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


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

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 2) 345

They couldn't force you with out the lead pipes and rubber hoses, fortunately those aren't allowed in the US yet. What you do in a situation like this is refuse to comply, force them to arrest you and spend the night in jail so you can call the ACLU and get the warrant tossed.

See they get away with it because no one refused to comply. Once everyone in the building complies there is no effective way to sue them and set a precedent that will stop this happening again. When they arrest you they move the warrant to the next stage and you now have grounds to sue them over the warrant that you don't have if you comply.

Sometimes standing up to illegal orders is hard, including being arrested hard. Know your rights and refuse illegal orders like this (yes I recognize the warrant was technically legal because it hadn't been challenged). Then use the arrest to go after them and make sure it never happens again.

Comment Re:how about 4A (Score 4, Insightful) 345

That's not what they did.

It's more like you had a party at your house with 50 people, and the police got a warrant to search your house,
that included a clause "allowing" them to search the fingerprint-protected safe of any person who was at your party

scope that allowed them to force anyone inside the premises at the time ....

Contrast that against the Fourth amendment's requirements:

supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that the constitution requires that warrants describe particular people or things.

It's Unconstitutional and Illegal/violation of the supreme law of the land to have a "generic search" or a "generic warrant document"
allowing police to search and seize or disseminate the personal property of ANY random person they happen to find at place X.

The constitution requires they have made a specific list of people to search people, or a specific list of things to search objects not in peoples' personal affects.

Comment It's a 4th amendment issue (Score 5, Insightful) 345

Unreasonable search and seizure

A search warrant for building contents is fine.

Searching the personal affects of every person just because they happened to be present is not reasonable.

The constitution requires a specific warrant. Searching someone's person constitutionally requires that person be named in the Warrant.

Merely being present at a place of work or being at a restaurant or other public place is not probable cause for a search of someone's person.

Comment Re:Willing accomplices and quiet endorsement (Score 1) 149

"They are willing accomplices to this action and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Evidently these engineers lack a moral compass and their word means nothing. If they had a problem with this action they could easily have spoken up and taken action but they took the easy path and did nothing.

Even worse, they may believe that their actions are "for the greater good" and are therefore exempt from the normal routine of morality checks. Based on what I have seen from Google it appears this is part of their culture, the "Google way." Their constant interaction with and ease of access to high level political officeholders is incredibly concerning.

C.S. Lewis said it best: ...a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

One can only hope that Google is just a bunch of crooks willing to sell us all out for a dollar or two. However, if they view themselves as our overlords of change, ushering us into their vision of a gilded future for our own benefit, well, were all fucked.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 256

Mmm. And you can just put one of those up alongside a busy city sidewalk or next to a primary school can you?

If there's no law against you installing it, then yes you most definitely can put one in; a school being nearby doesn't affect that.

Now if it was a busy city sidewalk FIRST, and you adding that fence there is deemed a nuisance, they might be able to force you take it down, for the same reason they could force you to take down any fence you added -- forced easement (Your new fence is an eyesore or blocks a public view previously enjoyed).

City dwellers tend to not like electric fences very much, and many towns have passed a local ordinance restricting where
they can be installed to agriculturally-zoned land, OR require permits for fence projects, and may simply deny you the permit to install an electrified one.

On the other hand, if you got any required permits and had it installed it before the ordinance was passed, then the city cannot make a post-facto law to force you to remove it, provided it is on your property.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 256

Congratulations the crook that actually cut the lock, took off and received a minimal dose and you just killed someone.

You had no control of the actions that resulted in that person's death, and put a lock containing a clear warning.... the bike thief set those events into motion.

Next you'll say the shiny sports car had too much bling on it which distracted a pedestrian into kicking a dog, who then ran across the street, snatched a woman's baby, and dropped the kid down an open sewer vent where the child drowned, Therefore, having too much bling on your car makes you a baby killer.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 256

Why the heck would a police officer be cutting your bike lock unless you are illegally parked?

Destruction of the offender's property is not a legal remedy for illegal parking, anyways.

If they need to forcibly remove your bicycle, then they can get a Locksmith to make a key for the lock without
destroying your property, impound your bike AND your $100 lock, and bill you for the costs, or auction off the assets.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 256

If it's right next to a public space where a kid might accidentally touch it, you are going to be held liable if negligence.

Assuming the fence is installed correctly with a proper fence charger; coming into contact with it is just going to sting --- not capable of causing al electric shock or serious injury even to a squirrel, let-alone a kid.

Comment Re: Legal? (Score 1) 256

The electric fence you can have with proper signage is limited in amperage to about 100 mA, AND more importantly; it's not a continuous current like line power, but a small pulse of current lasting 1/300th of a second, and another pulse every second..

Therefore..... it's not even something that can kill somebody. It's not the sign that makes electric fences legal or not a boobytrap...... It's the fact that these devices have to be designed in a certain way, and they are safe.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 1) 256

re. And if bystanders are standing by watching while someone attempts to steal a bike, they deserve to get sprayed.

That's not the law. If bystanders are harmed or killed, etc, they can potentially file charges against both the manufacturer, the bike owner, and the criminal.
And sue the manufacturer and bike owner for a large sum of $$$.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley