Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Scope (Score 1) 745

It's even less scary than you think. They weren't deciding any Due Process issue at all. Don't just read about it. Read the decision. This is not a Due Process decision.
  From the decision:
 

The District Court, accepting two of the respondents'
claims, granted their motion to dismiss. It agreed with
respondents that the Constitution requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, id., at 551-559 (citing In re Winship,
397 U. S. 358 (1970)), and it agreed that, in enacting the
statute, Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers,
507 F. Supp. 2d, at 530-551. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on
this latter, legislative-power ground. 551 F. 3d 274, 278-
284 (2009). It did not decide the standard-of-proof question, nor did it address any of respondents' other constitutional challenges. Id., at 276, n. 1.
The Government sought certiorari, and we granted its
request, limited to the question of Congress' authority
under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution.

 

The question presented is whether the Necessary and
Proper Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 18, grants Congress authority
sufficient to enact the statute before us. In resolving that
question, we assume, but we do not decide, that other
provisions of the Constitution--such as the Due Process
Clause--do not prohibit civil commitment in these circumstances.
Cf. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346; Addington v. Texas,
441 U. S. 418 (1979). In other words, we assume for argument's
sake that the Federal Constitution would permit
a State to enact this statute, and we ask solely whether
the Federal Government, exercising its enumerated powers,
may enact such a statute as well. On that assumption,
we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress
legislative power sufficient to enact 4248.

So, the issue of due process, as well as a couple other constitutional issues raised were never reached. This is based on the assumption that this is within state power to do. That assumption now needs to be challenged.

Comment Re:Unbelieveable (Score 2, Informative) 745

Read the decision. This is not a Due Process decision.
From the decision:

The District Court, accepting two of the respondents' claims, granted their motion to dismiss. It agreed with respondents that the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 551-559 (citing In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970)), and it agreed that, in enacting the statute, Congress exceeded its Article I legislative powers, 507 F. Supp. 2d, at 530-551. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal on this latter, legislative-power ground. 551 F. 3d 274, 278- 284 (2009). It did not decide the standard-of-proof question, nor did it address any of respondents' other constitutional challenges. Id., at 276, n. 1. The Government sought certiorari, and we granted its request, limited to the question of Congress' authority under Art. I, 8 of the Constitution.

So, the issue of due process, as well as a couple other constitutional issues raised were never reached. They need to reengage on these other constitutional challenges.

Government

Submission + - Rough Justice for Terry Childs (infoworld.com)

snydeq writes: "Deep End's Paul Venezia sees significant negative ramifications for IT admins in the wake of yesterday's guilty verdict for Terry Childs on a count of 'denial of serivce.' Assuming the verdict is correct, Venezia writes, 'shouldn't the letter of the law be applied to other "denial of service" problems caused by the city while they pursued this case? In particular, to the person or persons who released hundreds passwords in public court filings in 2008 for causing a denial of service for the city's widespread VPN services? After all, once the story broke that a large list of usernames and passwords had been released to the public, the city had to take down its VPN services for days while they reset every password and communicated those changes to the users.' Worse, if upheld on appeal, the verdict puts a vast number of IT admins at risk. 'There are suddenly thousands of IT workers all over the country that are now guilty of this crime in a vast number of ways. If the letter of the law is what convicted Terry Childs, then the law is simply wrong.'"

Comment Re:Perspective from a Juror on this Case (Score 2, Insightful) 982

While jury service is commendable, you sir should be ashamed of what you've done. This guy was put in a no-win situation, one which YOU YOURSELF could someday face. To equate what he did with felony computer tampering puts us all one bad situation away from being felons, damned if we do and damned if we don't. Juries are there to ask the tough questions, to make sure laws squash people who don't deserve it. One quote from the article describes Mr Childs as "egotistical and paranoid". Well, you'd better lock a lot of us up then, because when you hold heightened responsibility and are tasked with guarding that system, that's what you're actions are going to look like.

You state you "felt terrible" about the verdict. If that's true, then you made the wrong decision. And you've made life more dangerous for all network and systems professionals.

Comment Re:Don't take candy from the government (Score 1) 941

"Public school employees are government employees. Therefore they are subject to every restriction that a police officer would be subject to with respect to dealing with citizens."

Unfortunately no. This case among many others... http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Safford_United_School_District
Among other things, the requirements for searches is much lower, no warrant requirements, etc.

Government

California Continues To Push For Violent Game Legislation 167

Back in February, the US Court of Appeals shot down a California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Shortly thereafter, State Senator Leland Yee petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the case. Now, along with California's Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, Yee has filed an amicus curiae brief with Court that elaborates on the reasoning behind the law. Within the brief (PDF) are some interesting quotes: "Parents can read a book, watch a movie or listen to a CD to discern if it is appropriate for their child. These violent video games, on the other hand, can contain up to 800 hours of footage with the most atrocious content often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery. ... Notably, extended play has been observed to depress activity in the frontal cortex of the brain which controls executive thought and function, produces intentionality and the ability to plan sequences of action, and is the seat of self-reflection, discipline and self-control." The video game industry has filed its own amicus brief to dispute Yee's claims.

Comment Re:Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control (Score 4, Informative) 420

The case of interest here would be Tinker Vs. Des Moines. Decided by the Supreme Court in 1969, It held that while the school had a compelling interest in curtailing certain rights that would otherwise be unacceptable violations of certain civil liberties, (in this case the first amendment, though the decision seems to apply to others) speech that was non-disruptive to the school environment could not be denied.

It's a complicated decision, and there has been MUCH discussion on exactly how Tinker does and does not apply, but it would seem to blow several of your arguments out of the water. One, that school districts arn't bound by the Constitution, not being "Federal government agencies". They are (Bound, that is, not federal). They get have special dispensation due to the fact that there is a compelling government interest in educating children, and that interest can justify curtailing certain civil liberties, at least as held by this case. But that shows clearly that school districts are held to constitutional tests, and are clearly NOT outside the jurisdictional bounds of the constitution or the federal court system.

Now, just what contributes to disruptive speech, acceptable curtailing of rights, and other issues has been argued fiercely, often in other SCOTUS cases. However, schools are NOT private entities, and cannot censor at will without substantial cause.

Comment Re:They just don't get it. (Score 2, Informative) 426

I thought I mentioned it in my post, but I HAVE been out for a few years. Out in 06. These days, I work at a data center for an insurance company, and the technical expertise in my building I work in now could run circles around any of the NOSC's that I was involved with, and from what I've heard of the AFNOSC, I highly doubt it's much better.

As far as warrior skills and ethos, that's exactly what I WASN'T knocking. Those mentalities are why it's a bad idea, IMHO, to go with contractors. What isn't relevant, to IT, is the PT, the promotion game, the assignment roulette wheel, and a complete failure to move people forward by merit (not up in rank, but to important jobs). Now, I certainly learned those games when I was in. I regularly bested others in my dorm when we had room inspections. My uniform was squared away. What galled me wasn't that I was not successful. I was. But I would have been just as successful if I couldn't tell a cat 5 cable from a phone cord, or If I spent 4 hours searching the datacenter looking for the hotmail server to reboot (both these were REAL things done by NCO's in my time).

This would be similar to a Marine who could polish a floor like nobodies business, but couldn't figure out which end of the rifle was the "unfriendly end", and couldn't find their own ass with a map. But because they pass the inspections and play the chum game, they're now in charge of tactics. Anyone who has a sense of pride about what they do is going to go where it's appreciated. If it's not appreciated or wanted in the military, (which was the CLEAR message sent, and I wasn't alone getting that message) then they'll go where it is.

And it wasn't me they disliked. My unit commander and vice commander both talked to me about staying, and in the latter's case, recommended I look into becoming an officer, which was a strain not to laugh in his face when he said it.

As I said before, I can't speak to the other services, but those aren't the ones pushing Cyber warfare as much anyway. In the Air Force, it was a clear message, "You're a good airman, and ready to be a good NCO, but we just arn't serious about these computer thingies." So I went to a company that did take my skills seriously. And I highly doubt I'm alone.

Comment Re:They just don't get it. (Score 2, Informative) 426

NCO corps most educated, Sure. They get a lot of time taking classes, And I knew several SNCO's with multiple degrees. Professional? Certainly. They were very definitely professional about their jobs, and about the military. And to go a step further, they were usually genuinely good people. People I enjoyed having a drink with, and would gladly have in my home if any happened into town.

However, we're talking about fielding an effective force in the computer network realm. One that can effectively defend at a minimum, and ideally, make effective attacks, much like their brethren in the kinetic fields. And in that regard, you have what can only be considered, on the whole, an epic fail. It's not enough that one or two gems struggle through some kind of half decade hazing period. If we're to succeed defending our networks from threats, seriously skilled individuals are needed, and lots of them. And no amount of good intentions or high tenure will matter in the middle of things if the people in those positions simply can't hack it. When I speak of "dregs", I mean those who simply cannot hack it. They might be the best person in the world, but they aren't the one you want on your line.

I'm guessing from your other posts that you're a Marine. I always loved working for the Marines, they were serious, no bullshit kind of guys. And, going by their rhetoric anyway as I was never in combat with any of them, they had a code that being a leader had nothing to do with the rank on your collar. I was always a fan of this ethos, and I think a lot of that is at the heart of what's lacking in much of our computer defense.

The Marines are VERY good at making a rifleman. Probably the most honed machine in human history for doing so, in fact. So much so, that they say EVERY marine is a rifleman first. However, these are NOT the skills needed to make a good network defender. Being physically hard just doesn't count for much in that arena, however admirable and desirable it is elsewhere. This is only one of many traits that, while essential for one type of combat role, is meaningless in this new one. This does not diminish the roles played by others, far from it. I seriously doubt we'll be seeing any Cyber Warrior PTSD. I wouldn't dare equate the two jobs. However, if the network goes down, taking comm with it, and you can't move ships because nothing will work, and you cant talk to anyone to fix anything, the combat ability of all those professional warriors goes to hell, simply because they cannot reach or be effective on the battlefield.

Bottom line, if we scare off 90% of the talent with meaningless hazing and demoralizing run arounds, and then water that force down further with folks who know how to play with the system but are ineffective in actual use, we will be beaten, and soundly so, by a force that effectively utilizes it's people with ability. I'm not talking about basic training, or instilling discipline, or weeding out those without will or conviction. I'm talking about devaluing skills, not putting forth the best for a particular purpose, playing politics for positions and roles. All of these are stupid games that may cost us dearly in terms of having the best people in critical positions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of the Turing Tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

Working...