY do without a warrant is get a customer list from a reseller. (though most will give this up willingly, and you can NOT sue the reseller if they do, unless you have a written agreement/contract with them explicitly for them to refuse to release that information, since it is their information).
They do not need a warrant, but they need BOTH probable cause and due process. A warrant is just pre-approved due process, nothing more, and only applies where "reasonable" search is questionable or invasive, and when/how that is applied is a rule set by the supreme and other courts throughout our history.
but this is not COMMUNICATION. This is positional data over a period of time. no different than can be collected through OTHER means which themselves do not require a warrent (collecting call records, credit/banking records, or simply following you in public does NOT require a warrant). Furether, use of a tracking device in place of an officer to track your activity has already been upheld by the supreme court, so long as DUE PROCESS is observed.
in this case, associating the charge back from Verizon to the police for their access to the cell call/location history file to an active open case number is the process of law. Failure to do so? Failure to document cause for access? YES, that's illegal. Typing your cell phone to an open case and requesting the data is NOT a warrant requiring action. this is simply another "associative" data point, not considered private information. it's not a recorded call, it;s not private conversation, it;s where you went and when, and it;s only useful in an active investigation.
the government's not CONNECTING natively and indexing this system, they have to make ONE-AT-A-TIME requests, for particular people in particular time ranges, and pay EACH TIME THEY DO.
This is not information they can't already piece together for just about everyone anyway (from street cameras, purchase records, time clocks at work, call history, and more). it;s just a simpler and more accurate way of getting the SAME data.
Yup. this is information any cop could obtain simply by following you.
Also, lack of a warrent does NOT imply lack of due process, which in AM5, as opposed to Am4: search and seisure, they CAN take your life, liberty, and/or proerty simply by DUE PROCESS (which the supreme court rules a warrant may or may not apply based on circumstances, the detail of information collected, and whether or not sealed/locked property is invaded.
How about the spirit of the 5th amendment??? You know, the clause where taking your life, liberty, or property simple requires DUE PROCESS?
The description of a warrant in Am4 defines what it must include, but not when it must be issued. Due process based on an active case, reasonable suspicion, and/or probable cause is enough to search your person, possessions, and question you. They can not enter your home without a warrant, but in public, that's a different story...
Anywhere you go not on your own property, you are in public, including entering and leaving someone else's property, and any officer so dispatched could follow you and collect this information contained in your GPS records. Further, the supreme court also rules that a tracking device, not an officer, could equally be used in the efforts to follow a suspect, following due process, without warrant.
This request by the administration is simply an extention of existing, upheld law to a centralized system.
you have every right to disable the location service in your personal device, with the exception of when communicating with 911 services, or, if BY WARRANT, it is remotely activated.
By the congress passing, the executive approving, and the court upholding (especially the HIGH court, who's ONLY call it to review the constitution), FUCK YES, it's constitutional, that the EXACT process the constitution set out!!!
A Warrant is only defined in the constitution in amendment 4 seperate from search and seisure, in that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" However, in amendment 5, you CAN be deprived of life, liberty, property through "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."
What's that mean?
Well, the supreme court has agreed numerous times that "due process" does not require the issue of a warrant, except to enter your home, read your "papers" or inspect your affects and possessions. Anything in plain sight, including where you go, who you meet, where you shop, etc, is all open to any officer to simply WATCH you do. Anything that can be observed by the common man, in the due course of ain investigation, or through the DUE PROCESS of opening a case, filing an inquiry, issuing a civil fine, etc, does not require a warrant, but does simply require a PROCESS.
Nowhere does the law say you can not be searched without a warrant, it simply sais you can not be UNREASONABLY searched without DUE PROCESS. About the only exception to this is when you are "presumed" guilty.
in this case, obtaining your cell location history record, as with your phone records, would be limited to a written request, compensated by the department with payment to the carrier for processing, and restricted to a date/location range consistent with the scope of an active case. outside of that, the access they make is illegal, and you could sue.
Carriers already hand over call history without a warrant, as do credit card companies, banks, and more. The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them, and was thus considered completely acceptable.
Who you associate with, and where you go are PUBLIC INFORMATION. What you say or do (out of earshot and eyesight) is all that's private.
This does not mean there is not a requirement for DUE PROCESS, and does not mean that if you;re searched WITHOUT CAUSE, that you can't sue, it simply means they don't have to get a warrant to get simple, otherwise considered available to a perusing officer, information.
Further, this access COSTS MONEY, PER TRANSACTION. A cop who pulls your history, for a time period, is going to have to backfill that to an active investigation and case number, otherwise they'll get in depp shit with the department, possibly get fired, and if you find out, you sue.
DUE PROCESS is simply a lesser level of a warrant. All a warrant is really is a 3rd party validation of due process.
A cop with probable cause can search your car, and there's nothing you can do about it. Refuse and they simply impound, do the paperwork, and search anyway, then give you a nasty bill for the trouble in addition to punishment for anything they find. Even if the find nothing, and let you go, you STILL have to pay the impound fee in most states, and you can not sue as probable cause rules in public. However, get pulled over for no reason, the cop logs no ticket or you have witnesses proving no wrongdoing, and he searches anyway? he's busted.
they can't search your house, they can't TAP you line and record calls, but they CAN know where and when you were. That is NOT private, and NOT protected.
No parallel. This location data they're requesting is HISTROICAL, not real time tracking and location information. This is NO DIFFERENT than the lack of a warrant it takes to acquire your calling records, to scan your e-mail headers (not message content), to pull credit card receipts, and more.
This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE, and how FILE A FORM, and go through DUE PROCESS, to find a criminal or suspect, or interested 3rd party they seek on an ACTIVE CASE.
This does NOT give cops the ability to simply search this data when ever they want, for anyone. Why not? verizon and otherc charge a FEE for the access, EACH TIME it's accessed. Those charges have to be billed back to an active case file, or justified, otherwise, without the due process, a) the officer gets fired, or best case eats the charges out of his personal payroll, and likely faces sanctions and administrative punishments, b) the person, when notified of this access without due process, DOES have a legal case against the cop who illegally pulled this information.
just because there is no warrant required does NOT mean there's no probable cause and due process required. A cop can search your car if you're pulled over for a speeding ticket, based on a number of reasons or suspicions. If you refuse a search, it only requires some paperwork, and a supervisor to arrive on scene to force a search anyway (or they impound your car). However, if a cop pulls you over, without cause or charge, and asks to search your car, he has no cause and can not. Neither case requires a warrant, but you DO have levels of protection. The fact there's a financial penalty to the department to make this access makes it that much less liely it will be done without being tied to an actual case file.
Think about it, tracking history for known criminals (lets say we ARREST a drug dealer, and he won;t reveal his source), now they make a request, pay verizon, download his location history, and dispatch a few officers with warrents to search a few of his frequent stops (other suspected dealer homes). Bamb, gotcha.
The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar. This is simply one additional tool. if they don;t have it, they'll just scope out your house or work and follow you the old fashioned way. That is expensive, inaccurate, and a waste of manpower better spent keeping drugs away from my kids, tracking down wanted suspects, and cross validating false alibis.
gotcha, thanks.
Canada's system is a complete mess. You're also talking about one of the least dense populations in the world, and a country with fewer hospitals, and fewer specialists than just the state of Ohio. Getting medical care there is a problem due to distance between hospitals, and availability of specialists. Further, being entirely government funded (not private), expanding funding is a problem. You can not compare that system to ours,current or future.
Next, you obviously didn't read the supreme court ruling on SSA enough. The core phrase is "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare".
Essentially, that for the general welfare of the public, very much YES, the federal government does have that power. They're not requiring states to pass or enforce laws, they're mandating the people to pay into a system of welfare/health care, including the freedom to choose a provider and terms, and providing assistance to the poor.
There is no language in the constitution forbidding them from requiring the purchase of a good or service of the citizens, it's simply not been done before (though STATES have done just that).
They're regulating commerce among the "several" states, not in any particular one. This HAS been upheld. By making it a national issue, health insurance becomes entirely an interstate commerce issue (insurance covers you in any hospital or doctor anywhere, not just in your state, and is thus a prepayment for services across state lines)
In fact, the only way national healthcare CAN in any way be managed by congress, by law it MUST cover all Americans. Leaving any group out breaks congressional power of commerce and the bill could be overturned.
The insurance "penalty" is in the same legal classification as the penalty for not filing your tax return (which was also upheld). It is a tax, but it;s a "penalty tax" and itself is not subject to additional panalties for non payment. Further the bill does not FORCE you to be covered, it simply taxes you if you are not, to pay for hospital subsidies that cover the uninsured.
MANY MANY lawyers who have argued cases in from of the high court have weighed in, this bill is very well crafted, with input from justices directly in many cases. This IS legal. Get over it. If you don't want insurance, pay the tax. If you don't like the policy, exercise your vote.
Oh, who do ytou think pays for SCHIP? We do. If the kids ARE insured, the portion of our taxes covering that GO DOWN. The rest are subsidized.
Really, it didn't work?
1st, some of the programs didn't work, but others were very successful.
2nd, they never even gave out all the money, over 200B is still in reserve. It also was not 800M, but closer to 750.
3rd, the banks already paid back over 300M, PLUS INTEREST, in TARP money. Obama and the fed are also seeking repayment of the rest of it 4 years early, and they'll get it back, all buy what went to the auto companies, and some to AIG.
Finally, that was BUSH'S stimulus plan, not Obama's. Obama was only responsible for dolling out half of it, which had already been earmarked.
Now, healthcare. It's 800B over 10 years, or 80B a year. Not bad first of all, that would be one of the SMALLLEST programs we have. Because of the efficiencies gained by 100% of Americans being covered (insurance becomes assumed, not a 30 minute process filling out paperwork before you get treatment), there's some money to be saved. MUCH more importantly, if you have coverage you're MUCH more likely to seek treatment, which means early diagnosis, and FAR less expensive treatment cycles. After 5 years (when the plan actually begins, the first 4 years, and more than half the money) is getting it set up), the savings will become realized, and medical costs over time will drop.
A large percent of what you pay in current medical costs is to cover the hospital for all the OTHER people that do NOT pay. When everyon's covered, that problem goes away.
I'm not agains SELF-insured people, provided they fill out some forms and actually have the equity available to meet a 100,000 minimum cap. But everyone needs to be covered in order to have an effective, efficient, and inexpensive medical system. It's a guarantee, costs will go down. This is proven by all the other countries that put in systems like this. ours will have the advantage of your CHOICE of provider. It would get cheaper if the government itself competed with those providers (essentially price-capping the industry into reasonable fees).
Oh, the national debt? You realize we'll only be bankrupt is the payments on the interest exceed our ability to pay. Further, adjusted for inflation, our current national debt is actually lower than antime since just past the great depression.
We have to spend our way out of this mess. We spent in a lot of areas, to see where there was and was not an effect. We learned, and can spend more with a positive return. SPENDING is not the issue, spending without a positive future return is. healthcare spending can only have a positive return. (50 million more insured people need a lot more doctors, insurance people, and staff to handle, treat, and do paperwork, that alone will put more than 80B back in the tax pool....)
Ok, fine, register as a "provider" and self-insure. NOTHING in the health care law prevents that. I know many people who have done that for their home and business insurance, and in my state you can do that for car insurance as well. It only takes some bank forms to provide guaranteed credit availability.
I'm being far from serious regarding the tatoo or RFID. It's easy enough to simply have a heavy penalty (like years in prison, and immediate dismissal from a medical facility) if you try to cheat the system. The point is, if we can ASSUME everyone is covered, then getting you in to see a doctor can be streamlined, providing better medical assistance, and lowering administrative costs, and the costs from complications due to delays in treatment from non-life-threatening issues(Life threatening issues are treated anyway, under the assumption you can pay, but when you CAN'T we pay for you through subsidies from government and higher fees from the hospital like $200 aspirins).
So, the implementation of social security, and the fines and penalties for not paying it on any income, is unconstitutional? Gee, though the supreme court already ruled on that...
How is this different?
They're not ordering you to take service from a specific provider, they're not ordering you to buy or use anything. They're ordering you to be covered. Don;t like it? Certify YOURSELF as an insurance provider, acquire a half million in find backing, and INSURE YOURSELF and pay no one. Simply qualify the policy of having a policy with minimum regulated coverage. There's your out.... There's the "lawyers" exception. You are not in fact forced to PAY for a policy (provided you can acquire coverage at any price).
Oh, and the US code of commerce, yes it very well CAN regulate commerce inside of a state. The exception is that state law can trump the federal one. Equally so, the federal government can regulate the STATE'S own finances, and essentially MAKE the state pass it;s own version of the law (seatbelt laws anyone? Drinking age changes? Gambling laws? Prostitution? all state laws enforced by federal mandate...)
in this case, it could equally be done through mandate, but the system would be highly inconsitant, and healthcare would suffer, and it certainly would cost more.
The idea here is, if you walk into a medical facility, it will be ASSUMED you are covered. this streamlines check-in and gets you to diagnosis, or surgery, faster. They deal with collection later. If ANYONE is not subject to this coverage, then EVERYONE has to check in... This is an overhead in the Medical industry easily removed.
Further, are you really willing to let children go uncovered, simply because a parent chooses to spend too much money on alcohol, entertainment, and more, to the point they can not afford coverage? NO. Children MUST be covered.
I'm full in support of an EXCEPTION policy. You over 18 and don;t want to be treated except out-of-pocket (self-insured)? Fine. Fill out a bunch of paperwork, take a government mandated class that ensures you fully understand your rights, and be required by law to at all times carry identification telling a hospital you are not to be treated for any reason (and file forms with all hosp[itals within 100 miles of your current residence to be certain. Then, should you try to check in anyway, without payment, or cheat this system, we'll simply lock you up for 20 years as soon as we discover it (and stop treatment immediately, which also could end your life).
The bill passed. It's in negotiations, and "subject" to change, but we can only discuss what is FACT on paper at this moment (until it DOES change). One chamber proposed a fine, the other did not, why would you think the negotiation would be to make the fine BIGGER?
It's not voluntary in SC, nor CT. If you have a drivers license, you MUST have insurance, whether or not you own a car at all. Since having a drivers license is all but mandatory, unless you live in a dense urban city and never leave it.
I'm completely OK with a possibility of refused treatment for medical issues if you have no insurance. However, since we can't enforce that on the poor, and it must be a subsidized system for them, essentially you'd be asking everyone who's not getting insurance to be paying for those that are. I could easily (and I do) support a WAIVER option, where you fully document, after taking a 2-4 hour course, that you refuse treatment of any kind aside that which you'll pay for out of pocket, and make arrangements with a local doctor and hospital, and accept a pre-authorization of payment/loan. You see, if we're not all 100% covered, then the hospital actually has to check you in. If we're ALL covered, they treat us and worry about the paperwork later, so unless you're pre-screened as a non-payer, and can be easily identified as such, and the hospital knows in advance how much "health credit" you have for treatment, they can't admit you at all.
All well and good when you CHOOSE treatment, but when you get "brought in" unconscious, someone has to pay, since they're going to treat you anyway unless you can be identified as a do-not-service customer. I suggest a tatoo or other permanent mark (or RFID) indicating your status of do-not-treat so hospitals can't make mistakes with you, and end up billing my government and my insurance provider in the form of increased fees because they accidentally treated you when they should not have, and in the interest of medicine and quick service, we're trying to do away with admissions hassles here...
If you don;t want service, I'm OK with that. However, this also has to be a LIFETIME decision, since you can't wait until your 60's then jump on the insurance bandwagon at the same prices I pay after having contributed my whole life either... That screws up the analyses for predicted future costs.
Also, Anyone under 18 should not have the option of going without insurance, it being a lifetime choice and all it should not be made by a 3rd party (parents). unless, of course, we simply provide all children free healthcare period, and subsidize it with taxes...
Amazon is not the manufacturer, except of the Kindle. They're the distributor/reseller.
If you sell a product to amazon to resell, and you, as a manufacturer of say radar detectors, know they're illegal in multiple states, then you have to tell Amazon the applicable state laws, and those would be attached to the product description, and their system would not ship a product to an address in a banned area/state. Amazon could bill the manufacturer a tiny fee for modifying the sales allowance records and supporting systems, or the state/locality could be asked by Amazon to fund said system (or sue for the costs of implementing it and file for relief from the court as an expense to avoid prosecution by a non-local law that applies to them).
This does not ban ALL sales, this bans the sales of the SPECIFIC product. They would not get these from the state, the manufacturer would. The manufacturer would provide such listings in a single document accompanying their entire inventory listing they're offering to Amazon to Sell. Amazon could just as easily refuse to carry "complicated" products, leaving the manufacturer to either sell direct or find local resellers in each region they are legally able to sell in.
I'm NOT suggesting this system be implemented, but so long as it IS currently upheld law (hopefully the Supreme Court will reason and kick this back down), someone needs a system to accommodate it.
i agree, however, this currently is not the case, and the Supreme court has upheld similar legislation. The only issue here is can the locality force a non-local company across a state line to obey this law, without providing a budget provision and system of compensation for the implementation of the ability to abide by it. It would make more sense to make it illegal for citizens to go there or pay them than it would to fine the provider.
Oh, they must have changed that then, since in 1994 I got pulled over for simply having one on my dash, was issued a fine, and the cop confiscated the radar detector. There's also those signs on the NJTP that say "Radar Detectors Are Illegal" I have not driven through in years, but it certainly used to be illelgal to have one at all.
Case in point: It is not illegal to gamble in your own home, however it is illegal to connect to a gambling site, in some cases even free ones, and it is further illegal for a gambling site to accept a credit card, or illegal for a bank to process a credit transaction for online gambling in some states.
You're right, they can't stop you doing it in your home (unless it's for profit), but they can stop you from engaging in TRANSACTIONS related to doing it.
No, it is solidly against federal law simply to possess an image of a person under 18 years old engaged in a sexual act, or in a nude pose. Period. this is not argued. Local law does not trump that law.
They're not saying you can't view port, they're saying you can't BUY porn... not the same thing. However, neighborhood level municipalities unfortunately have a lot more power than you think. Your only power is voting them out (or convincing them the ensuing lawsuit will cost the local body it's entire batch of local tax revenue and stop all their personal projects dead).
There are actual laws on the books, and language in the Unites States Code of Commerce (a document defined by the Constitution directly), that do allow states to control interstate commerce, but yes, that was the point, allowing such laws COULD create these cases of favoring, and that is NOT legal, but very difficult to police, and expensive to fight.
I am NOT for this, I'm just commenting on what is current law.
It;s a $750-950 penalty, not a $2500 fine, check your facts. It;s also an noncollectable penalty, meaning you can not have a lien placed on your property nor a notice against your credit, and this penalty itself accrues no non-payment penalties nor does it collect interest. Simply put, the ONLY way the government can actually collect this penalty if they deduct it from your tax return (if you get one). There is not jail time, this is not a fine, it is a "penalty" and that is legally defined quite differently.
If you make up to 3X the poverty level, its a $750 fine, otherwise $950. The fine is further prorated for those below certain marks, equivalent to the max fee they would pay to fall under a government regulated policy for their income level after subsidies (essentially, the penalty itself is subsidized by the government for the poor and lower middle class).
Finally, the penalty is waived should you acquire acceptable minimum insurance after a notification period. It is not automatically assigned (there's a grace period).
Oh, and its not illegal to require people to have insurance. This has been upheld numerous times in federal court regarding drivers insurance, home insurance, and more. Failure to have insurance does not mean you simply pay out-of-pocket, it means MY FAMILY pays out of pocket for YOU, through taxes collected and paid to hospitals to subsidize those who don't/can't pay, and through higher rates they also charge to cover non-payment for services rendered. If everyone is insured, the hospital always gets paid. This also means less hassle at the hospital because they can simply ASSUME you're covered and admit you instead of going through a paperwork process while you're suffering with a broken limb...
That's actually not a bad scenario the judge missed. Many communities will have opposite views in regards to some content, or could even publish strict laws on site organization, content that must or must not be included, and these laws could easily be worked to make national sites illegal and local sites for local businesses legal. In another part of the country, laws could equally apply in reverse.
My personal take? sale or shipping of a physical product across a state line, or providing a service in general should not be subject to local laws at all, only national and interstate commerce regulations. However, a locality could pass a law making it illegal for it;s local residents to ACCESS such material, or to request services. The only think that might be possible is for a locality to prevent the shipping of a product to it;s residents, or taking payment from addresses based in the local area. However, should such a system be applied to interstate commerce, the company effected should have the right to seek fees from the local community related to altering their process for tracking such potential purchases and denying them, such not to run afoul of the law. Any local law that does not provide a service to such companies should not be enforcible in interstate commerce.
The only case I can see is where a physical product itself is illegal to posses in a state (not local, a whole state). For example, NJ forbids radar detectors. Most states forbid cigarettes crossing state lines. These products should be on the manufacturer to document to their resellers which states they are and are not legal for sale in, and the resellers then and only then could be held liable (if the manufacturer never clarified, then sue the manufacturer). For access to content on line that may be "objectionable", and for where a fee is paid for access, the site may be asked to request "are you located in one of the following municipalities:?" and if so refuse your membership (or get this data from the credit card used for payment). However, since there's no manufacturer, just a publisher, it should be up to the State or local entity to provide sufficient notice to the publisher to implement such a system if they are not based in the local state, and to cover the costs of that implementation if it is not a state law.
Apple's Way? Power users do it any way they want. Power users have complete flexibility over the underlying UNIX structure of the OS, more so than even Windows users have. You obviously know nothing.
I personally prefer an non-unlicked smartphone. I like installing updates at will without worry they'll break my apps; I like not having to pay for unlock scripts, i like being able to not worry about root SSL hacks since I'm not running an SSL server on my iPhone; i have no issues multitasking and don't care about not being able to stream while surfing (The battery would need to be 3X the size for me to do that unless it was plugged in while streaming, in which case I'd use the PC for surfing not the phone); Scroll settings could improve, but I really don;t care enough about ANY of the apps you mentioned to go through the repeated hassle and expense, and risk of using an unlocked device (both security and warranty wise), not even including the provider's possible responses (though AT&T has sworn not to go after unlockers).
The file system FORMAT is invisible, however, the iPad is equipped with a logical, user addressable, file structure for the user to put files and folders in/out of.
It WAS BSD Unix. Back in 1989. Does that mean Windows 7 is DOS? There are still parts of it in there... Of course, there are more parts of Unix/Linux in Windows now that Dos too, so can we equally say Windows is based on Unix? It's 20 year old code... It has NO RELEVENCE on the existing OS, other than OS X is in fact still a CERTIFIED UNIX platform, and maintained certain standards of file system architecture, security, etc.