|
Majorian posted:That doesn't seem to be how she died, friend.  I hope all your friends are safe and sound. Have you heard anything secondhand about what aid people who have lost their homes are getting? News stories are saying almost 6,000 houses and buildings have burnt down and 100,000 people were in evacuation zones.I totally agree with you that Democrats' plans against the national death cult are important, but the people I quoted seem really focused on keeping news exclusively about Clinton, how much they hate her, and how they feel she is representative of "establishment" Democrats, rather than have such a discussion. My feeling is that constantly turning any conversation about Democrats into an echo-chamber of Clinton/party-hate is an easy way to poison faith in positive change. Like, repeating 'both sides are as bad,' 'Clinton is just as bad as Trump,' etc over and over only discourages people from reading or contributing anything positive about political plans moving forward, and absolutely drowns out general US news ITT(there's a LOT happening rn). withak posted:There [is] an entire other thread for tediously rehashing the election of 2016 treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Oct 16, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:but the people I quoted seem really focused on keeping news exclusively about Clinton, how much they hate her, and how they feel she is representative of "establishment" Democrats, rather than have such a discussion. The topic came up, there is no sort of conspiracy to keep bashing her. The topic is going to continue to come up because: Inescapable Duck posted:The 2016 primary was just the biggest manifestation of the struggle in American politics; that centrist liberals and establishment Democrats desperately don't want to move left and actually start dealing with people's mounting problems and issues because their donors don't want them to, no matter if it means they'll lose elections to near-incoherent proto-fascist demagogues because they have literally nothing left to campaign on themselves that anyone can bring themselves to give a flying gently caress about. If you want to talk about a different topic, you can just post about the new topic without calling out everyone who was discussing a previous topic as being devious/bad in some way for talking on a forum about a topic you feel is unimportant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:
no one's actually doing that though. where did i post "both sides are bad", or "clinton is as bad as trump" at all? i don't post that cause it's stupid and wrong. i hate clinton, but she's not trump levels of bad. she's just terrible and a huge idiot to lose to trump. trump on the other hand supports fascists and may well be a fascist himself. Condiv fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Oct 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:I totally agree with you that Democrats' plans against the national death cult are important, but the people I quoted seem really focused on keeping news exclusively about Clinton, how much they hate her, and how they feel she is representative of "establishment" Democrats, rather than have such a discussion. My feeling is that constantly turning any conversation about Democrats into an echo-chamber of Clinton/party-hate is an easy way to poison faith in positive change. Like, repeating 'both sides are as bad,' 'Clinton is just as bad as Trump,' etc over and over only discourages people from reading or contributing anything positive about political plans moving forward, and absolutely drowns out general US news ITT(there's a LOT happening rn). The positive change needed is getting rid of garbage dems like Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
this whole line of discussion is explicitly what the thunderdome thread is for. please take it there or get probed
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
We need higher participation in all aspects of civic engagement. Of course, that means we need to solve capitalism. On the other hand, when all the jobs are automated away we'll have plenty of free time to vote ourselves a minimum standard of living.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:this whole line of discussion is explicitly what the thunderdome thread is for. please take it there or get probed thank you
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/robb2018/status/918830492644007936 even republican candidates are starting to call for medicare for all. I think it's time for all dems to get on board with it, instead of arguing for private insurance being a boon
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:probed 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/robb2018/status/918830492644007936 He's a Socialist Minister running as a republican though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
 ART LAFFER DOESN'T KNOW SOMETHING! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/919900022409449474 Not that there is a bill to begin with, but I'm almost impressed with how Ryan/McConnell have crafted a legislative agenda that seems specifically designed to put zero pressure on Manchin and Heitkamp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/919930273533440000 Is there any precedent regarding a phone's pass code? If I'm not mistaken that is still protected by the 5th amendment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Javes posted:https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/919930273533440000 Yep, this has been the vague status quo for a while, this doesn't create new law that I know of. Organizers have been advising participants in public demonstrations to disable fingerprint lock at least since last year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Javes posted:https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/919930273533440000 What about Android phones? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Yep, this has been the vague status quo for a while, this doesn't create new law that I know of. Organizers have been advising participants in public demonstrations to disable fingerprint lock at least since last year. Huh, glad to know that my slothful inability to keep up with phone gimmicks has actually been a defiant stand against invasions of privacy. Woohoo!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There are not 200 million fascists in the US you loving psycho. Maybe not, but there are absolutely 200 million racists, which is what I was talking about. The fact that you hear "racist" and immediately think of neo-Nazis waving swastikas is pretty striking. What about the millions of judges, teachers, and hiring managers quietly dismissing black people as just somehow not as good as white people? What about the tens of millions of wealthy white suburbanites who just "wouldn't feel safe" if black people moved into their neighborhood? If you think the only racists out there are people wearing KKK hoods, you're closer to being part of the problem than part of the solution. Jizz Festival posted:I think you've nicely demonstrated the problem with Coates' work: the takeaway is you should feel bad and there's nothing you can do to fix the problem. Black people are powerless to do anything, either, and are destined to suffer nobly while you feel really really guilty about it. You even turn against white people who want to end racism by ascribing selfish motivations to them. It's so completely useless and enervating. That's silly. There's countless real-life problems that can never truly be solved, but which society strives to solve despite knowing full well that they will never be able to end the problem completely. For example, we won't cure death within the reasonably foreseeable future, but we continue to advance medical science and procedures with the aim of reducing mortality rates and lengthening lifespans. We'll never be able to end murder completely, but we continue to work to protect people from common vectors of attack and dissuade potential murderers from multiple angles. We'll never be able to end accidental workplace deaths altogether, but we have extensive safety regulations and organizations designed to massively reduce how often they happen. Yet for all those ambitious programs, there seem to be exactly two subjects - and only two subjects - where the fact that we'll never completely solve them means we should just not bother to even try to combat them: gun violence and racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:
Hey thanks, I really appreciate it! Thankfully, all my friends, family, and acquaintances are safe, although the number of people who have lost a lot of stuff is definitely staggering. Federal aid's pretty much nonexistent (quelle surprise), but a lot of local organizations are stepping up, which is cool. Plus a bunch of businesses, big and small, are doing nice things: Comcast opened free wifi hotspots (because cell service and internet were basically nonexistent for a while in there), Airbnb has waived service fees to allow people to offer their homes for people fleeing from the fire, the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park is open for free to people affected by the fire, etc. The LA Times has a good piece up on how people can help: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-help-california-fires-20171014-story.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Javes posted:Is there any precedent regarding a phone's pass code? If I'm not mistaken that is still protected by the 5th amendment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Same think with face recognition unlock I believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:Like the other poster said it's vague. What's clear is the 5th Amendment protects against incriminating testimony. Saying "My password is 'IDefinitelyKilledJohnDoeOn10162017'" is incriminating testimony. It's not clear whether saying "My password is 'hkhj3n59vb3'" is. A court order to finger swipe your phone seems unambiguously ok, if we've already established that it is actually your phone, you have the capability to do it and it's not anymore invasive than routine finger printing. Plus, existing precedent is that "routine finger printing" isn't testimonial, even though from a certain angle it certainly is; marking your thumbprint is definitely a statement, that's why we allow thumbprint signatures in some contexts. Imho I see this decision as absolutely correct under current precedent, it's just that the 19th century precedent that fingerprinting doesn't violate the 5th is probably wrong (but also unchangeable given political realities).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:Saying "My password is 'IDefinitelyKilledJohnDoeOn10162017'" is incriminating testimony. I don't think this is accurate. Saying "my password is "x"" is not a statement asserting the truth of "x".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
The latest iOS has a semi-secret button sequence to quickly disable biometric unlock until the next non-biometric unlock, there's probably an equivalent for other major phones. Everyone should look up what theirs is, just in case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think this is accurate. Saying "my password is "x"" is not a statement asserting the truth of "x". Better example: a laptop recovered from a crime scene. If you know the password, you're identifying yourself as the owner of the laptop, and therefore possibly present at the crime scene. Especially relevant if the laptop *is* the crime scene, as in "the hacking attempt originated from a WiFi card with the MAC address of XXXXXXX" etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Plus, existing precedent is that "routine finger printing" isn't testimonial, even though from a certain angle it certainly is; marking your thumbprint is definitely a statement, that's why we allow thumbprint signatures in some contexts. Imho I see this decision as absolutely correct under current precedent, it's just that the 19th century precedent that fingerprinting doesn't violate the 5th is probably wrong (but also unchangeable given political realities). Nevvy Z posted:I don't think this is accurate. Saying "my password is "x"" is not a statement asserting the truth of "x". edit: Hieronymous Alloy posted:Better example: a laptop recovered from a crime scene. If you know the password, you're identifying yourself as the owner of the laptop, and therefore possibly present at the crime scene. Especially relevant if the laptop *is* the crime scene, as in "the hacking attempt originated from a WiFi card with the MAC address of XXXXXXX" etc. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Oct 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it should be clear that 1) I can record a confession in a password and 2) That even if you could compel me to produce my confession-password, there's no way a jury should be allowed to see it. Agreed, but it seems like it's incredibly difficult or impossible to establish that a password is a confession and not just a password. Even then you could argue that it would bias the jury.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
If password can be considered "confession", can literally any written text be considered potentially confession, and therefore non-permissible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If password can be considered "confession", can literally any written text be considered potentially confession, and therefore non-permissible? If the cops are forcing you to write it after the fact to link you to evidence against your will probably
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:The positive change needed is getting rid of garbage dems like Hillary Clinton. Impossible! Because you would classify any Democrats as garbage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
If a warrant can be issued to search your home, why would it be any more of a violation to attain one to search your phone or computer? It seems like a pointless loophole to allow a suspect to refuse to unlock their phone/computer. Kicking in a suspect's door is legal with a warrant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
And once the last centrist has been strangled with the entrails of the last liberal, surly then the people will see that communism was the way all along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:If a warrant can be issued to search your home, why would it be any more of a violation to attain one to search your phone or computer? It seems like a pointless loophole to allow a suspect to refuse to unlock their phone/computer. Kicking in a suspect's door is legal with a warrant. You can get a warrant to search a phone but you can't force someone to admit that they know the correct passcode, that's the 5th amendment issue. The police can and do use other methods to unlock phones without forcing a person to give up their passcode, they hack the phone or acquire the passcode through other means which is akin to your door kicking metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Impossible! Because you would classify any Democrats as garbage. Ogmius815 posted:And once the last centrist has been strangled with the entrails of the last liberal, surly then the people will see that communism was the way all along. didn't r guyovich literally this page tell people to take this to the thunderdome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You can get a warrant to search a phone but you can't force someone to admit that they know the correct passcode, that's the 5th amendment issue. The police can and do use other methods to unlock phones without forcing a person to give up their passcode, they hack the phone or acquire the passcode through other means which is akin to your door kicking metaphor. Ok thanks, that helps. I can't remember, can pleading the fifth be used in consideration for a verdict by the act of omission?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
take it to the thunderdome condiv.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Ok thanks, that helps. I can't remember, can pleading the fifth be used in consideration for a verdict by the act of omission? I would think not or what's the point in having it at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I would think not or what's the point in having it at all? Yeah about that, SCOTUS ruled that you only have a right to remain silent if you explicitly invoke it. If you just remain silent they can use that against you in court: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ain_silent.html quote:At trial, Salinas did not testify, but prosecutors described his reportedly uncomfortable reaction to the question about his shotgun. Salinas argued this violated his Fifth Amendment rights: He had remained silent, and the Supreme Court had previously made clear that prosecutors can’t bring up a defendant’s refusal to answer the state’s questions. This time around, however, Justice Samuel Alito blithely responded that Salinas was “free to leave” and did not assert his right to remain silent. He was silent. But somehow, without a lawyer, and without being told his rights, he should have affirmatively “invoked” his right to not answer questions. Two other justices signed on to Alito’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia joined the judgment, but for a different reason; they think Salinas had no rights at all to invoke before his arrest (they also object to Miranda itself). The upshot is another terrible Roberts Court ruling on confessions. In 2010 the court held that a suspect did not sufficiently invoke the right to remain silent when he stubbornly refused to talk, after receiving his Miranda warnings, during two hours of questioning. Now people have to somehow invoke the right to remain silent even when they’re not formal suspects and they haven’t been heard the Miranda warnings. As Orin Kerr points out on the Volokh Conspiracy, this just isn’t realistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
The pro move is to scream "I do not wish to create joinder with you!" at the top of your lungs repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The pro move is to scream "I do not wish to create joinder with you!" at the top of your lungs repeatedly. That's what I do when students try to hand me late homework.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/919996633777168385
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The pro move is to scream "I do not wish to create joinder with you!" at the top of your lungs repeatedly. that's also a good safe word if you're into kinky stuff 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 20:21
|
|