Live data from Hacker News

Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

eff.org

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#71
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The militia is well-regulated; the right to bear arms is unrestricted.

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force.

Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the government to justify violating, say, the first and fourth amendments.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#72
I'm not a lawyer by any means but in CA I'm completely aware of an employer clause in subsection H of 502c that obviously excludes these acts performed within the scope of employment, as long as there wasn't real damage as an outcome. I don't have a copy of the CFAA but I'm assuming it does as well. Interesting that there was dissent to begin with...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#73
post #71
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the…

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1]

Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

Look, you're welcome to your opinion; I'm not expecting to change it. But you should recognize that the point is quite a bit more debatable than you make it out to be.

[0] http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you...

[1] https://www.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/F... (the Reva Siegel article linked from [0]; that link is dead -- I think this is the intended article)

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#74
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed properly regulating police (ie only allowing state police and federal ) and enforcing strict vetting would go a long way to solving some of the problems with the police in the USA.

The vast majority of cops are honest and do the right thing. Cops are human, it's unrealistic to think that Federal cops or State cops can be better than local by virtue of regulation. You cannot regulate away the flaws in human nature. The best you can do is detect them and deal with them when they cause problems. I've seen no evidence that the Feds or State police agencies are any better at this than city or county…

Until the Ferguson outrage at least, a cop who did the wrong thing could expect to face, at maximum, a paid vacation as punishment. Maybe he would be "banished" to a nice cushy desk job upon his return to active duty.

Cops protect their own. Thin blue line and all that. But this sort of thing is what enabled sex scandals to run unchecked within the Catholic Church and if we let the constabulary get away with it, the public consequences could be far worse.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#75
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2a. "...well-regulated..."

At the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.

Well, we've got the armed part down.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#76
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the…

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights…

Well, sure, anything is debatable if you take the Humpty Dumpty stance. But if English words mean things the language in the Constitution will hamper gun control efforts in the USA.

These articles are examples of what I call "sneaking repeal under the wire". Just because an article comes from a scholarly source doesn't mean it stands up to scrutiny: Michael Bellesiles landed himself in hot water attempting to argue this very issue, that the right to personal arms is a recent invention. The first tell I found in the sources you cited was when Toobin called the amendment text "ungrammatical"; it's perfectly grammatical, just not rendered in modern style.

A more modern restatement of the amendment would be: "Since a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed." The thinking of the time -- and this is all in the freakin' Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment should you care to look -- was that the right to self-defense and to defense against tyranny were of paramount importance -- thinking that predates the Constitution and has its roots in English law. To raise a defense force from among the people it was thought necessary to protect their right to own, train with, and carry weapons.

Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment, whose language is very plain once you parse it; not for the courts to obfuscate and reinterpret the meaning. That way does lie tyranny, for the next step is for the courts to interpret away your right to not be searched without a warrant, your right not to be punished for a crime without due process, etc. Because hey, the Constitution is a living document; that means its meaning in times of old has nothing to do with today.

(My belief is that the Constitution was intended as a living document and that's why it has a well specified amendment process of which we should avail ourselves.)

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#77
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trained and led in such a manner to constitute an effective fighting force. Note that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a precondition, according to the 2A, for a "well-regulated militia", not vice versa. If you want to repeal the 2A, repeal the fucker, don't try to sneak repeal under the wire with a license to twist the grammar of the law till it says what you want. That just opens the door for the…

It is the NRA that has twisted the Second Amendment to say what they want. [0] [1] Let me quote from [0]: The [NRA under its new leadership] pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights…

There is absolutely no point in debating the past or the original text of the Second Amendment.

Post-Heller, post-McDonald, it's moot. The Court's word is Constitution.

If the anti-gun (really, pro-authoritarian-state) minority wants to ban firearms: they should lobby for a Constitutional amendment (which will undoubtedly fail), and then lobby for each individual state to ban arms - keeping in mind, some states have arms in their constitutional documents as well.

And then, once all of the appropriate legislative and political actions have been completed, this group can have police (who will need firearms to actually enforce this law, and most of whom are pro-private-firearms themselves) go door to door and round them up.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#79
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.

Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make. If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.

Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily. Don't forget banning beer passed and vastly more people care about beer than guns. Guns are mostly political theater at this point where neither side wants change they just want to drum up support from there base.

Re: Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime

#80
post #79
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make. If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.

Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily. Don't forget banning beer passed and vastly more people care about beer than guns. Guns are mostly political theater at this point where neither side wants change they just want to drum up support from there base.

Propose the amendment!

How are you going to get it ratified?

And once it is ratified, how are you going to contend with state constitutions?

And once those are out of the way, how are you actually going to pry firearms from the hands of their owners?

There are orders of magnitude more private firearm owners than sworn persons in the United States, and these groups largely overlap.

Post reply on HN