Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Submission A redcoat solution to government surveillance->

schwit1 writes: Efforts to halt the government's mass surveillance of ordinary citizens have taken two forms: urging Congress to do the right thing (something it rarely does anymore) or suing spy agencies under the 4th Amendment (which prohibits most warrantless searches and seizures). Neither strategy has been particularly effective.

Perhaps another route is available, using an amendment so rarely cited that the American Bar Assn. called it the "runt piglet" of our Constitution. It's the 3rd Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from lodging military personnel in your home.

Many Americans know that the 1st Amendment protects free speech and religious freedom, that the 2nd protects the right to bear arms and that others establish the right to a jury trial and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Very few know what the 3rd Amendment does, and understandably so. Since colonial times and the early days of the republic, no one has been routinely forced to feed and house soldiers. There has never been a Supreme Court case primarily based on the 3rd Amendment.

But let's examine whether a case may be made. The National Security Agency is part of the Department of Defense and therefore of our nation's military. By law, the NSA director must be a commissioned military officer, and per its mission statement, the NSA gathers information for military purposes. That's strong evidence that NSA personnel would qualify as soldiers under the 3rd Amendment.

And why did the framers prohibit the government lodging soldiers in private homes? Besides a general distaste for standing armies, quartering was costly for homeowners; it was also an annoyance that completely extinguished a family's sense of privacy and made them feel violated. Sound familiar?

The British could spy on American colonists by keeping soldiers among them. Today, the government can simply read your email. Centuries ago, patriots wrote angry letters about soldiers observing the ladies of the house at various stages of undress. Now, as John Oliver joked, the NSA can just view your intimate selfies.

Link to Original Source

Submission SourceForge grabs GIMP for Windows' account, wraps installer in bundle-pushing -> 1

shanehiltonward writes: SourceForge, the code repository site owned by Slashdot Media, has apparently seized control of the account hosting GIMP for Windows on the service, according to e-mails and discussions amongst members of the GIMP community—locking out GIMP's lead Windows developer. And now anyone downloading the Windows version of the open source image editing tool from SourceForge gets the software wrapped in an installer replete with advertisements.

Update: In a blog post issued shortly after this story posted, an unidentified member of SourceForge's community team wrote that, in fact, "this project was actually abandoned over 18 months ago, and SourceForge has stepped-in to keep this project current." That runs counter to claims by members of the GIMP development community.

The GIMP project is not officially distributed through SourceForge—approved releases are only posted on the GIMP project's own Web page. But Jernej Simoni, the developer who has been responsible for building Windows versions of GIMP for some time, has maintained an account on SourceForge to act as a distribution mirror. That is, he had until today, when he discovered he was locked out of the Gimp-Win account, and the project's ownership "byline" had been changed to "sf-editor1"—a SourceForge staff account. Additionally, the site now provided Gimp in an executable installer that has in-installer advertising enabled. Ars tested the downloader and found that it offered during the installation to bundle Norton anti-virus and remote backup services with GIMP—before downloading the installer authored by Simoni (his name still appears on the installer's splash screen).

Link to Original Source

Comment Interesting (Score 1) 3

The weight difference is interesting. I wonder why they don't include average weight differences between lenses on the site when you're pricing it out? I suppose it is because the difference is so small that it would sell less upgrades. For my son's glasses I worry less about the frames and more about scratch resistance and lens replaceability (browser spellcheck claims that's not a word. Of course it also thinks spellcheck is not a word either, but I believe it's in common enough usage to be a full non-hyphened compound :) ). Of course, he's 7, so hopefully his lens care will get better over time. He hasn't complained about comfort from any of the glasses he's had yet, though he had them from age 2, so he has little non-glasses experience. I'm afraid to ask in case it makes him aware of discomforts he was happily tolerating pre-question.

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

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.

Combative much? Let me rearrange your words so you can see how it relates to my original point, and you tell me how I did it wrong, and then I'll let you deal with the fact that you're chasing your own tail while barking at me...

NC argued [that] wear[ing] a GPS anklet ... is not a search

The SCOTUS disagreed

First line of the article:

If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Jeez, what as that about reading the article again?

Comment Re:I'm one of those engineers... (Score 1) 341

Weird, I've never seen it with an S in there, only as LOC and xK LOC. I though maybe it was something different than the LOC counts I'd seen before. Of course, I've never dealt with projects that were in the millions either, so maybe that's why I've never heard the S variations.

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol