There is a great brief filed by a Colorado Public Defender addressing this issue (specifically the word Fuck and its history and uses).

The brief can be found at: http://scofacts.org/The-F-Motion.html

--AC

The reason it takes so long to check the list is that the airlines are not giving the manifest data back to the TSA. The TSA updates the lists, but it doesn't have access to the manifests, so it cannot check. Instead, the airlines check the lists whenever they chose, but no less than every two (previously eight) hours.

The big government solution would be to compel the airlines to provide the data to the TSA, which can then check the manifests against the lists as the data comes in. But privacy advocates and European governments are opposed to giving the "big government" real time access to people's travel plans. The government has been willing to accept the current system as a compromise.

Ultimately, the question is whether you want to allow the private sector to actually perform the no fly list reconciliation and keep your data relatively secret, or whether you want the government to be able to instantly identify people on the no fly list, but have access to your movements via air travel.

The choices are not great, and I won't express my preferences.

--AC

Except that, in a lawsuit, you can only recover for the damages you suffer. As one of those personal injury lawyers people are always talking about, a case with a slightly cut hand is not worth the time and money involved. A case with an amputated hand is going to have substantial medical bills and other economic losses, which would justify the time and expense involved in prosecuting the case.

What you're talking about is the difference between a ~$1 case, and (potentially) a $2,000,000.00 case. As a matter of professional ethics, I'm not going to spend $150,000 hiring expert witnesses to recover $1.

--AC

Great. How do we get the data for those long-term studies?

Do we do the experiment and then check the patients for an extended period of time? But before we can get there, we have to do the experiment.

Also, how do you know what Dr. Centeno tells his patients in the process of obtaining informed consent. I know the man professionally, and have found him to have the highest ethical standards. I don't know the precise information he provides when he obtains informed consent, but neither do you.

--AC

Isn't that the nature of an experiment, though? I mean really, when you do the experiment, you don't have proof to back up your claims. You have a hypothesis.

Now, in his case, there is actually some proof. Apparently, these kinds of stem cell treatments have been shown to be efficacious in animal trials, right? So actually, there is some basis for believing that they will do so in human trials as well.

At the same time, however, he doesn't have data showing that his treatments work. But he is gathering that data and publishing his studies in peer-reviewed journals. So, in fact, he is engaged in the science of medicine.

In a few years, if he's right, he'll be a pioneer in stem cell treatment. If he's wrong, he'll have to face the legal, ethical, and professional consequences of his failed experiment.

But, I'm sure you'll agree, it's a bit hasty to claim that he is "a con man bring shit that doesn't work to the people." As you must acknowledge, there is no proof EITHER WAY as to whether the treatments work in human beings.

Please, do try to restrain yourself from defaming people you don't know.

--AC

A bug that you know about. If, by chance, you find yourself in an accident, and get sued, I doubt a jury is going to look kindly on the "I passed up on the fix for the known bug because I thought it might brick my car" defense. If you pass on the deal, you are essentially taking full responsibility for Toyota's bad code.

That's not a good choice.

--AC

Technically, the 9th Circuit lacks authority to overturn Cruikshank.

--AC

Not exactly. They need a reasonable belief. See, because the Bill of Rights does not apply to private actors. Instead, the store-customer relationship is governed by longstanding principles of common law. At common law, you have the right to freedom of movement, and can sue individuals who wrongfully and intentionally limit your freedom of movement by confining you to a bounded area. This is the tort of false imprisonment. However, a store keeper has a limited privilege to infringe your right where he reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to protect his property. So the while the mere failure to show a receipt upon leaving a store may not be sufficient to justify a store owner's decision to detain you, if there are other facts that the store owner is aware of, such a detention may be legally authorized.

--AC

Technically, FRCP 5.2(a) only requires redaction of the first 5 digits. Since these digits are the ones that can easily be guessed, the redaction rules are ineffective at achieving their primary purpose, which is the prevention of the dissemination of an individuals SSN.

--G

It's even better than that. Consider that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for the redaction of all but the last four digits of an individual's social security number if it must be part of a court record (for example a discovery response).

Much of the discovery I have seen asks for the party's date of birth, place of birth, and social security number. While the rule "protects" the SSN from release by redacting the first five numbers, with a typical set of interrogatory responses, and the techniques pioneered by these researchers, I can get the holy trinity of identity theft information: SSN, DOB, and location of birth.

Even worse, most of the country now uses PACER for electronic filing in Federal Courts. For $.08/page, anyone can access filings in a Federal case. This seems ripe for abuse.

--AC

That's not going to happen.

You have to understand the legal arenas in which the cases you look at are decided. The strip-search case involved a state actor who engaged in conduct arguably prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. That gave rise to a 1983 action (a suit for damages based on a violation of your Constitutional Rights). In those kinds of cases, there is a defense called qualified immunity. It can be invoked by state actors to say "The rule I broke was not well settled by the Supreme Court. I did not know I was violating your rights. Because I did not know, and there was no way for me to know, I should not be held liable."

But that defense only comes up where a state actor is sued for violating someone's rights. This case involves a criminal prosecution against a private citizen. The private citizen does not have a "I didn't know" rule. In fact, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. He can still defend himself by arguing that Tennessee's law is unconstitutional, but he cannot say that he did not know that what he was doing was illegal.

--AC

The Sun does revolve around the Earth.*

--AC

* For certain frames of reference.

And I fail at reading the entire subject line.

I'll have my order of crow, well done, with a side of my foot. And can you cover that in my own words?

--AC

It's not limited to Dems, thankyouverymuch.

Check out Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. It's the case about a Secret Service Raid on SJ Games in which the Secret Service seized a number of computers, nearly crippling a business. The details can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service.

For the record, the seizure of the computers took place in 1990, under the Bush (I) administration.

--AC

Is "Posting Anonymously" any less anonymous because I use a pseudonym online? At the end of the day, aren't most slashdotters really anonymous cowards?

I sign my posts --AC because there's little difference between anonymous internet postings behind a handle, and anonymous internet postings with no handle.

--AC