Your tiny little view of the world from the pinprick through your blinders is pathetic and shortsighted. We had a program to extend POTS to rural customers because of the benefits to society. The benefits of extending the internet are even greater, but because you can't see any farther than the end of your nose, you're more concerned about your paltry share of this bit of cash than about far more egregious uses of your taxes... like bombing brown people for profit.
Why? Why is it "even greater?" You really think getting people living in the middle of nowhere is one of the best places the government can spend our money? I don't.
Now, if you want to complain that this money is probably just going right down a toilet, or that nobody should receive subsidies for installing some slow-ass third-world internet connections, I'm right there with you. But having lived in both the city and country, I don't see why you would even be worried about whether we spend some money to bring modern communications to all citizens, unless you're in favor of it.
Because despite the views of the slashdot demographic, not having high speed internet is not the end of the world.
We in the country have to subsidize your roads in the city, since we drive more miles and pay more gas taxes, but the damage is really done by heavy trucks. Why don't you complain about that? Insist that you city dwellers pay your fair share of road taxes? Naturally, you're only concerned when you think you might be overpaying, not when you're underpaying. You don't care about fairness, you only care about yourself.
Not true - I think transportation infrastructure should be paid for ONLY through gasoline taxes, which means those big trucks doing the most damage are paying the most for the use of the roads. Electic and hybrids have changed that dynamic, so I'm really not sure how to include them, but I've been saying the same about gasoline taxes for 30 years. And make no mistake - I probably drive a lot more than you (I'm at 200k with my 10 year old car, the average is supposedly around 12k/year, not 20k). Again, your CHOICE to live in the country is YOUR choice.
Yeah... I switched my editor to Hack and thought it didn't work at first, so I switched it to something crazy just to be sure. Sure enough, "monospace" and "hack" on Ubuntu are almost exactly the same.
Neither am I. I have a problem with Ungrounded Lightning's post, but that's not it. For most of my life I've been paying into SS and Medicare - I do not have a choice. For years I've offered that that government can keep what they've already taken from me if I can opt out, but now later in life they've already taken too much. I didn't ask them to do it, they just did it, and gave me no choice - so despite the fact I think SS is a travesty, having been forced to pay into it, it's not hypocritical to want my money back.
My problem with the post is this:
If I could get decent internet (at a decent price) I could work from the ranch, sell off the California townhouse, and live for a year on less than it costs to live in CA for a month.
Like everybody else, you need to pick and choose where you live. Frankly, with what I make, I could live in a decent house in the Caribbean. But they internet service sucks. I would never, in a million years, ask for the government to take money from other people to pay for higher speed internet to, say, the U.S. Virgin Islands, just because I want to live there.
Not "promote commerce," there is no such clause in the U.S. constitution. Period. They regulate commerce with foreign nations and regulate interstate commerce (to the extent that they can't impose things like tariffs or duty taxes, or prevent the migration of people from state to state). A broader reading allows the federal government to create entities like the FCC so that broadcasters in one state cannot use the same airwaves as nearby broadcasters in other states and, also, regulate things like TV signal formats, create a common currency, and do things like specify railway gauges and standards for roads (especially if they cross a state border).
So, actually most legislation like this is unconstitutional unless you're a ninny who thinks "promote the general welfare" means taking from one group of people so that another group of people can have broadband. You can argue about whether or not it's good or bad that people get subsidized broadband, but just because something can be considered "good" doesn't make it constitutional.
Because the people are actually paying attention? Or, more importantly, will this be the most important (or single issue, for far too many voters) to vote on?
You usually don't move into the countryside to get away from it all, then want it back. Well, most do, but they just moved back.
That's what bothers me... you move out to the country, you can get a really nice, big house and large piece of property for a lot less than you'd pay in or near a city. If you want broadband, use some of the money you saved moving out to the middle of nowhere to get it.
It reminds me of a local private airport... people move into the area because real estate is cheap (for obvious reasons), then they band together to demand the airport shut down because there's too much noise.
that works well for other things, too. if you don't like guns: don't buy one. if you don't like global warming: don't contribute to it. and let everyone else alone.
Seems you're wrong the actual stingray device can do GSM Active Key Extraction which allows them encrypt the communications. So yes the devices can be used to listen to people's calls.
If so, TFA didn't mention it - or wasn't concerned about it, at least, TFA was solely concerned about tracking.
If it's your phone you can consent to it no warrant needed.
In any event the state has no business hiding the fact these were used and how. It's one thing to protect a witnesses entirely another to intentionally deceive in discovery. To protect a witness requires the judge to agree it's needed the police/prosecutors should never be making that decision.
I agree that if they violated the state law they were wrong, and I see little reason why they would do that, but I don't see it as the heinous violation of rights (the tracking part) that everyone else seems to think it is. I think you have to a moron to "expect" that your location can't be tracked when you're using (including just having it on and with you) a cellphone.
Do you like the idea that the police can force your phone to divulge information that can be used to locate you precisely when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Do you like the idea that it's not clear what happens to the data from the phones of people who aren't suspects? Do you like the idea that this could potentially be used against you?
They don't force your phone to do anything. I get that people don't like the idea that they can be tracked, but I don't have any kind of expectation that my location isn't being tracked anyway - the phone companies already know where I am, and they've already helped the police track people on numerous occasions. I don't like the idea that they don't divulge the information gathered (although the state law had been broken, it wasn't on all the cases). Lastly, if I was some master criminal, I'd be an idiot to carry around a cellphone. If I committed some crime (i.e. violated someone else's rights, I'd have no reasonable expectation that the police would hold back any tool they could use to find me.
Police need a warrant except when in hot pursuit - if I just report my car stolen and the phone is in the glove compartment, the criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone smashes the window of my car, and I see who it is and call the police, then they shouldn't need a warrant.
Lastly, for the millionth time, the stingray is NOT listening to people's calls, it's ONLY tracking their location.
Nobody searched anybody in this situation - they tracked a cellphone; they didn't listen in on the calls (no calls even need to have been made). The cellphone companies always had a pretty good rough estimate where you are anyway - all the stingray does is narrow down the focus. People don't like the idea of being able to be tracked, they don't want cameras with facial recognition on every corner - I get it, but they don't violate any constitutional rights.
Who said anything about repealing the fourth amendment? What the hell is wrong with you? Not having your cellphone tracked is not a right, and if you don't like it then don't use a cellphone - the cellphone companies know where you are, it's just the nature of the beast.
Wrong, but I don't expect an AC to actually post something worthwhile anyway. I absolutely want the police to employ whatever technology they have to in order to catch and prosecute the people WHO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS. I don't advocate them violating anyone else's rights to do it, but using a stingray isn't a violation of anyone's rights, so good for them.
Perhaps misinformed, but also poorly educated. What I was taught in public school about my constitutional rights was really just about next to nothing. But it goes well beyond either misinformed or ignorant - like the people in this thread who are willfully and without thought thinking that this issue has anything to do at all with constitutional rights. And, as it normally happens, 99% of the people getting all up in arms abut this probably didn't even read the article to find out what the problem actually is... if there even is a problem.
And why would you do that? Don't you want the police to catch petty criminals? All the device does is allow them to locate a specific cellphone. They don't listen to your calls, or know who you're calling - it just listens for the phone trying to connect to cell towers and then they triangulate a position. It's nothing the cellphone companies can't already do (and have done at the behest of the police on serious crimes), although it might be more precise and faster and easier. And we're not talking about situations where a warrant is needed, since they're not violating anyone's right to privacy. Why does everybody here want to protect criminals from the police? WTF is wrong with the world?
I mean, OK, I get it - the police have been under a microscope lately, but largely they do their jobs and protect citizens, and the ones that violate our rights need to be punished... but nothing in this article suggests that this technology is a violation of any rights at all.
They aren't violating the supreme law of the land. I read TFA, and it looks there are two problems: 1) they may have violated STATE law (not constitutional) that requires that the use of electronic surveillance be disclosed, and 2) that overuse of this technology may render it ineffective.
In the latter case, we can assume most criminals are morons - it may come down to only being able to use the technology for petty crime in the future - so be it. In the former, there's no reason for prosecutors to not disclose that information if they actually have it. Again, read the article - they are saying sometimes the methods used to capture the criminal are not always pushed up the chain to the prosecutors. That's a problem, but it's not some heinous problem that people are making it out to be. I'm a stickler for the rules, and I think they should follow them, but I also don't like it when even petty criminals get away.
I WANT them to catch petty criminals. Idiot anarchists don't have to press charges when someone smashes the windshield of their car, or has their property "tagged" with graffiti, or their cellphone stolen. I don't care. When someone violates my rights, though, I want them caught and punished, even if it's just stealing the loose change out of my car's change holder.
I agree there's a lot of people that won't lift a finger if they don't have to (I question their upbringing - maybe certain values need to be instilled better in school), but I think the slackers are already slackers and are only doing the bare minimum to get by. Perhaps there ought to be some work they need to do if they're not employed, like part time doing things at public institutions - janitor, landscaping, trash pick up, I don't know - I don't like the idea of handing people money when they won't even try to improve their own lives, but there are certainly legitimately people who cannot fend for themselves because of physical or mental impairment.
They would be charged roughly the same amount of taxes, but the taxes would be used in a better way.
If only history showed us this was not the case, it might be an easier pill to swallow. Perhaps if the legislation included the stipulation that taxes cannot be further increased, again, it might be an easier pill to swallow.
This is true. One bit of legislation I like (that I won't name or we'll end up on a tangent) explicitly requires ending some other programs it intends to replace, and becomes null if it doesn't happen within a restricted time period.
I should have read a little further, it's pretty much just what I wrote. How many people have gone to college so they can earn more? Gotten certifications, worked hard to make their way up in some business, or started their own? They didn't do it to live at the poverty level, they wanted more - and they still will.
I'm not going to argue in favor of this, but while I generally agree with you on most subjects I really don't believe that a substantial number of people will stop working because they are getting to live at the poverty level "for free." I'm sure you make a decent income - you could probably be living a much lesser lifestyle and not working nearly as hard as you do now, but you don't. I know there are a lot of freeloaders out there, but they're going to freeload anyway; the other group - the majority, actually want nice homes, nice cars, nice clothes, cell phones, etc..
As a libertarian I find the issue of "the poor" a dilemma. Some people actually can't do it on their own (for whatever reason). Unlike popular dogma, survival of the fittest (and worse, the strong subjugating the weak) are NOT libertarian principles. Of course, neither is making helping other people mandatory. I think that's where the false impressions of libertarians comes from, as I know a lot of very generous libertarians. I also know a lot of selfish people who claim to be libertarian giving us a bad name when they are only libertarian when it comes to their money... libertarianism isn't all about money.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, and when you start saying things like "basic minimum income" I can see some merit in it as long as these handouts are given to EVERYBODY and not means tested. I like it, sort of, to the "prebate" on the FairTax (which I support); EVERYBODY gets it, there's no means testing, there's no government official sticking their nose into your business or personal life. Sometimes you just need to choose the fairest tenable solution.
Slashdot Mirror
It's amazing how proud people are of their immorality. Good for you, jack!
Your tiny little view of the world from the pinprick through your blinders is pathetic and shortsighted. We had a program to extend POTS to rural customers because of the benefits to society. The benefits of extending the internet are even greater, but because you can't see any farther than the end of your nose, you're more concerned about your paltry share of this bit of cash than about far more egregious uses of your taxes... like bombing brown people for profit.
Why? Why is it "even greater?" You really think getting people living in the middle of nowhere is one of the best places the government can spend our money? I don't.
Now, if you want to complain that this money is probably just going right down a toilet, or that nobody should receive subsidies for installing some slow-ass third-world internet connections, I'm right there with you. But having lived in both the city and country, I don't see why you would even be worried about whether we spend some money to bring modern communications to all citizens, unless you're in favor of it.
Because despite the views of the slashdot demographic, not having high speed internet is not the end of the world.
We in the country have to subsidize your roads in the city, since we drive more miles and pay more gas taxes, but the damage is really done by heavy trucks. Why don't you complain about that? Insist that you city dwellers pay your fair share of road taxes? Naturally, you're only concerned when you think you might be overpaying, not when you're underpaying. You don't care about fairness, you only care about yourself.
Not true - I think transportation infrastructure should be paid for ONLY through gasoline taxes, which means those big trucks doing the most damage are paying the most for the use of the roads. Electic and hybrids have changed that dynamic, so I'm really not sure how to include them, but I've been saying the same about gasoline taxes for 30 years. And make no mistake - I probably drive a lot more than you (I'm at 200k with my 10 year old car, the average is supposedly around 12k/year, not 20k). Again, your CHOICE to live in the country is YOUR choice.
Yeah... I switched my editor to Hack and thought it didn't work at first, so I switched it to something crazy just to be sure. Sure enough, "monospace" and "hack" on Ubuntu are almost exactly the same.
In broadcasting we even have to pay royalties, we can't just buy the font.
Neither am I. I have a problem with Ungrounded Lightning's post, but that's not it. For most of my life I've been paying into SS and Medicare - I do not have a choice. For years I've offered that that government can keep what they've already taken from me if I can opt out, but now later in life they've already taken too much. I didn't ask them to do it, they just did it, and gave me no choice - so despite the fact I think SS is a travesty, having been forced to pay into it, it's not hypocritical to want my money back.
My problem with the post is this:
If I could get decent internet (at a decent price) I could work from the ranch, sell off the California townhouse, and live for a year on less than it costs to live in CA for a month.
Like everybody else, you need to pick and choose where you live. Frankly, with what I make, I could live in a decent house in the Caribbean. But they internet service sucks. I would never, in a million years, ask for the government to take money from other people to pay for higher speed internet to, say, the U.S. Virgin Islands, just because I want to live there.
Not "promote commerce," there is no such clause in the U.S. constitution. Period. They regulate commerce with foreign nations and regulate interstate commerce (to the extent that they can't impose things like tariffs or duty taxes, or prevent the migration of people from state to state). A broader reading allows the federal government to create entities like the FCC so that broadcasters in one state cannot use the same airwaves as nearby broadcasters in other states and, also, regulate things like TV signal formats, create a common currency, and do things like specify railway gauges and standards for roads (especially if they cross a state border).
So, actually most legislation like this is unconstitutional unless you're a ninny who thinks "promote the general welfare" means taking from one group of people so that another group of people can have broadband. You can argue about whether or not it's good or bad that people get subsidized broadband, but just because something can be considered "good" doesn't make it constitutional.
Because the people are actually paying attention? Or, more importantly, will this be the most important (or single issue, for far too many voters) to vote on?
You usually don't move into the countryside to get away from it all, then want it back. Well, most do, but they just moved back.
That's what bothers me... you move out to the country, you can get a really nice, big house and large piece of property for a lot less than you'd pay in or near a city. If you want broadband, use some of the money you saved moving out to the middle of nowhere to get it.
It reminds me of a local private airport... people move into the area because real estate is cheap (for obvious reasons), then they band together to demand the airport shut down because there's too much noise.
that works well for other things, too. if you don't like guns: don't buy one. if you don't like global warming: don't contribute to it. and let everyone else alone.
No, it really doesn't.
Seems you're wrong the actual stingray device can do GSM Active Key Extraction which allows them encrypt the communications. So yes the devices can be used to listen to people's calls.
If so, TFA didn't mention it - or wasn't concerned about it, at least, TFA was solely concerned about tracking.
If it's your phone you can consent to it no warrant needed.
In any event the state has no business hiding the fact these were used and how. It's one thing to protect a witnesses entirely another to intentionally deceive in discovery. To protect a witness requires the judge to agree it's needed the police/prosecutors should never be making that decision.
I agree that if they violated the state law they were wrong, and I see little reason why they would do that, but I don't see it as the heinous violation of rights (the tracking part) that everyone else seems to think it is. I think you have to a moron to "expect" that your location can't be tracked when you're using (including just having it on and with you) a cellphone.
Do you like the idea that the police can force your phone to divulge information that can be used to locate you precisely when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Do you like the idea that it's not clear what happens to the data from the phones of people who aren't suspects? Do you like the idea that this could potentially be used against you?
They don't force your phone to do anything. I get that people don't like the idea that they can be tracked, but I don't have any kind of expectation that my location isn't being tracked anyway - the phone companies already know where I am, and they've already helped the police track people on numerous occasions. I don't like the idea that they don't divulge the information gathered (although the state law had been broken, it wasn't on all the cases). Lastly, if I was some master criminal, I'd be an idiot to carry around a cellphone. If I committed some crime (i.e. violated someone else's rights, I'd have no reasonable expectation that the police would hold back any tool they could use to find me.
Police need a warrant except when in hot pursuit - if I just report my car stolen and the phone is in the glove compartment, the criminal has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone smashes the window of my car, and I see who it is and call the police, then they shouldn't need a warrant.
Lastly, for the millionth time, the stingray is NOT listening to people's calls, it's ONLY tracking their location.
Nobody searched anybody in this situation - they tracked a cellphone; they didn't listen in on the calls (no calls even need to have been made). The cellphone companies always had a pretty good rough estimate where you are anyway - all the stingray does is narrow down the focus. People don't like the idea of being able to be tracked, they don't want cameras with facial recognition on every corner - I get it, but they don't violate any constitutional rights.
Who said anything about repealing the fourth amendment? What the hell is wrong with you? Not having your cellphone tracked is not a right, and if you don't like it then don't use a cellphone - the cellphone companies know where you are, it's just the nature of the beast.
Wrong, but I don't expect an AC to actually post something worthwhile anyway. I absolutely want the police to employ whatever technology they have to in order to catch and prosecute the people WHO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS. I don't advocate them violating anyone else's rights to do it, but using a stingray isn't a violation of anyone's rights, so good for them.
Perhaps misinformed, but also poorly educated. What I was taught in public school about my constitutional rights was really just about next to nothing. But it goes well beyond either misinformed or ignorant - like the people in this thread who are willfully and without thought thinking that this issue has anything to do at all with constitutional rights. And, as it normally happens, 99% of the people getting all up in arms abut this probably didn't even read the article to find out what the problem actually is... if there even is a problem.
And why would you do that? Don't you want the police to catch petty criminals? All the device does is allow them to locate a specific cellphone. They don't listen to your calls, or know who you're calling - it just listens for the phone trying to connect to cell towers and then they triangulate a position. It's nothing the cellphone companies can't already do (and have done at the behest of the police on serious crimes), although it might be more precise and faster and easier. And we're not talking about situations where a warrant is needed, since they're not violating anyone's right to privacy. Why does everybody here want to protect criminals from the police? WTF is wrong with the world?
I mean, OK, I get it - the police have been under a microscope lately, but largely they do their jobs and protect citizens, and the ones that violate our rights need to be punished... but nothing in this article suggests that this technology is a violation of any rights at all.
Well, that's a nice rant you had going there and all, but there were no constitutional rights violated in this story, so it kind of went to waste.
What civil liberties are being broken when they search for a piece of stolen property?
None. Most of the people here don't even know what they're complaining about.
They aren't violating the supreme law of the land. I read TFA, and it looks there are two problems: 1) they may have violated STATE law (not constitutional) that requires that the use of electronic surveillance be disclosed, and 2) that overuse of this technology may render it ineffective.
In the latter case, we can assume most criminals are morons - it may come down to only being able to use the technology for petty crime in the future - so be it. In the former, there's no reason for prosecutors to not disclose that information if they actually have it. Again, read the article - they are saying sometimes the methods used to capture the criminal are not always pushed up the chain to the prosecutors. That's a problem, but it's not some heinous problem that people are making it out to be. I'm a stickler for the rules, and I think they should follow them, but I also don't like it when even petty criminals get away.
I WANT them to catch petty criminals. Idiot anarchists don't have to press charges when someone smashes the windshield of their car, or has their property "tagged" with graffiti, or their cellphone stolen. I don't care. When someone violates my rights, though, I want them caught and punished, even if it's just stealing the loose change out of my car's change holder.
I agree there's a lot of people that won't lift a finger if they don't have to (I question their upbringing - maybe certain values need to be instilled better in school), but I think the slackers are already slackers and are only doing the bare minimum to get by. Perhaps there ought to be some work they need to do if they're not employed, like part time doing things at public institutions - janitor, landscaping, trash pick up, I don't know - I don't like the idea of handing people money when they won't even try to improve their own lives, but there are certainly legitimately people who cannot fend for themselves because of physical or mental impairment.
They would be charged roughly the same amount of taxes, but the taxes would be used in a better way.
If only history showed us this was not the case, it might be an easier pill to swallow. Perhaps if the legislation included the stipulation that taxes cannot be further increased, again, it might be an easier pill to swallow.
This is true. One bit of legislation I like (that I won't name or we'll end up on a tangent) explicitly requires ending some other programs it intends to replace, and becomes null if it doesn't happen within a restricted time period.
I should have read a little further, it's pretty much just what I wrote. How many people have gone to college so they can earn more? Gotten certifications, worked hard to make their way up in some business, or started their own? They didn't do it to live at the poverty level, they wanted more - and they still will.
I'm not going to argue in favor of this, but while I generally agree with you on most subjects I really don't believe that a substantial number of people will stop working because they are getting to live at the poverty level "for free." I'm sure you make a decent income - you could probably be living a much lesser lifestyle and not working nearly as hard as you do now, but you don't. I know there are a lot of freeloaders out there, but they're going to freeload anyway; the other group - the majority, actually want nice homes, nice cars, nice clothes, cell phones, etc..
As a libertarian I find the issue of "the poor" a dilemma. Some people actually can't do it on their own (for whatever reason). Unlike popular dogma, survival of the fittest (and worse, the strong subjugating the weak) are NOT libertarian principles. Of course, neither is making helping other people mandatory. I think that's where the false impressions of libertarians comes from, as I know a lot of very generous libertarians. I also know a lot of selfish people who claim to be libertarian giving us a bad name when they are only libertarian when it comes to their money... libertarianism isn't all about money.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, and when you start saying things like "basic minimum income" I can see some merit in it as long as these handouts are given to EVERYBODY and not means tested. I like it, sort of, to the "prebate" on the FairTax (which I support); EVERYBODY gets it, there's no means testing, there's no government official sticking their nose into your business or personal life. Sometimes you just need to choose the fairest tenable solution.