Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Don't ask, don't tell (Score 1) 114

by Damarkus13 (#49382635) Attached to: SCOTUS: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure
Okay, lets try again, shall we?

1. A Stingray is not synonymous to a GPS tracker (placed knowingly or otherwise.)

2. North Carolina, stupidly made the argument that a GPS tracker is not a search, despite various SCOTUS rulings otherwise.

3. SCOTUS reiterated it's previous position on GPS trackers and sent the case back to NC.

At no point in time di the SCOTUS make any ruling that would impact anything other than the assertion that a GPS tracker is not a search. Chances are that NC will revise their argument and dude is still going to have a GPS anklet for the rest of life. This is not some revolutionary ruling from the SCOTUS.

Yes, Stingrays are a worrying technology (even more so, law enforcement's general ambivalence toward any public concern), and I certainly don't believe proper privacy safeguards are in place, but this ruling has nothing to do with them.

Comment: Re:Don't ask, don't tell (Score 4, Informative) 114

by Damarkus13 (#49382377) Attached to: SCOTUS: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure
This ruling doesn't even have anything to do with planting a tracking device. It is in regards to an individual who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences who has served his time and is being required by the State of North Carolina to wear a GPS anklet for the rest of his life. He challenged that on 4th amendment grounds. NC argued successfully (at the state level) that this requirement is not a search. The SCOTUS disagreed and sent the case back to NC.

Jeez, RTFA.

Comment: Re:The problem is the fuzz, not the swatters (Score 2) 569

And, just like the previous poster, you have provided no citation for this quote, and I can't seem to match it via multiple search engines. Even assuming it is true, I read this quote as more of a "some person is mentally unstable, has firearms, and has stated intentions to use them" complaint, rather than a "active shooter" call. Apple to (possibly imaginary) oranges.

Comment: Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 239

by Damarkus13 (#49256313) Attached to: FAA Says Ad-Bearing YouTube Drone Videos Constitute "Commercial Use"
You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. The DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation that puts a huge amount of power in the hands of copyright holders. Unless Google wants to be personally liable for your video, they have to take the video down until you assert (and take full liability for) that there is no copyright infringement in your video.

In short, yes, the DMCA has virtually eliminated fair-use in many situations, not just on YouTube.

"I have more information in one place than anybody in the world." -- Jerry Pournelle, an absurd notion, apparently about the BIX BBS