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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech? (Score 1) 291 291

There is no grasping at all here. If they permit you to hold an event in a park, i am not free to have a touch football game at that time in that same space where i could otherwise.

The line is clearly drawn at a fugitive speaking. A Polanski film wouldn't be the same unless it was Polanski himself making a speech. His music played by either recording or cover band would be the same.

What is at play here is whether or not government has the right to restrict fugitives from special uses of public property. Seeing how they can suspend a fugitive's license, It is clear that they can.

Comment Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech? (Score 3, Insightful) 291 291

You are correct.

There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech. That's what this is. They want to have a concert on public grounds that will in essence restrict other from freely using the same said grounds and the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.

Comment Re:User scripts FTW (Score 1) 4 4


I'm a quickie editor when something annoys me enough, so, i don't feel like learning it extensively, though admittedly, it'd be nice.

I ought to come back to this post before writing a new script though. Maybe some more interest will help me appreciate this information a lot more.

Thank you!

Comment Re:Meta data? (Score 1) 292 292

I'm rather disappointed to see that this comment is so far down the list, but it's exactly right, as far as I understand.

The law itself isn't being claimed, but the notes and analysis are. It's the same analysis one could get by going to a library and poring over case history for a few years, but presented in a concise and topical format. You don't really need that information to know the law. You might need that information to defend yourself optimally in a court case, in which case the normal and reasonable expectation is that you'll hire a lawyer (even a public defender) or go to a library and figure it out yourself.

Comment Re:Yep, keep searching (Score 1) 425 425

It doesn't matter. You are trying to correct a political spouting BS to see if people will believe him.

Here is a couple of facts which you should know but got lost within the technical of the sequestration.

First, the Benghazi happened September 11, 2012. Second, the budget sequestration, while becoming law in 2011 under the Budget control act, did not sequester anything until March of 2013. It was supposed to kick in of a budget reconciliation was not passed by January 1 2013 but they extended it in the American Tax Payer Relief Act of 2012.

So while you are technically correct, you simply do not need to be. A fucking calendar and the ability to count is all you need to show how much of a clueless moron looking to justify itself the guy is. The sequestration could not have been the cause of something that happened 7 months before the sequestration. Even if you do not count the delay to march instead of January, we are looking at almost 4 months before the sequestration. Numerous requests for more security was supposedly requested and rejected. The rejection was not in any way due to Sequestration.

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 2) 425 425

No he didn''t..lol..

Libby was charged and convicted for crap surrounding the investigation not outing plame. That wa Richard Armatage and it was known from the start of the investigation.

FFS, it's all over the internet and any reference site you wish to pick. Wikipedia, for all it's worth, even cites references. I cannot understand how in this day and age anyone would get this so wrong when it's so easy to do a cursory investigation into the matter.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 270 270

We should try this. For Science!

No offense or hard to you or your head intended... just curiosity regarding the terminal velocity and freefall aerodynamics of a quadcopter, especially when the object below it is rather delicate (like, say, a pool of ballistics gel).

Has such a situation been tested, since the introduction of tiny and lightweight devices?

Comment YHBT. YHL. HAND. (Score 0) 425 425

Yet another malicious, deliberately inaccurate "leak" from Trey Gowdy's "investigation" into BENGHAZI!!!!1! (at least the seventh such investigation so far).

Here's what we know about this most recent "story" so far: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Oh, and explain to me again why this is on /. ? I thought this site was about tech and tech-related news. Could it be there's rank partisanship among the editorial staff? I mean, I can't recall seeing any front-page stories here about the comprehensive corruption of, say, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who, among other things, installed a secret WiFi router in his office so he could exchange email out of sight of mandatory records keeping laws. I mean, that's tech-related, right? Right??

Comment Re:Good (Score 4, Insightful) 270 270

I've often heard this repeated, but is it actually true?

As much as anything in law, yes. That is to say that it is the general case, but you still get the chance to argue about it in front of a judge* if following the general rule has somehow bothered someone enough to make a harmony-threatening societal problem. Let's break down your example by each fact.

Suppose I'm in a public space...

Then you have no general expectation of privacy, but let's go on.

If someone walks up we stop talking.

Ah, but now you've provided an indication that you want privacy. Now we have a conflict of general rules.

Does this mean that someone ... with a parabolic mic can eavesdrop on my conversations...

Sure, because you're in a public place.

...(from the government) ... without a warrant?

No, because you've shown that you do not consent to their search... ...maybe.

It really depends on local precedent and established case law. Pretty much, if this ever comes up in a court, it would be a good opportunity to argue at length in front of the judge. On the one hand, you were in public, and you should be aware that any kid with a $50 toy microphone or $5 radio bug could listen to your conversation. On the other hand, the government is held to stricter rules (namely the Fourth Amendment) than a kid with a large allowance. If you're stopping for everybody, then you can argue that you aren't intending to obstruct justice or hide evidence of a crime (which might be useful justifications to sway the judge). On the other hand, you didn't check the park bench for bugs before talking, so maybe you didn't really care about more organized eavesdropping.

The argument is that it's only what a policeman would hear if he walked up and listened, but in that case we would stop talking.

No, the argument is whether it is reasonable to expect that your conversation would remain private. That depends a lot on the extent to which you tried to hide your conversation, and the opinions of judges in the area. Different public places have different standards for privacy.

I have every expectation of privacy if I take steps to ensure that privacy

You can expect a pony, too, but the justice system doesn't need to recognize that expectation. Rather, the key word often omitted (including in my earlier post) is that you may have a reasonable expectation of privacy... and again, that depends heavily on the local definition of "reasonable".

Does this mean that the police can video-tape the sidewalk from the window of any office building without a warrant?

In many cases, yes, and they do.

I also note that there's no expectation of privacy *in your home* if you don't have the drapes closed. The implication is that we don't have an expectation of privacy *anywhere*, except in our homes and only if we're concealed.

That is correct. If you don't care enough about your privacy to close the drapes, then why should the court care enough to punish someone who looked in? Now, if your house was very far from the nearest public area, such that it would be unreasonable to worry about someone seeing clearly through that window, then there's room to argue that, as well.

Does that sound like a free country?

Yes. It sounds like a country where I am free to walk in a park without worrying about violating someone's privacy because I have good hearing, and where I am free to bring birdwatching equipment out to where birds are. I am free to look at my neighborhood houses, and I am free to leave my drapes in whatever state I wish. The price of that freedom is only that I must recognize others' freedoms as well, including their freedom to communicate privately.

In any event, we shouldn't be mindlessly repeating that meme as if it's the "law of the land".

It is usually the law of the land, though. Other laws (like the Fourth Amendment) may supersede it, but yet again that's an issue for the courts.

Instead, we should be mindlessly repeating things things that sway public perception in a better direction.

A very good idea. I tend to like "You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want."

It's fairly short, and sums up the entirety of the legal system and most moralities as well. In this context, having an absolutely private conversation in a public place counts as "absolutely anything", and you don't have a right to that. Always being able to eavesdrop on someone else's conversation also counts, and I don't have a right to that, either. With a bit less extremism, however, we can all get along.

* This whole post assumes a judicial process similar to what the United States has, and specific examples are also based on an American perspective.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.