Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 203

The primary thing to be looking at is that the courts grant warrants, as they did in the cases you mentioned.

What you are missing is that a warrant for something un-Constitutional is invalid even if issued in accordance with unanimous decisions from the SCOTUS., therefor actions taken to execute said warrant are illegal and are criminal acts carried out under color of law. Dred Scott comes to mind, though hardly the only example of the SCOTUS ruling contrary to letter and/or intent of the Constitution.

Courts are not the final arbiters. People are. What can the government do if most of the population (including a large percentage of workers within said government and members of the military) refuses to comply?

There are already laws on the books regarding citizen rights & responsibilities pertaining to dealing with agents of the government committing criminal acts under color of law. I would refer you there.

Strat

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 203

That is kind of interesting, everything I have read indicated there were warrants issued through the FISA court, and numerous rulings that what they were doing was constitutional, all published. Could you point me to an article stating that there was ANY unwarranted surveillance?

So you would accept it as Constitutional if the courts rule that police randomly entering & searching your home without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is or is about to be committed is not a violation of the 4th Amendment?

No US court has the power to overrule the US Constitution, secret or otherwise. Any such rulings are by definition unlawful and un-Constitutional. An un-Constitutional law is no law at all, and it is the duty of every US citizen to ignore and/or disobey/violate it if/when it conflicts with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Strat

Comment: Re: That's a nice democracy you have there... (Score 1) 381

Direct democracy or GTFO. For anyone who wants to cry "mob rule", quick quiz before anyone should give a shit what you think: 1) how many times in history has the electoral college disagreed with the popular vote?

The federal government of the United States of America is a federation of (supposedly independent) states. The electoral college and Congress are set up in ways that make the states more important than their constituent citizens. This is by design because of the nature of the union. Marriage between X and Y is a union between X and Y. Their children, A, B, C, and D have no say in the continuance or divorce of said union.

Also, direct democracy is rule by people who have enough time on their hands to vote on everything. That's retirees and internet trolls.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 203

So, what's to stop an insurance company from working with the ride share companies.../snip

Government bureaucrats & officials, and the innumerable laws, rules, and regulations at local, State and Federal levels at their disposal to interpret however they wish unless/until there's enough public attention and outrage to force the issue.

The same government that prevents Tesla Motors from selling cars directly and also in many areas limits the choices available for domestic home high speed internet services. The same government that completely ignores the US Constitution and shits all over the 4th Amendment with NSA bulk surveillance.

You know, the guys you help elect and vehemently defend because "he's your guy" and you don't want those other guys to get in even though they agree on everything except carefully focus-group tested and selected wedge issues designed to keep the electorate divided.

Strat

Crime

Silk Road 2.0 Deputy Arrested 126

Posted by samzenpus
from the book-him dept.
An anonymous reader writes With the Ulbricht trial ongoing in a case over the original Silk Road, Homeland Security agents have made another arrest in the Silk Road 2.0 case more than two and a half months after the site was shut down. This time they arrested Brian Richard Farrell who went by the moniker "DoctorClu." From the article: "Homeland Security agents tracked Silk Road 2.0 activity to Farrell's Bellevue home in July, according to an affidavit by Special Agent Michael Larson. In the months that followed, agents watched his activities and interviewed a roommate who said Farrell received UPS, FedEx and postal packages daily. One package was found to contain 107 Xanax pills, Larson said. That led to a search on Jan. 2 that recovered computers, drug paraphernalia, silver bullion bars worth $3,900, and $35,000 in cash, Larson said."

Comment: Re:Hello insurance fraud (Score 1) 199

by Culture20 (#48849527) Attached to: Insurance Company Dongles Don't Offer Much Assurance Against Hacking
The problem with such a program is that the insurance company has the data from other dongles on the same roads. Presuming there are timestamps on the accelerations, they can model traffic flows. If everyone is stopped at a stoplight in the reconstructed model but your fake data shows you driving through the light at speed limit minus one, their analysis program will know something is wrong with your data. Investigation ensues.

Comment: Re:Is it really a surprise? (Score 1) 199

by Culture20 (#48847335) Attached to: Insurance Company Dongles Don't Offer Much Assurance Against Hacking
Some companies will happily spend money and people on the security problem, but individual people within the company refuse the spend the time, using workarounds to skip having to deal with security. Sometimes this means using the computing resources nonsecurely, but other times it means avoiding using the computing resources.

Comment: Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score 5, Insightful) 892

by Culture20 (#48819947) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression
The job description of Pope includes believing at heart "if a man strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other cheek [to strike]." This does not preclude defense of others, but it also doesn't suggest an allowance of escalation in defense of others. If a man strikes my mother's cheek, I can strike his cheek to defend her, but if the same man merely calls her an ugly name, from where does the call to violent reaction spring? Righteousness or wrath? Hopefully Francis will think about that some more.

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Working...