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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 289

And you can't just say "well, nobody knows who it is, so, meh, I'll go ahead and do it anyway." And then your Midsummer Night's Romeo's Dreams of Juliet gets insanely popular, makes $1 billion, and all of a sudden the original rights holders who couldn't be bothered with it before come out of the woodwork to "get their fair share."

Comment: Re:You got it all backwards ... (Score 1) 289

While that's true, that's way harder. One of the goals of Free Software is the user be free to inspect and modify the code running on their hardware. Having only binaries that you can legally decompile doesn't really jive with the spirit there. It'd be like submitting a FOIA request and getting the government data back written in alternate lines of Sanskrit, Aramaic, and Klingon. Can you translate it? Yes. But that's not really in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Comment: Re:No cuts are ever possible (Score 1) 189

by meta-monkey (#49536285) Attached to: House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

Hence, "semi autonomous." The controller in Nevada flies the drones into position and says "blow up everything over there." After that it doesn't matter if he has control or not.

And yes, I know there's lots of talk about the ethics of killer robots. But do you think that's going to stop the US military?

Comment: Re:Doublethink (Score 4, Insightful) 670

by meta-monkey (#49535997) Attached to: Except For Millennials, Most Americans Dislike Snowden

Astute observations.

And yes, the battle will be between the tech industry + users vs the political establishment.

The "young people don't vote!" thing is a red herring. Especially this generation, I absolutely believe they would vote, if there were anybody to vote for. They got burned with Obama, and do you think either the R or D candidate in 2016 is going to have "end government surveillance" as part of their platform? Absolutely not.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

Because when you're just detained, there's still hope you can get away without a search. "He's got no cause to search the car, if we just shut up and play it cool, we're good." Why on earth would you get violent then?

When the dog starts barking...that's it. The drugs now not just might be found, the drugs are detected, and the vehicle will be searched, and you are going to jail. Do you not think that could be the trigger that pushes someone over to violence?

Regardless, I don't think there was reasonable suspicion for a delay (for safety or drugs). "Reasonable suspicion" is a legal standard that allows for brief detainment and investigation. It requires articulatable facts about a specific person at a specific time that would arouse reasonable suspicion in a reasonable person. It's the same standard by which anybody gets pulled over. "I saw that car swerve, I have reasonable suspicion that guy is drunk." So you pull him over to see if he's drunk.

Now, a dog sniff does not (currently, I think this will be reviewed in coming years) count as a "search" because it (presumably) does not reveal non-criminal activity. So there's (currently) no 4th amendment problem running the dog. However, running the dog has nothing to do with the primary mission of traffic safety. The vehicle was pulled over for traffic violations, not upon suspicion of drug trafficking.

So while you can run the dog without RS of anything (the dog's nose essentially counts as "plain sight" for the officer's eyes), you can't delay "because drugs" without RS of drugs. And not even safety, because first there's no RS of danger, and even if there were, it could only apply to the situation for which RS exists (the traffic infraction).

So the only way the delay would be acceptable would be if the officer had RS of drugs, and I don't think that can be successfully argued. The only thing he had was a fishy story from the passenger about coming back from seeing a car to buy at midnight. Which is weird. But that does not generate RS of drugs. So the officer just had a hunch (which was totally correct! Dudes were running meth. Good instincts), but that's not the same as RS, and therefore not enough to delay.

And that's the question, that apparently has not been satisfactorily answered. Did the officer have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that would justify the delay? And the 8th Circuit did not address that issue. The Supreme Court did not decide the case in favor of Rodriguez...they remanded it back to the 8th Circuit to address the question of RS. My guess is they'll say "no, RS didn't exist in this case," but we'll see.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

Well, reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. Reasonable suspicion requires articulatable facts about a specific individual at a specific time.

It's the same standard by which a vehicle stop occurs, so you can definitely detain someone briefly with RS. "I saw that guy swerve. I have reasonable suspicion he's drunk."

SCOTUSblog has some analysis of the opinions. I hadn't fully read the opinions and analysis yet (I know, I know RTFA? Psssh! But hey at least I did better than /. and most other news agencies in getting the facts straight that the cop wasn't waiting on a dog, he was waiting on backup...) but it seems that my question, "what about reasonable suspicion?" is actually where it's going next:

This case may not be as big a “win” for Rodriguez as it looks, because the Court remands the case to examine whether there was, in fact, some “reasonable suspicion” of further crime that would have allowed the officers to further detain him. Two trial judges said there was not, but the Eighth Circuit did not address that question. Justices Thomas and Alito now say there was; the majority says that is “unnecessary.” Notably, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who otherwise joined Justice Thomas – did not join that aspect of Thomas’s dissent.

So the case was not "decided in favor of Rodriguez." It was remanded back to the 8th circuit so they could decide if RS existed to extend the stop.

To be honest I don't think there was. The only thing he's got that he could articulate about the suspects being up to no good was nervousness and an odd story (coming back from "looking at a car to buy" at midnight). So all the officer had was a hunch. Good instincts! He was totally correct! Dudes were in fact running meth.

So while he could run the dog immediately without any constitutional problems (currently...I think dog sniffs are going to be coming under greater scrutiny in SC cases in the coming years), with no RS they were specifically running drugs, he can't delay for a sniff, and with no RS of danger, he can't delay for safety.

So this comes down to two options: A) go ahead and do the sniff and take your chances on violence or B) let them go.

We'll see what the 8th circuit says.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

Struble didn't have to search the car immediately, either. Have the dog check. Detain the guys, since there's now probable cause, and that's certainly grounds for detention. Wait for backup, and then search the car.

That's the issue. It breaks down in the middle there because once the dog checks and alerts to the drugs, the suspects know the game is up and they might turn violent. So, to add options to my other reply to you, here are the options:

1) Stop. Interview. Develop suspicion. Call for backup. Dog sniffs and alerts while backup arrives. Hope bad guys don't start shooting. Back up arrives. Search and arrest.

2) Stop. Interview. Develop suspicion. Call for backup. Wait 8-9 minutes for safety. Backup arrives. Dog sniffs and alerts. Search and arrest.

3) Stop. Call for backup. Interview. (perhaps call off backup if no suspicion develops. But maybe not, depending on the day). Backup arrives. Dog sniffs and alerts. Search and arrest.

4) Stop. Interview. Develop suspicion. Weigh 8-9 minutes vs. getting shot. Let bad guys go.

What do you think should happen?

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 1) 398

To be honest I'm not sure.

First, any time you're stopped by the police you're going to be delayed and potentially be late to or miss something important. And we already allow reasonable amounts of time for the officer to run licenses and tags. There is no requirement to rush your ticket out as quickly as possible.

There is no expansion of powers here. The delay in this case was not for any additional evidence collection activity that he could not have done immediately. Like I said, he already had the dog, and there is no suspicion requirement needed to run a dog.

So I guess I'd have two questions:

1) is 8-9 minutes delay for safety only (not for any new collection powers) unreasonable?

2) is 8-9 minutes delay for safety only (not for any collection powers) reasonable if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

I would say the latter one is okay. Otherwise it could become standard practice to call in backup immediately, rather than wait until reasonable suspicion is raised.

Here's how it went down in this case:

1) Stop.

2) Interview.

3) Develop reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing based on suspects' story/behavior.

4) Call for backup (NOT for a dog. Dog already on hand).

5) 8-9 minutes later conduct dog sweep.

What'll happen now is:

1) Stop. Call for backup.

2) Interview while backup arrives.

3) Run dog.

So, I would say that 8-9 minutes for safety is not reasonable without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. With such suspicion, 8-9 minutes for safety is reasonable.

Comment: Re:Premature Speculation (Score 1) 195

by meta-monkey (#49527461) Attached to: Concerns of an Artificial Intelligence Pioneer

Intelligence is only observable in connection with consciousness. Any sane person would conclude that there likely is a strong link between the two or that they may actually be faces of the same thing

Doesn't necessarily have to be. Great novel about a non-sentient super intelligence: Blindsight by Peter Watts. And it's free online!

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year