Looks like I am going to start carrying my cell in a zip lock bag. Wonder if that works?
The contents of a clear ziplock bag would be in plain view, and no reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy regarding the observation of such materials. An opaque or translucent ziplock bag would probably instantly cause the officer to open and inspect the bag.
I can kind of see where you are going with this one. Is this your line of reasoning? Since the cell phone was in plain view, and if there was no cause for suspicion to believe that the phone was anything other than a phone and not a shell for contraband, then opening the baggie to further inspect the phone was not necessary. Is that correct?
The arguements could be made:
Since it was plain that the phone was nothing more than a phone, the bag did not need to be opened to further inspect the phone.
The counterarguement could be made:
The bag was clear and therefore provided clear line of sight to the objects contained within, the implication is that the phone was not an item that the bearer had any intention of keeping private.
Would you really check the URL if you received an e-mail that looked like it was from a close friend that simply read,
Depends on the timing of the email.
I could have been holding an email conversation with someone regarding any number of topics, maybe I was researching treadmills, wondering what was a good deal, where to buy, consumer reviews...
And then in the middle of the conversation comes a "Hey check out this one". Granted, that requires good timing, but it happens.
And damned if I haven't accidentally clicked on a link in google by bumping my mouse as I reached for the phone and caused it to go to some squatter site or a hijacked site.
I loathe that term as well. I find that it is so often overused and is overly broad. It drove me from the Register they seem to have a penchant for using it in almost every single article.
My problem with it is that the term seems to mean:
How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?
That's what happens when people forget that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, and mistake it for a permission slip for the people.
But mostly it's a byproduct of the concept that Reasonable means "Everything as long as it didn't involve a nightstick up your rear". We just regained that last clause recently, but only just.
Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant? How can that be deemed reasonable?
If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested, it could potentially contain knives, guns, maybe even a bomb. It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody. It could be dangerous.
That is what they mean by a closed container. A cell phone cannot contain a physical dangerous object within its data.
However, if the police suspected that the phone was just a shell and contained bullets instead of a battery, they might have authority to search it for bullets, but that doesn't involve turning it on and going through the data.
I've always had a thing about not dating outside my own species. You do realize that chimpanzees are genetically much closer to us than any aliens could possibly be, don't you? You also realize that Star Trek is fiction, and that the inter-species relations that occurred were actually a metaphor for race relations here on Earth, don't you? If aliens landed here tomorrow, I suspect my first reaction definitely would NOT be "I'd hit that!"
I'm not a geneticist, so bear with me here...
You are saying you would rather have sex with a chimpanzee than an Orion Slave Girl?
Dude, you are the last person that should be giving any kind of dating advice.
Plants are green given the relative energy and percentage of wavelengths in sunlight. In other words red is easy to absorb and there's lots of it. Similarly blue is hard to absorb, but there's not so much in our yellowish sunlight to warrant reflecting it. Green, though, it's sort of hard to digest and there's an AWFUL lot of it in our sunlight. Hence green leaves.
We have green leaves, but your reasoning may not be completely correct.
Reverse it. Suppose foreigners had come here and started handing out goods we labeled contraband but were perfectly legal in their respective countries. We would likely react accordingly and arrest (or at least detain and deport) them. How about we change our attitudes regarding other nations to something like this: mind our own damn business. Thank you for reading.
How about instead of reversing it and changing it around, you simply ask the following:
If foreigners had come here and started handing out cell phones and laptops for free to the downtrodden, they would likely have not ended up in prison and deported, they would have ended up on the Oprah Winfrey Show and showered with praise.
Why was the network designed so that one single account (or password) held the keys the kingdom? That's just stupid.
"Administrator" groups for Windows machines Multiple root SSH keys and/or Kerberos logins for Unix boxen TACACS user-based authentication for routers.
Probably because the guy they hired to avoid problems like this, created the problem. There is always a way that someone can ruin your day. You can't always avoid placing a lot of trust into the hands of a few or even one individual.
Ever fly on an airplane? That's an awful lot of trust that you just put into the pilot.
I've always found it deeply ironic that many "mine mine mine!" capitalists also declare themselves to be Christians and fail to understand sharing one's wealth in the Christian sense at all.
So don't do business on Wall Street. How many markets are there now in the world? Grow your own produce and sell it at a farmers market if you really want to avoid them taking a cut.
So no roads, school or police? Does it apply to *all* services, or just the ones you decide it does apply to?
If you want it, you will pay for it. Since you are paying for roads, schools, and police, you want it right?
In one instance, you and a group of friends decide that you want to build a road, so you raise enough money and pay for it.
In another instance, you and a group of friends decide that you want to build a road, so you raise money, and decide that I should pay for it as well because there are more of you than me.
The only question is: Did I consent to your collection of my money? Did I ask you and your friends to help come up with a road solution?
Libertarians also hold the completely rational belief that people incapable or unwilling to work hard enough--and here only the Libertarian is allowed to define how hard--should die when they meet hardship.
Slashdotters named geekboy642 also hold the completely rational belief that anything they say is true becuase they say it. geekboy642 holds the ultimate knowledge and ability to define the positions of others in the most absurd way possible.
You seem to be suggesting that someone with no self-esteem is worse off than someone who is the deceased victim of some deranged Thomas Harris-styled lunatic serial killer?
That's really going to help raise their opinion of themselves.
Someone with no self esteem might physically be better off, but they certainly wouldn't feel that way.
Well, there are worse hands the money can fall into than the government's.
Vices will exist so long as people exist. That's a fact, and there's no going around it, legislation, education, or otherwise. I'd rather the government control the flow and get the money than the mob or worse, gangs liks MS13
Did you ever wonder why Prohibition was the best thing to ever happen to Organized Crime?
Government controlling the trade and treating them like 'vices' is exactly why organized crime is even able to use them to do business. The drug dealers exist ONLY because the government has either outlawed the substance, or placed a heavy tax on it.
Sugar is not something gangs deal with. Coffee is not something gangs deal with. Salt is not something gangs deal with.
Yet each of those items are consumed in greater quantities than any drug, and for the most part, you don't need to consume a single one of them on their own. Gangs are involved in drugs ONLY because the government has attempted to limit something that people want.
Consider sex. Marked as a vice by the government and we have an underground trade. In Copenhagen where it is legal, you have a regulated (for the purposes of safety NOT vice control), clean, and safe sex industry.
If the government outlawed sweeteners, you would have gangs dealing in stevia within 10 days.
(And for your MS13 comment? Why is one criminal who will kill you for getting in the way of their trade any scarier than another criminal who will kill you for getting in the way of their trade? Don't think for a moment that they are any different than the Mafia, or that the Mafia is any better simply because of a few Hollywood movies.)
It doesn't always work (especially if not carefully considered), and rarely if ever does it work perfectly, but it can have positive effects.
Are the positive effects determined by the same people who get to determine what is, or is not, a vice?
The problem is, by your own admission, they don't always work, and rarely work perfectly. When you combine that with the idea that a Vice is just something that one group of people likes, and another group of people dislikes, the definition depends greatly on which group of people has the power at the time, and that is a recipe for disaster.
It's VERY easy to define something as a vice. Right now, it seems like anything that isn't a necessity is a vice (or eligible for a 'Glad it's not me' tax). So what do you do when you are the minority and it is your turn for your behaviors to become 'vices'.
It is tremendously easy to target the symptoms (or perceived symptoms) than it is to fix the problem.
Crime in cities? Ban baggy pants and tax beepers. People getting fat? Tax soda Drunks at games? Tax 'malt beverages' Healthcare getting expensive? Tax cigarettes.
So, what do any of those have to do with solving the root causes of the problems? We have tried many of those things, but as far as I know: Crime still exists, people still get fat, people still get drunk, and healthcare is still expensive.
Yet all of those taxes/bans impact innocent people who have done nothing wrong other than living their life in the manner in which they find most enjoyable. Yet none of those activities impacts you in any way.
The only reason it impacts you, is because you used the government to force your way INTO their private lives and started regulating it.
There's plenty of examples of governments that didn't have that frustration. The opposing agendas are typically executed or jailed.
Or a common enemy is defined and both factions team up to build the weapons to destroy the enemy. Yet once that common enemy is defeated or marginalized the weapons are not melted down or turned to ploughshares but are maintained.
See: any law "For the Children", as an example of a weapon(law) which is employed in a noble pursuit, but later twisted into a means of oppression.
This isn't the government we're talking about here, it's the general population. Yeah, and like it or not, they own a small piece of you. And you own a small piece of them You live in a society that has to work together, and your actions and choices have consequences to people beyond yourself. Sometimes, your choices may feel good to you, but they come at the expense of others.
The general population has authority to enforce any tax against me except via the government in the United States. And to state that the general population owns any bit of me is a hefty claim, and quite frankly, repugnant. To claim otherwise is to imply that there is a lack of consent, and without consent, there is no legitimacy.
Your justification is predicated on the notion that it is somehow unfair for people to pay for the lifestyle of others through a system which forces them to pay for the lifestyle of others.
You are advocating a system which allows the government to justify any restriction upon a minority group based on the idea that it might save the government money.
The government has VERY strict limitations on what it is allowed to regulate, and you are trying to justify the abuse of that power by stating that "If an action can be determined to have an impact on the operating costs of the government, then the government has the authority to regulate it."
That is a horrid premise which grants the government the ability to regulate anything and everything based on simple majority votes and is abhorrent in any free and just society.
Slashdot Mirror
So Israel only has to be just as good as the worst player you can think of?
Looks like I am going to start carrying my cell in a zip lock bag. Wonder if that works?
The contents of a clear ziplock bag would be in plain view, and no reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy regarding the observation of such materials. An opaque or translucent ziplock bag would probably instantly cause the officer to open and inspect the bag.
I can kind of see where you are going with this one. Is this your line of reasoning? Since the cell phone was in plain view, and if there was no cause for suspicion to believe that the phone was anything other than a phone and not a shell for contraband, then opening the baggie to further inspect the phone was not necessary. Is that correct?
The arguements could be made:
Since it was plain that the phone was nothing more than a phone, the bag did not need to be opened to further inspect the phone.
The counterarguement could be made:
The bag was clear and therefore provided clear line of sight to the objects contained within, the implication is that the phone was not an item that the bearer had any intention of keeping private.
The reality:
Cop: What baggie?
All life started from chaotic collisions of molecules...
But this had the guiding hand of some sort of developer, a creator of those conditions you might say.
Which is to say, we are God's rhinovirus.
Would you really check the URL if you received an e-mail that looked like it was from a close friend that simply read,
Depends on the timing of the email.
I could have been holding an email conversation with someone regarding any number of topics, maybe I was researching treadmills, wondering what was a good deal, where to buy, consumer reviews...
And then in the middle of the conversation comes a "Hey check out this one". Granted, that requires good timing, but it happens.
And damned if I haven't accidentally clicked on a link in google by bumping my mouse as I reached for the phone and caused it to go to some squatter site or a hijacked site.
I loathe that term as well. I find that it is so often overused and is overly broad. It drove me from the Register they seem to have a penchant for using it in almost every single article.
My problem with it is that the term seems to mean:
Geek, Physicist, Mathematician, Engineer, Scientist, Researcher, Archaeologist, Botanist, Astronomer, Grad Student, Fellow, Paleontologist, Meteorologist, Geologist, Chemist,
Or as you said "Anyone who uses their brain"-jobguy.
It's about as useful as saying:
"Some guy who wasn't the security guard claims the following..."
How is an address book not "papers" as in the 4th ammendment's person, papers and effects?
That's what happens when people forget that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, and mistake it for a permission slip for the people.
But mostly it's a byproduct of the concept that Reasonable means "Everything as long as it didn't involve a nightstick up your rear". We just regained that last clause recently, but only just.
Does that mean that a "closed container" is searchable without a warrant? How can that be deemed reasonable?
If I had a 4 liter tin cookie can when I was arrested, it could potentially contain knives, guns, maybe even a bomb. It is reasonable for a police officer to be able to search such a container when they take you into custody. It could be dangerous.
That is what they mean by a closed container. A cell phone cannot contain a physical dangerous object within its data.
However, if the police suspected that the phone was just a shell and contained bullets instead of a battery, they might have authority to search it for bullets, but that doesn't involve turning it on and going through the data.
I've always had a thing about not dating outside my own species. You do realize that chimpanzees are genetically much closer to us than any aliens could possibly be, don't you? You also realize that Star Trek is fiction, and that the inter-species relations that occurred were actually a metaphor for race relations here on Earth, don't you? If aliens landed here tomorrow, I suspect my first reaction definitely would NOT be "I'd hit that!"
I'm not a geneticist, so bear with me here...
You are saying you would rather have sex with a chimpanzee than an Orion Slave Girl?
Dude, you are the last person that should be giving any kind of dating advice.
Plants are green given the relative energy and percentage of wavelengths in sunlight. In other words red is easy to absorb and there's lots of it. Similarly blue is hard to absorb, but there's not so much in our yellowish sunlight to warrant reflecting it. Green, though, it's sort of hard to digest and there's an AWFUL lot of it in our sunlight. Hence green leaves.
We have green leaves, but your reasoning may not be completely correct.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070410_purple_earth.html
If the planet has life, and is low in oxygen content, it might actually be purple.
Reverse it. Suppose foreigners had come here and started handing out goods we labeled contraband but were perfectly legal in their respective countries. We would likely react accordingly and arrest (or at least detain and deport) them. How about we change our attitudes regarding other nations to something like this: mind our own damn business. Thank you for reading.
How about instead of reversing it and changing it around, you simply ask the following:
If foreigners had come here and started handing out cell phones and laptops for free to the downtrodden, they would likely have not ended up in prison and deported, they would have ended up on the Oprah Winfrey Show and showered with praise.
In the US, if someone needs it, you'll never throw it away.
Must be how my family never made their living as junkmen. 'Big trash day' was like Christmas.
That's true. What do you do when the pilot and the copilot of your plane get run over by a truck at 40,000'? WHAT DO YOU DO?????
Shoot the hostage.
You used to be cool.
Why was the network designed so that one single account (or password) held the keys the kingdom? That's just stupid.
"Administrator" groups for Windows machines
Multiple root SSH keys and/or Kerberos logins for Unix boxen
TACACS user-based authentication for routers.
Probably because the guy they hired to avoid problems like this, created the problem. There is always a way that someone can ruin your day. You can't always avoid placing a lot of trust into the hands of a few or even one individual.
Ever fly on an airplane? That's an awful lot of trust that you just put into the pilot.
I've always found it deeply ironic that many "mine mine mine!" capitalists also declare themselves to be Christians and fail to understand sharing one's wealth in the Christian sense at all.
What about all of us atheists?
If a starving man steals a stale bread you were about to throw away, this is called stealing too
In the US, something you throw away enters the public domain. It wouldn't be stealing.
Yeah, like the Wall Steet Bankers?
So don't do business on Wall Street. How many markets are there now in the world? Grow your own produce and sell it at a farmers market if you really want to avoid them taking a cut.
Just try not doing business with the government.
Seems he uses the common definition...
So the common definition is so broad and vague that it covers even the slightest bit of cooperation?
If that is the case, then the discussion is pointless because everything is socialism and therefore it ceases to have any meaning.
Excellent, now that I've abolished socialism before finishing my morning cup of coffee we can get to the real work.
So no roads, school or police? Does it apply to *all* services, or just the ones you decide it does apply to?
If you want it, you will pay for it. Since you are paying for roads, schools, and police, you want it right?
In one instance, you and a group of friends decide that you want to build a road, so you raise enough money and pay for it.
In another instance, you and a group of friends decide that you want to build a road, so you raise money, and decide that I should pay for it as well because there are more of you than me.
The only question is: Did I consent to your collection of my money? Did I ask you and your friends to help come up with a road solution?
Libertarians also hold the completely rational belief that people incapable or unwilling to work hard enough--and here only the Libertarian is allowed to define how hard--should die when they meet hardship.
Slashdotters named geekboy642 also hold the completely rational belief that anything they say is true becuase they say it. geekboy642 holds the ultimate knowledge and ability to define the positions of others in the most absurd way possible.
You seem to be suggesting that someone with no self-esteem is worse off than someone who is the deceased victim of some deranged Thomas Harris-styled lunatic serial killer?
That's really going to help raise their opinion of themselves.
Someone with no self esteem might physically be better off, but they certainly wouldn't feel that way.
Well, there are worse hands the money can fall into than the government's.
Vices will exist so long as people exist. That's a fact, and there's no going around it, legislation, education, or otherwise. I'd rather the government control the flow and get the money than the mob or worse, gangs liks MS13
Did you ever wonder why Prohibition was the best thing to ever happen to Organized Crime?
Government controlling the trade and treating them like 'vices' is exactly why organized crime is even able to use them to do business. The drug dealers exist ONLY because the government has either outlawed the substance, or placed a heavy tax on it.
Sugar is not something gangs deal with.
Coffee is not something gangs deal with.
Salt is not something gangs deal with.
Yet each of those items are consumed in greater quantities than any drug, and for the most part, you don't need to consume a single one of them on their own. Gangs are involved in drugs ONLY because the government has attempted to limit something that people want.
Consider sex. Marked as a vice by the government and we have an underground trade. In Copenhagen where it is legal, you have a regulated (for the purposes of safety NOT vice control), clean, and safe sex industry.
If the government outlawed sweeteners, you would have gangs dealing in stevia within 10 days.
(And for your MS13 comment? Why is one criminal who will kill you for getting in the way of their trade any scarier than another criminal who will kill you for getting in the way of their trade? Don't think for a moment that they are any different than the Mafia, or that the Mafia is any better simply because of a few Hollywood movies.)
It doesn't always work (especially if not carefully considered), and rarely if ever does it work perfectly, but it can have positive effects.
Are the positive effects determined by the same people who get to determine what is, or is not, a vice?
The problem is, by your own admission, they don't always work, and rarely work perfectly. When you combine that with the idea that a Vice is just something that one group of people likes, and another group of people dislikes, the definition depends greatly on which group of people has the power at the time, and that is a recipe for disaster.
It's VERY easy to define something as a vice. Right now, it seems like anything that isn't a necessity is a vice (or eligible for a 'Glad it's not me' tax). So what do you do when you are the minority and it is your turn for your behaviors to become 'vices'.
It is tremendously easy to target the symptoms (or perceived symptoms) than it is to fix the problem.
Crime in cities? Ban baggy pants and tax beepers.
People getting fat? Tax soda
Drunks at games? Tax 'malt beverages'
Healthcare getting expensive? Tax cigarettes.
So, what do any of those have to do with solving the root causes of the problems? We have tried many of those things, but as far as I know: Crime still exists, people still get fat, people still get drunk, and healthcare is still expensive.
Yet all of those taxes/bans impact innocent people who have done nothing wrong other than living their life in the manner in which they find most enjoyable. Yet none of those activities impacts you in any way.
The only reason it impacts you, is because you used the government to force your way INTO their private lives and started regulating it.
There's plenty of examples of governments that didn't have that frustration. The opposing agendas are typically executed or jailed.
Or a common enemy is defined and both factions team up to build the weapons to destroy the enemy. Yet once that common enemy is defeated or marginalized the weapons are not melted down or turned to ploughshares but are maintained.
See: any law "For the Children", as an example of a weapon(law) which is employed in a noble pursuit, but later twisted into a means of oppression.
This isn't the government we're talking about here, it's the general population. Yeah, and like it or not, they own a small piece of you. And you own a small piece of them
You live in a society that has to work together, and your actions and choices have consequences to people beyond yourself. Sometimes, your choices may feel good to you, but they come at the expense of others.
The general population has authority to enforce any tax against me except via the government in the United States. And to state that the general population owns any bit of me is a hefty claim, and quite frankly, repugnant. To claim otherwise is to imply that there is a lack of consent, and without consent, there is no legitimacy.
Your justification is predicated on the notion that it is somehow unfair for people to pay for the lifestyle of others through a system which forces them to pay for the lifestyle of others.
You are advocating a system which allows the government to justify any restriction upon a minority group based on the idea that it might save the government money.
The government has VERY strict limitations on what it is allowed to regulate, and you are trying to justify the abuse of that power by stating that "If an action can be determined to have an impact on the operating costs of the government, then the government has the authority to regulate it."
That is a horrid premise which grants the government the ability to regulate anything and everything based on simple majority votes and is abhorrent in any free and just society.