Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 122

by Obfuscant (#47717257) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

Then you don't exactly belong in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' now do you?

He absolutely doesn't belong here, because in the land of the free there is no room to tolerate any differences of opinion. It simply cannot be allowed.

This issue is black-and-white, and settled.

While it may not be black and white, it has been settled. The Supreme Court has ruled that TSA security checkpoints are an obvious violation of the fourth amendment ... ummm, wait a minute.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 122

by Obfuscant (#47716983) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

For fuck's sake. The point was that general warrants are unconstitutional,

No, the point I joined the discussion to make was that YOUR claim that there was some implicit waiving of rights was incorrect. YOU want to talk about warrants, as if warrants had something to do with this to begin with, and they don't. There are no warrants involved in any part of a TSA security process. Not a single one.

so why the hell would it be okay to search everyone *without even so much as having a warrant*?

Because the constitution says it is. There isn't a blanket prohibition against ALL searches, only UNREASONABLE ones. That word has come up more than once in just our discussion so I know you know it's there. It's a subjective term, just like "innocuous" that you want to think applies somehow. You do NOT need a warrant for a reasonable search, even if that reasonable search means you search everyone who wants "to do something". End of story. Every prospective juror going in the door (who "wanted to keep from going to jail for contempt of court") got searched -- no warrant required. Every visitor to the local jail inmates gets searched. No warrant required.

Warrants are not the issue because no warrants are involved. And before you try another bit of nonsense, the fourth amendment does not define "reasonable" to mean "a warrant has been issued", nor have the courts defined it that way.

I'm arguing that the idea that the government has the power to force you to surrender rights if you try to do something (in this case, travel on a plane) that isn't illegal (merely because some people could do something illegal) is absurd.

That's patently false. I've already given examples of where waiving the fourth amendment right is quite reasonable for certain values of "something". It isn't illegal to visit a prisoner in jail, but you have to waive your rights to do it. If you want to drive about on a military installation, you waive your rights. And if you obey the summons to jury duty, the government not only compels you to appear, they search you when you do. So no, just flapping your gums and saying they can't force you to waive your rights just to "do something" is absurd itself, and contradicted by many trivial examples.

But I see where this is going. Rather than focusing on my fundamental points, you're just being pedantic and nitpicking at my usage of the English language.

From the very beginning I have been explicit in saying that I'm talking about your claims of implicit waivers of rights. The fact that you are just catching on to that fact now tells me you didn't bother trying to comprehend the words I posted.

The implicit part is supposedly your acceptance of being searched,

No, it is not. Your act of passing the point where you have been told that you are subject to search is an EXPLICIT act, and it is an explicit acceptance of the terms. You didn't wander past the checkpoint entrance on a whim, you made a deliberate choice to enter.

Dude, you're pedantic as fuck. I don't know if you've ever heard of exaggerations or how normal people use language (which is rarely 100% precise), but you should get acquainted with those things, and fast.

You should stop writing things that are patently absurd and then jumping down the throats of those who tell you they are absurd. Maybe read what you're replying to before doing so, to keep yourself from finding out five levels down into the discussion that the person you are trying to convince how bad it is that there are searches ISN'T ARGUING WITH YOU ABOUT THEM BEING BAD, only about your incorrect representation of what is going on.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 0) 122

by Obfuscant (#47716681) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

General warrants are unconstitutional,

Warrants have nothing to do with this. Just because they are also part of the fourth amendment doesn't make any issue involving the other parts also an issue with warrants.

and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports

Who said that? You? It wasn't me.

You know that I'm talking about the many innocents who have their rights violated by the TSA.

I know you are substituting a different subjective word for the one really found in the fourth amendment and are now arguing based on your personal definition of that different word.

I'm not talking about *them*, I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search.

"Them" are told before they get in line they are subject to search if they go past that point. It's explicit.

TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.

I am neither a TSA apologist nor have I (incorrectly) argued that there is an implicit waiver. I was quite explicit in saying that there is an explicit waiver involved. "Go past this point and you are subject to search." You see that explicit statement and then choose to go past that point. That's an explicit waiver.

I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search


You claimed that people were waiving their rights just for wanting to get on a plane. Now you refuse to stand behind your own statement. I showed you were wrong. It is the act of passing the entry point of the security line that triggers the waiver, whether or not you want to get on a plane. Thousands of airport employees go through security every day without wanting to get on a plane, and I can want to get on a plane all day and never be subject to search. Man, yourself.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 122

by Obfuscant (#47715511) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport.

So it is perfectly acceptable to you if a large corporation wants to search you and your effects prior to letting you buy their product (which you need to buy to be able to exercise other rights you have), but is not acceptable if a government does it for the very same reasons?

I pointed out the "need to buy" part because so much of the argument about TSA searches includes the idea that travel by air is an essential part of the freedom to travel and that taking other modes is not sufficient to provide "choice" in the matter. I.e., one needs to travel, and travel by other-than-air is not a reasonable mode to accomplish that.

Would you be comfortable with Comcast, e.g., assuming the right to search your computer to make sure you did not use or had not used their internet service for illegal activity? By the way, part of the contract you sign with them includes a section prohibiting use of their service for illegal activities.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 122

by Obfuscant (#47715427) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous.

You've now substituted the word "innocuous" for the fourth's "unreasonable" and are applying your own subjective definition to it. Nineteen people taking out 3500 was not an innocuous act.

If you feel the government should have unlimited power,

I don't believe any rational person could read what I wrote and come away with the idea I think the government should have unlimited power. I pointed out that the claim that rights were being waived "implicitly" was wrong, and even went so far as to specifically say I was not talking about "right or wrong".

The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to.

It is quite explicit, if you can read simple English when you pass by the sign. They've said "they want to" search you before you ever reach a point where they actually search you.

Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.

I can "want to get on a plane" all day long and I'll never be subject to a search, UNTIL I walk past that sign that says explicitly that by passing this point I am subject to search. There is no "implicit" involved. There may be "inherent" (i.e., "as a part of"), but "implicit" ("not specifically stated"), nope.

Comment: Re:Well, here's the solution... (Score 1) 159

by Obfuscant (#47715113) Attached to: Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

Why is the "I" in there?

Because it is almost a certainty that were Netflix to manage to provide the fiber to send their data to their subs, it would be based on internet technologies and protocols. You know there is a small-i internet and large-I Internet, and you can have one that is limited in access while the other one is the worldwide interconnect of all the small-i versions, don't you? (And before you point out that ISP has a capital 'I', that's because it is an acronym, not necessarily because it is only talking about large-I internet services.)

The point is, anything that connects a million users together is not a "dedicated point-to-point link". It is more like an internet, and when one provides service over that internet, one is for all intents and purposes and ISP, or very much like one. Especially if one is doing all the last-mile connections and other companies want to get their data on your fiber. That is, after all, what people are trying to get cable companies to do -- open their pipes to other providers.

By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.

Yes, if a company is providing a service based on internet protocols and technology then they look very much like an ISP. You plug your internet connection into their hardware, access their servers, ditto.

Unfortunately for your argument here, cable TV networks are not distributing their standard video content using internet protocols, and one does not connect to a cable TV video server to get it. They use ATV standards to distribute their legacy products, which removes them from the ISP look-alike competition. Even for on-demand services where there may be an internet-based upstream connection to make the request for video, it is still delivered using ATV. At least that's how Comcast does it.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 2) 122

by Obfuscant (#47714741) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something.

It's not implicit, it is pretty explicit. There are signs in every security checkpoint line I've been through that clearly say that by entering this line your person and property are subject to search. I've also seen those signs at the exit of the checkpoint telling people that by being in the secured area they are subject to search. Right or wrong, it isn't implicit.

I don't know about you, but I am not upset that those who "wish to do something", when "something" means "enter a jail or prison to visit a prisoner", are forced to waive their fourth amendment rights in order to do so. Ditto those who want to enter a military facility.

Now, you might have a very strong argument when "something" means "mandatory appearance for jury duty" and you are instructed to put your bags and property through an x-ray machine while passing through a metal detector. You are being ordered under threat of force to appear and then searched when you do.

Comment: Re:NEWS FLASH!!! (Score 2) 113

by gmhowell (#47713837) Attached to: 51% of Computer Users Share Passwords

Or... and this may sound zany but hear me out. Maybe 51% of people did a risk/benefit analysis and decided that giving someone there password was actually beneficial for them.

Not possible. Only people who use devices in exactly the same manner as that proscribed by a /. nerd can be beneficial. (No wireless, less space than a Nomad...)

I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller