Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

+ - DEA steals life savings of innocent man

Submitted by schwit1
schwit1 writes: In another example of civil forfeiture, DEA agents confiscated the life savings of a man heading to California based on no evidence.

There was no evidence of a crime, the man was never charged, but three weeks later he still has not gotten his money back.

Sean Waite, the agent in charge for the DEA in Albuquerque, said he could not comment on the Rivers case because it is ongoing. He disputed allegations that Rivers was targeted because of his race. Waite said that in general DEA agents look for "indicators" such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person's story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.

"We don't have to prove that the person is guilty," Waite said. "It's that the money is presumed to be guilty."

Read the whole article. This is entirely unconstitutional. The fifth amendment to the Bill of Rights expressly forbids the taking of private property "without just compensation."

+ - Police CAN obtain cell-phone location records without warrant->

Submitted by mi
mi writes: Investigators do not need a search warrant to obtain cellphone tower location records in criminal prosecutions. In its 9-2 decision, the 11th Circuit ruled, there is no expectation of one's location remaining private, when using a cellular phone. The decision validated an earlier conviction of a robber, where 67 days worth of the location data linking the accused to locations of armed robberies.

One of the judges wrote: "We find no reason to conclude that cellphone users lack facts about the functions of cell towers or about telephone providers' recording cell tower usage".

In the particular case police used a court order, which has lower requirements, than a search warrant, to obtain the records used for conviction.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble (Score 1) 346

That is precisely why I am not arranging the links in the pretty little table you want.

Yeah, right. If the links really existed — as you claimed the do — you would simply listed them in the format requested — I am not asking for anything particularly complex — instead of posting yet again to explain, why refuse to do it.

Anyone who has made the least effort to study [...]

Gee, right. One would've thought, Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this kind of argument once and for all back in the 19th century, but, behold, yet another "scientist" tries to use it...

(a) we are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere


(b) higher CO2 concentrations will cause the planet to warm

They will? By how much?

(c) significant warming could cause serious harm

And you could save 15% of more on car insurance — your statement is just as non-committal as Geico's "promise".

My "if" condition is satisfied: there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm.

Well, if there is such evidence, I'm yet to see it. You made claims, but you have not offered evidence. Maybe, this is not the right forum for such. I would've taken a scientific argument for it. However, being able to make real predictions is one of the requirements for a scientific discipline. Yet, you would not (or, as is rather evident by not, can not) offer any meaningful predictions, that have come true. Ergo, whatever it is you are practicing, is not science.

At this point, the burden of proof is on you.

Thank you for admitting, you have no proof.

Now, if you had a shred of common sense left still, you should be asking yourself this question: how come there are no obvious ways to satisfy this obnoxious guy's seemingly simple request? That's the only way for a healing to begin...

Comment: Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble (Score 1) 346

Every one of the links in this thread points to an easy-to-read article referencing a mainstream prediction

If this were true, you would've had no problem enumerating the pairs in the form I asked for. That you didn't do so suggests, it is not there. That you later try to switch the topic confirms the suspicion.

you will enjoy my challenge to you

Sorry, I don't feel like it. But I don't have to prove anything to you — I am not asking (much less demanding) you change your way of life to suit my views.

If there is substantial evidence that people are causing climate change and that climate change could cause significant harm

Begs the question, does not it? A giant "if"...

The only sound argument for inaction would be compelling evidence that harm will not occur

I see. So, unable to prove your contention, you are demanding, the opponents prove the opposite. Nope, not going to work. The burden of proof is on you. Put up or shut up.

Comment: Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score 1) 346

Supernova observations can't be reproduced.

Nor can a particular rat be brought back to life to have an experiment reproduced on the same animal. But whatever conclusions you make from observing one supernova (or rat), better be supported by observing another.

Did you really something so obvious spelled-out for you, Mr. Scientist?

Comment: Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble (Score 1) 346

You care more about form than function.

If you had content, you would've had no problem shaping it into the requested form.

But, instead, so many posts — some of them outright whining — instead of simply offering the list requested... I think, I understand, why you are still sore with some of thems teachers of yours...

Comment: Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score 1) 346

Any way you slice it, if it can not be reproduced, it is not science. That does not mean, it is necessarily wrong, like I said. But science it is not.

Now, we know already, that poison is bad for you. But if a particular regulation seeks to, for example, further lower the maximum amount of some poison in packaging, making (or pretending to) a scientific argument, whatever experiment was used to substantiate the argument better be reproducible.

Comment: Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble (Score 1) 346

So what is your problem with this citation?

Each entry in the list I am expecting would contain two links: one to a prediction, one to a confirmation. You've offered only one link here (although, inexplicably, you've listed it twice). Therefor, your submission is automatically rejected.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 152

by mi (#49621611) Attached to: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text

Yes but the spied on military and diplomatic communications, occasionally big industrial firms and very importantly foreign communications in most cases. The NSA is more or less spying on EVERY communication and domestic communications almost as frequently as foreign.

You are looking at it wrong. The only limit of government's codebreakers — including the venerable Alan Turing — was the available hardware. They too listened for all communications — there just weren't as many at the time, and they could not process as much as their "descendents" can now.

They were limited neither by laws nor by ethics — merely by the tech. Being forced to prioritize, they concentrated on the entities you've enumerated, but NSA — thanks to Moore's law — does not... Whether we ought to clip NSA's powers or not, there really is no difference between them and Bletchley Park — both did/do everything possible.

And, BTW, ethics-wise, why is spying on an industrial firm any more acceptable than on you? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the quail...

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?