Will airlines force employees get vaccine??
#201
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2020
Posts: 484
FISA is a closed, classified eco-system with big stakes (state-sponsored nuclear terrorism at the high end)
A domestic system would involve the normal judiciary, elected mostly, some appointed at the upper levels. But more responsive (and more importantly) more open that FISA.
I don't really like it either, but I could see it becoming desired by the electorate via representatives someday, and also potentially passing the constitutional test.
A domestic system would involve the normal judiciary, elected mostly, some appointed at the upper levels. But more responsive (and more importantly) more open that FISA.
I don't really like it either, but I could see it becoming desired by the electorate via representatives someday, and also potentially passing the constitutional test.
As to the encryption two things one if they want my password get a warrant and I’ll have to provide it. Or I’ll be in contempt of court. This is like telling me what kind of locks I can have on my house or what kind of safe I can have. If you put a back door on my data I am less concerned about uncle and sam and far more concerned about hackers stealing my data. You can’t have a back door that only the good guys can use.
Also they currently can get into an Apple product it just expensive and time consuming.
#202
As to the encryption two things one if they want my password get a warrant and I’ll have to provide it. Or I’ll be in contempt of court. This is like telling me what kind of locks I can have on my house or what kind of safe I can have. If you put a back door on my data I am less concerned about uncle and sam and far more concerned about hackers stealing my data. You can’t have a back door that only the good guys can use.
1. How long is a judge going to hold you in contempt? Life? Probably not. If there was evidence of a serious crime on your device, criminals might just wait it out... a year or three in the local hoosegow is better than a capital felony. The application would be inconsistent, since contempt is in the eye of the judge.
2. The real problem... what if you forgot your password? I probably have old devices in my closet which I'd be hard-pressed to recall or find the password to... and they are very encrypted. Soon enough precedent would be set that you can't hold someone indefinitely in contempt if they forgot their password... burden would be on the government to prove that you remembered it or otherwise had access.
It would also be relatively easy to make that effectively impossible. There's a market for that (criminals and conspiracy theorists), and it wouldn't cost that much more to implement.
#203
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2020
Posts: 484
Slight problems.
1. How long is a judge going to hold you in contempt? Life? Probably not. If there was evidence of a serious crime on your device, criminals might just wait it out... a year or three in the local hoosegow is better than a capital felony. The application would be inconsistent, since contempt is in the eye of the judge.
2. The real problem... what if you forgot your password? I probably have old devices in my closet which I'd be hard-pressed to recall or find the password to... and they are very encrypted. Soon enough precedent would be set that you can't hold someone indefinitely in contempt if they forgot their password... burden would be on the government to prove that you remembered it or otherwise had access.
It's also not guaranteed, depends on the security hygiene of the user.
It would also be relatively easy to make that effectively impossible. There's a market for that (criminals and conspiracy theorists), and it wouldn't cost that much more to implement.
1. How long is a judge going to hold you in contempt? Life? Probably not. If there was evidence of a serious crime on your device, criminals might just wait it out... a year or three in the local hoosegow is better than a capital felony. The application would be inconsistent, since contempt is in the eye of the judge.
2. The real problem... what if you forgot your password? I probably have old devices in my closet which I'd be hard-pressed to recall or find the password to... and they are very encrypted. Soon enough precedent would be set that you can't hold someone indefinitely in contempt if they forgot their password... burden would be on the government to prove that you remembered it or otherwise had access.
It's also not guaranteed, depends on the security hygiene of the user.
It would also be relatively easy to make that effectively impossible. There's a market for that (criminals and conspiracy theorists), and it wouldn't cost that much more to implement.
The FBI has gotten into everyone they wanted to. The short non tech version you clone the hard drive over and over and brute force the passcode until one works. The Pensacola shooter took six months and two million dollars but they got it. They want a back door simple enough that it could be done quickly. The problem is as soon as that weak point exist a hacker is gonna gain access. It will be faster then you think too. I have two friends that are white hat hackers. (ethical and legal hackers for those who don’t know) Point is you don’t want to start creating weak points in encryption. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.
#204
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The problem is the second comma should have been a semi-colon but apparently the framers either thought it was obvious enough, or had different practices in the use of punctuation. That's the kind of thing we apparently need a high court to weigh in on, although the obvious presumption in this case is that we have 200 years of precedent where nobody, from the founding fathers on, thought that comma was anything but a hard delineation.
The problem is the second comma should have been a semi-colon but apparently the framers either thought it was obvious enough, or had different practices in the use of punctuation. That's the kind of thing we apparently need a high court to weigh in on, although the obvious presumption in this case is that we have 200 years of precedent where nobody, from the founding fathers on, thought that comma was anything but a hard delineation.
http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-c...e-BOOKEIC2.pdf
it ran more on the style du jour than hard and fast rules.
#205
Brute-forcing good encryption is harder (much much harder). Simply apply multiple layers of encryption. When you guess the right password for the first layer... you'll never know because all it shows you is gibberish. You'd have to brute-force multiple layers... if each layer has a gazzilion possibilities you're looking at one gazillion to the gazillionth power just to crack two layers. It is entirely practical to apply encryption today which cannot practically be cracked, your average low-grade self-radical or pedophile doesn't go to the trouble. But it's easily within the capabilities or organized crime or organized terrorists. I could do it right now... I have two layers of encryption, one is good the other is bitlocker. Bitlocker could be cracked by brute-forcing my windows password, leaving one layer which the NSA or FBI could crack after a few years of dedicated super-computer time. But I'm just worried about hackers or computer thieves, not the federal government. If I wanted to make it NSA proof, I'd just get a dedicated data drive and apply several different encryption algorithms (with loooong keys) on top of each other. Maybe that could be cracked by quantum computers 100 years down the road.
They want a back door simple enough that it could be done quickly. The problem is as soon as that weak point exist a hacker is gonna gain access. It will be faster then you think too. I have two friends that are white hat hackers. (ethical and legal hackers for those who don’t know) Point is you don’t want to start creating weak points in encryption. There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.
#206
I'm not claiming to be a constitutional scholar, I'm just applying plain English. Sonic said it means what it means in the time it was written, so when it was written, the most dangerous weapon was a musket/cannon, so that must be what they are referring to, in the militia of course.
#207
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
However, the context, and the sentence, is referring to a well-regulated militia, not the population, if it was just "the people", that part about the militia would have been left out. And then there's "arms", that means anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb.
I'm not claiming to be a constitutional scholar, I'm just applying plain English. Sonic said it means what it means in the time it was written, so when it was written, the most dangerous weapon was a musket/cannon, so that must be what they are referring to, in the militia of course.
I'm not claiming to be a constitutional scholar, I'm just applying plain English. Sonic said it means what it means in the time it was written, so when it was written, the most dangerous weapon was a musket/cannon, so that must be what they are referring to, in the militia of course.
The Militia and the People are two distinct and separate things. The term “the People” is used in multiple places throughout the Constitution, and all in the same way.
You are more than welcome to disagree with the Amendment, but don’t make stuff up to try to get it to say something it does not. When you do that, your reasoning is no better than the judges in the Dred Scott case who claimed the Constitution never intended for black citizens, despite it not being mentioned anywhere.
Edit: Speaking of Dred Scott, part of the decision was based on the 2nd Amendment:
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
Notice how they are trying to justify why black citizens can’t exist, just as you are trying to justify why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.
Last edited by NE_Pilot; 08-28-2020 at 04:03 AM.
#208
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,531
Doh!!
Ever wonder how People's Party or Central Committee charters protecting individual freedom becomes toilet paper for those on trial? How Sharia law decrees manipulate the Koran anyway deemed necessary? No reason to believe that can't happen here. Fahrenheit 451, running a tad behind is all. A law & order regime sprouts from the reploughed fields of the present one. Its harvester won't tell jokes, comb-over an idiosyncratic hair doo or wear golf shoes. But he does manage to leg iron judicial discretion and gut 2nd amendment prerogatives. Also spearheads full employment, compulsory government service to facilitate democracy's evolution through a new age of intelligent natural selection. What a hey ride it's going to be. Roll up that sleeve, ace.
Ever wonder how People's Party or Central Committee charters protecting individual freedom becomes toilet paper for those on trial? How Sharia law decrees manipulate the Koran anyway deemed necessary? No reason to believe that can't happen here. Fahrenheit 451, running a tad behind is all. A law & order regime sprouts from the reploughed fields of the present one. Its harvester won't tell jokes, comb-over an idiosyncratic hair doo or wear golf shoes. But he does manage to leg iron judicial discretion and gut 2nd amendment prerogatives. Also spearheads full employment, compulsory government service to facilitate democracy's evolution through a new age of intelligent natural selection. What a hey ride it's going to be. Roll up that sleeve, ace.
#209
It does not say People of the Militia, that is your mental gymnastics inserting words that do not exist. Otherwise, according to you it would say “The people of the Militia being necessary...”
The Militia and the People are two distinct and separate things. The term “the People” is used in multiple places throughout the Constitution, and all in the same way.
You are more than welcome to disagree with the Amendment, but don’t make stuff up to try to get it to say something it does not. When you do that, your reasoning is no better than the judges in the Dred Scott case who claimed the Constitution never intended for black citizens, despite it not being mentioned anywhere.
Edit: Speaking of Dred Scott, part of the decision was based on the 2nd Amendment:
Notice how they are trying to justify why black citizens can’t exist, just as you are trying to justify why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.
The Militia and the People are two distinct and separate things. The term “the People” is used in multiple places throughout the Constitution, and all in the same way.
You are more than welcome to disagree with the Amendment, but don’t make stuff up to try to get it to say something it does not. When you do that, your reasoning is no better than the judges in the Dred Scott case who claimed the Constitution never intended for black citizens, despite it not being mentioned anywhere.
Edit: Speaking of Dred Scott, part of the decision was based on the 2nd Amendment:
Notice how they are trying to justify why black citizens can’t exist, just as you are trying to justify why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.
I don't disagree with the right to own weapons, but again, reading that sentence in plain language, I have to assume the context is the people of the militia, not all the people. Again, otherwise, militia would have been left out of the sentence. There's no reason to use it otherwise. Being at the beginning, it sets the context. But hey, that's just using the language it was written in...and you are telling us that it needs no interpretation. You are the one using mental gymnastics to tell us it needs no interpretation.
#210
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
It's amazing how you have now proven the very point you were disagreeing with.
I don't disagree with the right to own weapons, but again, reading that sentence in plain language, I have to assume the context is the people of the militia, not all the people. Again, otherwise, militia would have been left out of the sentence. There's no reason to use it otherwise. Being at the beginning, it sets the context. But hey, that's just using the language it was written in...and you are telling us that it needs no interpretation. You are the one using mental gymnastics to tell us it needs no interpretation.
I don't disagree with the right to own weapons, but again, reading that sentence in plain language, I have to assume the context is the people of the militia, not all the people. Again, otherwise, militia would have been left out of the sentence. There's no reason to use it otherwise. Being at the beginning, it sets the context. But hey, that's just using the language it was written in...and you are telling us that it needs no interpretation. You are the one using mental gymnastics to tell us it needs no interpretation.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post