Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Patriot (Score 2) 199

When the crown was routinely going through people's correspondence, or barging into homes and seeing what was there, how could one not understand the Founding Fathers wanted the people to both be secure in their homes and possessions as well as have the right to privacy in their lives?

It's like people forgot about how in the weeks prior to the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Red Coats were stopping everyone traveling, detaining them without cause and searching all of their possessions, luggage, papers in the hopes of finding documents pertaining to the rebellion or weapons / supplies that could be used to support them.

THAT is why we have a fourth amendment. And it is DIRECTLY related to privacy. And anyone claims to be an "originalist" and denies this, isn't an originalist.

Also, this finger pointing to these phony "originalist" as being authentic pro-constitutional people is a gross straw-man argument.

Comment Hey Apple R&D (RetarDs)... (Score 1) 240

Dear Apple,

Here are some tips for making your next MacBook Pro more successful:

1.) Stop fucking taking away necessary ports. If your laptop doesn't have at east 2 USB ports (preferably 2 side by side), that shit can fuck off.
2.) Stop replacing the necessary ports with proprietary ports. We don't need 2+ Thunderbolt ports. they can fuck right off too.
3.) Why the fuck can't you stick with industry standard goddamn parts for SSD's?

If you could do these three things I would have purchased another macbook pro when my last laptop died. But no, you had to make that piece of shit...

Comment What about the Alt Left? (Score 1) 978

So the Alt Right is getting banned on twitter. Great!

Now what about the Alt-Left?


Like SJW's and BLM crazies? The ones that call for the murder of all men, or white people?

Because all I've seen from twitter in the past (and this newest development shows no signs of deviation from this trend) is twitter going after gamergate people and the far right. They aren't being fair, they are silencing those they disagree with under the guise of anti-harrassment.

Comment No they won't. (Score 5, Insightful) 425

These things are usually dreamed up by anti-gun proponents who wish to push this technology into law so they can bury gun owners with regulations and thus restrict access to firearms.

That's what the safe handgun list in California was for, as well as the "microstamping" law.

If you can make it so difficult to acquire, legally, that the average person doesn't want to be involved due to the regulatory burden, congratulations, you have just restricted and/or removed the right to access that item.

Comment Re:In all Stupidity... (Score 0, Troll) 246

...but they're not saying a damned thing about Trump.

Are you really that stupid or are you just reading what your party has spoon fed to you?

The reason why there are no wikileaks on Trump, IS BECAUSE HE ISN'T A POLITICIAN, HOLDING POLITICAL OFFICE, AND THUS HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION OR SPYING.

It's kind of fucking hard to have wikileaks documents when you're not a government employee. You do know what Wikileaks is right? Oh wait, you had to read that line from your party's catch phrases so you probably have no clue what they are.

From wikileaks.org: (https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html)

WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.

Comment Re:Well, there goes the 4th Amendment again... (Score 1) 204

Your argument is a good one, except that to make it fit lets remove the ski mask and the crowbar and the house alarm.

Is it then a crime carry a bag of jewelry at night?

If the suspect had card readers, or other paraphernalia present that would facilitate the reading/access/spoofing the of the cards, your analogy would be spot on and I would further argue that it was enough to constitute probable cause.

But mere possession alone. Just that. Just possession of the cards, is not enough.

Comment Re:Not a biased result. (Score 1) 204

Regardless of whether the contents are considered sealed/locked, they are not in plain view as it requires a specific device to gain access to them. Thus you cannot claim that the data "was in plain view". With possession alone, which is perfectly legal, not being enough to constitute probable cause, there is no grounds or cause for an officer to seize, scan (search) the cards

This is simply a case of really lazy policing.

Comment Re:Well, there goes the 4th Amendment again... (Score 1) 204

The problem here is that you cannot actually read the contents of the card without:

1.) Possession of the card,
2.) A reader capable of reading the card's magnetic strip.


In other words, it requires a tool to gain access to the contents.

The argument for evidence in plain view, is specifically if you can observe the information, without disturbing the item. In the classic "Plain View" case that is often used as a reference, IIRC it involved a LEO physically lifting up a Stereo Receiver and turning it around to access the serial number. I.E. the item was disturbed/manipulated/touched/whatever in order to gain the information necessary to know that the item in question was stolen.

In this case it is the act of swiping the card that constitutes the "disturbance". You are effectively saying that using a tool to gain access too it's contents, is the equivalent of the contents being "in plain view". This is not how evidence in "Plain View" works.

Comment Re:Well, there goes the 4th Amendment again... (Score 1) 204

The problem here is one of the Chicken and the Egg. How do you know the cards are counterfeit without first searching them? How do you search them without first knowing they are counterfeit?

Possessing a Gift Card is not a crime. How then does one articulate probable cause that any given Gift Card they come across might be a counterfeit one?

Absent some other outside source of information, possession alone is not defacto Probable Cause.

Comment Well, there goes the 4th Amendment again... (Score 5, Insightful) 204

Is it a crime to be in possession of credit cards / gift cards? (No)

Is the information contained in a credit card / gift card in plain view? (No).

Does a LEO, without a warrant or probable cause, have the legal authority to open a container to peruse it's contents? (No)

So why then can a LEO seize and search the contents of a CC / Gift Card without probable cause or a warrant, when they can't legally open closed (but unlocked) containers on a person's person and possession thereof are in-of-themselves perfectly legal?

This is yet another bad case precedent eroding the very core of the 4th Amendment. There isn't even an attempt to reconcile it with constitutional law.

Slashdot Top Deals

If this is a service economy, why is the service so bad?

Working...