Judges Challenge IP Wiretap Rules 82
WebHostingGuy writes to mention an MSNBC article on an appeals panel harshly challenging the Bush administration's wiretap policies. New rules from the FCC would make it easier for police and FBI agents to wiretap IP-based phone conversations. From the article: "At [one] point in the hearing, Edwards told the FCC's lawyer that his arguments were 'gobbledygook' and 'nonsense.' The court's decision was expected within several months. In an unrelated case last year affecting digital television, two of the same three judges determined the FCC had significantly exceeded its authority and threw out new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices in new video devices. Lewis was also the losing lawyer in that case, and Edwards also was impassioned then in his criticisms of the FCC."
gobbledygook (Score:5, Informative)
He used the word in the New York Times Magazine on 21 May 1944, while he was chairman of the US Smaller War Plants Committee in Congress, as part of a complaint against the obscure language used by his colleagues. His inspiration, he said, was the turkey, "always gobbledy gobbling and strutting with ludicrous pomposity". The word met a clear need and quickly became part of the language. It is sometimes abbreviated slightly to gobbledygoo.
mod informative, please (Score:2, Offtopic)
If you really must mod someone offtopic, go ahead and mod me down. I've got karma to burn.
Re:gobbledygook (Score:1)
Re:gobbledygook (Score:1)
balance of power (Score:1, Flamebait)
Actually, wait for ad hominem attacks on Edwards. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Actually, wait for ad hominem attacks on Edward (Score:4, Funny)
> Actually, wait for ad hominem attacks on Edward
>
>You know, he's a damn activist judge who's putting pesky rights and fruity ideals in the way of keeping the nation safe for obese children and their fear-stricken parents.
Edwards oldthinker! Edwards unbellyfeel Amsoc! E
(Slashdotter Tackhead know whichside buttertoast, is plusgood duckspeaker, learn duckspeak doubleplusfastwise in freedomcamp!)
Re:Fun with Overbreadth in the Law (Score:1)
-Mike
Lol: problem solved (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is what is wrong:
You are absolutely correct. Remember that:
1) The House is controlled by the Republicans
2) The Senate is controlled by the Republicans
3) The White House is controlled by the Republicans
4) The Supreme Court is now controlled by the Republicans
As a result Democrats have no legislative power, no subpoena power, no power to hold hearing
Those poor judges. (Score:2, Funny)
Judge Edwards..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Judge Edwards..... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait, I mean...Terrorist!
Re:Judge Edwards..... (Score:1)
Re:Judge Edwards..... (Score:2)
What he is, of course, is a sex offender.
Re:Judge Edwards..... (Score:2)
Woopty Freekin Doo! (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, woopty freakin doo! Get in line with all the rest of the "harsh challengers to the Bush administration". But, when it comes down to the wire the administration will mandate it to "save us from terrorists", invoke executive privilege, or send the detractors to Gitmo for suspicion of "wrong thinking".
AYVABTU - All your VoIP are belong to the U.S. get use to it!
Re:Woopty Freekin Doo! (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one who is noticing the trend of NewSpeak [wikipedia.org] being used lately? Maybe not by definition, but definately by purpose.
Newspeak, double plus ungood? (Score:1)
Jon Stewart quote (Score:5, Funny)
[audience boos]
Jon Stewart: To which many people said, "Uh, f*ck that guy!".
(Yes, the "*" is added for irony.)
Re: (Score:1)
Problem Solvers (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a great example. Why make the ISPs ("providers of broadband internet service" in TFA) comply with wiretap laws? Why make universities retrofit their data networks?
Ok, so the FCC wants wiretapping to be possible. Here's a novel idea: Make the companies that write the software for VoIP be wiretap-compliant. Write a special wiretap program. Give it to the government. Or, write an interface and let the government access it with a warrant, whatever (please don't critique the privacy issues here, that's not my point).
The point is -- the FCC wants to do something. They have a problem that needs to be solved. Their "solution" is retarded. There are no true problem solvers here.
Re:Problem Solvers (Score:1)
Umm. What about the non-corporate programmers? You might have heard of a small website called SourceForge?
And if the government mandates that all VoIP softwar
Re:Problem Solvers (Score:2)
Which is why they regulated it as "arms". (Score:2)
The government recognized that, too. Which is why the export of cryptographic software from the US was essentially banned for decades - crippling the US crypto software industry - by defining crypto to be "arms" and applying the same laws as were used to suppress the export of guns.
Re:Problem Solvers (Score:1)
You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:1)
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:3, Funny)
I can't put "less than" and 3 together?
OK, fine....
I HEART Judge Edwards!
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:3, Funny)
instead of '<', use:
& lt;
(minus the space)
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:4, Funny)
to get "<" use "&lt;"
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:3, Funny)
And to get "&amp;lt;" use "&amp;amp;lt;"
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:2)
Re:You Are Not Getting My Beer! (Score:2)
I <3 Judge Edwards works for me.
But you need to use the HTML Entity Reference [w3.org] for the less-than symbol.
Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the DoJ, a government agency, doing lobbying anyone over anything?
AFAIK, their remit is to enforce the law by prosecuting criminals. That's it. Enforce the law as it stands.
Not attempt to make it or influence its makers.
Re:Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:1)
Re:Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:2)
Re:Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:2)
You don't? I thought it was just about loose, orgiastic[0] sex and eating corpses...
[0]If that's not a word, it sure as hell should be.
(actually, I do get it)
Re:Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:2)
Bush White House enforces law if it pleases them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Check out the article below on why GWB has not vetoed a SINGLE bill in his 6 years of presidency.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
The answer: "why bother when we can just ignore them...."
Re:Stay in your cage, DoJ. (Score:2)
Not that this *is* that law, note. Just that I can see a way they could lobby and be justified.
The Founders (Score:3, Funny)
The court does good here, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if just restraining is enough anymore. When someone breaks a law, they can go to jail or pay a hefty fine. Why is it that Congress and the President can break their oath to uphold the Constitution's restrictions on their power and there is no real penalty?
Maybe it is time to penalize repeat offenders who vote for and pass (and don't veto) for unconstitutional laws. The voting booth is not enough to prevent future intrusions. A judge can sentence me to jail for breaking my oath to follow the law, the same should be true for those creating the laws.
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
by the way, are you a naturalized citizen? They are the only ones that actually take an oath to uphold the constition.
I suppose one could, if they chose, take it upon themselves to swear such an oath. Nah, strike that; people taking on responsibilities that aren't required? Not in a million years. ;)
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
"Oath" has very little to do with your liability for criminal behavior, and the same is true for those making the laws. They, too, can be sentenced to jails or fines for breaking criminals laws. They can't be sen
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
Maybe it is time to penalize repeat offenders who vote for and pass (and don't veto) for unconstitutional laws.
This accomplishes what? Unconstitutional laws are technically of no force or effect. Therefore no harm was done. So you would be outlawing a harmless activity, and that itself would be an unconstitutional law. Unconstitional laws only cause harm ind
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
Thats what the malice requirement is supposed to prevent. Now you can argue that the government should compensate you in some way, but not the DA personally. Even that is a dangerous route to go down- OJ Simpson lost his career over the trial thing. If we had to compensate him, DAs would be leery of going after rich suspects because of the costs of losing.
Re:You miss the point (Score:2)
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
No. We should never PUNISH people for honest mistakes. However that does not mean that we don't hold people responsible for their honest mistakes.
A DA need not actually in fact HONESTLY believe you are guilty any more than the defense lawyer needs to believe you are innocent. However, if he doesn't actually have an opinion, he is being RECKLESS. Clearly if *he* isn't convinced beyo
Re:The court does good here, but... (Score:2)
This accomplishes what? Unconstitutional laws are technically of no force or effect. Therefore no harm was done. So you would be outlawing a harmless activity, and that itself would be an unconstitutional law. Unconstitional laws only cause harm indirectly.. Because overzealous DA's tries to enforce them. If there needs to be any balancing of powers, it is that victims of failed prosecutions (i.e. the presumptively INNOCENT person accused of a crime who isn't convicted (either because the crime itself was
compensation (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you are asking.
If you are convicted of an offence which turns out to be of no force or effect, then your conviction must be overturned.
You dont need a pardon, because you were never guilty o
The remedy exists (Score:2)
Re:The remedy exists (Score:2)
Re:The remedy exists (Score:1)
State legislators in Illinois and California and other states are getting the ball rolling on it, regardless of the fear and cowardice of national-level Democratic party leaders who don't want to do their FUCKING JOBS.
The FCC is perpetually exceeding its authority (Score:3, Insightful)
So where does that snooping come in? I can't see it in their profile.
Like another agency (Score:2)
Wonder With This (Score:1)
"Last name, Crane; first name, Denny." (Score:3, Funny)
Not "jibberjabber" and "poopycock"?
Re:"Last name, Crane; first name, Denny." (Score:2)
The Honorable Judge T presiding?
Open Source encryption (Score:1, Interesting)
of governments to snoop on their citizens phone conversations.It would be much easier to listen in on the unencrypted audio with parabolic microphones and a REAL warrant.
Can you hear me now , Skype?