Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:It's too late... (Score 2) 128

by TheCarp (#49173497) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

No, I am worried about the constant expansion of police powers, which, I think need to be rolled back.

I am worried about surreptitious collection AT ALL. There really is no need for it. Frankly any time the police say "We think that guy there is a suspect we need to collect more about"....warrant. Period, every time, every situation....with the exception of the very time sensitive "ticking bomb" scenario.... and a very narrow one

Comment: Re:It's too late... (Score 2) 128

by TheCarp (#49173173) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

Yes well a rape kit is not medical testing of an unwilling doner it falls under collecting evidence directly from the scene of the crime. Its not JUST dna but actually evidence of the crime itself which, really is another matter entirely.

We are talking about covert collection outside of the act of any crime, which is an entirely different matter. I don't know why you would conflate the two at all.

Comment: Re:Nothing wrong here. (Score 1) 128

by TheCarp (#49173051) Attached to: Supreme Court Gives Tacit Approval To Warrantless DNA Collection

Actually, I generally do object to that. Not for nothing but, if they really have a reason to suspect a specific individual and be collecting such evidence at all, then they can and should get a warrant to obtain it. I see no reason to make exceptions on such thin loopholes. Such requirements should always be interpreted as STRICTLY as possible, if there is even question over whether a warrant is appropriate....fucking get one....aka DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.

Hell even if they don't think they need one....why not get one? I see absolutely no reason NOT to get one except in the most extreme and rare of circumstances.

Comment: Re:Violation of Federal Law (Score 1) 192

by TheCarp (#49166609) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

That would make sense to me for a suit against any entity....except the government. The one organization that has no excuse for breaking the law without extremely good and public justification *IS* the government itself. They should always be under more scrutiny and their crimes held as especially aggravating because its their job to uphold them.

I would argue that whenever the government breaks the law, all citizens are victims as the law itself was the promise they made to us.

Comment: Re:Violation of Federal Law (Score 3, Interesting) 192

by TheCarp (#49166427) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

As I recall, wasn't this one of the first issues in Roe V Wade? Specifically it was that a woman who was being blocked from a medically necessary abortion would effectively be barred the right to bring her issue to court because the issue of pregnancy would likely be over, either with a birth or her death before the courts could be expected to have ruled on the matter... leading to a necessary exception to normal standing rules.

Seems similar here....since no person who was a victim would ever know they were and would know they had standing to bring a case, it seems that normal standing rules would effectivly deny such a case from ever being heard even if it was an otherwise valid case, so it seems to me it would warrant an exception.

Comment: "Feds admit, they probably belong in prison" (Score 4, Insightful) 192

by TheCarp (#49166345) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

That is how I read these story headlines. Exactly how I read them, a fact which has been obvious since the whole fiasco with NDA agreements came out. They know they are not respecting people's rights, they KNOW what they are doing would not withstand an hour of public scrutiny.

In short, the federal government is harboring criminals who belong in prison, and is currently helping protect them and pay them to commit more crimes rather than admit the truth.

Comment: Re:I just must be drunk. (Score 1) 98

by TheCarp (#49148305) Attached to: Fighting Scams Targeting the Elderly With Old-School Tech

> Think about it as being along the lines of the "just say no" campaign

Yes, I did, that was a moronic campaign too. Just like the "just say no" campaign, its entirely useless slogan by people who don't understand a problem and who have no desire to actually help anything, they just want an excuse to say "A solution exists, so go fuck yourself and leave me alone"

Comment: Re:I just must be drunk. (Score 4, Interesting) 98

by TheCarp (#49145853) Attached to: Fighting Scams Targeting the Elderly With Old-School Tech

Yes because basic human compassion for your own family is such a negative trait, maybe we should beat it right out of people?

Good luck. Yah, ALL we have to do is convince a significant number of people to ignore basic human empathy if that empathy is not within our narrow world view. People are free to live how they want as long as they do so in the way you have proscribed for them, problem solved eh?

Comment: Re:Bah. (Score 0) 308

by TheCarp (#49135981) Attached to: Reddit Imposes Ban On Sexual Content Posted Without Permission

On one hand I agree, you are right about our ridiculous nudity taboos. On the other, does it matter whether its clothed or not? The intention of this sort of posting is clearly malicious. Yes its silly that people get treated badly for being seen nude, yes its stupid that anybody cares, but, if it were actually the case that being nude wasn't such a taboo, then forums like this wouldn't exist.

To put it another way, I don't particularly care if someone wants to walk out his house and down the street as nude as the day he was born. I wouldn't personally treat him any different from anyone else.

Yet, I still am bothered by someone who would walk up to people in a park; open his trench coat and force his nakedness on others. It isn't really the same thing as just being naked or being seen naked.

Similarly, there is a difference between posting pics with permission, of which there is no shortage out there, and posting something you know you wouldn't get permission for. They really are two very different act, even though they are technically the same actions.

And yes, its nudity taboos that give power to the action and we need to get over them, but, we also don't need to coddle the petty assholes who don't think consent matters.

Comment: Re:There's still a legal problem (Score 1) 317

by TheCarp (#49126087) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

And their "belief" need not be based on anything at all, afterall.

I was reading a case about a man. A man who essentially bothered a police officer. He interfered with an arrest, he was told to leave the scene, he flailed his arms wildly while interfering and being told to leave.

This man was arrested for disorderly conduct. The courts basically neutered the entire concept of disorderly conduct and ruled none of this constituted it.

Now, if police had to base their belief as to what the law was on that, then maybe they would be liable for false arrest for arresting people for disorderly conduct as they continue to do today more than 20 years later. However, they still seem to "believe" that anything that annoys them is disorderly conduct.... so it continues to be an arrestable offence but not a crime because....all police need to do is "believe" the same way....and they are absolved of any liability.

Comment: Re:About right (Score 2) 241

by TheCarp (#49110611) Attached to: In Florida, Secrecy Around Stingray Leads To Plea Bargain For a Robber

Most small time drug dealers are just feeding their own habbit and can't afford to buy enough at once to actually make more than they use themselves.

And either way, fuck you for thinking its ok to threaten someone with violence and rob them...for any fucking reason. There is no excuse, I don't give a shit what he was doing.

His "crime" doesn't even have a victim; theirs does.

If you analyse anything, you destroy it. -- Arthur Miller