Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[strawman]

So Obama should've done nothing with foreign policy? I don't know what you're saying here. You know the whole reason they used that list (aside from it excluding Trump's business partners) was so when people complained they could pretend that Obama did the exact same thing. Nothing was stopping them from coming up with their own list of countries.

I'm glad you have an opinion on what the new administration should have done. It has nothing to do with my point, which is that if you make a list you may be pointing a gun that you can't foresee or understand.

I suggest, therefore, a careful look at all the lists the previous administration made and consideration about how the current administration will abuse them.

I suggest we should generally be discouraging such lists, and only make them under exceptional circumstances and limit them as much as possible.

It's not obamas direct fault that the current administration is abusing one of his lists, but he isn't entirely blameless either.

Lists are necessarily general in nature and will sweep innocent as well as malicious into the bin.

All I'm suggesting is that we should be more careful making them in the first place.

 

[GasBandit]

OH THANK FUCKING GOD FINALLY.

FCC votes to eliminate paper hard copy requirement in broadcaster Public Files.

This was such a pain in my ass every 3 months.

 

[PatrThom]

Now you'll just have to scan everything in BMP format and burn it to CDs.

--Patrick

 

[Dave]

OH THANK FUCKING GOD FINALLY.

FCC votes to eliminate paper hard copy requirement in broadcaster Public Files.

This was such a pain in my ass every 3 months.

Sweet! One more and we can add a new regulation!

 

[GasBandit]

Sweet! One more and we can add a new regulation!

Well if you're looking for a place to slash regulations, there's a whole lot in the "broadcasting" area of the FCC that definitely could stand having a weed-whacker taken to it.

 

[Necronic]

My wife and I have strong disagreements over Bill Maher. She thinks he's this hilarious liberal comedian and I think he's a pretentious condescending anti-vax dickhead whose snide ideology is right in line with what caused the left to lose the Midwest.

Anyways. She showed me the video and all I could think was that I'm pretty god damned sure he was just as willing to jump on that "PC bandwagon" as anyone else if it suited him at the time.

Nonetheless, his point is cogent. But he is still a gigantic fucking bag of cocks.

 

[Eriol]

This is disturbing. I think the guy's guilty as sin, but the method is scary: Cops use pacemaker data to charge homeowner with arson, insurance fraud

I'm with the article: you shouldn't be able to use people's implanted technology against them. That will get really tricky as technology marches on, but the alternative is much much scarier IMO. To be clear, in this case, not only is the guy likely guilty as sin (only charged so far) but they also got a warrant first, so there's not the issue of the lack of such either.

 

[mikerc]

This is disturbing. I think the guy's guilty as sin, but the method is scary: Cops use pacemaker data to charge homeowner with arson, insurance fraud

I'm with the article: you shouldn't be able to use people's implanted technology against them. That will get really tricky as technology marches on, but the alternative is much much scarier IMO. To be clear, in this case, not only is the guy likely guilty as sin (only charged so far) but they also got a warrant first, so there's not the issue of the lack of such either.

Reading the article, looks like they have a decent chance of getting a conviction without this. I can see why they're using it - better an almost certain conviction than a merely probable one, but if he is convicted how much do you want to bet he has lawyers lining up to appeal his case on the grounds this violates his Fifth Amendment rights?

 

[Denbrought]

Reading the article, looks like they have a decent chance of getting a conviction without this. I can see why they're using it - better an almost certain conviction than a merely probable one, but if he is convicted how much do you want to bet he has lawyers lining up to appeal his case on the grounds this violates his Fifth Amendment rights?

But why would it? Body/cavity searches are constitutional, and so are search & seizures of non-encrypted computer data. Either this computer is part of his body (so a warrant to inspect it can be obtained), or it's his property (and a warrant to inspect it can be obtained). Similarly, no matter how much of my day-to-day thinking I offload to my calendar and to-do lists, they do not legally become mini-minds (well, I guess they do inform the courts as to my mental state). Implanting a Fitbit in my arm does not make it warrant-proof. This guy, medical need or not, effectively wiretapped himself.

I do hope cases like this raise the profile of the horrid state of medical device security. I don't imagine that getting much better unless computerized body mods (which would naturally be startup-ish and attract security-minded people) take off and an industry overlap appears.

 

[Eriol]

But why would it? Body/cavity searches are constitutional, and so are search & seizures of non-encrypted computer data. Either this computer is part of his body (so a warrant to inspect it can be obtained), or it's his property (and a warrant to inspect it can be obtained). Similarly, no matter how much of my day-to-day thinking I offload to my calendar and to-do lists, they do not legally become mini-minds (well, I guess they do inform the courts as to my mental state). Implanting a Fitbit in my arm does not make it warrant-proof. This guy, medical need or not, effectively wiretapped himself.

I do hope cases like this raise the profile of the horrid state of medical device security. I don't imagine that getting much better unless computerized body mods (which would naturally be startup-ish and attract security-minded people) take off and an industry overlap appears.

IMO these two videos (especially the 2nd) is why this shouldn't be allowed IMO:



Better to have the precedent from when it wasn't possible but foreseeable, than open season on our brains when it IS possible.

 

[mikerc]

But why would it? Body/cavity searches are constitutional, and so are search & seizures of non-encrypted computer data. Either this computer is part of his body (so a warrant to inspect it can be obtained), or it's his property (and a warrant to inspect it can be obtained). Similarly, no matter how much of my day-to-day thinking I offload to my calendar and to-do lists, they do not legally become mini-minds (well, I guess they do inform the courts as to my mental state). Implanting a Fitbit in my arm does not make it warrant-proof. This guy, medical need or not, effectively wiretapped himself.

I do hope cases like this raise the profile of the horrid state of medical device security. I don't imagine that getting much better unless computerized body mods (which would naturally be startup-ish and attract security-minded people) take off and an industry overlap appears.

Maybe it doesn't - IANAL. But I do think it's enough of a grey area that we'll have lawyers wanting to fight his case, and as @Eriol says, better to have the precedent now than later.

 

[Denbrought]

Decent videos, though, regarding the first one, I don't think is what we were talking about. Legally-mandated backdoors are not the same as searches of unencrypted systems.

Better to have the precedent from when it wasn't possible but foreseeable, than open season on our brains when it IS possible.

I don't think this is an area where reinterpretation fits. This should be legislated after public outcry, not left to activist judges to do (and undo). I am very sympathetic to the idea, as I hold views very close to transhumanism, but I don't see how you can extend self-incrimination rights as-is from mind to matter (or grant personhood to a blob of non-sentient silicon).[DOUBLEPOST=1485996892,1485996800][/DOUBLEPOST]

Maybe it doesn't - IANAL. But I do think it's enough of a grey area that we'll have lawyers wanting to fight his case, and as @Eriol says, better to have the precedent now than later.

It won't be good precedent, most likely. Judges are often idiots when it comes to technology (see every recent tech case). I'd rather have a moratorium on exploring this stuff until we're closer to it, if only for the sake of letting some basic ideas about computers penetrate the legal system.

 

[mikerc]

Decent videos, though, regarding the first one, I don't think is what we were talking about. Legally-mandated backdoors are not the same as searches of unencrypted systems.


I don't think this is an area where reinterpretation fits. This should be legislated after public outcry, not left to activist judges to do (and undo). I am very sympathetic to the idea, as I hold views very close to transhumanism, but I don't see how you can extend self-incrimination rights as-is from mind to matter (or grant personhood to a blob of non-sentient silicon).

Actually, there's a point. With this being a possible Constitution issue, what are the chances of this making it to the SC?

 

[Denbrought]

Actually, there's a point. With this being a possible Constitution issue, what are the chances of this making it to the SC?

Who knows. Since the implant was on voluntarily, and there is no government mandate (that I know of) requiring medical devices to record/store their readings, I don't see there being much of a legal question here. iAnal applies in spades here.

 

[Eriol]

Decent videos, though, regarding the first one, I don't think is what we were talking about. Legally-mandated backdoors are not the same as searches of unencrypted systems.

When it's "we're implanting this, or you're dead" there's a different legal standard to apply I would think.

I don't think this is an area where reinterpretation fits. This should be legislated after public outcry, not left to activist judges to do (and undo). I am very sympathetic to the idea, as I hold views very close to transhumanism, but I don't see how you can extend self-incrimination rights as-is from mind to matter (or grant personhood to a blob of non-sentient silicon).

It won't be good precedent, most likely. Judges are often idiots when it comes to technology (see every recent tech case). I'd rather have a moratorium on exploring this stuff until we're closer to it, if only for the sake of letting some basic ideas about computers penetrate the legal system.

While I agree with you in principle on this one, I'd rather have an overly-broad precedent on the side of privacy, than the other side of it, like your FISA (right acronym? Not sure) court that rubber-stamps EVERYTHING going through regardless for spying. The added "he needed this device or would die" aspect may sway the court in this one case to make the search warrant for it (and any evidence therein) inadmissible. He's still (likely) guilty as sin based on all the OTHER evidence in the case however, so no injustice either. Strong vote for privacy of your body (or things implanted therein) and the guy still goes to jail! Win-win!

 

[Denbrought]

When it's "we're implanting this, or you're dead" there's a different legal standard to apply I would think.

Hence my mentioning the relevance of whether there's a regulation reason why the pacemaker must record/store data. If there isn't, then it was his choice to get or retain a device that was monitoring him.

While I agree with you in principle on this one, I'd rather have an overly-broad precedent on the side of privacy, than the other side of it, like your FISA (right acronym? Not sure) court that rubber-stamps EVERYTHING going through regardless for spying. The added "he needed this device or would die" aspect may sway the court in this one case to make the search warrant for it (and any evidence therein) inadmissible. He's still (likely) guilty as sin based on all the OTHER evidence in the case however, so no injustice either. Strong vote for privacy of your body (or things implanted therein) and the guy still goes to jail! Win-win!

Sure, I'd rather have strong protections for privacy too but I think that, long term, the U.S. needs stronger privacy laws, not rulings. If the judicial was going to fix the shit that keeps slipping through, like parallel construction, it would've happened by now.

I don't care about the object level of this case, and whether the guy is convicted or not. I care that building castles on legal air seems to lead to hazy/brittle rights, IMO.

 

[PatrThom]

Well, now we see whether or not that model of pacemaker remains popular with other patients.

--Patrick

 

[evilmike]

I would like to congratulate the protestors on making Milo Yiannopoulos look reasoned and thoughtful.

You're doing it wrong.

 

[MindDetective]

"The events...should slam citizens..."? Who wrote that? Geez.

 

[blotsfan]

You're doing it wrong.

I agree. They didn't get Milo.

 

[Sara_2814]

"The events...should slam citizens..."? Who wrote that? Geez.

It says the events should alarm citizens.

 

[evilmike]

I agree. They didn't get Milo.

What exactly are you hoping would have happened to him?

 

[MindDetective]

It says the events should alarm citizens.

So it does! Stupid eyes.

 

[blotsfan]

What exactly are you hoping would have happened to him?

I mean, him not being alive anymore would be kinda nice.

But in all seriousness, the protests were peaceful until an anarchist group joined in for the explicit purpose of finding an excuse to riot.

 

[Tress]

But in all seriousness, the protests were peaceful until an anarchist group joined in for the explicit purpose of finding an excuse to riot.

100% true. There is a group of anarchists here who deliberately bring violence and chaos to any protest in the Oakland/Berkeley area. It's infuriating, and of course the media then covers their actions as if they were actually part of the protest.

Imagine if one person here on Halforums did something heinous, like post child pornography. Should the media be reporting on a website that distributes child pornography and paint all of us with the same brush?

 

[Hailey Knight]

Icarus... not my president.

 

[Eriol]

100% true. There is a group of anarchists here who deliberately bring violence and chaos to any protest in the Oakland/Berkeley area. It's infuriating, and of course the media then covers their actions as if they were actually part of the protest.

Imagine if one person here on Halforums did something heinous, like post child pornography. Should the media be reporting on a website that distributes child pornography and paint all of us with the same brush?

They would. Maybe they shouldn't, but they would.

 

[GasBandit]

 

[Tress]

They would. Maybe they shouldn't, but they would.

Oh, I'm sure they would. But I'm saying they shouldn't, the same way we shouldn't be condemning all of the protesters for the violent actions of a small group (that wasn't really there to protest anyway).

 

[GasBandit]

I mean, him not being alive anymore would be kinda nice.

Haaaaa ha wow.

About 8 different things ran through my head right now to post, all of which I'm pretty sure would end up starting a fight.

 

[blotsfan]

Sorry that was poorly worded. Let me rephrase that:

I hope the second amendment people do something about him.

 

[GasBandit]

Sorry that was poorly worded. Let me rephrase that:

I hope the second amendment people do something about him.

But the people who protest him are generally the kind of people who hate the Second Amendment. Especially around UC Berkeley.

 

[blotsfan]

Yeah, but that's the presidential way to say you hope someone dies.

 

[Necronic]

The far left are some of the most irritating people out there. Especially Cali anarchists.

Shit like this is why trump won.

 

[AshburnerX]

If something happened to Milo, I wouldn't shed a tear. That's not a call for anything TO happen though, if only because his facist buddies would use it as an excuse to do something awful.

Regardless, I don't feel safe with people like him around. I have relatives of Jewish descent and, for the first time in my life, I actually have to seriously consider what I have to do if someone comes for them... because it's clear where the people who are SUPPOSED to protect us are standing with.