Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches: Child Porn Conviction Overturned 286

An anonymous reader writes In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that Navy investigators regularly run illegally broad online surveillance operations that cross the line of military enforcement and civilian law. The findings overturned the conviction of Michael Dreyer for distributing child pornography. The illegal material was found by NCIS agent Steve Logan searching for "any computers located in Washington state sharing known child pornography on the Gnutella file-sharing network." The ruling reads in part: "Agent Logan's search did not meet the required limitation. He surveyed the entire state of Washington for computers sharing child pornography. His initial search was not limited to United States military or government computers, and, as the government acknowledged, Agent Logan had no idea whether the computers searched belonged to someone with any "affiliation with the military at all." Instead, it was his "standard practice to monitor all computers in a geographic area," here, every computer in the state of Washington. The record here demonstrates that Agent Logan and other NCIS agents routinely carry out broad surveillance activities that violate the restrictions on military enforcement of civilian law. Agent Logan testified that it was his standard practice to "monitor any computer IP address within a specific geographic location," not just those "specific to US military only, or US government computers." He did not try to isolate military service members within a geographic area. He appeared to believe that these overly broad investigations were permissible, because he was a "U.S. federal agent" and so could investigate violations of either the Uniform Code of Military Justice or federal law."

Comment Bullshit (Score 1, Interesting) 207

I've kept a number of different iPhones in pockets with keys for years, zero scratches. I've not seen an iPhone screen witch scratches (cracks if it's dropped, yes, but not scratches).

Also, they HAVE used Gorilla Glass. In fact I'd imagine the newer ones ALSO use Gorilla Glass, they just aren't saying that (which they did not in the past also).

Comment Re:Not about ease, about authority (Score 4, Informative) 231

I was in HS from 99 to 03. We had ID cards, but we didnt need them for anything. I didnt think anything of it

Jr year (2002-2002) the security guards started not allowing students in without showing ID. Now, the security guard knew damn near every kid in school (we had a full HS of under 500 people) but no student was allowed in without the id.

Tell me, what good reason is there for that other than getting the students more used to submitting to authority? If the security guard didnt know the student fine, but if he did he STILL had to check every single ID.

Comment Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score 1) 937

I disagree. Especially on the superiority front. If you wanna talk about politics (why I dont know no one brought it up but ill bite) the ones who feel superior are the elitists, AKA the liberals who feel they know everything and are better than everyone.

back to topic, I see WAY more stories on athiests bitching about the things I listed above than I see anything from the tea party trying to convince others they are wrong

Comment Re:Clarification (Score 1) 937

What's wrong with saying 'I don't know?' Demanding that atheists know how the Universe came to be seems just as wrong as demanding that you explain how God came to be. Except that the atheists can at least claim to have at least some evidence that the Universe exists (even if it could all be false), so they can at least start their search for an answer with relatively solid footing.

If you are in a normal discussion as to how something knowable works but of which you have no knowledge, saying "I don't know," would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, quite a few of the "true believers" seem to take someone saying, "I don't know," in this context as an invitation to be "educated" with their particular mystical explanation. So, unless you want to hear the current mystical explanation, just say the scientific explanation works well enough for you and let them expend their energies attacking that. It's usually much more entertaining than the lesson you get with "I don't know."

Maybe, "I'm OK with not knowing," would work better than "I don't know." Trying to convey that you're more comfortable with a blank slate than one that is filled with mystical gobbledy-gook is hard to get across to those who embrace the mystical gobbledy-gook.

Cheers,
Dave

Comment Re:99.99%, eh? (Score 1) 600

no one cares about it being an option. The problem is that places like NJ dont want it to be AN option, they want it to be THE ONLY option when it becomes available.

By all means, buy this gun if you want it. if it makes you happy great! But dont tell me that I also have to buy your gun and only your gun (or gun with your technology in it)

Comment Re: But what about... (Score 1) 600

fair enough, but why take the chance? If you want to play "could have" instead I take say something along the lines of " If they didnt have a gun, the criminal (who already broke in) could have tied up the father while he raped the 4 year old in front of it" I suppose I could also say "he could have baked cookies for the family whos house he broke into" Regardless, dont break into homes and you wont have to worry about getting shot

Comment Re:it doesnt address a major bug. (Score 1) 600

to a well regulated militia.

Ahh yes the ol "regulated" argument

you are aware that "well regulated" at the time written simply meant "working weapons" right? I mean all you have to do is think about it logically and you would understand it does not mean regulated as we use the word today.

the second amendment was written as a way to protect us FROM the federal government. As such, why would we need to be regulated by the same people the amendment is supposed to give us the option of protecting ourselves from said federal government?? Its simply not logical on top of the fact that it doesnt mean what you think it means.

most of this problem is the NRA. the NRA targeted the first safe-gun and wiped it from stores everywhere. they spun uncited rhetoric about the unreliabiltiy or the technology and pounded the communism/fascism fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the public that a biometric or safer firearm was simply another cobblestone in the road to hitler/stalin/mao.

No we can blame places likeNJ who have laws on the books that bans all existing weapons as soon as one of these smart guns becomes mainstream. If it were not for laws like that, the NRA would not have to go out of their way to point out the flaws. Im no fan of the NRA as a whole, pulled my membership years ago, but the problem is with the government, not the NRA

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...