Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Submission + - Multiple Police Officers Killed by 2 Snipers at Public Protest (Dallas) (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: All news outlets are breaking the story of 11 officers shot from two elevated positions during an evening protest in Dallas. The protest was organized following killings of black men by police in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis earlier.

Submission + - BBC: Britain Votes To Leave The EU (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The UK has voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union after 43 years in a historic referendum, a BBC forecast suggests. London and Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU but the remain vote has been undermined by poor results in the north of England. Voters in Wales and the English shires have backed Brexit in large numbers. The referendum turnout was 71.8% — with more than 30 million people voting — the highest turnout since 1992. London has voted to stay in the EU by around 60% to 40%. However, no other region of England has voted in favor of remaining. Britain would be the first country to leave the EU since its formation — but a leave vote will not immediately mean Britain ceases to be a member of the 28-nation bloc. That process could take a minimum of two years, with Leave campaigners suggesting during the referendum campaign that it should not be completed until 2020 — the date of the next scheduled general election. The prime minister will have to decide when to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would give the UK two years to negotiate its withdrawal. Once Article 50 has been triggered a country can not rejoin without the consent of all member states.

Submission + - Reddit has deleted its 'warrant canary' (reuters.com)

Arthur Dent '99 writes: Today Reddit deleted wording in its transparency report that would normally indicate that they had not received any "national security letters" or "other classified requests for user information". Such "national security letters" contain penalties for telling anyone about the request, as the government wishes to keep the request secret. However, because Reddit had placed pre-existing wording in their transparency report in the event of such a letter, they were able to simply delete the existing wording to passively inform others that a request had been received, without actually saying anything at all. This usage of pre-existing wording is known as a "warrant canary" to indicate danger, much as real canaries were used in the past to indicate the presence of deadly gases in coal mines.

Comment Mod parent up! (Score 1) 1839

I absolutely agree. Given the choice to reply or moderate a misleading or erroneous post I'll moderate every time, for exactly this reason. I don't think it's because the reply is wrong, rather it isn't seen due to having a low initial score, and coming at a later time when it is more likely to get overlooked.

Comment Re:Reposting my comment from the original article. (Score 4, Insightful) 1839

- Add the ability to edit comments until they are moderated or have a reply

This would have to be done carefully, i.e. you can't post an edit after someone has clicked the reply button (not actually posted the reply). And the person replying would need to be notified if the post had been changed since the page was loaded.

Earlier in this discussion someone suggested to allow appending comments to your own post with a timestamp, but not editing the original text. That might be a better approach.

Comment Executive orders are not law in and of themselves (Score 1) 289

For this to be true, there must be some law passed by Congress making the donation illegal, presumably when the recipient is a member of some group as determined by the executive branch. Anyone have the details?

The courts would never fall for this, but if there isn't a very good justification for the law, Citizen's United ought to apply...

Comment Re:Not just "unreasonable". (Score 4, Informative) 221

As I see it, every agency that has a hand in the domestic surveillance programs detailed by Snowden is in violation of Federal law, and yes these are felonies. From Title 18 of the United States Code:

241. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

242. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Submission + - Slashdot creates beta site users express theirs dislike (slashdot.org) 4

who_stole_my_kidneys writes: Slashdot started redirecting users in February to its newly revamped webpage and received a huge backlash from users. The majority of comments dislike the new site while some do offer solutions to make it better. The question is will Slashdot force the unwanted change on its users that clearly do not want change?

Submission + - SCOTUS to weigh smartphone searches by police (yahoo.com)

schwit1 writes: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances.

Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones.

Comment Re:Hold on there... (Score 4, Informative) 187

The judges know that a true adversarial process is not on the table - and never will be. They aren't calling for real reform. Mostly they are worried about their workload. This is all spelled out in the actual document which you can get here They don't want an advocate or adversarial process, because it wouldn't change anything.

Here is the full quote: "The participation of a privacy advocate is unnecessary and could prove counterproductive in the vast majority of FISA matters, which involve the application of a probable cause or other factual standard to case-specific facts and typically implicate the privacy interests of few persons other than the specific target. Given the nature of FISA proceedings, the participation of an advocate would neither create a truly adversarial process nor constructively assist the Court in assessing the facts, as the advocate would be unable to communicate with the target or conduct an independent investigation. Advocate involvement in run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the Courts without providing any commensurate benefit in terms of privacy protection or otherwise; indeed, such pervasive participation could actually undermine the Courts' ability to receive complete and accurate information on the matters before them."

Of course, we already know the courts are not getting complete and accurate information, and they rubber-stamp orders anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer

Working...