Forgot your password?

Comment: Constitutional (Score 1) 242

by Etherwalk (#47518555) Attached to: The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist

Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.

Not at all. "Reasonable suspicion" is legal language, which is why they use it in both contexts. It is the minimum amount of information that a police officer (or other federal agent) can have to stop you on the street, even if they lack a warrant, without violating the Constitution. It basically means they have to point to specific facts that under the circumstances suggest you may be up to something criminal. (They don't have to identify those facts to you when they stop you, necessarily, but they can make a reasonable inquiry to dispel their suspicion.) Otherwise they have violated the Constitution, which doesn't help you a lot sometimes, but still sometimes results in either evidence they find being excluded or you being able to sue them.

Whether it should be the standard here is a different question, but the government wants it to be because it's a pretty low standard.

Comment: Re:Discoverable (Score 1) 749

by Etherwalk (#47475919) Attached to: Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours

So Microsoft employees must choose between flying to Ireland, breaking the law and facing possible arrest or losing the case in the US. They could ask their Irish subsidiary for the data but I somehow doubt any of those people will be willing to go to jail to satisfy a US court that has no jurisdiction over them.

There is a question in "breaking the law and facing possible arrest[.]" First, there has been no indication that Irish laws will be broken. Second, there is no reason to believe there would be an arrest if they were broken by a corporation acting in good faith to comply with the laws of another country. Third, most laws around data storage privacy have an exception for disclosure pursuant to a valid court order or warrant. Fourth, it is a multibillion dollar company more likely to face a fine than to have its employees arrested. Fifth, nobody needs to *fly to ireland* unless Microsoft wants them too--MSFT has people there. And flying to Ireland is not a big deal for an employee of a multibillion dollar corporation.

The messed up thing here is *NOT* requiring MSFT to turn over their data where electrons are located in Dublin. It's the scope of material they can get without a showing of probable cause under the 1986 law that determines privacy for email.

Yes. 1986.

Comment: No (Score 0) 261

by Etherwalk (#47475621) Attached to: UN Report Finds NSA Mass Surveillance Likely Violated Human Rights

does that mean I'm no longer an extremist for demanding my Constitutional rights be respected?


The UN has stated that this probably violated Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, together with the ICCPR and ICESCR, serve as the "International Bill of Rights." While international law is part of the law of the United States, it is rarely looked to in the United States, and the Universal Declaration is more aspirational than really binding. It doesn't invalidate our laws on its own; we don't have a policy as striking things down because they violate it.

This has *nothing* to do with the United States Constitution. You can demand your Constitutional rights be respected as much as you want; most people demand that without having an understanding of what the Constitution guarantees, instead using it (without legal basis) to rationalize a position that the government shouldn't interfere in X, where X is what they want to do.

Comment: Re:Clear Cut Collusion (Score 2) 73

by Etherwalk (#47429771) Attached to: Google, Dropbox, and Others Forge Patent "Arms Control Pact"

collusion, n., secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

It is not secret.

Can you point to an illegality? I suppose you can argue that they are restraining trade. But I think most courts would be okay with it. (All contracts restrain trade on some level; the motives behind this one aren't colluding to prevent competition so much as agreeing not to engage in an unproductive patent war.)

The patent system has a lot of problems. But just because we disagree with parts of it or how it's used doesn't make the people who are using it criminals.

Comment: Innovation in Markets (Score 1) 502

Markets compete on quality until the cheap stuff becomes good enough; then they compete on reliability; ultimately they compete on price. So long as there's a market people will keep making expensive high-quality stuff, but they'll *never* be a part of the mainstream market again.

Comment: Re:$507.03 (Score 1) 150

Lets say me and my friends decide to harass you, so I grab your iPhone and spike it on the pavement. You threaten to sue so I peel off a couple 20s and a 10, stuff it in your shirt pocket and say get lost. Do you feel compensated or insulted further?

Class actions are usually more about incentivizing the company not to do it again than they are about paying people a few bucks.

Comment: Simple Process (Score 1) 128

by Etherwalk (#47299703) Attached to: Prisoners Freed After Cops Struggle With New Records Software

What's to escalate? When the schedule flat out doesn't work, and your calls to customer service get handed over to a customer svc agent's voice mail, unless they want to talk to you, and they don't... that was what happened with us, I have no idea what happened with them... escalate doesn't help.

1) Escalate to the purchasing decision-maker on your end.
2) As purchasing decision-maker, call one or more decision-makers on the other end. Service, but if you don't get through right away, then whoever at the company you have a relationship with (sales rep? development engineer?), who will know who to call.
3) If that fails, call and email company CEO. 3a) if that fails, company board of directors.
4) Document, document, document, succinctly, what occurred in terms of the company's response. If they are still being unhelpful, send them that document.
5) If they continue to be unhelpful, point out that it will be necessary to share said document in your press release about why prisoners are free.
6) If they continue to be unhelpful, do so. Run press release past your lawyers first to be sure you will win any defamation lawsuit to follow.

Comment: Re:$507.03 (Score 1) 150

Not even close reasonable; the lawyers are going to take half.

Then the government is going to take 33%.

That leaves the engineers with about a week of salary--probably actually less.

6 months salary for the ones who didn't loose their jobs+ 1 year of compensation for any who lost their job because of this + lawyers fees would be reasonable.

Lawyer's fees generally come out of the pocket of the side hiring the lawyers--it doesn't go into the calculation, unless we change that rule on a systemic level.

Six months *may* be reasonable, but it's a math problem, and a very speculative one--what would their salaries have been *without* the anti-competitive practices?

Comment: No (Score 2) 164

by Etherwalk (#47282245) Attached to: US House of Representatives Votes To Cut Funding To NSA

I'm keenly aware this statement by the US House can be circumvented in some fashion. These folks they're dealing with are secret agencies.

At the very least the representatives still have to pay me some lip service. Hell, some of them may have retained the ability to care.

Either way, it's a small victory for the Republic.

Forget the lip service. Just forget it. When you get involved in power politics at the level you're talking about, what happens *in the meeting* is what matters, and what you talk about outside the meeting is the window dressing.

Personalities change when you go into the back room. So do goals. People beg, borrow, steal, lie, blackmail, and it's all about what you can do for me, what I can do for you, what we can deliver, how we can ensure goal X gets done, and goal X isn't what we tell the people outside the room.

You're selling a narrative to people outside the room.

Comment: Re:$507.03 (Score 2, Informative) 150

$324.5 million / 64000 workers = $507.03

These tech workers are getting fuck either way.

$5070. It almost certainly isn't enough to make the engineers whole, but it is more than nothing and not completely unrespectable. (They didn't lose their entire salary, but did lose some money.)

It is a *settlement* proposal, though. It's not supposed to be enough to make them whole--just more reasonable for both sides than fighting.

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.