Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 11 Jan 2007 21:56 In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. > >I used to do that. > >With broadband it's not necessary. You also need much better hearing. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 11 Jan 2007 23:04 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <b63a$45a66778$cdd08573$4810(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: snip <interesting discussion> >>On their face, the documents subpoenaed here are not respondent's "private papers." >>Unlike the claimant in Boyd, respondent can assert neither ownership nor possession. >>Instead, these are the business records of the banks. As we said in California Bankers >>Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 48-49, "[b]anks are . . . not . . . neutrals in >>transactions >>involving negotiable instruments, but parties to the instruments with a substantial >>stake in their continued availability and acceptance." The records of respondent's >>[425 >>U.S. 435, 441] accounts, like "all of the records [which are required to be kept >>pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act,] pertain to transactions to which the bank was >>itself >>a party." Id., at 52. > This is the really important part. Everyone knows that the bank keeps records of > transactions. We also know that banks must do so to opperate properly. > This is very different than the case on a phone line. The phone company has no need or > business keeping records of the content of the signal I send over the line. This > places the signal in a completely different class than the billing information. That might be true but we don't know this for sure yet. Consider the "we never throw anything away" mentality of Google. I know that in the early 1990's Compuserve retained all the chatroom stuff (whatever those venues were called by them in those days. Porches?) Digitized information is pretty easy to retain for long periods. Who knows for sure what the phone companies are doing. Which do you suppose generated more data per day, phone usage or the internet? > [...] > [ Footnote 5 ] Nor did the banks notify respondent, a neglect without legal > consequences here, however unattractive it may be. > Note the word "here". In another case, it may matter. It may matter in a civil action > against the bank. The bank was not considered a party in this legal action. In any similar circumstance where they become a party lots of stuff must be considered by the court. >>We are not confronted with a situation in which the Government, through "unreviewed >>executive discretion," has made a wide-ranging [425 U.S. 435, 445] inquiry that >>unnecessarily "touch[es] upon intimate areas of an individual's personal affairs." > In other words if there was "touching upon intimate ...", the answer may be very > different. I read this differently with the operative word "unnecessarily." > [...] >>Today, not surprisingly, the Court finds respondent's claims to be made too late. >>Since >>the Court in California [425 U.S. 435, 456] Bankers Assn. held that a bank, in >>complying with the requirement that it keep copies of the checks written by its >>customers, "neither searches nor seizes records in which the depositor has a Fourth >>Amendment right," id., at 54, there is nothing new in today's holding that respondent >>has no protected Fourth Amendment interest in such records. A fortiori, he does not >>have standing to contest the Government's subpoena to the bank. Alderman v. United >>States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969). > From this you could argue that a law can be passed allowing the wiretaps. There has > been no law so today, they remain illegal. The reality is that usually the government presses forward anyway with decisions like the one we're discussing here settling the matter in a court action well after the fact. Illegal action by the government is what the court holds illegal. How often does the justice system imprison its agents for being overly zealous unless personal injury or death is the consequence? The signal from the courts is "try it on for size" which is what government usually does. Police officers often will return to the same court with the same bogus traffic ticket the judge throws out if the defendant's lawyer knows how to argue the case, but the judge will simply fine the defendant if he shows up without a lawyer and pleads guilty. You'd think that the judge would throw out such a case su sponte, but they don't. You have to appear and argue for such rights as you believe you have. The court treats each case as fresh and demands each party argues every point as though the court knows nothing not in the filings. > [...] >>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. > The phone company does not record the signal on the phone line. They record billing > information. This is a very different matter than what is being talked about. They didn't used to, but do they now? Next question, what is the length of time that information must remain resident in order to be treated as a business record? Consider the theory that information is given to the phone company just as though it were freight transported by a common carrier. While it is in the possession of the phone company, who owns the data? And eventually the phone company hands the data off to (it is hoped) the intended recipient, who then owns the data. So when the entire transaction takes place completely inside the borders of the USA, it has been agreed that 4th amendment protections apply because the individuals involved in the conversation have an expectation of privacy as has been promised by SCOTUS over the decades. This expectation, however, disappears whenever the conversation leaves the jurisdiction of the USA. Once the expectation of privacy is compromised, I argue that it no longer has 4th amendment protections either within or without the US, so taps may be emplaced within the borders without constitutional infraction. > [....] >>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. > One can also argue that a pig is a cow. I don't expect either to win. I take it you agree that an analog POTS signal and a computer data stream are different then?
From: MassiveProng on 11 Jan 2007 23:26 On Thu, 11 Jan 07 12:56:38 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <58ccq2l4e66dccpn4kagghl0act4j0b78o(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:28:17 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >>> >>> >>>MassiveProng wrote: >>> >>>> We are at war. >>> >>>With which country ? >>> >> >> Again you show us just how oblivious you are to current events and >>life on Earth. > >They are not oblivious; these people are still thinking in >the old ways. Since the current threats don't match old >European war-mongering patterns, it cannot be called war. >Since they cannot call these events war, the normal >military responses cannot be invoked. > >Stop calling them names and think about why these people >cannot recognize dangers. The US has a political party >whose platform is depending on people's abilities to not >recognize this danger. > >/BAH Calling someone oblivious is not calling them names. Note clearly that in THIS post you replied to, I was not calling anyone names. I may in other posts, but this post was 100% spot on behavioral description.
From: MassiveProng on 11 Jan 2007 23:34 On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:10:47 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >No, it wasn't. There was no warrant then and there still isn't. I see you have been visiting the wormwood brew again...
From: MassiveProng on 11 Jan 2007 23:34
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:10:47 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >This is how the US will >be destroyed. You're an idiot. |