Court: Breaking Your Employer's Computer Policy Isn't a Crime • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by ScottBurson » Wed, Dec 09, 2015, 7:26 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #120

ScottBurson wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All 9 Supremes interpreted it as an individual right No. There were two dissents, one by Stevens, one by Breyer. From Wikipedia [0]: The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusi…

What you quoted from Wikipedia does not support your contention, nor what the Reason article quoted from Stevens' dissent. You might be right, but we'd have to read the whole dissent and we obviously interpret these words slightly differently. Certainly Stevens does not believe in the standard individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but he's also not shown to accept the conventional "collective right" i…

> What you quoted from Wikipedia does not support your contention

Specifically why not? It seems pretty clear to me. Let's take it point by point.

() the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended

Isn't that pretty clearly an argument that it's not an individual right? I'm sure you disagree with it; I'm sure you think that the individual right aspect is clearly expressed; but given the militia clause and the use of the collective term "the people", someone else might not read it that way. I'm not asking whether you agree with the reading, I'm asking whether you can see that, given that reading, the fact that the framers chose this wording is an argument that they didn't intend an individual right. If not, why not?

() that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only

This seems pretty clear too.

I'll skip the next two points and come to this:

() The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."

Again, I understand that you think that is exactly the choice the Framers made. Does this very point not show you the depth of the disagreement here?

As for the Reason article, again you claim it does not support my contention. And again, I ask you to explain. The author, Damon Root, senior editor of Reason, clearly thinks it does; see the second sentence.

Look, I don't always have a lot of respect for the Justices either. I think Scalia is an arrogant windbag, and don't even get me started on Thomas. But I would never go around thinking that they don't actually disagree with me.

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

#122

Post by koide » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 8:29 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #107

koide wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's awfully naive. That 1/100 number includes babies, the elderly and people not able or interested in actual fighting.

Even if it's 1/10, the point still stands.

Nope it doesn't. A highly trained and armed soldier can easily overcome ten or more untrained but armed people

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

#123

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 8:40 PM UTC

purpled_haze wrote: post #36

dkbrk wrote: post #25

> A court should not uphold a highly problematic interpretation of a statute merely because the Government promises to use it responsibly. This. Whether a law is just needs to be considered in light of its worst-case abuse potential, not just on the basis of how it is currently being applied. It is a great advantage of the common law system that over-broad, ill-specified or otherwise broken laws can be remedied throu…

Could you extrapolate from that though that: 1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? 2. Since the second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, without further amendment, that right should be unrestricted by any registration process considered onerous or restrictive?

> Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers?

Prayer is allowed in schools, government-officer-led prayer is not allowed in public schools.

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

#124

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 8:44 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #42

Deregibus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.

The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.

> The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.

No, its a matter of seizing the guns itself being prohibited by the Constitution. This is not analogous to the case at issue, where the Court would rely on the governments promise not to do what the interpretation of the law the government asks to be upheld would be allowed, instead, what is proposed with regard to the 2nd Amendment is trusting the government not to do something that would be easier with information it has as a result of the interpretation of the law it advocates, but which would still be prohibited by that interpretation. While there may be a problem with that, its not the same type of problem, and bringing it up is mostly inviting a derailment of the thread rather than adding anything to the discussion of the issue at hand in the article.

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

#125

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 8:49 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #71

samman wrote: 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…

> 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.

That's a fairly strained interpretation, especially given that where the 2A sees a necessary pre-condition (well-regulated militia to the security of a free state) it expressly identifies it as such: a more reasonable interpretation would be that the 2A is based on the strongly implicit premise that right of the people to keep and bear arms is at least useful to a well-regulated militia, whereas a well-regulated militia is a necessary precondition for a secure, free state.