On the virus laden PC thing.... I have a friend who did forensics work on a case that was far more solid (and not CP related) than that and the PC contents were kind of the icing on the cake.
Anyway he got an image of the machine, and tried to go over the evidence where he ran into a snag. The machine was so virus and malware/adware laden that it was barely usable and was generating a near constant stream of network activity, including web requests, all on its own.
Between that and almot losing my shit watching him turn colors trying to come up with a nice way to explain to a lawyer that the questions he was asking were technically too specific to be answered by the logs.... I can only say I expect to see more of these issues as time goes on.
This. We are not talking about assaulting a person; we are talking about assaulting his property which he has placed in an area that clearly is invading your privacy. If he snuck into your yard and placed a camera on a tripod, would we have as much debate? I see no real difference between planting a camera with tripod in someone's yard, and hovering a camera overhead with fan blades.
I see no reason why such property deserves any such protection. He put his camera in their yard, they fucked up his camera. They were not wrong to do so in my eyes.
Ok well, I support changing this expectation. I personally do feel a person has the basic right to protect his privacy and the courts have made a grievous error in this. In fact, I would go so far as to say if flying drones and satellites became impossible because of the required permissions from every possible effected person....then so be it....small price to pay for privacy.
Really because I have been to Paris and, aside from being large and full of people speaking french, it was just like any American city. Hell, its the only place I have ever seen signs warning me to watch out for pickpockets. Its the only place I have seen organized groups driving around trying to sell people fake or stolen clothing (when the second car stops you with the same sob story about needing to get back to Italy with the same jackets in his car.... who needs "gas money" and will give me these two jackets if I can just help him out.... it becomes obvious whats happening, first guy I just walked away....second guy I haggled with lol fucking 100 euros for knock off jackets lol I paid a lot less than that)
So....trees. I would go as far as to fully support a constitutional right to be left in peace while pissing on any tree not planted in a container or on private land.
Problem solved....plant more trees and take advantage of natures original urinal.
> So you're drunk enough to piss on some poor bastards wall
See there you go, trying to see the perspective of the person causing the problem and understanding how they might reason it.... you sir, are unfit for public office.
Seriously though I wonder if the people who come up with these ideas have just no life experience at all, or are they just con artists trying to funnel budget money into their own pockets? (Or a little of both)
> You start pissing and something unexpected happens.
For example... lets say you walked down the driveway of a residential house, right past the cars and over to the trash cans....just for example you know.
Then you hear "hey" from up above, and notice 4 people up on the second floor porch looking down at you pissing on their garbage bins.
Turns out, I can tell you exactly what one local college student did, he waved and said "hey" and continued pissing.
Overall though, it tends to happen at night and by that point in the evening most of the actual waste was flushed out of their system 3 trips to the urinal ago back in the bar, so its not like its even going to smell in the morning. I probably get more piss on my house from local animals, even here in the city.
Its hard to call it a real problem. Plant more trees, problem solved.
Which is interesting because, while I share the disgust in theory, I don't actually know much about the reality and the one time I have seen it before (I wish I could remember where) it was being used by someone who actually was producing serious content, you know, an actual output other than good feelings.
That said, what you describe sounds like about the sort of cult of personality bullshit I expect enough people to fall for as to be able to support some small number of professional loudmouths.
However, I am not sure thats terrible either. Money talks, basically this is a form of grass roots advertising. What fuels them is the perception that signal boosting has value, and well, that is hard to argue with when you see what major corporations are willing to spend on it.
I dunno, as distasteful as I find the idea of throwing cash at someone to rant for me (I provide my rants free of charge as a public service)...its probably more effective than voting.
Hmmm then that is a different question.... but only one of whether the force was justified against the safety of others. The drone operator was still in the wrong and he was defending his privacy.
Well he didn't shoot the man, he shot a mechanical proxy for the man, which is not the same at all. He attacked a piece of property which, under the direction of its operator, was being used to invade his privacy by invading the space over his property, and as he pointed out, not simply to transit the area.
Assuming the area was one where it would be generally safe otherwise to fire at a bird, then I have no issue with his reasoning, seems like he was in the right to me, even though I wouldn't agree if he had shot the operator; the two are not equivalent like that.
Pardons are forgiveness for guilt. He is guilty of nothing. Betraying a criminal conspiracy to violate our own laws and subvert the open process of their deliberation and public oversight is hardly a crime. If anything it is the people he exposed who should be recieving pardons if they are to be allowed to continue to walk free.
I am far more concerned with the administrations dangerous decision to lie to the public and cover up clear evidence of its own wrongdoing.
Exactly. What is the difference between an automated system and one with a human at the helm when you can just replace the human with impunity if he decides he doesn't want to help you anymore?
Its not like some criminal gang where a defector could mean consequences. A defector from the drone murder program is just....replaced. Even if 100% of pilots became disgusted with the job and refused within a year.... it wouldn't even slow them down, it would just increase their training costs.
Right now, there effectively is no difference between the existing drone program and automated kill bots. The problem is what people want to do and are allowed to get away with. As long as they can murder with impunity, the methods which they use are unimportant.
The thing is...they can put whatever restrictions they want, and you can then either put up with it, or go to court over it, spend lots of money on lawyers. If you win, all you get is to exercise your rights, either way you pay out the big money; out of pocket.
Then, should you want another event, expect to be denied or offered the same terms and to AGAIN need to go to court over it, and pay out big bucks to win again.
Mass Cann here in Boston had this problem year after year. The city would deny their permit, they would sue, they would win, next year, same thing.
So effectively, there is a massive unapproved tax on events the city officials don't like.
I think pattern recognition is part of it. Think about the effects.
What does flat white wall do? It stretches, it breathes. Maybe lines or shadows on it dance a bit, maybe the pervasive color line pattern you see behind your eyes projects onto it.
However a candle flickering through faceted glass, that could become a kaleidoscope of cartoon skulls in a burst of colors.
I saw a ted talk about the mind and pattern recognition.... how the mind has chains of pattern recognizers and seeing one part of a pattern potentiates another part. LSD is like, every pattern recognizer is potentiated, that is solid, it is liquid, it is flowing, it is breathing.....
Its like a signal. If you have a weak signal compared to the noise, then you can't distinguish the right patterns, however, if you are in the time and place where strong signals are coming in, then being potentiated towards recognizing them may be a benefit....and the signal is so strong....like a white wall, there just isn't much else it could be.
Maybe, it makes some sense. However, have seen similar anecdotal evidence from LSD.
So long time ago, back when I was a pool player and bar fly....a friend called me up "I dropped acid and am bored, lets go out". We met up at the bar, she was lit but handling it well. We grabbed a pool table and started to play.
Now, I was shooting a lot of pool back then. I was decent, we all were. This was a girl I used to partner up with at casual tournaments occasionally, so I was very familiar with how she shot....and she fucking KILLED IT that night.
I have NEVER seen her so on her game as she was tripping face.
The crux of my problem though... > As for your hypothetical, material found incriminating someone not listed on the warrant would be > found inadmissible in court and would be specifically barred from use in any later criminal trial. It > could be a potentially great result for the third party as any bad evidence against them would now > legally not exist.
I object to the assertion that "you can't be prosecuted" is the be all and end all of harm you or others could be exposed to. A violation of privacy is a violation of privacy, even if you can't be prosecuted in the end.
Frankly, it seems to me an invalid warrant or illegal search without one, should be a violation of rights and charged as a criminal act every time it happens.
Nah put the blame where it belongs, in the private hands of the Bush Family. their partners, and their generations long business arrangements with the Saudis which have been allowed to pervert our national interest for half a century. They created their own bogeyman.
> Saddam could easily have suddenly cooperated with inspectors. He could said wait wait stop while those conversations were happening at the UN.
Right except, as I remember it, we gave an ultimatum, he hemmed and hawed and finally agreed, and then we invaded anyway. Frankly, I don't believe for a second there was any intention of allowing a war not to happen.
Saddam was a pawn who became a liability and got sacrificed.
> Saddam used to do that all the time. Indeed, it can be expected as a regular practice precisely so > that, when it really counts and they need to hide stuff, the delays won't seem unusual.
Except, in proper hindsight its pretty clear that the regular practice was precisely to LOOK LIKE he had capabilities that he didn't have.
It doesn't really take much to see why he would want to do that either; from his perspective he probably calculated that appearing to possibly have a nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles made it less likely for him to be seen as weak and vulnerable to attack and overthrow.
Though they all ham it up for the camera one way or another. Most often these situations are little more than a lot of posturing on both sides. Iran likes to take up their Iron Sheik role, because its a part of the act that works for them; just like it works for Uncle Sam to play the good guy role.
I am not even addressing that; I think it is utter bullshit that just because one is not the stated subject of a search means one is not the subject when its their property being searched. If your property is being searched you ARE the subject of the search.
All you have done is restated the situation. I see no reason why the party whose property is subject to search should ever not have standing to challenge. In fact, I really thing the entire concept of standing to challenge needs to be broadened. They are impacted, they should have some say.
What about the case where lies or deception is used to claim that a third party's property exists? No loophole there eh? "Oh we are going to search you now, but we are really searching that guy over there so you have the right to take it like the slave you are"
Slashdot Mirror
On the virus laden PC thing.... I have a friend who did forensics work on a case that was far more solid (and not CP related) than that and the PC contents were kind of the icing on the cake.
Anyway he got an image of the machine, and tried to go over the evidence where he ran into a snag. The machine was so virus and malware/adware laden that it was barely usable and was generating a near constant stream of network activity, including web requests, all on its own.
Between that and almot losing my shit watching him turn colors trying to come up with a nice way to explain to a lawyer that the questions he was asking were technically too specific to be answered by the logs.... I can only say I expect to see more of these issues as time goes on.
This. We are not talking about assaulting a person; we are talking about assaulting his property which he has placed in an area that clearly is invading your privacy. If he snuck into your yard and placed a camera on a tripod, would we have as much debate? I see no real difference between planting a camera with tripod in someone's yard, and hovering a camera overhead with fan blades.
I see no reason why such property deserves any such protection. He put his camera in their yard, they fucked up his camera. They were not wrong to do so in my eyes.
Ok well, I support changing this expectation. I personally do feel a person has the basic right to protect his privacy and the courts have made a grievous error in this. In fact, I would go so far as to say if flying drones and satellites became impossible because of the required permissions from every possible effected person....then so be it....small price to pay for privacy.
Really because I have been to Paris and, aside from being large and full of people speaking french, it was just like any American city. Hell, its the only place I have ever seen signs warning me to watch out for pickpockets. Its the only place I have seen organized groups driving around trying to sell people fake or stolen clothing (when the second car stops you with the same sob story about needing to get back to Italy with the same jackets in his car.... who needs "gas money" and will give me these two jackets if I can just help him out.... it becomes obvious whats happening, first guy I just walked away....second guy I haggled with lol fucking 100 euros for knock off jackets lol I paid a lot less than that)
It would be funny if it wasn't true. Those guys shut down the entire city over some fucking glorified lite brites.
Because they only know how to multiply and divide by 10s, so he was assuming they couldn't even do the converstion to feet.
So....trees. I would go as far as to fully support a constitutional right to be left in peace while pissing on any tree not planted in a container or on private land.
Problem solved....plant more trees and take advantage of natures original urinal.
As I said, "plant more trees".... natures urinal.
> So you're drunk enough to piss on some poor bastards wall
See there you go, trying to see the perspective of the person causing the problem and understanding how they might reason it.... you sir, are unfit for public office.
Seriously though I wonder if the people who come up with these ideas have just no life experience at all, or are they just con artists trying to funnel budget money into their own pockets? (Or a little of both)
> You start pissing and something unexpected happens.
For example... lets say you walked down the driveway of a residential house, right past the cars and over to the trash cans....just for example you know.
Then you hear "hey" from up above, and notice 4 people up on the second floor porch looking down at you pissing on their garbage bins.
Turns out, I can tell you exactly what one local college student did, he waved and said "hey" and continued pissing.
Overall though, it tends to happen at night and by that point in the evening most of the actual waste was flushed out of their system 3 trips to the urinal ago back in the bar, so its not like its even going to smell in the morning. I probably get more piss on my house from local animals, even here in the city.
Its hard to call it a real problem. Plant more trees, problem solved.
Which is interesting because, while I share the disgust in theory, I don't actually know much about the reality and the one time I have seen it before (I wish I could remember where) it was being used by someone who actually was producing serious content, you know, an actual output other than good feelings.
That said, what you describe sounds like about the sort of cult of personality bullshit I expect enough people to fall for as to be able to support some small number of professional loudmouths.
However, I am not sure thats terrible either. Money talks, basically this is a form of grass roots advertising. What fuels them is the perception that signal boosting has value, and well, that is hard to argue with when you see what major corporations are willing to spend on it.
I dunno, as distasteful as I find the idea of throwing cash at someone to rant for me (I provide my rants free of charge as a public service)...its probably more effective than voting.
Hmmm then that is a different question.... but only one of whether the force was justified against the safety of others. The drone operator was still in the wrong and he was defending his privacy.
Well he didn't shoot the man, he shot a mechanical proxy for the man, which is not the same at all. He attacked a piece of property which, under the direction of its operator, was being used to invade his privacy by invading the space over his property, and as he pointed out, not simply to transit the area.
Assuming the area was one where it would be generally safe otherwise to fire at a bird, then I have no issue with his reasoning, seems like he was in the right to me, even though I wouldn't agree if he had shot the operator; the two are not equivalent like that.
Pardons are forgiveness for guilt. He is guilty of nothing. Betraying a criminal conspiracy to violate our own laws and subvert the open process of their deliberation and public oversight is hardly a crime. If anything it is the people he exposed who should be recieving pardons if they are to be allowed to continue to walk free.
I am far more concerned with the administrations dangerous decision to lie to the public and cover up clear evidence of its own wrongdoing.
I am more concerned about this development of what appear to be nonsensical computer generated response comments.
Exactly. What is the difference between an automated system and one with a human at the helm when you can just replace the human with impunity if he decides he doesn't want to help you anymore?
Its not like some criminal gang where a defector could mean consequences. A defector from the drone murder program is just....replaced. Even if 100% of pilots became disgusted with the job and refused within a year.... it wouldn't even slow them down, it would just increase their training costs.
Right now, there effectively is no difference between the existing drone program and automated kill bots. The problem is what people want to do and are allowed to get away with. As long as they can murder with impunity, the methods which they use are unimportant.
I just don't see the point. These will be developed, and no amount of banning them will stop it or even slow it down.
The thing is...they can put whatever restrictions they want, and you can then either put up with it, or go to court over it, spend lots of money on lawyers. If you win, all you get is to exercise your rights, either way you pay out the big money; out of pocket.
Then, should you want another event, expect to be denied or offered the same terms and to AGAIN need to go to court over it, and pay out big bucks to win again.
Mass Cann here in Boston had this problem year after year. The city would deny their permit, they would sue, they would win, next year, same thing.
So effectively, there is a massive unapproved tax on events the city officials don't like.
I think pattern recognition is part of it. Think about the effects.
What does flat white wall do? It stretches, it breathes. Maybe lines or shadows on it dance a bit, maybe the pervasive color line pattern you see behind your eyes projects onto it.
However a candle flickering through faceted glass, that could become a kaleidoscope of cartoon skulls in a burst of colors.
I saw a ted talk about the mind and pattern recognition.... how the mind has chains of pattern recognizers and seeing one part of a pattern potentiates another part. LSD is like, every pattern recognizer is potentiated, that is solid, it is liquid, it is flowing, it is breathing.....
Its like a signal. If you have a weak signal compared to the noise, then you can't distinguish the right patterns, however, if you are in the time and place where strong signals are coming in, then being potentiated towards recognizing them may be a benefit....and the signal is so strong....like a white wall, there just isn't much else it could be.
> Deflecting possible Colombian hooker attacks on the president.
I hear this is quite a rigorous training course.
Maybe, it makes some sense. However, have seen similar anecdotal evidence from LSD.
So long time ago, back when I was a pool player and bar fly....a friend called me up "I dropped acid and am bored, lets go out". We met up at the bar, she was lit but handling it well. We grabbed a pool table and started to play.
Now, I was shooting a lot of pool back then. I was decent, we all were. This was a girl I used to partner up with at casual tournaments occasionally, so I was very familiar with how she shot....and she fucking KILLED IT that night.
I have NEVER seen her so on her game as she was tripping face.
The crux of my problem though...
> As for your hypothetical, material found incriminating someone not listed on the warrant would be
> found inadmissible in court and would be specifically barred from use in any later criminal trial. It
> could be a potentially great result for the third party as any bad evidence against them would now
> legally not exist.
I object to the assertion that "you can't be prosecuted" is the be all and end all of harm you or others could be exposed to. A violation of privacy is a violation of privacy, even if you can't be prosecuted in the end.
Frankly, it seems to me an invalid warrant or illegal search without one, should be a violation of rights and charged as a criminal act every time it happens.
Nah put the blame where it belongs, in the private hands of the Bush Family. their partners, and their generations long business arrangements with the Saudis which have been allowed to pervert our national interest for half a century. They created their own bogeyman.
> Saddam could easily have suddenly cooperated with inspectors. He could said wait wait stop while those conversations were happening at the UN.
Right except, as I remember it, we gave an ultimatum, he hemmed and hawed and finally agreed, and then we invaded anyway. Frankly, I don't believe for a second there was any intention of allowing a war not to happen.
Saddam was a pawn who became a liability and got sacrificed.
> Saddam used to do that all the time. Indeed, it can be expected as a regular practice precisely so
> that, when it really counts and they need to hide stuff, the delays won't seem unusual.
Except, in proper hindsight its pretty clear that the regular practice was precisely to LOOK LIKE he had capabilities that he didn't have.
It doesn't really take much to see why he would want to do that either; from his perspective he probably calculated that appearing to possibly have a nuclear program and chemical weapons stockpiles made it less likely for him to be seen as weak and vulnerable to attack and overthrow.
Though they all ham it up for the camera one way or another. Most often these situations are little more than a lot of posturing on both sides. Iran likes to take up their Iron Sheik role, because its a part of the act that works for them; just like it works for Uncle Sam to play the good guy role.
I am not even addressing that; I think it is utter bullshit that just because one is not the stated subject of a search means one is not the subject when its their property being searched. If your property is being searched you ARE the subject of the search.
All you have done is restated the situation. I see no reason why the party whose property is subject to search should ever not have standing to challenge. In fact, I really thing the entire concept of standing to challenge needs to be broadened. They are impacted, they should have some say.
What about the case where lies or deception is used to claim that a third party's property exists? No loophole there eh? "Oh we are going to search you now, but we are really searching that guy over there so you have the right to take it like the slave you are"