Yes while you're eager to give YOUR rights away, allow me to point out that the police -- looking at a pile of credit cards -- have NO WAY OF KNOWING before scanning them who the "identified person in the data" is.
That means not only do they NOT have anyone's permission to search the data, but that this "owner" thing you claim has nothing to do with the "identified person in the data".
Even if you are that person who has said "Hey I'm John Doe and I give police everywhere permission to look in everyone's pockets for my credit card" this is not that and you can't provide police that privilege.
Sorry, Johnny, but your false "I'm the owner and I allow police to search other people's magstripes" logic doesn't in any way make sense NOR trump the need for a SEARCH WARRANT.
The key here is that the ***DATA*** on the magnetic stripe on the card is not obvious to the onlooker. It is not "in plain sight." I admit to using the wallet analogy to make it even more obvious how much they had to "reach" to get the ***DATA***.
So what if I have 50 cards rubber-banded sitting on my car seat. At the very best you can see the front of one card and the back of another. You can't see the other 98 sides nor the stuff imprinted on them and you CERTAINLY can't *see* the ***DATA*** on the magstrip.
I do believe the requirement for a warrant is palpable.
When you REACH into my pocket, PULL out my wallet, OPEN that wallet, EXTRACT the credit card, and ANALYZE it for hidden DATA that is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights.
"It's safe to say no card issuer is going to let end users alter the coding on their cards. It either matches the info on front or it's not a legitimate credit card. "
I'm going to respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter what you think the card-issuer is "going to let end-users" do. I get to copy magstripes as I see fit on my card. You may argue that the card is the property of the issuer. Yup. I'm allowed to mark on it, disfigure numbers, cut it up, etc. I'm also allowed to demagnetize it if I leave it on a loudspeaker, and that's not unlawful either. Writing a new mag stripe is just the same.
As legitimate examples of lawfull use there are times when I don't want to "flash" my platinum card. However, I can encode its data onto the magnetic strip of my crappy Southwest Airlines credit card. Sure, the information doesn't match. However, it's still my card and I can swipe it and if I were stupid get cash advances on it.
That's the simple example. Sometimes my business lets me have a card or a friend will lend me a car and their credit card to go purchase something. In that case the card doesn't even bear my name but I am legally authorized to use it. Should I copy THAT magnetic strip onto my Southwest Airlines card IT TOO would be legal for me to possess and use.
The courts both erred in failing to address the plain-language meaning of the 4th Amendment. Is it a "search" to reach into my pocket, pull out my wallet, open it, extract a card, and put it in a card-reader? I believe the answer to all those is yes.
The DATA on the magnetic strip on my card is *NOT* in plain-view, does *NOT* create any exigent circumstance, and is in *NO WAY* indicative of anything in and of itself. This is a fishing expedition hunting deep into where the unknown is.
I argue a warrant is DEFINITELY required, and one that indicates with SPECIFICITY what is to be examined and why.
Comments on Scott Greenfield's blog about this topic suggest that the ERAD device will definitely take all your prepaid debit money. They say that bank-cards with PINs will require you "giving" law enforcement your PIN for them to drain the account. They also say that the credit transaction will be disputed and reversed.
I know we're hearing the tip of the iceberg here (sorry to mix metaphors) but thanks for the head's up. The more this odious abuse of due process is given the light of day the less this practice will be treated as lawful... or allowed. (Note I didn't say "tolerated").
You have entirely missed the entire thread and its point. You do, however, get oints for being an idiot shil, so feel free to put that in your pipe and smoke it.
On all other points you're awarded zero points, and we're all stupider for having read your idiot post... and you are an idiot. Bless your soul you delusional idiotic moron. Bless it to death. AN untimely and painful one.
When one begins to think of Copyrights as "intellectual property" then one can certainly think that the "taking" of the "thing" is theft.
Copyright infringement, an entirely different beast than either larceny or conversion, is what one can consider while thinking of Copyright as a right (I know, literal, right?)
There is a growing menace funded by the vultures that fund companies to "create" more such `imaginary property', to register it, and thus, because these vultures value companies higher when they do that... and they sell to others of their ilk... they create a self-sustaining economy rewarding those who create this imaginary property.
The US Patent Office does its job to collect dollars and awards these patents to any dog with a bone of a different bite mark. The same is true of how the courts address the mythical "copyright owner" and immediately conflate it with "artist starving on the street, his music stolen by others." The truth of copyright assignment being ANOTHER such pseudo-economy that benefits only the rich is lost on them.
Trademark abuse... not so much, but then yesterday Techdirt covered a ManU coach whose name is trademarked by someone else. You'd think if not used in commerce in the same industry to deceive customers it wouldn't matter, but the trademark maximalists have struck there too.
The only remaining part of IP that has yet to be commercialized is trade-secrets, and that is definitionally unable to be commercialized... (because, you know, it's a secret) but I can't wait for the day that some clever POS lawyer figures out a way to not-disclose-but-disclose and commercialize and there will be a rush to 'register' (or otherwise get VC 'credit') for trade secrets.
Sadly Congress is owned by the people with the money, who are the ones pushing these pseudo-economies where they create imaginary property and reward themselves for it. The concepts that Copyrights were meant to ensure have long fallen to the darkside of "rewarding the artist" (er... backer who bought the rights.)
Do you ever wonder if the frogs inside the pot KNOW the water temperature is getting warm? Because we do. And we're kinda talking amongst ourselves, but we don't have the power of the men with the b̶u̶r̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶b̶ lobbying power of Copyright maximalists.
The NSA has several layers of review of FOIA requests and plausive responses. At each layer the default is to either ignore it for a long time, say no, or return with blacked-out information.
That this passed EACH AND EVERY ONE of those layers without a delay... without blacking out... and without a refusal (or a GLOMAR) is pretty much clear indication that this Mad Hatter tea party is no primer... is no guide... it's just a crazy-ass acid trip into broken Greek mythology.
"Frankly, all the talk about how the counterclaims have sunk the settlement seem like wishful thinking from a group of folks who just hate the idea of Axanar."
The "group of folks who just hate the idea of Axanar" are part of (or paid by) the group of folks that believe ratcheting i̶n̶t̶e̶l̶l̶e̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ imaginary property; they believe that elements that can be copyrighted create concepts that can be copyrighted; they believe that through endless litigation like this case they can extend these non-rights until they are absolute and inviolable.
Those of us who've spent years working with lawyers know that at the end of the day it is the _client_ that makes the decisions. That's why Donald Trump's lawyer does stupid things; it's why the lawyers here have to file a clever and strongly-worded reply to the complaint... and add counterclaims as appropriate.
Thank you for the update. It will be a refreshing nod to not extending copyright concepts if Axanar is able to produce the movie... and the lawsuit is settled.
E P.S. I would never expect it to be "dropped" nor "dismissed" because no company with half a desire to protect its "IP" would want to set that precedent...
I don't care if Whatever is Whomever and I don't think most people reading comments on TD do either.
Credibility in online comments comes either because the comment is incredibly useful in content (either insightful, informative, funny, etc.) or (and also) because the commentator is well-known... like ThatOneGuy.
However, no matter what, if what you post is trollish boorish uneducated "rabble rabble rabble" all you're doing is spewing. If you did it at the dinner table mom would send you to go get a mop and clean it before going to your room. In an online forum defending free expression -- even anonymously, it's not quite that simple.
I read the troll stuff and laugh. Nobody who reads TD with an open mind hates Ron Wyden. Only people with agendas (paid or otherwise) do.
Part of reading is critical thinking. If you can do that you can ignore the trolls. It just annoys them more.
Begging the question of legal installation of malware
Throughout all these discussion the begged question seems to be whether it's lawful to install malware if done by law enforcement in the first place.
There is a fundamental difference between malware that spies on me and a planted hidden microphone. Even the latter have been problematic (see e.g. FBI and California courthouse steps). The former, however, do much more than merely "listen". They STEAL CPU-cycles, STEAL electricity, STEAL cooling, STEAL memory, and render some percentage of your otherwise 100%-yours PC no longer yours. That theft of service should require a warrant.
Second, the malware itself may open the system up to other attacks. No matter how insecure Windows is, there's a prevailing assumption that if the user doesn't download malicious software then it will be fairly secure. Here's a piece of malicious software forced on the user, that has not undergone security review to see if it's free of any "mal" intent other than that of its authors and users.
I would like to see the media step up and start questioning where the hell the government got the idea they have the LAWFUL RIGHT to install malware, STEAL the above items, and OPEN the computer up to potential other attacks... all things that are FAR FAR FAR and beyond a simple "spy microphone."
Another Friday, another astroturfer supporting police criminality
I think you're so busy blaming everyone other than the criminals you've lost the perspective.
First, Techdirt publishes articles discussing police criminal behavior -- like brutality -- daily. (Yesterday in fact there was a piece on Fox Network not wanting to show the end of a police chase that end with a man surrendering on the ground, and the criminal cops battered him.)
Second, if police weren't committing gross acts of criminal behavior -- like falsely arresting the people cleaning out the scumbag deadbeat cop's abandoned house -- there wouldn't be reports of this, some of which you find in Techdirt.
Yes, far easier to "blame the media" for reporting about criminal cops, than to take criminal cops to task, remove them from the street, or put them in prisons.
If cops held cops to the same standards as they hold everyone else, there would be more cops in prison than junkies.
There's no such thing as a good cop. There are bad cops... and those who look the other way or support them.
Snowden leaked so that classified data could go out directly to the public.
No. He didn't. He provided the information to journalists to vet and select what would be released. Also the word "so" implies that you know his reasoning... which you don't.
Classified is labeled, "Seriously damages the interests of the US." Snowden did this intentionally.
No. You have no idea which classifications in which the information he provided the journalists was categorized.
Further there is no such classification. You are perhaps thinking of "Secret" which specifically addresses harm to NATIONAL SECURITY, which is not at all "the interests of the US", something you made up, which is not part of any classification. See e.g. http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html
Petraeus gave documents to a US Officer with a security clearance. There was no disclosure to public, and hence, NOT seriously damaging US interests.
Again, "US interests" is not part of a classification. Secondly "holding a clearance" is not a license to receive information. More specifically Petraeus is the one who took an oath and HE provided information to someone who was NOT cleared to receive them.
There are three components to receiving classified information and "holding a proper level/compartment" clearance is only one.
The rub is "need to know,"
That's not "the rub". That's the second component that is REQUIRED to receive classified information. Please don't try and excuse it as a "rub" or as something you can gloss over in your zealous defense of this traitor.
but to be honest,
"To be honest" means "I'm about to make something up which is purely fabricated opinion so I'm going to tell you I'm honest so you'll feel it has added credibility."
Cheap. Very cheap. To be honest it's lame.
that's not really held strict all the time.
So now you've gone from being honest to "implying" that the rules of providing classified information aren't really rules... they're not really strict... and hey what the hey right?
Wrong. The only people who violate the strictures are those who are violating their oath and Petraeus is a perfect example of that.
Ironically, Snowden made it harder
Made what "it" harder???
because we had started to more freely share information across the government,
Bwahahahha. The least transparent administration... the most FOIA-obstructive administration... the most whistleblower-prosecuting administration... and you just pulled that sentence out your bum.
No. "We" had not started to share information more freely "across the government" even giving your random words some semblance of meaning.
but Snowden f'd that up.
...and the women who accuse Bill Cosby of rape really f'd up his reputation.
You, Sir, are absolving all who violated our rights of any responsibility... and instead putting the blame on the man who alerted the media of those violations.
People don't trust NSA as much because when's their next guy going to leak?
No. People don't trust the NSA because the NSA has acted in an unconstitutional and untrustworthy manner and been brazen about running roughshod on our rights.
NOBODY ON THIS EARTH other than you says "We trust the NSA less because who knows when another person will leak information." People say "We DON'T trust the NSA because they do shifty things, they lie, they obfuscate, they interpret English words incorrectly to justify their lies and violations."
When you have a guy or two "go rogue," it gives you a black eye with other agencies.
When you have women complaining about being raped it makes the guy who did it look bad with his golf buddies.
The NSA has gone rogue with its data collections practices. They have given the US intelligence services two black eyes.
I agree with Petraeaus, and I'll go a step farther to say, "Snowden should hang from a rope from a very tall tree."
Finally you label an opinion as such. Good for you. I disagree. Also hanging is accomplished from an available branch, not a "very tall tree". Nobody scales trees to hang people, Sir.
You sign an agreement, and in cases of some, give an oath that you will protect this country when given information.
Yes, Petraeus DID sign that agreement and he DID take an oath... and then he gave classified documents to a third party.
Snowden's release led directly to grave damage.
No it didn't. Instead of a bland assertion I invite you to back up your comment with evidence.
In war, he'd be shot on the spot.
Wow, not only do you know nothing about handling classified information, but you know NOTHING about war.
Petraeus' classified was just an embarrassment, more because he was having an affair.
No. It was not "just an embarrassment." It wasn't "just a rub". It wasn't any of these excuses you've used to attempt to make light of a very serious thing -- the same serious thing you want to hang Snowden from an absurdly tall tree.
Do you seriously think he's the first GO to share information with his biographer to assist them doing their job? No.
How is this relevant?
David Petraeus violated his oath and provided classified intel to a third party. That is a crime and only his connections got him pled down to a misdemeanor.
That anyone else did it or will do it doesn't change the nature of his crime.
I appreciate your sophistry... it's quite clever. However, the true traitor is Petraeus... and those who attempt to rationalize and justify his behavior. Worse - those who would blame the victim.