Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 64

Well, the law disagrees with you. It doesn't, however, work like people here think it does. There isn't a line in the sky saying "this far, no farther". It depends on the nature and intent of the intrusion.

For example I've flown in a helicopter belonging to the Florida Keys Mosquito Control district. Those spray jockeys' job is to lay down pesticide on hard to reach places, particularly the first place a mosquito might light after crossing between islands which is likely to be a line of mangroves or bushes. They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph. It's just normal business for those guys, and they're not targeting those homeowners in any way. But if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter, that would be an intrusion, apart from the epic noise.

This isn't really different from privacy law in general: context and intent matter. If someone is standing behind you at the ATM, that's not necessarily breach of privacy; but if they are doing it to look over your shoulder that's different. If your neighbor looks at the back of your house, it's normal. If he sits in his tree trying to peer through your back windows, it's not.

One of the landmark cases in privacy was Nader v.General Motors Corp. where GM retaliated against Nader for writing unkind things about its cars by hiring private investigators to dig up dirt and intimidate Nader. One of the things they did to intimidate him was to follow him around all day, often openly following him a few feet behind as he went about his business so he'd know he was being constantly watched. The court ruled this was an invasion of privacy. Sure the PIs had a right to be in the places they went, but they didn't have a right to be there doing what they were doing.

Comment Re:What's wrong with this? (Score 2) 148

Well, technically it is illegal for a private citizen to tamper with US foreign relations, and about the only way to do that effectively is to be a presidential candidate and open side negotiations with a foreign power in anticipation of your possible election (e.g. to continue doing something or taking a position against American interests until you are in power and will give them a better deal).

In that case this is both an issue for the FBI (for the criminal aspect) and the CIA (for the working against US interests aspect).

Over the years there have been charges of presidential candidates tampering with US foreign policy: Nixon in Vietnam; Reagan with Iran. In both cases the candidate succeeded. The evidence for Reagan's involvement with Iraq is circumstantial at best, which is what you'd expect because if Reagan had violated the Logan Act it would have been William Casey who orchestrated it. But there IS solid evidence that Nixon did try to ensure that the North Vietnamese didn't agree to any ceasefires with Johnson -- not only a violation of the Logan Act, but since we were at war with the North Vietnamese quite possibly a rare actual case of treason.

Comment Re:that's an understatement (Score 3, Interesting) 150

Which is fine, depending on how fast we get there.

It's like this: you're standing on the balcony of your Miami hotel room. It's on the top floor. It's a warm summer night and you look down at the pool. A dip would be just the thing, so you put on your bathing suit and take the elevator down to the ground level. Refreshment accomplished.

Now imagine the same scenario, only you decide to dive off your balcony into the pool. You've traveled exactly the same vertical distance, but the rate at which you did it (well, technically the rate at which you stopped doing it), made a difference.

Comment Re: Good thinking (Score 1) 137

Probably worth noting that to compare crime rates reported, you have to use a similar method of counting. In every country something like a murder-robbery will be counted at least twice, once under the homicide category and once under property crimes. Sweden's rates are inflated by a system in which the same crime can be categorized more ways.

So simply adding up all "reporting offenses" confounds two factors: the rate of underlying social disorder and the practices of the reporting system.

If you want to compare social disorder across reporting regimes, probably the best approach is to compare murder rates. If a murder is involved in an event then that event will always be counted in the murder category:

Japan, Singapore, Iceland: 0.3 per 100,000
Sweden, Portugal, UK, Iceland: 0.9
France: 1.2
Cameroon, Bangladesh: 2.8
India*, Moldova, Montenegro: 3.2
United States, Thailand, Iran: 3.9
Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine: 4.3
Somalia: 5.6
Cambodia, Afghanistan: 6.5
Palestine: 7.4
Iraq: 8.0
Chad, Gabon, Togo: 9.4
Nigeria, Guinea-Bissau: 10.3
Mali, Antigua and Barbuda: 11.2
Democratic Republic of Congo: 13.5
South Sudan: 14.4
Namibia, Panama: 17.2
Brazil: 24.6
Trinidad and Tobago: 25.9
Columbia: 27.9
Guatemala: 31.2
South Africa: 33
Jamaica: 36.1
Venezuela: 62
El Salvador: 64.2
Honduras: 84.6

Comment Re:Who's gonna pay "THEIR FAIR SHARE"?!?!?! (Score 1) 137

as long as you hand over 2/3 of all your profits to the state , runing an business is not that hard Sweden. Maktintressen an living as an small business is bloddy hard , growing is even harder. And if you start an small business and cash out you are looking at 2/3 tax on the cash out.

Running a small business is hard anywhere.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN