Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 10:43 In article <eo32ho$8ss_002(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eo311k$9oj$12(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eo2npd$8qk_001(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>>Many of us no longer regularly charcoal grill. >>> >>>I know. I heard that California made it illegal. >> >>Where ever did you hear that? > >News reports about California improving air quality. It was >usually reported when new emissions laws were passed there. Well I guess you should question everything else you hear on that news channel. There is no law against charcoal here. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 11 Jan 2007 11:36 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <59dc4$45a56ac4$cdd08595$30848(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>>In article <a1cb9$45a50faf$cdd085b4$27856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>>Pen recorders without warrant were always legal. >> >>>What? The gov't monitoring a call was NEVER legal w/o a warrant. >> >>Better hurry up and tell the Supreme Court they're wrong then. > > > > No he's right. Note that you are trying to rebut it with things about > actions of the phone company and not the government. Please read the case law to which I posted the link below. The government's use of the information is what is covered. When the phone company made such records on behalf of the government, any lawyer (good or bad) will tell you the phone company was an agent acting on behalf of the government, therefore they stood in the place of the government where the defendant is concerned. There's also a history which holds that where "records" are concerned,: [ Footnote 8 ] A subpoena duces tecum issued to obtain records is subject to no more stringent Fourth Amendment requirements than is the ordinary subpoena. A search warrant, in contrast, is issuable only pursuant to prior judicial approval and authorizes Government officers to seize evidence without requiring enforcement through the courts. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 9 -10 (1973). <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=425&invol=435> One can, given the computer age we're in, argue that the data stream listened to is a set of records subject to subpoena by any prosecutor. Still no warrant is required. >>"Pen registers are regularly employed 'to determine whether >>a home phone is being used to conduct a business, to check >>for a defective dial, or to check for overbilling.'" >> >>"Although most people may be oblivious to a pen register's >>esoteric functions, they presumably have some awareness of >>one common use: to aid in the identification of persons >>making annoying or obscene calls." >> >><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442&page=735> >> > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 06:44 In article <eo5bun$8qk_001(a)s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45A5D901.C7F3FDDC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> We are at war. >> >>With which country ? > >It's a new kind of war. The stakes are civilizations, not >political geographical lines. You are still stuck in European >style thinking about rules of waging war. Since this is a new kind of >war, new rules and new techniques are being created. So far, >these new rules are being dictated to Western civilization by >religious extremists. Since technology allows these groups to >wreak havoc globally, there will have to be new ways to deal >with problems and messes they create. Winning this war requires >time. Nobody will be able to say, "We won" on a specific date >until historians look back on the century. > The constitution provides one way, and one way only, to take this country to war. >The only response from the Democrat leadership last night was >their presidential campaign platform. It was ineffective in >2004; I don't understand why they think it will be effective >in 2008. Like Bush's plan has been so effective for 4 years, right? > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 06:37 In article <k72bq21l03sbus1ihj456og2ta0uoqe7t9(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Jan 07 07:58:29 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>If it's the gov't's computer, yes it does. Why do you think the 4th amendment >>applies to a physical connection but not a computer one? > > > Show me where the word "connection" is at in the fourth amendment. > Show me where the word "tap" is. It's a search. > Also, since it is indeed an amendment, someone at some point in time >decided that changes were needed in the constitution. > Yes, and this was put in. > I know you have at least enough brains to see where I am heading >with this... You want to change the constitution so the gov't can read your mail, listen to your phone calls, etc. In other words, you want the USSR back.
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 06:34
In article <59dc4$45a56ac4$cdd08595$30848(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <a1cb9$45a50faf$cdd085b4$27856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>Pen recorders without warrant were always legal. > >> What? The gov't monitoring a call was NEVER legal w/o a warrant. > >Better hurry up and tell the Supreme Court they're wrong then. > >"Pen registers are regularly employed 'to determine whether >a home phone is being used to conduct a business, to check >for a defective dial, or to check for overbilling.'" > >"Although most people may be oblivious to a pen register's >esoteric functions, they presumably have some awareness of >one common use: to aid in the identification of persons >making annoying or obscene calls." > ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442 &page=735> > Which said knowing the phone numbers a person dials isn't private. But the conversation is. From that same source" In Katz, Government agents had intercepted the contents of a telephone conversation by attaching an electronic listening device to the outside of a public phone booth. The Court rejected the argument that a "search" can occur only when there has been a "physical intrusion" into a "constitutionally protected area," noting that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places." Id., at 351-353. Because the Government's monitoring of Katz' conversation "violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth," the Court held that [442 U.S. 735, 740] it "constituted a `search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Id., at 353. |