The judge states that Damrah has not been overturned or altered, and it never will be, unless claims can be heard that might overturn or alter it. This is just another showing that precedent can be a type of cult; it was meant to be a framework in unfamiliar situations—not a religion that creates insurmountable burdens for the aggrieved.
Why bother using your reasoning faculties to judge cases when you can just invent a requirement for others to parrot precedent and show where on the doll that the bad official touched your clearly established rights? It’s a brilliant cop-out, really. Too bad that it flies in the face of the clearly established right to redress grievances—with precedent dating back to common law times—and equally bad about that pesky Constitutional provision concerning the government not having the authority to assume undelegated powers. One might be inclined to think that a judiciary that creates schemes that have the effect of negating all but exemplified rights might be overstepping just a tad, if one thought at all.
The Commonwealth's reasoning that "little or nothing to the sum total of the government's information" would be added by the admission of this evidence is at odds with the fact that the case itself hinges on the outcome.
I agree that there's a moral responsibility here, however, I think that the responsibility is for cryptographers to protect others from idiots in government that believe they have a right to eavesdrop on every communication, especially in the absence of wrongdoing. Cryptographic enthusiasts should be educating their fellow citizens on how to best secure private information, as the campaign against encryption is actually a war on personal liberty.
Tim Cushing wrote: "...there's nothing at all in the law preventing employers from using DNA data to screen out potential employees who might be a net loss on company-provided insurance plans."
I have a quibble with this statement. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act protects against premium increases and denial of health insurance benefits by employers. It also prevents them from using genetic test results as the basis for hiring or firing decisions. This isn't to say there aren't ways to discriminate without appearing to use such information, but there is something in the law to prevent that particular problem, and the EEOC would act on your behalf, if you can prove discrimination.
That said, I think the boilerplate agreement is just awful and facially unconscionable, as it is completely one-sided. It also denies the author of expressed DNA—namely you, the testee—a copyright interest in your cells' work product without any consideration.
I'm not sure how you can "fail to preserve" something that is inalienable; you have the RIGHT to not testify against yourself—it's not an opt-in arrangement. I believe I read that the defendant in this case has already stated that he has forgotten the password, so any conclusion that he knows it is no longer forgone. Continuing to mete out punishment for a lack of production further implicates the right to remain silent; if he now produces the password, he will be testifying to the fact that he committed perjury.
Is there some exemption in the eighth amendment for cruel and unusual punishment by the military? I don't know if this situation is that unusual for army prisoners, but these conditions are indisputably torturous and surely constitute human rights violations.
If a monkey can’t hold copyright on a picture that it took if itself because it’s not recognized as a legal entity, then how can money be a defendant? Where is the personhood? Where is the due process in presuming the money acted in any way—let alone criminally? The ludicrous majority opinion in this case is dangerous for the world; it shows that the judiciary has devolved into the unthinking hammer of the US government, rather than a forum for justice.
As for keeping names and addresses, that is what a census is. Historical census returns are invaluable for the study of...
Perhaps it's different in other countries, but the intended purpose of the census in the US is for the apportionment of representation. You can pass information to your descendants without census mission creep or governmental assistance. Kids would probably value a family tree that was created and passed down by an ancestor more so than census data that was collected without their forebears' informed consent, and it would probably be more accurate than the BS responses that will be returned for the Australian census.
Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve Liberty, so let’s throw that concept right out the window and just fork over our communication security and privacy interests on demand? Let freedom ring.
If a provider that you have a business relationship with turns over information without a warrant—especially location data they are legally compelled to collect for 911 service—and does so with no resistance, then they are not third parties; they are de facto agents of the government.
Any conclusion that is forgone is a non-argument; evidentialism requires proof. It’s possible the guy is guilty as sin, but he is clearly being denied due process by being confined without charge. The growing use of the foregone conclusion doctrine, coupled with the All Writs Act, is nothing short of the second coming of the Inquisition—the State just knows that you are guilty; this is not history we should suffer to repeat.
The Act specifically states it must be used in accordance with the principles of law. What principle is it where a citizen has to help their government understand encoded works? The State’s characterization of this act as mere production is intentionally misleading. He is being ordered by an entity that is barred from so doing to work against his own rights and realize whatever evidence may be on that drive. Code is considered speech, so such decoding would naturally be testimonial.
Warrantless, haphazard collection is plainly illegal—even if it only affects hundreds of people; Clapper hasn't answered honestly because the answer is "we monitor everyone who sends anything upstream," and that admission would be all the evidence we need to gain standing and legally challenge the program, which begins its unlawfulness at the point of seizure.
I’m astounded by the glaring negligence and willful ignorance of this cop's roadside cavity search, which is, unmistakably, battery, if not attempted manslaughter. The cop’s untrained pushing, pulling, and squeezing could’ve easily perforated the victim’s colon.
It’s also amazing that this didn’t end up with someone being killed, because the guy would’ve been totally justifed in using force against the officer. You have the absolute right to protect yourself from assault.
So, what changed? Why are we stepping gingerly to ensure that canary reporting is legal? Of course it’s legal—it’s speech about what should be a public activity. If the government is asserting that its privileges trump our right to speak, then it needs to be disabused of that notion through civil disobedience.
To the extent Apple’s software includes expressive elements—such as variable names and comments—the Order permits Apple to express whatever it wants, so long as the software functions.
The FBI plans to let Apple choose their variable names and make notes in their own code? How magnanimous! I’m sure that the people who died in the founding and service of this country would appreaciate the government’s redefinition of the constituent elements of speech and forcing people to write things that have been relegated to non-expressive status. /s
The All Writs Act states that it must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law;" as we no longer adhere to the principle that slavery is just or permissible, then how is slavery in the service of the State agreeable? That's exactly what law enforcement is trying to do: enslave Apple to be their little deputy because they might possibly help, regardless of their non-affiliation with the events or their willingness to participate. This won't stop at phones. Once this inch is given, they will come for the proverbial yard; this will apply to all devices by any manufacturer—"You made it, so you'll facilitate our access to it and to our specifications."