declan

57 ms·

661.
by declan 13y ago
No, because the allegation is untrue. In fact Google was challenging the legality of FedGov national security letters in two different courts (my article in May was the first to disclose this) even before the Snowden documents began to appe
662.
by declan 13y ago
Of course that article was back in June, and if you read the followup, a day later, written by yours truly, you'll see your assertion is untrue: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...
663.
by declan 13y ago
This is a point that the late Jungian psychologist James Hillman raised (and I encountered for the first time) in his book a decade ago titled "A Terrible Love of War." http://www.amazon.com/Terrible-Love-War-James
664.
by declan 13y ago
There's been a lot of movement in the legal community (well, outside of FedGov) for rethinking Smith v. Maryland. This may give SCOTUS an opportunity. I doubt they'd go as far as today's opinion, but there's plenty of sc
665.
by declan 13y ago
The judge's opinion enjoins NSA phone metadata collection only as it relates to two plaintiffs: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/412697277363286016 But legally and politically, especially if the ruling is u
666.
by declan 13y ago
Um, the judge went as far as he could given the procedural posture of the case. He was not asked at this stage to go any further; nor could he have. Yes, many provisions of the Constitution and BoR are widely ignored by congresscritters, bu
667.
by declan 13y ago
You might want to read the Supreme Court's recent Jones case re: GPS devices.
668.
by declan 13y ago
You wrote: "the stuff that would have been captured by a pen register decades ago" Yes, but pen registers (as noted in Judge Leon's opinion today) were different: they lasted a few days and were targeted at an individual. Nei
669.
by declan 13y ago
And let's not forget about FedGov reportedly activating laptop cameras without the indicator lights turning on (presumably microphones too): http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2013/12/
670.
by declan 13y ago
bradleyjg: I generally agree except that "if the district court had ruled the other way, maybe that would have been the end of the story." This was a case that would have been appealed no matter who won and who lost. Still, the fa
671.
by declan 13y ago
I wish you luck with your research, but I'm not sure your look at Google Analytics is relevant to this discussion or the Washington Post article that started this thread. First, as <bdt101> pointed out, you "cannot track a u
672.
by declan 13y ago
Exactly. This would be a dream job for a heck of a lot of HN regulars: running your own shop, with no significant money worries, and a decent chance of changing the world. If this is the "doghouse," I'd be happy to be there t
673.
by declan 13y ago
It is all about free speech. Publishing incorrect information about the financial situation of a bank (in the way Mish did it, and even assuming it's incorrect) is protected by the First Amendment in the United States. But it is not in
674.
by declan 13y ago
France can claim jurisdiction as much as it likes, but U.S. courts will not as a practical matter (we settled this in the Yahoo case) recognize it and enforce the judgment.
675.
by declan 13y ago
Yes, other countries have silly laws. I'm sure if you set up a blog complaining about the king of Swaziland, for instance, and his predilection for selecting an additional wife, willing or not, every year from the selection of bare-bre
676.
by declan 13y ago
This judgment is unenforceable in the United States as a matter of public policy (thanks to our First Amendment). So it's merely an attempt by Société Générale to muzzle critics. If Mish were a multinational company with operations in
677.
by declan 13y ago
France has no jurisdiction. U.S. courts will not enforce this civil judgment. Our 1A precludes them from doing so. And the blogger in question said he's not going to France. (BTW, a civil judgment is not "a crime by French law.&qu
678.
by declan 13y ago
The question is whether the federal law criminalizing the sale and possession (not just sale!) of certain pharmaceuticals is just, sensible, and constitutional.
679.
by declan 13y ago
You're missing the point. If the crime on the books is "criticizing the government," you can have all your procedural due process safeguards of presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But I'll still
680.
by declan 13y ago
Pick up any (current) weekly magazine at a newsstand and you'll see the date on the cover is in the future. Commonplace in the business. It can be a little odd to see this practice transferred online, I admit.
681.
by declan 13y ago
>"There was no due process" If you have an unjust law on the books, you can have all the due process you want while being arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and jailed, and that doesn't help you one whit.
682.
by declan 13y ago
And Mark Cuban. See this week's WSJ oped: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230328990...
683.
by declan 13y ago
You could just as well argue: "Look how well the expansion of FedGov worked. Spoilers: Not very well. The USA has thrived when it has been more free and stagnated under more government. We are currently in a 40-year period of more and
684.
by declan 13y ago
Sorry, just saw this response now. There's plenty of bullshit that's pouring out of Silicon Valley, sure, but it's generated by marketing departments or startup CEOs hoping to be the next billion-dollar-Instagram. I honestly
685.
by declan 13y ago
I think this is right. There's a (let's say) 0.01% chance of false positives and being detained and hassled by FedGov border cops, and this guy was in that category. It's not just American border cops. Like the parent poster,
686.
by declan 13y ago
No, it sounds like a species of killer apes. Which is what we are; Raymond Dart was right. If you're serious about "ethical problems" letting our species of killer apes off of our home planet, how exactly do you propose to st
687.
by declan 13y ago
If I read this recent (post-Snowden) blog post of spaf's correctly, he hasn't: https://www.cerias.purdue.edu/site/blog/post/just_sayin/ Though he notes that his armored car quip is approaching
688.
by declan 13y ago
Yep (though it's a constitutional republic, not a constitutional democracy). My point is that discussions about moving the slider even more away from 100% pure democracy should be within the realm of reasonable discourse.
689.
by declan 13y ago
>"You can't leave and start your own brand new world." Of course people can, and will. Humans have endured great hardships and mortal peril many times for political or religious or other reasons. For Americans, the Puritan
690.
by declan 13y ago
If you think of democracy as being majoritarian, the U.S. Bill of Rights is explicitly designed to be anti-democratic. Just read the language: “Congress shall make no law.” “Shall not be infringed.” “Shall not be violated.” “Nor shall be co

More ›