Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 12 Jan 2007 09:57 In article <7b528$45a708b7$49ecffe$9588(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <b63a$45a66778$cdd08573$4810(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >snip <interesting discussion> [....] >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?) Chatrooms are a much newer thing than the phone. The phone has a history in law. If the signal on the phone line becomes something like a phone billing record, there are some things we will have to stop using the phone for. You won't for example be able to talk to your patent lawyer without starting the clock. >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? It doesn't matter whether it is easy or not. It would not be all that hard to hook voice activated tape recorders onto the phone lines of certain people and keep those records too. The phone company has no reason or business doing it. As a result, we have the reasonable expectation that they don't. The long distance number dialed is another matter. We know that they will keep a record for billing purposes. >> [...] >> [ 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. The word "unattactive" suggests which side of the law the bank would find its self. > >>>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." IF you allow the "the government has the right to because it is necessary" argument", to stand, you will have no rights at all. They can always argue the need to violate your rights. The warrant is at least forcing two branches of the government to agree before your privacy can be invaded. >> 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. Well at least this seem to be the MO of the current bunch. They even press forwards when they don't need to. The FISA grants just about every warrant they are asked for. >Illegal action by the government is what the court holds illegal. You are turning "all power not granted" on its head. > How >often does the justice system imprison its agents for being overly >zealous unless personal injury or death is the consequence? "overly zealous" comes under the same heading as "honest mistake". What the Bush admin is doing is "willful violation". This would get a cop sent to jail. [....] >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. The judges have become far too friendly with the cops. It happens. In other countries, you would be found guilty unless you bribed the judge. The standard must never become that we only have the rights we can enforce in the worst situation. This would lead to another end of all rights. [....] >> 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? The had no damn business doing it and still have no damn business doing it. >Next question, what is the >length of time that information must remain resident in order to >be treated as a business record? No, I dispute the suggestion that that is the next question. The next question is whether they can be said to be in possession of that information. When I drive my car down the road, the contents of my car remain mine. I am running my car over the counties road. The same applies to the content of a phone conversatioon. > 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. If you say they are like a common carrier, you are saying that they have no legal claim of ownership of the information at all. Common carriers transport peoples stuff without gaining any right of ownership. [....] >This expectation, however, disappears whenever the conversation >leaves the jurisdiction of the USA. Yes, I agree that an international phone call is quite a different thing. A large part of the argument (at least by others here) has been that phone calls between US locations could legally be listened in on by the government without a warrant. I am assuming that you agree that they are wrong in this. >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. You are arguing that the taps on calls leaving the US can be within the US. I will let you have that point for now and point out that the hardware that was installed to allow wiretaps was not installed on the lines that leave the US. It was installed to allow wiretaps, with a warrant, of calls that are purely within the US. This equipment is what is being used without a warrant. We also know that it isn't just calls entering and leaving the US that are being monitored. The ones within the US where the expectation of privacy applies are being monitored. > >> [....] > >>>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? Yes but only in the details as far as the law in concerned. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if it is POTS, computers or paper cups and string. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Jan 2007 10:00 In article <eo7v28$8ss_002(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eo6tdr$vsa$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>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. > >Why? I've never met broadband. It's sound pattern differences that >predict that some behaviour will change. The frequency content extends well past the 20KHz that the human ear is limited to. In DSL, there is no real signal at all down where audio band modems run. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Jan 2007 10:02 In article <eo85rh$8qk_007(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [...] >Sheesh. The invention of ink didn't change the words used. Actually it did. The printing press did it even more so. How words were spelled, the ones used and to some degree how they were pronounced were all changed by the fact that the written word can be transported over long distances. > >/BAH -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Jan 2007 10:09 In article <eo81fp$8qk_005(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. I sure do! It is down to a smaller fraction now that he has shown how thunderingly incompetent he is, but there are still some. > I see a few people >noticing that rpoblems are getting sorted out with interactions >between all four structures of the US govnerment: voters, legislative, >executive and judicial. Now that the democrats have been elected, there is going to be some sorting out of problems. The previous crew where a complete rubberstamp. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 12 Jan 2007 10:12
In article <45A78FBC.48D0DCE4(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. > >After all the lies he's told and laws he's broken, who in their right mind would >? It is well documented that some fraction of mankind is not in its right mind. Democracy tends to wash their affect out over the long term. It isn't the perfect answer because you can have the "one person one vote one time" situation where people will elect someone who will destroy the democracy. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |